• 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

haymarket said:
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



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?
Click to expand...

It isn't a question of sociology, but of the nature of things, including humans. Our most fundamental natural right is the right to self-defense, which is the most essential component of our nature. Government does not grant that right. It is my right as a natural being to try whatever means I can, to preserve my own life.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

lizzie said:
It isn't a question of sociology, but of the nature of things, including humans. Our most fundamental natural right is the right to self-defense, which is the most essential component of our nature. Government does not grant that right. It is my right as a natural being to try whatever means I can, to preserve my own life.
Click to expand...

You are confusing a RIGHT with an ability or instinct.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

lizzie said:
That is where natural rights arise from. They are not a social construct.
Click to expand...

You are confusing an instinct that creatures have or a physical ability or a response with a right. Calling an instinct a right does not make it so. Calling a physical ability of physical response a right does not make it so.

So your initial examples are flawed.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The string has diverged from the OP.
But some thoughts on this latest part:

1. There are No "natural Rights" (like there is No god), just recent/modern Culture-Specific norms that are Not even universal.
'Rights' are culture-specific concepts backed by law.. and ever-changing and varied even within those cultures. Voting/who votes/etc.

2. The founders, as TD said, did however, believe in the concept.
Bill of Rights Institute: Natural Rights | Bill of Rights Institute
Though obviously most of the Bill of Rights is anything but "natural". All humans are born with "Freedom of Press"?

3. Jefferson was strongly against slavery even though he [somewhat hypocritically] owned them.
"..Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation."
And more:
Thomas Jefferson and Slavery « Thomas Jefferson

3b. Jefferson believed Blacks were somewhat subhuman and ergo did Not share the same "Natural Rights" as whites, and when freed should be separated from them.
Not unlike a 'separate race' view one could read on a White Supremacist board today.
again see link above/excerpt below monticello.org, which is not anti-Jefferson.

...Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his Racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “Separate nations” who could Not live together peacefully in the same country.

Jefferson’s belief that blacks were Racially inferior and “as incapable as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. Influenced by the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, Jefferson believed that American slaves’ deportation—whether to Africa or the West Indies—was an essential consequence of emancipation.

Jefferson wrote that slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” He thought that his cherished federal union, the world’s first democratic experiment, would be destroyed by slavery.
To emancipate slaves on American soil, Jefferson thought, would result in a large-scale race war that would be as brutal and deadly as the slave revolt in Haiti in 1791. But he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union. Jefferson’s latter prediction was correct: in 1861, the contest over slavery sparked a bloody civil war and the creation of two nations—Union and Confederacy—in the place of one.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
You are confusing an instinct that creatures have or a physical ability or a response with a right. Calling an instinct a right does not make it so. Calling a physical ability of physical response a right does not make it so.

So your initial examples are flawed.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not confusing it at all. Natural rights arise from nature, and are not dependent on the approval of others, because they don't require aggression in order to obtain or secure them, but they DO require aggression by others to be taken away.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

claiming that the founders excluded some men from the rights these founders cherished in no way is evidence that the founders sought to diminish the extent of the riigt.

Can you find a single shred of evidence that deals with the extent of the right rather than its coverage?

and again, the DOI was created by a different group of people than the BOR
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
claiming that the founders excluded some men from the rights these founders cherished in no way is evidence that the founders sought to diminish the extent of the riigt.

Can you find a single shred of evidence that deals with the extent of the right rather than its coverage?

and again, the DOI was created by a different group of people than the BOR
Click to expand...


It's the old "inalienable = inviolable" BS. Yes, the founders failed to observe the natural rights of some people. That's not a surprise given the historical context and political limitations therein.
 
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?

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).
Click to expand...


furthermore those who believed in natural rights would

1) create and subsequently interpret any restriction on government power as expansively as possible

2) create and interpret any grant of power to the federal government as narrowly as possible

those interpretations of the 2A that are narrow or so extreme as to essentially abrogate any restrictions on the government are contrary to the belief system of the founders

and interpretations of Sec 8 that manage to divine, concoct or conjure up powers for the federal government that are not specifically and clearly defined, are also contrary to the belief system of the founders
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
It's the old "inalienable = inviolable" BS. Yes, the founders failed to observe the natural rights of some people. That's not a surprise given the historical context and political limitations therein.
Click to expand...

the utter fail is claiming because blacks were not included, the rights for white citizens (i.e. the limitations on the federal government) are necessarily lesser as well. or claiming that since the signers of the DOI "lied" the authors of the bill of rights did not intended to have the extent of the right that they "pretended" they wanted.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Unitedwestand13 said:
ask for the sources that the link is based on, and judge the merit of those source.
Click to expand...

I read books though--often on my Kindle or the kind you actually hold in your hand. I listen to or watch a lot of different news casts. Links are not always available. And I come to many conclusions by piecing together numerous different sources and making my own interpretation of what they all mean. Who are all these people who never had an original thought or idea but always are reporting something they saw on the internet? Is that what message board discussions are required to be?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
the founders who feigned a belief in natural rights only used the belief in them as a smokescreen for their own actions. no person - especially and educated person who professes a belief in the EQUALITY OF ALL MEN and who practices slavery can honestly believe in natural rights.

It was simply lipstick on the pig to con the gullible and politically naive.
Click to expand...
IF someone believed that slaves didn't count as men, I can easily see them doing so.

It's not like hypocrisy is any real bar to an action, nor does hypocrisy invalidate the idea behind the whole thing - it just means they didn't realize how widely their idea actually applied. Or not all of them, at least.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
claiming that the founders excluded some men from the rights these founders cherished in no way is evidence that the founders sought to diminish the extent of the riigt.

Can you find a single shred of evidence that deals with the extent of the right rather than its coverage?

and again, the DOI was created by a different group of people than the BOR
Click to expand...

So the Founders were not the Founders?

And if the right does not exist - it cannot cover anyone.

And if the Founders said ALL MEN but then excluded many - they lied.

But you know all that because I have explained this before.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The Mark said:
IF someone believed that slaves didn't count as men, I can easily see them doing so.

It's not like hypocrisy is any real bar to an action, nor does hypocrisy invalidate the idea behind the whole thing - it just means they didn't realize how widely their idea actually applied. Or not all of them, at least.
Click to expand...

Jefferson wrote the line. And Jefferson believed African were men. So lets flush that falsehood right now.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

lizzie said:
No, I'm not confusing it at all. Natural rights arise from nature, and are not dependent on the approval of others, because they don't require aggression in order to obtain or secure them, but they DO require aggression by others to be taken away.
Click to expand...

The examples you gave are NOT rights.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

ecofarm said:
It's the old "inalienable = inviolable" BS. Yes, the founders failed to observe the natural rights of some people. That's not a surprise given the historical context and political limitations therein.
Click to expand...

How does one FAIL TO OBSERVE what one does not have to observe in the first place?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
How does one FAIL TO OBSERVE what one does not have to observe in the first place?
Click to expand...

Must... not...

*sigh*

I dunno, Hay.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
the utter fail is claiming because blacks were not included, the rights for white citizens (i.e. the limitations on the federal government) are necessarily lesser as well. or claiming that since the signers of the DOI "lied" the authors of the bill of rights did not intended to have the extent of the right that they "pretended" they wanted.
Click to expand...

The facts are clear and undeniable:
1- the Founders stated a belief that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and had certain rights from their CREATOR.
2- they owned slaves which is the direct opposite of accepting everything in point 1
3 -they lied about what they believed in or did not believe the crap they stated
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
The facts are clear and undeniable:
1- the Founders stated a belief that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and had certain rights from their CREATOR.
2- they owned slaves which is the direct opposite of accepting everything in point 1
3 -they lied about what they believed in or did not believe the crap they stated
Click to expand...

and that has nothing to do with the EXTENT of the rights they sought to guarantee for people like them. and not all of them owned slaves (founders vs signatories to the DOI are DIFFERENT)

there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that these FOUNDERS LIED ABOUT THE RIGHTS THEY WANTED TO PROTECT.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
So the Founders were not the Founders?

And if the right does not exist - it cannot cover anyone.

And if the Founders said ALL MEN but then excluded many - they lied.

But you know all that because I have explained this before.
Click to expand...

and I have explained that confusing the COVERAGE of a RIGHT with the EXTENT of a right is a bait and switch argument
 
Re: Proof and Facts

TurtleDude said:
and I have explained that confusing the COVERAGE of a RIGHT with the EXTENT of a right is a bait and switch argument
Click to expand...

Actually, you have not explained it but rather simply stated that opinion. But here is your chance to explain what you mean in detail using law and examples.

I think we are not understanding each other. Tell me what you mean by the extent of the right as opposed to if the right actually exists or if it covers anyone.

And while you are at it please explain who exactly was there to enjoy and exercise and use this pre-existing natural right before it was ever placed into law.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Jefferson wrote the line. And Jefferson believed African were men. So lets flush that falsehood right now.
Click to expand...
Um...What falsehood?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

haymarket said:
Actually, you have not explained it but rather simply stated that opinion. But here is your chance to explain what you mean in detail using law and examples.

I think we are not understanding each other. Tell me what you mean by the extent of the right as opposed to if the right actually exists or if it covers anyone.

And while you are at it please explain who exactly was there to enjoy and exercise and use this pre-existing natural right before it was ever placed into law.
Click to expand...

lets uses the concept of a contract for insurance

there are two issues

what is the coverage of the contract (i.e who is covered-me, my wife or my son? how about someone borrowing my car? etc)

and what is the extent of the coverage--i.e 4 million for liability, 1 million for uninsured drivers etc

claiming that because the founders "lied' about who was entitled to their pronouncements is a complaint about coverage

not extent
 
Re: Proof and Facts

The Mark said:
Um...What falsehood?
Click to expand...

there is none and it certainly has no relevance to the extent of the rights Jefferson wanted to protect
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom