Proof and Facts[W:76"283]

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Do understand the difference between employing the scientific method to prove something and taking a survey?

Do you understand survey is a scientific method and means of producing empirical evidence?

I thought this was taught in HS.

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Do you understand survey is a scientific method and means of producing empirical evidence?

I thought this was taught in HS.

You are badly confusing two very different things:
1- a survey - no matter how carefully put together is still only in the end a survey of opinion and nothing more than that.
2- that is not at all the same as the scientific employed and used to prove the existence of a fact which can be tested using that method and replicated over and over and over again.

this should help you learn the difference so you avoid this error in the future

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://www.schoolofdragons.com/how-...cientific-method/scientific-method-worksheets

No survey of what any group of people believe can prove the existence of something which only exists within a belief system and not outside of it. To do that you need to divorce the belief from the believers and anyone should then be able to employ some sort of evidence based scientific test to prove that natural rights exists.

You were not able to do that in your response.

You are not able to do that now.

Nobody in history has ever been able to do that.

So now that we have disposed of that, lets get back to the claim of fact that you made here today. You made this statement here today:

It's not demonization. It's fact. Those that deny human rights are ignorant and detached from humanity in their denial of empathy being inherent to humans.

Not opinion, not belief... fact.

Provide the verifiable evidence that people who disagree with you on the belief in natural rights are
1- ignorant
2- detached from humanity
3- they lack empathy as humans

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
You are badly confusing two very different things:
1- a survey - no matter how carefully put together is still only in the end a survey of opinion
2- that is not at all the same as the scientific employed and used to prove the existence of a fact which can be tested using that method and replicated over and over and over again.

I'm the one with an MSc and PhD(c). Your understanding of basic science is atrocious.

Survey is, beyond any doubt or question, a scientific experiment capable of being repeated and thus establishing empirical evidence.

If you doubt this, go look it up.

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
I'm the one with an MSc and PhD(c). Your understanding of basic science is atrocious.

Survey is, beyond any doubt or question, a scientific experiment capable of being repeated and thus establishing empirical evidence.

If you doubt this, go look it up.

So tell me again how a survey of peoples opinion - which is what you provided before when you failed the challenge to provide proof of a natural rights - provides irrefutable evidence that a belief exists outside of a belief?

Tell us how a survey of beliefs can do that?

here is your 138

1. Self evidence

We can ask ourselves the question: "would I give up my right to life in order to take it away from all others". The answer to this question is always no. This establishes the self evidence of the right, regardless of any governmental authority.

2. The experiment is expanded to N=20 and beyond.

We can ask any number of groups of people (with like power) this question. Every individual will answer the same as we did. This establishes, as a matter of scientific experiment, that the right to life is a natural right and not dependent upon government authority.

3. We must understand that inalienable does not equal inviolable.

A right can be violated (both justly and unjustly). This does not make the right cease to exist. Just because someone is murdered does not mean they had no right to life; clearly, they had a right to life and it was violated.

When we speak of inalienable, we are referring to the universality of natural rights among people and not an imagined inviolability of any right.

4. We must grasp that this experiment and the understanding that comes with it is the basis of the US Constitution.

If we understand the concept of natural rights, then we understand the revolutionary nature of the government created by the founders. Only through this understanding can the Constitution be interpreted rationally.

Natural rights are socially natural objects. The arise in every like-powered group of people and they always will.

The centerpiece of your evidence is a mere question asked to 20 people about their opinion on some nonsense question if they would give up their right to life in order to take it away from all others.

What does that question even mean?

What right to life are you talking about? Do you mean the simple reality that they are alive?

And how does this then take away the lives of others? What does that even mean?

Its nonsense and has nothing to do with reality. And it establishes nothing except its a silly question which takes us nowhere and proves nothing and is based on inane nonsense.

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
So tell me again how a survey of peoples opinion - which is what you provided before when you failed the challenge to provide proof of a natural rights - provides irrefutable evidence that a belief exists outside of a belief?

Tell us how a survey of beliefs can do that?

The survey establishes the universality (of course, being a sociological concept, the insane are not included) of natural rights. This universality is the result of empathy, which is (like the social objects produced) inalienable from humans.

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
The survey establishes the universality (of course, being a sociological concept, the insane are not included) of natural rights. This universality is the result of empathy, which is (like the social objects produced) inalienable from humans.

It does nothing of the kind. The key question in you so called survey is silly and makes no sense.

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
It does nothing of the kind. The key question in you so called survey is silly and makes no sense.

This is a stupid exchange. Survey is -beyond any doubt- a scientific method.

Good day.

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
This is a stupid exchange. Survey is -beyond any doubt- a scientific method.

Good day.

So you are unable to refute my post 329 in which I reproduce your survey and point out why it fails completely beginning with its nonsense question as its main centerpiece. Got it loud and clear.

So now that we have disposed of that, lets get back to the claim of fact that you made here today. You made this statement here today:

It's not demonization. It's fact. Those that deny human rights are ignorant and detached from humanity in their denial of empathy being inherent to humans.

Not opinion, not belief... fact.

Provide the verifiable evidence that people who disagree with you on the belief in natural rights are
1- ignorant
2- detached from humanity
3- they lack empathy as humans

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
So you are unable to refute my post in which I reproduce your survey and point out why it fails completely beginning with its nonsense question as its main centerpiece. Got it loud and clear.

So you've abandoned the painfully ignorant BS about survey not being a scientific method? How nice, you must have looked it up. And now you've shifted the goal posts. I say again, good day.

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
So you've abandoned the painfully ignorant BS about survey not being a scientific method? How nice, you must have looked it up. And now you've shifted the goal posts. I say again, good day.

Your survey is based on a nonsense question which cannot produce anything near a scientific result using ANY METHOD YOU WANT TO USE OR WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

Your survey is flawed from step #1 because the question is nonsense.

We can ask ourselves the question: "would I give up my right to life in order to take it away from all others". The answer to this question is always no. This establishes the self evidence of the right, regardless of any governmental authority.

The question makes no sense.

ANd even if your question was perfect and your methodology in taking the survey perfect, all it would do is establish what some people in the survey BELIEVE and not the existence of natural rights outside of any belief.

As such IT DOES NOT PRODUCE RESULTS THAT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF NATURAL RIGHTS OUTSIDE OF A BELIEF SYSTEM.

Nobody in the history of the world has been able to provide any verifiable proof that natural rights exist outside of a belief system. Nobody. But you think some nonsense question that makes no sense is going to do what nobody in the last several hundred years has done?

That is simply amazing!!!! :doh:shock::roll:

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

Why all the screaming?

*snicker*

TurtleDude · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
It's not demonization. It's fact. Thoseits also that deny human rights are ignorant and detached from humanity in their denial of empathy being inherent to humans.

Not opinion, not belief... fact.

It is also true most of the founders were Christian. The issue is not whether the Christian God exists but whether the founders believed so. and the is true with Natural rights-all that need be established is that the constitution was created by those who assumed the existence of Natural Rights. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring history. and if you say yes, then you cannot claim that the founders issued only half-ass recognition of those rights

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
It is also true most of the founders were Christian. The issue is not whether the Christian God exists but whether the founders believed so. and the is true with Natural rights-all that need be established is that the constitution was created by those who assumed the existence of Natural Rights. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring history. and if you say yes, then you cannot claim that the founders issued only half-ass recognition of those rights

"By our creator" does not mean "from a deity" it means "from nature".

But you're right. One cannot interpret the Constitution without the premise of natural rights upon which it was built.

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
It is also true most of the founders were Christian. The issue is not whether the Christian God exists but whether the founders believed so. and the is true with Natural rights-all that need be established is that the constitution was created by those who assumed the existence of Natural Rights. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring history. and if you say yes, then you cannot claim that the founders issued only half-ass recognition of those rights

Are we ignoring the history that the same men who claimed to believe in natural rights kept those who they claimed were EQUAL and the right from their Creator to life and liberty in a condition of slavery where the very rights they professed to believe in were denied in the most serious way they could be denied to those slaves?

Is that the history we are denying? :roll::doh

Or is it those who claim the Founders believed in natural rights that are denying the historical record of the actual conduct, actions and behavior of those same Founders?

Is is 100% clear that the real deniers of history are the second group and the evidence is right here in this very thread by their postings.

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
"By our creator" does not mean "from a deity" it means "from nature".

But you're right. One cannot interpret the Constitution without the premise of natural rights upon which it was built.

And you know this because............ ????????????????

You made this statement here today:

It's not demonization. It's fact. Those that deny human rights are ignorant and detached from humanity in their denial of empathy being inherent to humans.

Not opinion, not belief... fact.

Provide the verifiable evidence that people who disagree with you on the belief in natural rights are
1- ignorant
2- detached from humanity
3- they lack empathy as humans

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
And you know this because............ ????????????????

Because I'm not stupid?

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Because I'm not stupid?

Which is not in any way shape or from any evidence to support your claim of fact.

Where is your verifiable evidence of these two claims of fact you made on the previous page?

"By our creator" does not mean "from a deity" it means "from nature".

But you're right. One cannot interpret the Constitution without the premise of natural rights upon which it was built.

And speaking of verifiable evidence, lets get back to the claim of fact that you made here today. You made this statement here today:

It's not demonization. It's fact. Those that deny human rights are ignorant and detached from humanity in their denial of empathy being inherent to humans.

Not opinion, not belief... fact.

Provide the verifiable evidence that people who disagree with you on the belief in natural rights are
1- ignorant
2- detached from humanity
3- they lack empathy as humans

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Which is not in any way shape or from any evidence to support your claim of fact.

Sure it is. It explains why I understand the concept used by the founders to create the Constitution. Do you have another explanation as to why I have a grasp of this concept and others do not?

Perhaps it's because I'm engaging in a conspiracy theory? No, that would be your position: "The Constitution is a lie and conspiracy to enslave mankind". The irony being that natural rights is a liberating concept (if one can grasp it).

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Sure it is. It explains why I understand the concept used by the founders to create the Constitution. Do you have another explanation as to why I have a grasp of this concept and others do not?

All that says is that you believe what you believe. It provides no verifiable evidence for the actual existence of the belief outside of the believer. It provides verifiable evidence for none of your claims.

Perhaps it's because I'm engaging in a conspiracy theory? No, that would be your position: "The Constitution is a lie and conspiracy to enslave mankind". The irony being that natural rights is a liberating concept (if one can grasp it)

You are making up a falsehood about what my position is. I never said what you just stated complete with quotation marks.

Why would you intentionally present a falsehood and lie about my actual position?

Where is your verifiable evidence of these two claims of fact you made on the previous page?

"By our creator" does not mean "from a deity" it means "from nature".

But you're right. One cannot interpret the Constitution without the premise of natural rights upon which it was built.

And speaking of verifiable evidence, lets get back to the claim of fact that you made here today. You made this statement here today:

It's not demonization. It's fact. Those that deny human rights are ignorant and detached from humanity in their denial of empathy being inherent to humans.

Not opinion, not belief... fact.

Provide the verifiable evidence that people who disagree with you on the belief in natural rights are
1- ignorant
2- detached from humanity
3- they lack empathy as humans

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
All that says is that you believe what you believe.

No, it says that I am capable of grasping the concept of natural rights. Not only that, but I'm capable of explaining it to others from a purely scientific perspective.

So, you accept survey is a scientific method? I just wanna make sure that fact stuck and you still accept it. And you're welcome for me teaching you that.

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
No, it says that I am capable of grasping the concept of natural rights.

It says you believe what you believe because you want to believe it.

Your survey never even comes close as it starts and centers around a nonsense question which makes no sense.

Your survey fails in that respect. No matter how carefully a OPINION SURVEY ABOUT BELIEFS is constructed - and your fails in that regard right with the centerpiece question - it cannot provide scientific proof of the existence of natural rights outside of a belief system.

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
It says you believe what you believe because you want to believe it.

It says my understanding is based on science and facts, as opposed to an ignorant belief such as your own. Your position is like a climate change denier, nothing more than scientific ignorance. This was clearly displayed in your lack of knowledge regarding the scientific method and surveys herein.

And again, you're welcome for me teaching you about the scientific method of survey and how it produces empirical evidence through a replicable experiment.

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
It says my understanding is based on science and facts, as opposed to an ignorant belief such as your own. Your position is like a climate change denier, nothing more than scientific ignorance. This was clearly displayed in your lack of knowledge regarding the scientific method and surveys.

What science is your belief based on?

Your survey never even comes close to science as it starts and centers around a nonsense question which makes no sense. It is as unscientific as they come.

Your survey fails in that respect. No matter how carefully a OPINION SURVEY ABOUT BELIEFS is constructed - and your fails in that regard right with the centerpiece question - it cannot provide scientific proof of the existence of natural rights outside of a belief system.

here it is

We can ask ourselves the question: "would I give up my right to life in order to take it away from all others".

What does that even mean? Its jumbled nonsense. It makes no sense at all? Are you talking about simply living? What is this "right to life"? And why would anybody say they would give up living "to take it away from others"?

It makes no sense on any level.

And again, you're welcome for me teaching you about the scientific method of survey and how it produces empirical evidence through a replicable experiment.

Your survey is none of those things. It does not use any scientific method and cannot produce empirical evidence that will be reproduced by others. Its based on a central question which is gibberish and nonsense and makes no logical sense.

ecofarm · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
What science is your belief based on?

Sociology

haymarket · Nov 1, 2014

Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
Sociology

And what principle of sociology provides verifiable evidence that natural rights exist outside of a belief system?

And did a study of sociology permit you to design this question

We can ask ourselves the question: "would I give up my right to life in order to take it away from all others".

What exactly is the person being asked to give up in exchange for what else?

What is the RIGHT answer to this question and why is it the right one?
What is the WRONG answer to this question and why is it the wrong one?

And how does this question provide anyone with verifiable evidence that natural rights exist outside of a believers belief system?

Proof and Facts[W:76"283]

Is it appropriate to demand proof or facts on Debate Politics?

Yes. We need the facts to make for fair discussion.

Yes. Some people make stuff up.

No. Demanding proof is a cop out or scare tactic.

No. Proof is for trials in court and irrelavent for debates.

Yes. Other.

No. Other.

global liberation

global liberation

global liberation

global liberation

global liberation

global liberation

warrior of the wetlands

global liberation

global liberation

global liberation

global liberation

global liberation

global liberation