The right to -not- exercise a right?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Nov 9, 2009

Ikari said:
You didn't prove anything.

I proved that rights cannot be innate.

That's all that was needed.

Ikari said:
You intentionally mistake natural and lawful right to make a point.

No I didn't.

I purposely selected "rights" people possess today to demonstrate that natural rights can't exist, that they all are lawful rights.

Just because it shatters the foundation of your belief system doesn't make it wrong.

Ikari said:
It's why I stopped talking to you earlier.

Yes, people have a habit of doing that when they lose the argument.

Then they continue arguing with someone else on the same thread as if the rest haven't read of their defeat.

Happens.

Ikari said:
Intellectually dishonest debate gets us nowhere and I don't engage in it.

Yes, when you lose, you stop debating and start pretending you haven't lost.

That's pretty dishonest of you.

But you're right. You don't engage in "intellectually dishonest debate", because you stopped debating at that point.

Ikari · Nov 9, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Example:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes, we forced our government to recognize our rights, and in so doing the rights of the individual became constraints upon the government's power. The second amendment, however, did not make the right to keep and bear arms. It merely specifies that it may not be infringed upon.

Goobieman · Nov 9, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Example:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is a limit on the action of the government, not a limit on the actions of thje people, or a grant of a right.
So, I am not sure what this is supposed to prove.

Want a match for when you're done building your strawman?

You said:

Until the government existed, [the right] couldn't have limits placed on it.

This -necessarily- means that the right pre-existed the government, as all government did was limit that right.

Goobieman · Nov 9, 2009

Goobieman said:
Ok... and which "mutually contradictory 'rights'" were those?

Still looking for an asnwer to this.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Nov 9, 2009

Ikari said:
Yes, we forced our government to recognize our rights,

No. We denied the government the power to control our ownership of guns.

Just because a peice of paper says a right exists doesn't mean it's "natural", it means it's a limit placed on the government.

Ikari said:
and in so doing the rights of the individual became constraints upon the government's power.

No.

The constraints placed upon government was their statement of what they wanted their rights to be. In other words, they defined the limits they wanted on their government. Perfectly ouroboros.

Where's the "natural" part in this?

Ikari said:
The second amendment, however, did not make the right to keep and bear arms. It merely specifies that it may not be infringed upon.

Exactly.

There was no pre-existing natural right to own firearms. That would imply that firearms existed before people, or were at least contemporary with humanity throughout all of human history. The flaw in that argument is that Brutus poked Caesar with a knife, and didn't shoot him, because he didn't have a gun.

Ikari · Nov 9, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I proved that rights cannot be innate.

That's all that was needed.

No I didn't.

I purposely selected "rights" people possess today to demonstrate that natural rights can't exist, that they all are lawful rights.

Just because it shatters the foundation of your belief system doesn't make it wrong.

Yes, people have a habit of doing that when they lose the argument.

Then they continue arguing with someone else on the same thread as if the rest haven't read of their defeat.

Happens.

Yes, when you lose, you stop debating and start pretending you haven't lost.

That's pretty dishonest of you.

But you're right. You don't engage in "intellectually dishonest debate", because you stopped debating at that point.

It doesn't shatter anything. You flat out refuse any amount of consideration for natural rights, even given the base existence. When asked about it, you use probability of outcome to deny argument. Such as being able to be murdered means you don't have the right to life. It's all been about the deflect for you. Don't try to turn it around just because you're being called on your actions. You won't consider argument, you give flimsy argument back and purposefully confuse definitions to try to advance your point. You never once proved there is not a set of rights innate to humans. Keep lying all you want, keep misrepresenting all you want, but it's clear from your arguments that you've merely constructed straw man and knocked it down. That's not an impressive argument.

Prove I don't have the right to defend myself
Prove I don't have any just reason to protect my property, that if stolen or otherwise defaced that I don't have reason for restitution.
Prove that I have no rightful objection to being enslaved.

While legal rights may vary, and in fact can use the force of government to unjustly infringe upon some natural rights; there is a base to which all humans share the same right. Since we are all essentially the same creature. Life, liberty, and property are natural rights. Every man has right to his life, every man has right to the sweat of his brow, every man has right to his actions and thoughts. No amount of weaseling and definitions can change that.

EpicDude86 · Nov 9, 2009

epicdude86-albums-questionable-stuff-picture1134-yall-niggas-postin-troll-thread.jpg

(I hope everyone sees the comedy that was intended in this and nothing else)

Ikari · Nov 9, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. We denied the government the power to control our ownership of guns.

Just because a peice of paper says a right exists doesn't mean it's "natural", it means it's a limit placed on the government.

Nope, it doesn't mean it's a natural right. But the right to keep and bear arms comes directly from life, liberty, and property.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No.

The constraints placed upon government was their statement of what they wanted their rights to be. In other words, they defined the limits they wanted on their government. Perfectly ouroboros.

Where's the "natural" part in this?

The natural part is the understanding and accepting of our rights. We constructed a government to respect and protect those rights.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Exactly.

There was no pre-existing natural right to own firearms. That would imply that firearms existed before people, or were at least contemporary with humanity throughout all of human history. The flaw in that argument is that Brutus poked Caesar with a knife, and didn't shoot him, because he didn't have a gun.

No, there was pre-existing natural right to life, liberty, and property. The right to keep and bear arms is directly from all three of these things. And the importance of that right is the recognition that the sovereign is not the State, but the People and that the People must have the tools to defend life, liberty, and property from any threat including the government itself (as the founder's realized the innate dangers of government itself).

It's a profound right which recognizes the full of the base of natural rights.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Nov 9, 2009

Ikari said:
It doesn't shatter anything.

Not physically.

Since it demonstrated that rights can't be natural attributes of human beings, it shattered that notion quite completely.

Ikari said:
You flat out refuse any amount of consideration for natural rights, even given the base existence.

What do you think it means when a theory is proven false? Does one continue to use that theory to explain things, or does one move on to examine other theories that might still be valid?

Okay, you want to continue using the theory of natural rights I've already shown to be false, and you're getting all emotional that I'm not using the theory of natural rights you like because I've already shown it to be wrong.

What do you want from me, custard pi?

Ikari said:
When asked about it, you use probability of outcome to deny argument. Such as being able to be murdered means you don't have the right to life.

Wrong.

Try reading the arguments presented.

A woman with the "right" to murder her baby means the baby can't have the right to life.

That's different that what you're saying, which is that someone who commits murder that then faces legal sanctions deprives their victim of their life, not of their right to it. After all, if they didn't have the right to live, there'd be no basis for prosecuting the murder.

Oh, wait. The LAW denies the unborn their right to life when it allows the incubator the "right" to kill that child. What the law can giveth, the law can taketh away, and if it wasn't the law that gave the child the right to life in the first place, it couldn't have taken it away.

Ikari said:
It's all been about the deflect for you.

No, it's all about the fact that the theory of natural rights is wrong.

Ikari said:
Don't try to turn it around just because you're being called on your actions.

Whatever.

How about if you start discussing the actual arguments presented?

Ikari said:
You won't consider argument,

Sure I will.

When will you provide any?

Ikari said:
you give flimsy argument back and purposefully confuse definitions to try to advance your point.

You mean I'm using your definitions as provided.

You're the one that claimed "not created, but discovered" when commenting on those fascinating newly minted rights emitted by our legislatures and courts.

I'm merely pointing out the actually meaning of what you're claiming. So you're personally attacking the messenger because the message he brings is irrefutable.

Ikari said:
You never once proved there is not a set of rights innate to humans.

Ya think?

Gee, I wonder what "theory of natural rights is wrong" means?

Ikari said:
Keep lying all you want,

"Lying"?

Just because your theory is proven wrong doesn't mean I'm a liar. It means my logic is more coherent than yours.

Ikari said:
keep misrepresenting all you want,

Cite specific "misrepresentations".

Ikari said:
but it's clear from your arguments that you've merely constructed straw man and knocked it down. That's not an impressive argument.

No, the impressive argument was where I used your own definitions to demolish your theory.

Ikari said:
Prove I don't have the right to defend myself

If Elias Gonzalez uncle had picked up a gun when the government stormed his home, he would have been shot dead and no legal repercussions would have accrued upon his killer. If the uncle did not die, he would have been subject to prosecution and almost certainly would have spent time in prison.

Hence the law removed his "right" to defend himself.

The can only do that because it's the law that allowed those rights in the first place.

Ikari said:
Prove I don't have any just reason to protect my property, that if stolen or otherwise defaced that I don't have reason for restitution.

The Constitution defines what the federal government is allowed to do. The federal government routinely exceeds these limits and all taxation above that required to finance constitutionally allowed programs is theft.

Good luck on your restitution.

Ikari said:
Prove that I have no rightful objection to being enslaved.

What's "rights" got to do with your feelings or what you think?

Under the US Constitution prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, slaves could object all they wanted to. And if they got too annoying, their owners could whip them mercilessly. The law didn't award slaves rights, but property owners had rights under the law.

If a man has a right to own slaves, the slaves do not have the right to be not owned.

It's really that simple.

For your homework I suggest you start thinking about POWER, not rights.

Power is what exists in the real world. The boot stamping on the human face forever imagery from 1984. The reality of Zyclone B. The gulag and the killing fields.

Ikari said:
While legal rights may vary, and in fact can use the force of government to unjustly infringe upon some natural rights;

So you're saying abortion is an injustice?

Oh! What you're saying is that there's a magical difference between right to life and right to control your own body. That one is inborn, the other is granted by the government. But isn't the right to not be a slave the essence of the right to control your own body? There are natural limits on the right to control your own body so that it isn't a contradiction to have a right to control your body so you can kill someone else, thereby depriving them of their life, hence violating their right to life?

Good luck with that.

Honest people admit that theories presenting essential inescapable incompatible and mutually contradictory conclusions cannot be valid.

Ikari said:
there is a base to which all humans share the same right. Since we are all essentially the same creature. Life, liberty, and property are natural rights.

So which right is "right"? The right to liberty or the right to own property, ie, slaves?

Ikari said:
Every man has right to his life

You mean the government should be forbidden from killing him.

Ikari said:
every man has right to the sweat of his brow,

I'm sure the slave owners didn't steal their property's sweat, not from his brow, not from his pits.

Ikari said:
every man has right to his actions and thoughts.

What if his action is to pull a trigger on a fully-automatic rifle in a crowded mall?

What about hate-crime laws?

Ikari said:
No amount of weaseling and definitions can change that.

You mean besides the fact that it isn't true, that you're using your definition of natural rights to present examples of natural rights to support your definition in a purely circular fashion?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Nov 9, 2009

Ikari said:
The natural part is the understanding and accepting of our rights. We constructed a government to respect and protect those rights.

We constructed a government to protect what our freedoms. That does not prove "natural rights" exist. The government was engineered to satisfy the desires of the people of the time, irrespective of the reality of "natural rights" or not.

(Yawn)

Ikari · Nov 9, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
A woman with the "right" to murder her baby means the baby can't have the right to life.

That's different that what you're saying, which is that someone who commits murder that then faces legal sanctions deprives their victim of their life, not of their right to it. After all, if they didn't have the right to live, there'd be no basis for prosecuting the murder.

Oh, wait. The LAW denies the unborn their right to life when it allows the incubator the "right" to kill that child. What the law can giveth, the law can taketh away, and if it wasn't the law that gave the child the right to life in the first place, it couldn't have taken it away.

Again, this is a definition of functionality. You're basically saying that because I can be killed, I don't have the right to life. You are confusing legal "rights" and natural rights. Abortion does infringe upon the natural right to life of the unborn infant. This is accomplished through force exerted by the State. It doesn't mean that the natural right to life does not exist.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, it's all about the fact that the theory of natural rights is wrong.

You merely state this as a case and use improper comparison to arrive there.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Lying"?

Just because your theory is proven wrong doesn't mean I'm a liar. It means my logic is more coherent than yours.

No, it merely means that you have purposefully constructed a misleading argument ignoring proper definition on favor of your own definition.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If Elias Gonzalez uncle had picked up a gun when the government stormed his home, he would have been shot dead and no legal repercussions would have accrued upon his killer. If the uncle did not die, he would have been subject to prosecution and almost certainly would have spent time in prison.

Hence the law removed his "right" to defend himself.

The can only do that because it's the law that allowed those rights in the first place.

No, it's allowed because outside force can be used to infringe upon the exercise of rights. The most notable form of that outside force is government force.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Constitution defines what the federal government is allowed to do. The federal government routinely exceeds these limits and all taxation above that required to finance constitutionally allowed programs is theft.

Good luck on your restitution.

Yes, government is dangerous and will overstep it's confinement if we do not watch and constrain it carefully enough. That doesn't mean rights don't exist, it means that the government is inherently dangerous and must be watched.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Under the US Constitution prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, slaves could object all they wanted to. And if they got too annoying, their owners could whip them mercilessly. The law didn't award slaves rights, but property owners had rights under the law.

If a man has a right to own slaves, the slaves do not have the right to be not owned.

It's really that simple.

For your homework I suggest you start thinking about POWER, not rights.

Power is what exists in the real world. The boot stamping on the human face forever imagery from 1984. The reality of Zyclone B. The gulag and the killing fields.

Power can be used to infringe on the exercise of rights, true. The misrepresentation here is that you continually say that because it can be infringed upon, the right doesn't exist. If I can be killed, I don't have a right to life. If I can be stolen from, I don't have right to property, if I can be enslaved, I don't have the right to liberty. But these are functional definitions, not base rights. Governments can and will infringe upon the exercise of rights. Some of it is just, power granted to the government, as is the case with the criminal courts. Others are usurped, not granted powers, so the government can more efficiently operate (which is rather dangerous). There was never a right to own slaves. It was a practice, but the practice infringes upon the life, liberty, and property of another individual. The slaves always had the right to not be owned, they have right to their life and liberty. The government used force to infringe upon the exercise of these rights.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So you're saying abortion is an injustice?

I would say so. It also highlights the difference between legal "rights" and natural rights.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh! What you're saying is that there's a magical difference between right to life and right to control your own body. That one is inborn, the other is granted by the government. But isn't the right to not be a slave the essence of the right to control your own body? There are natural limits on the right to control your own body so that it isn't a contradiction to have a right to control your body so you can kill someone else, thereby depriving them of their life, hence violating their right to life?

Good luck with that.

No, this is a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Either you do not understand what I am saying or you're purposefully misrepresenting my position.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So which right is "right"? The right to liberty or the right to own property, ie, slaves?

Life, liberty, and property.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean the government should be forbidden from killing him.

I most certainly disagree with the death penalty. But there is a method by which the exercise of rights may be properly infringed upon by the government; and that is through the court system.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'm sure the slave owners didn't steal their property's sweat, not from his brow, not from his pits.

It refers to the product of his labor, and either you knew that and are making yet another misrepresentation, or you didn't understand what the statement refers to.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What if his action is to pull a trigger on a fully-automatic rifle in a crowded mall?

To do so infringes upon the rights of others. If his action is to pull a trigger on a fully-automatic rifle, then there are consequences for such action. And the government will use its force to infringe upon his exercise of rights.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What about hate-crime laws?

That's BS, PC legislation.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean besides the fact that it isn't true, that you're using your definition of natural rights to present examples of natural rights to support your definition in a purely circular fashion?

No, I have presented information on the existence of natural rights. You have misrepresented me and my position to skew an argument so that you can win. That's strawman.

Goobieman · Nov 9, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
We constructed a government to protect what our freedoms. That does not prove "natural rights" exist. The government was engineered to satisfy the desires of the people of the time, irrespective of the reality of "natural rights" or not.

Where did these freedoms come from, if they pre-exist the government?

Cephus · Nov 10, 2009

Goobieman said:
Likewise.
Otherwise, it's just a bunch of mindless, fanatical handwaving nonsense.

Yes, but unfortunately, I asked you to back your claims up first. I await you doing so. I have no obligation to do jack squat until you do. :2wave:

Cephus · Nov 10, 2009

Ikari said:
You may as well ask to prove love.

I can prove love. It's a complex biochemical reaction in the brain which can be measured by testing blood chemistry and by using modern brain scanning techniques.

So... where is *ANYTHING WHATSOEVER THAT PROVES NATURAL LAW?!?!?!?!?!*

Ethereal · Nov 10, 2009

Cephus said:
I can prove love. It's a complex biochemical reaction in the brain which can be measured by testing blood chemistry and by using modern brain scanning techniques.

You can measure "love" by testing someone's "blood chemistry"? How does that work, exactly?

Also, what is the operational definition of "love" as it pertains to neural activity? I'm eager to receive your tutelage.

So... where is *ANYTHING WHATSOEVER THAT PROVES NATURAL LAW?!?!?!?!?!*

You don't even know what you're asking.

Natural law is a conclusion about morality. Morality cannot be proven, though it can be rational and logical. The morality of natural law is based upon biological and psychological axioms which can be proven, however, the conclusion we arrive at based upon those axioms is not "provable", nor does it need to be in order to be valid. You can disagree with a moral sentiment but asking for proof of its existence is as absurd as it is perplexing.

When someone says "natural rights" all they are saying is that a person should be permitted to live in accordance with their will. This moral sentiment is based upon certain biological and psychological axioms pertaining to humans.

So, you either agree that people should be permitted to live in accordance with their wills or you don't. There's really no "proving" it.

LiveUninhibited · Nov 10, 2009

Goobieman said:
Where did these freedoms come from, if they pre-exist the government?

Social context + logic. Imagine how much of a head start we would have gotten if people recognized universal rights early on instead of only in the context of their own tribes. Tribalism may be a natural way for people to organize, but is clearly destructive and less conducive to quality of life (compared to cooperating on a larger level) for all involved. Nationalism is the last idiotic vestige of this us-and-them tendency that allows us to dehumanize those superficially unlike us, rather than utilizing and respecting them in relationships of reciprocity.

Goobieman · Nov 10, 2009

Cephus said:
Yes, but unfortunately, I asked you to back your claims up first. I await you doing so. I have no obligation to do jack squat until you do. :2wave:

That's quite cowardly of you.
But then, given that you know you cannot provide an answer to my request, it is expected.
:2wave:

Goobieman · Nov 10, 2009

LiveUninhibited said:
Social context + logic.

So, you agree that our rights are not granted to us by our government.

Cephus · Nov 10, 2009

Goobieman said:
That's quite cowardly of you.
But then, given that you know you cannot provide an answer to my request, it is expected.
:2wave:

No, I'm just not letting you weasel your way out of answering a question by asking another question. It's not at all surprising that you'd try.

Cephus · Nov 10, 2009

Ethereal said:
You can measure "love" by testing someone's "blood chemistry"? How does that work, exactly?

While we don't necessarily know all the details yet, we can at least provide objective evidence that love, as an emotion, exists. It might be wildly impractical, but we could test to see if someone is, in fact, in love or just lying about it by hooking them up to a bunch of machines. There is an objective way to test for the presence or absence of love by doing blood tests and brain scans.

Natural law is a conclusion about morality. Morality cannot be proven, though it can be rational and logical. The morality of natural law is based upon biological and psychological axioms which can be proven, however, the conclusion we arrive at based upon those axioms is not "provable", nor does it need to be in order to be valid. You can disagree with a moral sentiment but asking for proof of its existence is as absurd as it is perplexing.

No, it's a statement about reality and as such needs to be backed up. You need to make a logical case, one that you claim can be proven yet you have done nothing whatsoever to prove it. Precisely how do you know that natural law exists? Exactly how is it that you can tell which specific laws are natural and which ones are not? These are questions that keep getting asked and keep getting ignored by the libertarian crowd.

So, you either agree that people should be permitted to live in accordance with their wills or you don't. There's really no "proving" it.

That's like saying you either agree with gravity or you don't. If you don't like gravity, you're still bound by it. Therefore, either natural law is a true postion, at which point everyone is bound by it like it or not, or it's a false position, at which point no one is bound by it like it or not. But in either case, it needs to be a defensible position, not one that you simply embrace because it appeals to you emotionally and you want it to be true.

So far, that's all you libertarians have done. It's a religious faith to you, nothing more.

Goobieman · Nov 10, 2009

Cephus said:
No, I'm just not letting you weasel your way out of answering a question by asking another question. It's not at all surprising that you'd try.

This is course, a lie.
You're simply tryng to avoid having to provide an answer to my challenge, because you know you cannot.

How can I prove that?
Easy:

I have never claimed that I can back up my argument, and as such, my concession that I cannot does nothing.

Ok. Your turn.

You stated:

However, we do have founding documents that do grant certain rights to the citizenry that the government cannot simply eliminate by fiat

Now I'm still waiting for your EVIDENCE that this is true.
Please cite the text of the US Constitution that --grants-- the people of the United States their rights.

If you like, you can also cite from federal law, state constitutions, and state law as well.

Remember that:
You have the responsibility to back up your claims. Bald assertion doesn't make something true, but apparently that's all you've got. After all, In honest, open debates, people actually defend their positions with evidence and reason. When do you think you might give that a shot? You don't get to just define things into existence on your say so. Put up or shut up.

Get to work or admit failure

Ikari · Nov 10, 2009

Cephus said:
I can prove love. It's a complex biochemical reaction in the brain which can be measured by testing blood chemistry and by using modern brain scanning techniques.

So... where is *ANYTHING WHATSOEVER THAT PROVES NATURAL LAW?!?!?!?!?!*

You can prove there are chemicals which are associated with feelings. But what is love exactly, and how does it exist? You can make your own definitions, but I want a meter. How do you prove any abstract?

There are plenty of ways to properly argue for natural rights. I suggest you start by reading Hobbes and Locke, then move on to the more advanced theories from there.

To say there is no natural rights is to say that any human does not have the right to protect themselves against violence against their person. That they have no say in protecting what's theirs, for reaping the benefits of their labor, etc. These are obviously wrong, it's self-evident for anyone wishing to be honest. All humans are human in the end. We're not different. While we can live in different societies and different cultures, human is human. If humans are the same, if all men are created equal, then there must be a set of underlying rights which are inherent to humans, discovered through reason.

The problem here is that you reject all the proof. That the logic and reason which leads one to understand natural rights, you won't accept. You say where's the proof, I say the proof is in humanity. If you consider the natural state of man, and what humans in general should always be allowed to protect. There's no point in continuing the conversation with you when you refuse to engage in any form of productive debate. You just say the same thing over and over again while blanket refusing to hear the arguments for natural rights. So it's pointless to engage with the close minded. Natural rights were discovered through philosophy and easy to see if you accept the base premise that all humans are equal on some level.

Cephus · Nov 10, 2009

Ikari said:
There are plenty of ways to properly argue for natural rights. I suggest you start by reading Hobbes and Locke, then move on to the more advanced theories from there.

I have, thanks. I found them unconvincing.

To say there is no natural rights is to say that any human does not have the right to protect themselves against violence against their person.

You seem to be confusing "rights" with "ability". A person has the ability to protect themselves against violence. Do they have the right to do so? That's the question. Under what conditions does their ability to act become a right to act? How does one differentiate between the two?

These are obviously wrong, it's self-evident for anyone wishing to be honest.

Sorry, but these are serious red-flags. Anyone who starts talking about "self-evident" and "if you're honest, you'll believe this" is out into illogical emotional-appeal lala-land. It is only self-evident if someone already agrees with you, otherwise you're trying to denegrate people who don't see things eye-to-eye with you without actually backing up your views. It's blatantly dishonest.

The problem here is that you reject all the proof.

It isn't that I reject the proof, the problem here is that you've never PRODUCED ANY! You've just repeated over and over that you're right and anyone who disagrees is dishonest in their evaluation. Proof requires objective evidence that anyone can examine openly and without restriction regardless of their current position. That seems to be the problem. Apparently, the only way to accept your position is true is to already accept your position is true. It's circular. You're admiring the Emperor's New Clothes and refusing to acknowledge that objectively, he's naked. Your position will continue to be naked until you manage to answer the questions that have already been posed in a credible, logical, critically-valid manner. So far, you've failed miserably. I guess that shows the validity of your claims.

Ikari · Nov 10, 2009

Cephus said:
You seem to be confusing "rights" with "ability". A person has the ability to protect themselves against violence. Do they have the right to do so? That's the question. Under what conditions does their ability to act become a right to act? How does one differentiate between the two?

No, you have. My questions weren't a question of ability. The ability is there. The questions were asking whether or not it is just action, defendable action, if it's right to take that course of action.

Can a person defend their life if threatened? Is it proper action to take? Is it right for them to do so.
Can a person defend their property if threatened? If stolen, is that person entitled to compensation from those whom stole? Is it right to take action to protect one's property?
Can a person defend their liberty? If another comes to enslave someone, can the rightfully fight back? Is it proper action to take?

That's what is being asked. Not whether the action can be taken, but is it a just action. Is the person legitimately able to do these things.

Cephus said:
Sorry, but these are serious red-flags. Anyone who starts talking about "self-evident" and "if you're honest, you'll believe this" is out into illogical emotional-appeal lala-land. It is only self-evident if someone already agrees with you, otherwise you're trying to denegrate people who don't see things eye-to-eye with you without actually backing up your views. It's blatantly dishonest.

No, it's blatantly obvious. You refuse to accept any argument to the contrary is all.

Cephus said:
It isn't that I reject the proof, the problem here is that you've never PRODUCED ANY! You've just repeated over and over that you're right and anyone who disagrees is dishonest in their evaluation. Proof requires objective evidence that anyone can examine openly and without restriction regardless of their current position. That seems to be the problem. Apparently, the only way to accept your position is true is to already accept your position is true. It's circular. You're admiring the Emperor's New Clothes and refusing to acknowledge that objectively, he's naked. Your position will continue to be naked until you manage to answer the questions that have already been posed in a credible, logical, critically-valid manner. So far, you've failed miserably. I guess that shows the validity of your claims.

I've said plenty. You've avoided questions, misrepresented what I was trying to say, and flat out refuse to hear any argument upon it. You merely state there is no natural law without proof of your own. You refuse to acknowledge argument from the other side to continue saying "no, you're wrong, I'm right" over and over again. that's it.

In the end, the USA was founded on the ideal of natural rights and if I have to take your word or the founders....I'm probably going to side with the founders. Something tells me they knew a little some more about tyranny, the fight for freedom, and the understanding of rights.

To reject natural rights is to say that humans are not fundamentally equal.

Goobieman · Nov 10, 2009

Cephus said:
Your position will continue to be naked until you manage to answer the questions that have already been posed in a credible, logical, critically-valid manner. So far, you've failed miserably. I guess that shows the validity of your claims.

Similarly, your lack of response speaks volumes.

The right to -not- exercise a right?

Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

Yes

No

Other

More options

Scarecrow Akhbar

Ikari

Goobieman

Goobieman

Scarecrow Akhbar

Ikari

EpicDude86

Ikari

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

Ikari

Goobieman

Cephus

Cephus

Ethereal

LiveUninhibited

Well-known member

Goobieman

Goobieman

Cephus

Cephus

Goobieman

Ikari

Cephus

Ikari

Goobieman