• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

Does this video portray conservatism accurately?

  • Total voters
    16
Cephus said:
Says who? Just because a bunch of guys, standing around a table, signing a piece of paper thought so 250 years ago doesn't make it so. There's no such thing as inalienable rights.
Click to expand...

The "that's just your opinion" defense can go in all directions so it's a discussion-stopper.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The "that's just your opinion" defense can go in all directions so it's a discussion-stopper.
Click to expand...

No, it's the truth. If you're going to claim that there is any such thing as "inalienable rights", it rests on your shoulders to demonstrate that it actually exists objectively. You can't just run around and demand that it's true, you have to prove it. Let me know when you intend to do so.
 
Indeed said:
Click to expand...


"The belief that you can get something for nothing ... that you can get the government to take something by force from other people and give it to you, like the money for your healthcare, for example. Has been tried many, many times before and has failed everytime."

I gather he wasn't talking about George Bush forcing Democracy onto the Iraqi people or Mitt Romney passing the same healthcare plan in Massechussetts?
 
Cephus said:
No, it's the truth. If you're going to claim that there is any such thing as "inalienable rights", it rests on your shoulders to demonstrate that it actually exists objectively. You can't just run around and demand that it's true, you have to prove it. Let me know when you intend to do so.
Click to expand...
How about my right to practice my religion? Is that not an inalienable right?
 
Cephus said:
No, it's the truth. If you're going to claim that there is any such thing as "inalienable rights", it rests on your shoulders to demonstrate that it actually exists objectively. You can't just run around and demand that it's true, you have to prove it. Let me know when you intend to do so.
Click to expand...

I posted a video that explains it eloquently. Neither I nor anyone else has a burden of proof to demonstrate that we have rights (to life, liberty, property). The onus of proving anything is on whoever might seek to deprive another of them, and that onus is to show that there is just cause to do so.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I posted a video that explains it eloquently. Neither I nor anyone else has a burden of proof to demonstrate that we have rights (to life, liberty, property). The onus of proving anything is on whoever might seek to deprive another of them, and that onus is to show that there is just cause to do so.
Click to expand...

If you're going to assert that under our legal system, you have inalienable rights, then there is no burden of proof, except maybe for those who are completely ignorant about how our legal system works

However, If you're going to assert that we have inalienable rights, independent of our legal system (as the belief in Natural Law asserts) then you most certainly do have a burden of proof. You not only have to show that these inalienable rights exist as something independent of any legal system, but that this Natural Law also exists
 
sangha said:
If you're going to assert that under our legal system, you have inalienable rights, then there is no burden of proof, except maybe for those who are completely ignorant about how our legal system works

However, If you're going to assert that we have inalienable rights, independent of our legal system (as the belief in Natural Law asserts) then you most certainly do have a burden of proof. You not only have to show that these inalienable rights exist as something independent of any legal system, but that this Natural Law also exists
Click to expand...

"Proving/showing" a fundamental principle like natural right exists is the same basic task as proving/showing that God exists. There is nothing concrete that can "prove" its existence. It is either believed or it's not.

For those who do not believe in any sort of natural/inalienable rights, government is God, as it is considered infallible, and the individual is amoral.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
How about my right to practice my religion? Is that not an inalienable right?
Click to expand...

Tell a Christian to go to Iran and openly practice their religion and tell me how inalienable it is.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I posted a video that explains it eloquently. Neither I nor anyone else has a burden of proof to demonstrate that we have rights (to life, liberty, property). The onus of proving anything is on whoever might seek to deprive another of them, and that onus is to show that there is just cause to do so.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Just claiming that a thing exists is not the same thing as demonstrating that it exists. Making up rules doesn't make the rules valid. If you cannot actually demonstrate that natural law exists objectively, just wanting it to exist doesn't make it so.
 
Cephus said:
Wrong. Just claiming that a thing exists is not the same thing as demonstrating that it exists. Making up rules doesn't make the rules valid. If you cannot actually demonstrate that natural law exists objectively, just wanting it to exist doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

I repeat #57. I know what you're trying to say but I think we are talking past each other.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I repeat #57. I know what you're trying to say but I think we are talking past each other.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pointing out that faith is pointless. If all you're going to argue is faith, then you cannot have a rational debate.
 
Cephus said:
Tell a Christian to go to Iran and openly practice their religion and tell me how inalienable it is.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean it's not an inalienable right. That just means there are some countries which suppress certain inalienable rights, such as the example you offer.

And I don't know about you, but I'm in the U.S. where I'm free to exercise my religion without worries of government interference because that is an inalienable right and the U.S. respects that.
 
Cephus said:
No, I'm pointing out that faith is pointless. If all you're going to argue is faith, then you cannot have a rational debate.
Click to expand...

Natural and inalienable rights are the basic philosophical underpinnings of free societies. They have to be asserted and defended by the people, but there is no way to present some sort of empirical evidence to you that "proves they exist." They're not empirical, by definition, really.

I want this country to be a relatively free society, I think it was established with that in mind, many Americans seem to pride themselves in their national heritage that emphasizes liberty, et cetera. I believe people have natural rights to life, liberty and property even when their government is abusing those rights, causing them to live as though they do not have them.

Cephus said:
Tell a Christian to go to Iran and openly practice their religion and tell me how inalienable it is.
Click to expand...

It is inalienable even if governments are abusing people because of it. You are seeing rights only as an outcome provided by government, rather than as inherent to our nature.

Think about it this way: some children in this country are being sexually abused. Does their right not to be sexually abused depend on whether they are being victimized or not? Do some children (the ones getting raped) have no right to protection from sexual abuse, or do they have that right but it's being trampled?

It's that notion that rights originate entirely with whatever that day's government says that causes people to constantly look to government to solve all their problems. Government defines what it means to be human, for these people.
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That doesn't mean it's not an inalienable right. That just means there are some countries which suppress certain inalienable rights, such as the example you offer.

And I don't know about you, but I'm in the U.S. where I'm free to exercise my religion without worries of government interference because that is an inalienable right and the U.S. respects that.
Click to expand...

You are free to exercise your religion because the society where you live has given you that right. In Iran, for example, they do not have that right. Unfortunately, some people confuse their own desire for people to have the rights with which they are familiar and comfortable with the expectation that every actually has it, whether they do or not. Rational people need to be able to set aside their emotional desires and deal with the factual reality that surrounds us all. Claims of natural law do not do that.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Natural and inalienable rights are the basic philosophical underpinnings of free societies. They have to be asserted and defended by the people, but there is no way to present some sort of empirical evidence to you that "proves they exist." They're not empirical, by definition, really.
Click to expand...

Which really says nothing. The basic philosophical underpinnings of religions require the existence of gods, that doesn't actually demonstrate that gods exists. Natural rights is an idea. You might want it to be true, that doesn't mean that it actually is true. If you're basing your entire philosophy on something you desire to be true rather than something that is true, then your philosophy has problems.

I want this country to be a relatively free society, I think it was established with that in mind, many Americans seem to pride themselves in their national heritage that emphasizes liberty, et cetera. I believe people have natural rights to life, liberty and property even when their government is abusing those rights, causing them to live as though they do not have them.
Click to expand...

You're free to believe whatever you want. As the saying goes though, you're welcome to your own beliefs, you are not welcome to your own facts. So long as you are clear that you're only talking about your opinions, fine. The second you claim that your opinions represent fact, then you need to back it up.

It is inalienable even if governments are abusing people because of it. You are seeing rights only as an outcome provided by government, rather than as inherent to our nature.
Click to expand...

Says who and how do you know? I also think that the libertarian view of government is bizarre. Government is not some alien construct imposed on society, the government we have is what is put in place and maintained by society. If you don't like the government, don't go looking for our alien overlords, look at society.

Think about it this way: some children in this country are being sexually abused. Does their right not to be sexually abused depend on whether they are being victimized or not? Do some children (the ones getting raped) have no right to protection from sexual abuse, or do they have that right but it's being trampled?
Click to expand...

Yes they do, often by religious clergy. And we, as a society, determine that people under a certain age cannot legally engage in sexual activity. That age has changed dramatically over the years, it wasn't that long ago when girls of 13 could get married. Today, that's no the case. So did the age of sexual conduct change because society decided it should, or because "natural law" changed? These are things libertarians never bother to think about.
 
Cephus said:
Which really says nothing. The basic philosophical underpinnings of religions require the existence of gods, that doesn't actually demonstrate that gods exists. Natural rights is an idea. You might want it to be true, that doesn't mean that it actually is true. If you're basing your entire philosophy on something you desire to be true rather than something that is true, then your philosophy has problems.
Click to expand...

This could be said about literally anybody's idea of how societies/governments should operate. True/false does not apply to people's philosophies.

Says who and how do you know? I also think that the libertarian view of government is bizarre. Government is not some alien construct imposed on society, the government we have is what is put in place and maintained by society. If you don't like the government, don't go looking for our alien overlords, look at society.
Click to expand...

I do look at society, and I think to myself that they are abdicating their lives to government by thinking of government as a god-like or parent-like provider of needs and originator of rights.

Yes they do, often by religious clergy.
Click to expand...

(?) More often by their own addict parents.

And we, as a society, determine that people under a certain age cannot legally engage in sexual activity. That age has changed dramatically over the years, it wasn't that long ago when girls of 13 could get married. Today, that's no the case. So did the age of sexual conduct change because society decided it should, or because "natural law" changed? These are things libertarians never bother to think about.
Click to expand...

Yes they have. The child sexual abuse example was just one example, but really it could apply to anyone, because adults also have a right not to be raped. Those who get raped anyway nonetheless have the same rights as anyone else. They're just being trampled by someone. Even if a majority of Americans elect a bunch of representatives who all agree (and put it into law) that Sally Smith of Tulsa, Oklahoma can be legally raped and the Supreme Court upholds it... Sally Smith still has a right not to be raped or abused, regardless of whatever twisted laws were passed or however many twisted voters supported it.
 
I really don't need a silly youtube video to explain the meaning of political terms I studied decades before there was even an internet.
 
Neomalthusian said:
This could be said about literally anybody's idea of how societies/governments should operate. True/false does not apply to people's philosophies.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between saying "this is my opinion" and saying "this is a fact." And yes, true and false absolutely applies to people's philosophies when they make claims about reality. If someone's opinion is that elephants can fly, their opinion is wrong.

I do look at society, and I think to myself that they are abdicating their lives to government by thinking of government as a god-like or parent-like provider of needs and originator of rights.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you hold a minority political view. Instead of just acknowledging that your side doesn't have the political power to make the changes you wish could be made, you want to invent a set of your own facts so that anyone who disagrees with you is just factually wrong. Sorry, that's not how it works.

(?) More often by their own addict parents.
Click to expand...

Pedophile priests are rampant in the Catholic Church and sex abuse among the clergy is widespread across virtually all religions.

Yes they have. The child sexual abuse example was just one example, but really it could apply to anyone, because adults also have a right not to be raped. Those who get raped anyway nonetheless have the same rights as anyone else. They're just being trampled by someone. Even if a majority of Americans elect a bunch of representatives who all agree (and put it into law) that Sally Smith of Tulsa, Oklahoma can be legally raped and the Supreme Court upholds it... Sally Smith still has a right not to be raped or abused, regardless of whatever twisted laws were passed or however many twisted voters supported it.
Click to expand...

Tell that to women in the Middle East where rape is rampant and the rapist is rarely punished. In fact, rape is often blamed on the woman. I'm not saying I agree with it, I personally consider it immoral, but I'm not foolish enough to think that my morals somehow apply planet-wide. You, on the other hand, think that your opinion automatically apply to everyone, everwhere, without their consent, just because you want it to.

You might want to rethink that.
 
Cephus said:
There's a difference between saying "this is my opinion" and saying "this is a fact." And yes, true and false absolutely applies to people's philosophies when they make claims about reality. If someone's opinion is that elephants can fly, their opinion is wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not stating this stuff as "fact." I'm stating it as something I believe. I believe people have a natural right to their own lives, their liberty, and property they rightfully have or obtained. You believe differently or something?

That's what happens when you hold a minority political view. Instead of just acknowledging that your side doesn't have the political power to make the changes you wish could be made, you want to invent a set of your own facts so that anyone who disagrees with you is just factually wrong. Sorry, that's not how it works.
Click to expand...

Can you find where I presented my statements about natural rights as "fact?" I don't think that was my angle. If you can find me saying that I'll address it.

Pedophile priests are rampant in the Catholic Church and sex abuse among the clergy is widespread across virtually all religions.
Click to expand...

Okay cool, but more kids happen to be raped by their parents than by religious leaders. Why are we even arguing about this small point anyway?

Tell that to women in the Middle East where rape is rampant and the rapist is rarely punished. In fact, rape is often blamed on the woman. I'm not saying I agree with it, I personally consider it immoral, but I'm not foolish enough to think that my morals somehow apply planet-wide. You, on the other hand, think that your opinion automatically apply to everyone, everwhere, without their consent, just because you want it to.
Click to expand...

I get it. I would say those women have a natural right not to be raped, because they are humans and humans have human rights. It seems you would argue that those women have no right not to be raped, because humans only have rights when their governments say they do. You seem to not grasp the difference here because you keep saying the same types of things, which causes me to keep saying the same types of things.

And lastly, it is not foolish to suggest that it simply is immoral to rape women and blame them for what just happened to them (not just immoral in your personal individual opinion, but immoral as recognized universally). The same way it is universally considered immoral to kill (deprive of life) and steal (deprive of property). These things are not just wrong according to some and okay according to others. They're wrong, whether governments sanction it or not.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Okay cool, but more kids happen to be raped by their parents than by religious leaders. Why are we even arguing about this small point anyway?
Click to expand...

His entire point is that the existence of things like rape, murder, theft, etc is proof that natural rights is wrong. It's the same argument people like him always make and have been making since the 18th century.

I doubt they will ever see that it was largely the point. ;)
 
Neomalthusian said:
I'm not stating this stuff as "fact." I'm stating it as something I believe. I believe people have a natural right to their own lives, their liberty, and property they rightfully have or obtained. You believe differently or something?
Click to expand...

I disagree that it's a natural right, I agree that, in our society, we have those rights because we decided that those rights exist. If this is just your belief, then it can be safely discarded because you're unable to back it up factually.

Can you find where I presented my statements about natural rights as "fact?" I don't think that was my angle. If you can find me saying that I'll address it.
Click to expand...

Every time you have spoken about it prior to this post. You have not preceded any of your statements about natural rights with "I believe" or "it is my opinion."

Okay cool, but more kids happen to be raped by their parents than by religious leaders. Why are we even arguing about this small point anyway?
Click to expand...

Why are you so dead set against acknowledging religious sexual abuse? "Yeah but!" isn't a valid debating mechanism.

I get it. I would say those women have a natural right not to be raped, because they are humans and humans have human rights. It seems you would argue that those women have no right not to be raped, because humans only have rights when their governments say they do. You seem to not grasp the difference here because you keep saying the same types of things, which causes me to keep saying the same types of things.
Click to expand...

And there you go again. You would say that they have a natural right. Demonstrate that they actually have a natural right. In fact, it is your OPINION that they shouldn't be treated that way, and in that, I'd agree with you. I am not going to argue that just because you or I want the situation to be different, that the situation is now magically different. People in the Middle East might wish that American culture was different. They're welcome to wish whatever they want. That doesn't mean a damn thing is going to change. You keep presenting your opinion as though it was a fact. Unless you can demonstrate objectively that it is a fact, it's just not so.

And lastly, it is not foolish to suggest that it simply is immoral to rape women and blame them for what just happened to them (not just immoral in your personal individual opinion, but immoral as recognized universally). The same way it is universally considered immoral to kill (deprive of life) and steal (deprive of property). These things are not just wrong according to some and okay according to others. They're wrong, whether governments sanction it or not.
Click to expand...

Morals are inherently subjective. Your morals are no more demonstrably right than the morals of the people in the culture that you criticize. You just keep throwing around terms like "morals" and "rights" because you think it lends your opinions credibility. They simply have not earned that credibility.
 
Henrin said:
His entire point is that the existence of things like rape, murder, theft, etc is proof that natural rights is wrong. It's the same argument people like him always make and have been making since the 18th century.

I doubt they will ever see that it was largely the point. ;)
Click to expand...

What's sad is that you're incapable of thinking deeper than "I wish this was so, therefore I'm going to declare it to be true." Shallow thinking is the hallmark of libertarianism.
 
I always thought it best to consider natural rights as necessary fictions.
 
Cephus said:
What's sad is that you're incapable of thinking deeper than "I wish this was so, therefore I'm going to declare it to be true." Shallow thinking is the hallmark of libertarianism.
Click to expand...

The amount of in depth analysis that you have ever done on this subject is simply consider that people are violent outside of society and therefore rights do not exist. Let's not play games here and try to pretend you actually have any knowledge on the subject what so ever.
 
For the most part is pretty accurate, though he talks about other things as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom