Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.Stole it from who?
So you can't refute that in a full socialist or communist state the end result is tyranny. Every timeThere are no real communists and no real free markets capitalist. We all believe in mixed economies the only place we differ is where we think the mix would be. Some of you like only to socialize the military and the police force and some of us all would like to also socialize Healthcare, education and retirement. Tyranny is just a pejorative you use for people who don't agree with your particular mix.
We'd first have to agree on a definition of tyranny.So you can't refute that in a full socialist or communist state the end result is tyranny. Every time
Thanks for playing
I'm glad you clarified. It seemed as if you thought that labor to produce a product equals ownership of that product.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.
Government suppressing liberty of free people, easy enough definitionWe'd first have to agree on a definition of tyranny.
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.Again, it is the standard definition that you finally admitted to knowing.
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.Enlighten me, sir, on your idea of things being "objectively proven."
Oops, did that above.Explain what you mean by objectively proven. Please provide several examples of things that you yourself can objectively prove.
I believe I've accomplished this as well but by all means, pick apart my logic if you can.I am especially interested in your objective proof that matter and energy exist.
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 never said that my belief in it is enough to prove its existence. Can you prooooove that I did say that?
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.I'm glad you clarified. It seemed as if you thought that labor to produce a product equals ownership of that product.
Just to be completely clear, you believe than no one "owns" anything, correct?
Is it? What is the liberty of free people? Should I be free to punch you if I don't like what you say?Government suppressing liberty of free people, easy enough definition
The links then were an unneeded deflection.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.
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?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.
"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.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.
Just did.Oops, did that above.
I believe I've accomplished this as well but by all means, pick apart my logic if you can.
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.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?
As I said they were for historical context, but you are entitled your opinion and it's an unnecessary point to really argue.The links then were an unneeded deflection.
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.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?
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"?"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.
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.Best we could agree for any measuring method is that it is consistent.
That's not proof it is inconsistent its just you imagining it could be.Even then, it could very well be consistently inaccurate, or we could only be perceiving that it is consistent.
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.It could be generating random numbers that happen to match several times in a row.
Could be without being able to provide evidence that we are is just contrarianism.Or we could be agreeing due to factors having nothing to do with objective reality.
Einstein provided evidence of Newtons folly.Example: Is gravity real?
No, it is not.
We perceive a force pulling us toward the Earth. Newton identified it as gravity and for decades we called that force gravity. We based much science on that perceived force, called "gravity." Newton and other very smart scientists used formulas to measure this force with precision in different situations.
The science worked in the overwhelming majority of cases. We could measure that pull of gravity with scales. One hundred people could look at a rock on a scale and all see the same result. Ten thousand people could walk by and agree that gravity was pulling the rock toward the earth with a force of XX pounds.
They would be wrong.
Now, thanks to Einstein, we "understand" that objects with mass bend space and that "gravity" is not a real force at all. Woo-hoo! Now we "know" and we are much smarter than those primitive Newtonians, who were not really much smarter than the primitive people who believed some kind of "Earth God" pulled objects toward the Earth. Both believe in a force that we now believe non-existent.
Sure. When scientific observation and technology allow us to understand the nature of space time in a more nuanced way than we do now.That is our new "reality," but it will likely be overtaken by some other "reality."
Could be, maybe.... these are not the terms in an reasoned argument.Or, maybe you can prove that Einstein's or any other explanation for the perceived force of gravity is objectively true and will never be refuted?
You did not show that, you suggested it could be wrong but never gave any objective evidence that it was.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.
So please prove something - anything - so I know that proof is a real thing.
Ideologies Are Not About Ideas; Their Hidden Appeal Is to Inferior People With Superior PrivilegesA couple of points on this well written summary
1) Suppose there is someone on that island who gets his kicks from taking food the others have gathered for no other reason that he thinks its fun.
2) Marxist are selfish cowards. They want everything for doing nothing. Now suppose you had those on your island.
I'll also give you this and this is the reason why communism WILL NEVER WORK
Suppose we took all these Marxist and the Crab Thief and put them on the island. Everyone begins like you suggest gathering their own food. Then the crab thief takes everyone's stuff and more people start getting tired of going to get food for him to steal. The people come together to punish the crab thief and to set rules. This is where "A classless society" will never be. There is now a ruling class over the working class all because some jackass wanted to steal from everyone else and others were too lazy to get their own food. Human nature is what Marxism doesn't take into account. In their push to punish the crab thief he has killed the ruling class and is now a dictator. End result of communism, criminals running the show
The Private Sector Is a State, Too, With a Command Economy Over EmploymentOh but I can, capitalism is still the best we have right now. Not communism, not socialism, not national socialism. With the last three the state ultimately has the final word and it always ends in tyranny
The Liberty of the Plutocracy You Slavish Bootlickers Present AsGovernment suppressing liberty of free people, easy enough definition
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?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?
"Accurate" and "inacurate" are terms for perceived but unprovable matching of a measuring method with reality, or the lack of perceived but unprovable matching.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"?
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.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.
What is proof?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.
Can you prove that?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.
Like constantly saying, "Oh, yeah? Prove it?"Could be without being able to provide evidence that we are is just contrarianism.
Evidence, yes. But not proof. Because you still haven't proven what proof is.Einstein provided evidence of Newtons folly.
They could be. Can you prove that they could not?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.
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."You did not show that, you suggested it could be wrong but never gave any objective evidence that it was.
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.I believe that it reality can be perceived. I ask if you can prove reality.
"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?"
But not proof. Because you still haven't proven what proof is.
Sure, they are. Can you prove that they are 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?
I'll take that as an admission that you cannot prove a single thing.
Evidence for gravity was just as strong after Newton and prior to Einstein. Yet gravity is fictitious.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.
It's up to the person making the assertion to provide evidence.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.
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?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 private sector and corporations working hand in hand with government is corporatism which is from Italian FascismThe Private Sector Is a State, Too, With a Command Economy Over Employment
