• 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!

The right to -not- exercise a right?

Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

  • Total voters
    38
Ikari said:
I've encountered this argument more from your side in this thread than anyone else.
Click to expand...

As loathe as I am to use Biblical arguments, perhaps you ought to be looking more at the log in your own eye than the speck in anyone else's. You seem to be totally ignoring that.
 
Yea, I'm still waiting for Cephus to explain measuring love in a person's blood, among other things.
 
Ethereal said:
Yea, I'm still waiting for Cephus to explain measuring love in a person's blood, among other things.
Click to expand...
All that huff and puff...
 
Cephus said:
Nor is there any reason to think they exist at all.

You know, I was thinking. If "natural rights" exist outside of humanity and outside of human society, how long have they been around? Since the dawn of human civilization? Since the dawn of the universe? Are they seriously expecting us to believe that these "natural rights" hung around for 13.6 or so billion years waiting for mankind to evolve? And when did they start to apply to mankind? Did Neanderthals have rights? Or did it have to wait until Homo erectus or maybe even Homo sapiens to have any application?

Yet we can keep asking these questions and the best we get from the libertarians is "WE'RE RIGHT! SO THERE!" :roll:
Click to expand...

Repeating the same failed argument over and over again doesn't make it right.

Nobody said that natural rights exist, so you're merely creating a strawman. I've already explained to you that natural law is simply a moral sentiment, hence it doesn't have to "exist" in order for it to be valid.

Keep thinking you've made some kind of point if it suites you. Lord knows winning an internet argument is much more important than being intellectually honest and whatnot.
 
Goobieman said:
All that huff and puff...
Click to expand...

Cephus is just too smart for us, I guess. He's so smart that he's managed to refute the philosophies of Jefferson et al. in but a few paragraphs. Quite an impressive feat.
 
Cephus said:
As loathe as I am to use Biblical arguments, perhaps you ought to be looking more at the log in your own eye than the speck in anyone else's. You seem to be totally ignoring that.
Click to expand...

Well this I don't think is biblical, but those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 
Correction: Those in glass houses should throw stones carefully, and through existing holes they have already made.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Correction: Those in glass houses should throw stones carefully, and through existing holes they have already made.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many holes can be created via rock throwing in a glass house before it's structural integrity becomes so compromised that the building collapses.

We're going to need some glass houses of varying types and a bucket of rocks.
 
Ikari said:
I'm not sure how many holes can be created via rock throwing in a glass house before it's structural integrity becomes so compromised that the building collapses.

We're going to need some glass houses of varying types and a bucket of rocks.
Click to expand...

Usually, it's structural integrity stays the same, as with a greenhouse where the strong point is the structure that holds the panes of glass in. Knocking out glass in walls (the glass isn't load bearing) usually just let's the air in...and if you get holes on both sides I guess it makes the house a little more air conditioned...
 
Ikari said:
If you had used my base assumption and had understood my arguments, you couldn't have come to the conclusion you posted earlier.
Click to expand...

I used them.

I just showed you where I used them, and that they are indeed yours, using YOUR quotes from this very thread.

I came to the logical conclusion demonstrated.

Now you're just lying your ass off because you don't have the maturity to concede.
 
Cephus said:
Nor is there any reason to think they exist at all.

You know, I was thinking. If "natural rights" exist outside of humanity and outside of human society, how long have they been around? Since the dawn of human civilization? Since the dawn of the universe? Are they seriously expecting us to believe that these "natural rights" hung around for 13.6 or so billion years waiting for mankind to evolve? And when did they start to apply to mankind? Did Neanderthals have rights? Or did it have to wait until Homo erectus or maybe even Homo sapiens to have any application?

Yet we can keep asking these questions and the best we get from the libertarians is "WE'RE RIGHT! SO THERE!" :roll:
Click to expand...

Hello?

I'm as libertarians as it gets.

Natural rights are a superstitious farce, nothing more. Read what I said above carefully.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Deep, daddy-o. Deep.


Let's face it, there's about as much hard evidence in Natural Rights as there is in God. What really defines Natural Rights? Well, the same thing that defines God. Faith. Believing that truly these things exist is what gives them their pseudo-concrete form. amirite or amirite? :lol:
Click to expand...

So long as people can pretend there's a Great Daddy in the sky, they don't have to worry about what's really happening.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I used them.

I just showed you where I used them, and that they are indeed yours, using YOUR quotes from this very thread.

I came to the logical conclusion demonstrated.

Now you're just lying your ass off because you don't have the maturity to concede.
Click to expand...

No, you really honestly didn't. First off, you threw out the corollaries I had previously listed when debating this. Secondly, you've engaged in the same misrepresentation that you've been doing the entire time. The misrepresentation I keep saying is a misrepresentation but that you don't seem to care about.

You obviously didn't use my arguments, quit lying.
 
Cephus said:
As loathe as I am to use Biblical arguments, perhaps you ought to be looking more at the log in your own eye than the speck in anyone else's. You seem to be totally ignoring that.
Click to expand...
-- Still -- looking for your response
Get to work or admit failure
 
Ikari said:
No, you really honestly didn't.
Click to expand...

Really, I really truly honestly did. All you had to do was read the posts.

Ikari said:
First off, you threw out the corollaries I had previously listed when debating this.
Click to expand...

Assumptions do not have corollaries, conclusions do.

But since your assumptions were invalid and could not sustain a logcially consistent argument, your conclusions were wrong, as I most throughly demonstrated. Any "corollaries" drawn from false conclusions are false.

Ikari said:
Secondly, you've engaged in the same misrepresentation that you've been doing the entire time.
Click to expand...

Translated into english, this statement means "I can't refute your logic that demolishes what I said, so I'm going to say 'you're wrong, I'm right, it doesn't matter what the logic is' ".

Ikari said:
The misrepresentation I keep saying is a misrepresentation but that you don't seem to care about.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're still wrong until you actually refute the proof refuting you.

Since you've claimed the assumptions I used were wrong, and those assumptions were your assumptions, you've already conceded.

Ikari said:
You obviously didn't use my arguments, quit lying.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't use your arguments.

I refuted them.

Your religious convictions that natural rights somehow and inexplicably exist are refuted by your own statements.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So long as people can pretend there's a Great Daddy in the sky, they don't have to worry about what's really happening.
Click to expand...

I believe there's a Great Daddy in the sky. And yet...I worry about everything going on around me. Am I an anomaly to your declaration?
 
Goobieman said:
-- Still -- looking for your response
Get to work or admit failure
Click to expand...

-- Still -- waiting for evidence for the initial claim. Let me know when I can expect it. :doh
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Really, I really truly honestly did. All you had to do was read the posts.



Assumptions do not have corollaries, conclusions do.

But since your assumptions were invalid and could not sustain a logcially consistent argument, your conclusions were wrong, as I most throughly demonstrated. Any "corollaries" drawn from false conclusions are false.



Translated into english, this statement means "I can't refute your logic that demolishes what I said, so I'm going to say 'you're wrong, I'm right, it doesn't matter what the logic is' ".



Yes, you're still wrong until you actually refute the proof refuting you.

Since you've claimed the assumptions I used were wrong, and those assumptions were your assumptions, you've already conceded.



No, I didn't use your arguments.

I refuted them.

Your religious convictions that natural rights somehow and inexplicably exist are refuted by your own statements.
Click to expand...

You didn't refute crap. You did the same ol' misrepresentation. Take your misrepresentation of the slavery argument....again. When you said that if force is removed, that people will go back to owning slaves and trying to make it seem like that was the natural state. The removal force, considering the natural state, means removal of all force. In the natural state there is no slavery. But you keep making misrepresentations to make your point. Time and time again. It's sloppy, it's dishonest, and it's pointless. I mean, the only thing you've shown thus far is that you're perfect for politics.

and I like the whole

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I used them [my base assumptions/arguement].
Click to expand...
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, I didn't use your arguments.
Click to expand...

For the love of god, at least try to be a little consistent. Wait a few pages before you contradict yourself.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
-- Still -- waiting for evidence for the initial claim. Let me know when I can expect it. :doh
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- you must not have actually read my post, as if you had, you would have noticed that I addressed this.

Here it is:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/59482-right-not-exercise-right-28.html#post1058356246

The part where the above is addressed:

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

Ok. Your turn.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
-- Still -- waiting for evidence for the initial claim. Let me know when I can expect it. :doh
Click to expand...

Speaking of evidence, when are you going to explain the process of love-measuring through blood?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, I refuted what you said.

Are you saying you posted crap?
Click to expand...

No, I've clearly told you where you've made misconceptions and misrepresentations of my argument and applied your own bias and definitions to prove your point. You have in essence reverse engineered your argument, nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom