It says it right there, their African slaves. But I agree actually. Stole is too much of an emotionally charged word and wrong objectively where the law was concerned. It's more accurate to say they used force to compel the labor of their African slaves and to keep the product of that labor for themselves. Thank you giving me the opportunity to be more accurate with my words and arguments.
So you can't refute that in a full socialist or communist state the end result is tyranny. Every time
We'd first have to agree on a definition of tyranny.
I'm glad you clarified. It seemed as if you thought that labor to produce a product equals ownership of that product.
Government suppressing liberty of free people, easy enough definition
I linked to you some of the original authors and philosophers of natural rights. I understand what they imagined them to be because I've read their work. They imagined them to be gifts from God. I'm not debating them, I'm debating you. The only rationale relevant to this conversation is yours and mine. I only provided them for historical context but to attribute their beliefs or my own to you would be unfair.
As I said, those are things that can be observed or measured, things that exist in physical reality. Things like you, me, the phone I'm typing this message on. Things that can be seen and measured and independently accounted for beyond your subjective feelings. Take the temperature for instance. You and I can be standing outside together and we might not be able to agree on whether it's hot or cold outide. This represents our subjective opinions. If we were to both pull out thermometers however, we would be able to use the mercury inside to detect and measure the temperature of the air. This measurement would represent an objective fact. It has nothing to do with how you feel about the temperature but about how the heat from the air affects the mercury.
Oops, did that above.
I believe I've accomplished this as well but by all means, pick apart my logic if you can.
I don't need to. I can accept your dismissal as good enough for me. You don't believe that is enough to prove rights exist. Okay. So where is this proof? Can we observe its affects independent of you? Something beyond a motivation for you to go to war or leave out milk and cookies?
I believe you can own something legally provided the government is able to enforce those laws. People mistake this as might makes right, but that's only because they can't escape thinking in terms of right and wrong. To me might makes reality. Or in other words physical forces shape reality.
Is it? What is the liberty of free people? Should I be free to punch you if I don't like what you say?
The links then were an unneeded deflection.
How do you know what exists in reality? Whose reality do you mean? Is there only one single reality, such that perception of any other reality is by definition false? What is your proof of this unified reality?
"Seen" and "measured" are just other words for "perceive." Perception is subjective. You perceive them, but that doesn't make them real. Reality by that definition means nothing more than our perception of reality. We measure things like temperature, by methods that we perceive to be accurate, not that we can prove are accurate.
Just did.
What is proof? You gave the example of perception of your phone or of temperature as "proof" that they exist, and I showed that such a perception is not proof.
As I said they were for historical context, but you are entitled your opinion and it's an unnecessary point to really argue.
I believe I answered that already. You can critique my answer if you like but asking open ended questions that you yourself don't even answer doesn't further debate. What do you believe? Do you believe reality can't be discerned? That would be one hell of an admission from someone who wants us to believe he has some insight that progressives do not.
What does "inaccurate" mean in the context you provided? If I put mercury in a thin glass tube and hold it up to the air in what way is the measurement it produces, "inaccurate"?
I still don't understand what you mean by accurate then because yes, consistent is an acceptable term to me as well. If my observations are consistent accross experimentation then this can be said to be real. If you can show an inconsistency then you have a counter point.
That's not proof it is inconsistent its just you imagining it could be.
Mercury reacts to heat according to its natural make up. It doesn't decide to act one way or the other. We are merely observing its motion.
Could be without being able to provide evidence that we are is just contrarianism.
Einstein provided evidence of Newtons folly.
Sure. When scientific observation and technology allow us to understand the nature of space time in a more nuanced way than we do now.
Could be, maybe.... these are not the terms in an reasoned argument.
You did not show that, you suggested it could be wrong but never gave any objective evidence that it was.
Ideologies Are Not About Ideas; Their Hidden Appeal Is to Inferior People With Superior Privileges
The Private Sector Is a State, Too, With a Command Economy Over Employment
The Liberty of the Plutocracy You Slavish Bootlickers Present As
Not provably. I believe that reality can be perceived. I ask if you can prove reality. What reality can you prove that you have discerned?
"Accurate" and "inacurate" are terms for perceived but unprovable matching of a measuring method with reality, or the lack of perceived but unprovable matching.
Anything can be "said to be" anything. I say that moral rights are real, so they are "said to be" real. If "said to be" is your standard for "proof," then the debate is over.
What is proof?
Can you prove that?
Like constantly saying, "Oh, yeah? Prove it?"
Evidence, yes. But not proof. Because you still haven't proven what proof is.
They could be. Can you prove that they could not?
If you claim that a thermometer reading is proof of something called "temperature," then you must prove the existence of temperature outside of perception, and then procede to prove that a thermometer measures this supposed "temperature."
A laugh emoticon in response to my challenge to prove anything?
Temperature is just a name we give to describe a physical phenomenon. We could all it anything. We could call 60° potatoes if we wanted to. That doesn't really matter. Evidence of a physical reaction is proven through hypothesis, experimentation and observation. Basically through the scientific method. What we think of as heat is actually the movement and vibrations of atoms and molecules which all matter is made of. Matter exists in different forms - liquid, solid and gas. And matter can transfer its heat to another object. We can prove this with a simple enough experiment by placing our hand on a hot stove. We can also observe that mercury is a liquid at room temperature, starts turning to a gas as it's molecules excite and solidify as they slow down then then we can use that response as a measuring device and we can test the accuracy of this as a measuring device through hypothesis and experimentation. I can posit that if I place that thermometer in some water that has been sitting out that the mercury won't move much. The temperature of the water and the room have equalized. If I turn the stove on under that water I can hypothesize from my understanding of mercury that it's molecules with start to move around more and become further and further apart and this would be represented in the mercury expanding along the glass tube. I can then turn the stove off and watch the mercury settle as the water cools. Now, if you want to disagree with any of this have at it. Prove me wrong. Prove my observations inaccurate. But what ifs and maybe this doesn't disprove any of that. Only experiments that shows mercury behaving differently than I describe can do that.
Evidence for gravity was just as strong after Newton and prior to Einstein. Yet gravity is fictitious.
It's up to the person making the assertion to provide evidence.
No. Besides you being a thin skinned pansy we have freedom of speech. Words only harm if you allow them. Also your example shows a tyranny. "Say what I like or suffer physical harm" you think that's ok?
The private sector and corporations working hand in hand with government is corporatism which is from Italian Fascism
