• 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!

Proof and Facts[W:76"283]

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


  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Re: Proof and Facts

rejected as your opinion which has no basis of support.

Okay Turtle - lets do it your way. Lets take you by the hand and lead you step by small step down the path to enlightenment.

Did the Founders as a group issue a statement of belief in natural rights in the Declaration of Independence?

lets stick to proof such as the beliefs of an author is a decent way of proving what their writings actually meant

When a statement of an authors beliefs runs totally opposite to the actual actions and behaviors of the same author - the beliefs are merely self serving BS and only the gullible and naive would put any store in them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

I don't see why you think I'm obligated to explain it to you.

You are simply unable to do so.

Continue to object all you like, but your position has been laid out and charred.

I call your bluff on that claim of fact. Simply produce the post where my position was "laid out and charred". Lets see it.

Of course, since that never happened - you will not do so.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Actually - its not "like" anything. It merely takes the statement of the Founders in the Declaration and shows how it was a blatant lie the moment it was written. Put aside your emotions and it is very easy to see.

Yes, the person with the personal interpretation of the Constitution based on their nutbag belief that natural rights are a scam will tell me to put aside my emotions. Laughable!

When you're done re-interpreting the Constitution according to your personal conspiracy theory, let us know.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Yes, the person with the personal interpretation of the Constitution based on their nutbag belief that natural rights are a scam will tell me to put aside my emotions. Laughable!

When you're done re-interpreting the Constitution according to your personal conspiracy theory, let us know.

I see you failed to meet my challenge with anything but raw vitriol. As expected.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I see you failed to meet my challenge with anything but raw vitriol. As expected.

actually that is not true
your entire argument is based on a specious claim that since the founders (in your opinion) lied (when they didn't include slaves in their definition of those who are entitled to freedom even though that is not a lie) as to some things, they must have lied about others and therefore that gives you the opportunity to make up what they really intended in the bill of rights

its a complete failure of proof.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I see you failed to meet my challenge with anything but raw vitriol. As expected.

Your challenge is stupid. Your failure to grasp natural rights is absurd. A simple scientific experiment proves them to exist.

Your harping about someone explaining it to you in a way that will bring the idea within your grasp is not material to the discussion. Your position is simple; it's nothing more than ignorance. And all the crying in the world about that ignorance will not change the fact that it is ignorance and not worthy of a position let alone a rebuttal.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

actually that is not true.

The claim made by you is that the Founders believed in natural rights and because of that would not have given the Congress the right to regulate firearms.

Is that correct?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The claim made by you is that the Founders believed in natural rights and because of that would not have given the Congress the right to regulate firearms.

Is that correct?

His claim is that self defense and the defense of others is a natural right. The founders understood this and, in enumerating that natural right, specified that the arms utilized by a militia (reserve infantry) are not to be infringed upon.

His claim is scientific and historical fact. No amount of ignorance on your part can change that.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Your challenge is stupid. Your failure to grasp natural rights is absurd. A simple scientific experiment proves them to exist.

Your harping about someone explaining it to you in a way that will bring the idea within your grasp is not material to the discussion. Your position is simple; it's nothing more than ignorance. And all the crying in the world about that ignorance will not change the fact that it is ignorance and not worthy of a position let alone a rebuttal.

Aside from the attacks on me because I have committed the mortal sin of not sharing your beliefs, what exactly is this "simple scientific" method you have of proving that natural rights exist.

This thread is about PROOF and EVIDENCE so lets see yours.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

His claim is that self defense and the defense of others is a natural right. The founders understood this and, in enumerating that natural right, specified that the arms utilized by a militia (reserve infantry) are not to be infringed upon.

Those are simple abilities that people have. They are only elevated to the level of a right when the government of the people declares them as protected behaviors.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

They are only elevated to the level of a right when the government of the people declares them as protected behaviors.

Ignorance
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Ignorance

How so? Where is your proof and evidence. That is what this thread is about and with every personal pontification of vitriol you make you underling the need for a standard of proof and verification.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Aside from the attacks on me because I have committed the mortal sin of not sharing your beliefs, what exactly is this "simple scientific" method you have of proving that natural rights exist.

This thread is about PROOF and EVIDENCE so lets see yours.

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.



If that's beyond ones grasp... not my problem.

There's your PROOF. There are the FACTS. Now abandon your childish BS about natural rights being a conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

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.

You mentioned a "SCIENTIFIC" method to prove the existence of natural rights. This is not a scientific method.



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.

IT is NOT a scientific experiment. It is not what you claimed you could deliver.

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.

Again, this is NOT the SCIENTIFIC method you boasted about. And if the right only exists in the belief system of others - it cannot be exercised nor can it be violated because it does not exist in the real world outside of a belief in someones mind.

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

What you are attempting to pass off here as a scientific experiment is mere sophistry and word play.

You failed. It is not Proof. It is not facts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

You mentioned a "SCIENTIFIC" method to prove the existence of natural rights. This is not a scientific method.

Survey is a scientific experiment and is implicitly a scientific method. What kind of idiocy is it to claim that a survey is not a scientific experiment.

Perhaps some knowledge of basic science would help you understand natural rights, but I'm not here to provide that to you.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Survey is a scientific experiment and is implicitly a scientific method. What kind of idiocy is it to claim that a survey is not a scientific experiment.

Perhaps some knowledge of basic science would help you understand natural rights, but I'm not here to provide that to you.

You are here to back up your claims. And so far you have not even come close. Asking your silly question to people proves nothing in the way of the existince of natural rights.

Your so called scientific experiment begins with an assumption of faith - that there is a "right to life" that somebody has. We are alive as a result of birth. Any "right" has precious little to do with that simple physical reality. As such - you survey is tainted from its very inception. And even if it were not - no survey of a persons beliefs can tell you that natural rights exist independent from those beliefs.

So to some extent, you are setting up a ersatz phony experiment that is a dog chasing its own tail.
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

You are here to back up your claims. And so far you have not even come close.

According to you and your position based upon nothing more than "I shall remain ignorant!!"

Asking your silly question to people proves nothing in the way of the existince of natural rights.

Yes, it does. It's not my fault such is beyond your grasp. Stop complaining about not being able to understand things - I can't do anything about that!
 
Re: Proof and Facts

According to you and your position based upon nothing more than "I shall remain ignorant!!"



Yes, it does. It's not my fault such is beyond your grasp. Stop complaining about not being able to understand things - I can't do anything about that!

You FAILED to give us a scientific method of proving that natural rights exist outside of a belief system.

I understand your FAILURE perfectly and it is your own fault that your methodology FAILS to achieve what you claimed you could provide.

Asking a million people what they believe does not prove the beliefs exist independently of the believer. You can ask a billion people if they believe in GOD and get a YES answer. It proves nothing aside from people believe.

You really need to understand what the scientific method is. This will help educate you on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 
Re: Proof and Facts

You FAILED to give us a scientific method of proving that natural rights exist outside of a belief system.

You have failed to understand that survey is a scientific experiment. I'm sorry if you don't have a grasp of basic science. I'm sure that makes understanding natural rights even more difficult. I wish you the best of luck understanding natural social objects and the scientific evidence of their existence. Good day.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

You have failed to understand that survey is a scientific experiment. I'm sorry if you don't have a grasp of basic science. I'm sure that makes understanding natural rights even more difficult. I wish you the best of luck understanding natural social objects and the scientific evidence of their existence. Good day.

News bulletin for you and bit of education: one can use scientific methodology in developing and conducting a survey of opinion about what people believe so that the results are somewhat reliable. The results tell you what people believe... at least those that you surveyed if it was done properly. That is radically and totally and completely different than using the scientific method to prove that natural rights exist independently apart from anyones self imposed belief because they want to believe it.

Your task is to prove that NATURAL RIGHTS exist outside of a belief system. And you failed to do that.

But I am overjoyed that you did it here since it underlines the necessity of providing the proper EVIDENCE and PROOF for ones claims. Yours did the opposite.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

News bulletin for you and bit of education: one can use scientific methodology in developing and conducting a survey of opinion about what people believe so that the results are somewhat reliable. The results tell you what people believe... at least those that you surveyed if it was done properly. That is radically and totally and completely different than using the scientific method to prove that natural rights exist independently apart from anyones self imposed belief because they want to believe it.

Your task is to prove that NATURAL RIGHTS exist outside of a belief system. And you failed to do that.

But I am overjoyed that you did it here since it underlines the necessity of providing the proper EVIDENCE and PROOF for ones claims. Yours did the opposite.

who has claimed that natural rights exist outside a belief system. its like demanding someone prove that the catholic faith exists outside a belief system

and its not relevant to the argument. if a bunch of Jesuits wrote a document saying the nation they founded would recognize their savior as the God of that nation, all we have to do to determine what they meant is to examine their beliefs and that would mean the Christian trinity.

whether that exists or not in the physical world means nothing

and when we evaluate the rights the founders wished to recognize in the 2A we look at the rights they believe existed prior to the constitutional convention
 
Re: Proof and Facts

who has claimed that natural rights exist outside a belief system.

Great. We are making progress then if you finally admit that natural rights do not exist outside of a belief system held by the believer because they have chosen to believe it.

its like demanding someone prove that the catholic faith exists outside a belief system

Excellent. Your first comparison is to religious faith. And that also cannot be proven to exist outside the belief system of the believer.

and its not relevant to the argument.

Like the famous line in WIZARD OF OZ where the Wizard chastises Dorothy - ... not so fast, not so fast. It is 100% relevant when you then attempt to take that belief which exists only in the mind and take the giant leap that the rights given to us in the Constitution "PRE EXISTED". Because they only place they could have PRE EXISTED is in the mind and not in the real or physical world so that they actually do anything. And unless a right does something - ie: people can utilize it and exercise it - ther is no so called right to be claimed for it does not for all practical purposes exist at all.

if a bunch of Jesuits wrote a document saying the nation they founded would recognize their savior as the God of that nation, all we have to do to determine what they meant is to examine their beliefs and that would mean the Christian trinity.

Again your comparison with religious faith only proves my point.

whether that exists or not in the physical world means nothing

Actually it means just the opposite because if it does not exist in the real world there is no RIGHT for people to use or exercise or enjoy. And then it does not exist for all practical purposes. I can construct a 50,000 story castle made of diamonds inhabited by the denizens of the Faerie Kingdom in my mind and it exists there. But it does not exist in the real or physical world so for all practical purposes - it does to exist.

and when we evaluate the rights the founders wished to recognize in the 2A we look at the rights they believe existed prior to the constitutional convention

And since those rights DID NOT EXIST in the real world - you know Turtle - the real world that you and I inhabit - they were no pre-existing rights to be considered. And we already have found out from the history of that real world that your sainted Founders really did not believe in their pronouncements of rights to begin with as they openly lied about it in the very statement of belief in natural rights that they made.

So you really have nothing here other than your faith..... which you are entitled to just as much as I am entitled to my giant Faerie Kingdom castle.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

tl dr. what matters is those who believe in the existence of natural rights would not issue a Second Amendment that would allow all sorts of limitations on the right they wished to protect

your only response to that is to conjure up a claim that the founders were liars (in the Declaration of Independence as slaves were not included) and thus they must have lied about protecting rights that actually protected them.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

tl dr. what matters is those who believe in the existence of natural rights would not issue a Second Amendment that would allow all sorts of limitations on the right they wished to protect

your only response to that is to conjure up a claim that the founders were liars (in the Declaration of Independence as slaves were not included) and thus they must have lied about protecting rights that actually protected them.

I see you were unable to refute my step by step destruction of your argument in my post 147.

1- they did not believe in natural rights

2- they were liars as proven by their own actions which were 100% opposite of somebody who states there are natural rights

3 - they did give the federal government powers when the responsibility of government was upon them

You are engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy and chasing your own tail on this which is why you get nowhere and keep coming back to the exact same spot you were in previously.

again Turtle - every one of your arguments has been met head on and dismantled. You have nothing left except belief. And that give nobody any rights.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I see you were unable to refute my step by step destruction of your argument in my post 147.

1- they did not believe in natural rights

2- they were liars as proven by their own actions which were 100% opposite of somebody who states there are natural rights

3 - they did give the federal government powers when the responsibility of government was upon them

You are engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy and chasing your own tail on this which is why you get nowhere and keep coming back to the exact same spot you were in previously.

again Turtle - every one of your arguments has been met head on and dismantled. You have nothing left except belief. And that give nobody any rights.

your alleged destruction of any argument of mine is even less concrete than the natural rights you spend so much time complaining about

you are relegated to claiming that the founders really didn't want to recognize a right of free men to be armed because you claim they lied by not including slaves in the Declaration of independence

other than your speculation which makes no sense (why would the founders denigrate their own rights), do you have any evidence that your silly interpretation of the bill of rights is correct?
 
Back
Top Bottom