What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

If you aren't going to read the book I've presented, I'm not reading anything you present.

I just refuted his argument as you present them. If that is the best he offers, there is no point in addressing his claims in any more detail.

Flawed conclusion from a faulty premise. You ask me to define 'God', and then proceed to construct your argument on your own definition. And you are calling me dishonest? Hypocrite.

I used your definition.

If you wish to forward another definition, do so and stop complaining.

So you say. Appealing to your own authority is crass fallacy, at best.

Forwarding an argument is not appealing to authority. i accept your concession, since you are unable to refute.

Defend your position. God does not exist. Go.

Define your god and demonstrate its existence.

Since you continue to flee from the burden of proof, I accept your concession that your god does not exist.

Until You Prove God doesn't exist, your Victory Dance is Premature. Your assumption is Concession is offensive and flawed.

Your Presumption that to Prove or Disprove God's existence needs to be proved, should be demonstrated either way by example, by you, doubting Thomas.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That is absolutely false and a lie of the damnabale variety...

You asserted AS FACT: That inalienable rights are alienable... you were chellenged to demonstrate such, to support the assertion and you FAILED!

I asserted no such thing. I said they have ne3ver been demonstrated to exist.

Do try to pay attention.

Well again friends; the Humanist Left is more accustomed to verbal debate, wherein they can shift their would-be beliefs to fit whatever rationalization that they're conjuring, moment by moment... more often than not, LYING to misrepresent their former position, so as to deny, thus wiggle from under the crushing weight of their most recent defeat.

In fact this dumbass DID claim that unalienable human rights are alienable and here is the link to that assertion.

And this is why the Humanist in the legislature refuse to read the bills that are written for them to sign... they desperately need the out that vague reference provides; and this is why humanists are incapable of winning a debate on this issue, where the record of that debate is written and readily available to all...

>>>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88295-what-constitutes-a-right-92.html#post1576976 <<<<

The inalienable right to life ...

Is very alienable

Of course... from that point, she was directly and unambiguously challenged to defend and sustain that assertion; which she has failed to do, as they ALL fail to do... as there is no means to do so.

This member should be chastized for her deceitpful hubris and ostricized from this debate... having demonstrated her own poor characeter and proven in the process; that there is no morality possible where the principles on which morality rest, are rejected.

UMBASS!

If you're going to act like a child, kindly excuse yourself from the discussion.

Hysterical appeal to authority... They're incapable of sound reasoning friends... and it's just no more complex than that.

 

[rubberhead]

Until You Prove God doesn't exist, your Victory Dance is Premature. Your assumption is Concession is offensive and flawed.

Your Presumption that to Prove or Disprove God's existence needs to be proved, should be demonstrated either way by example, by you, doubting Thomas.

I know I already mentioned this, but the whole essence of God is that you can't prove or disprove His existence right? Remember faith? I do believe that God, if He does exist, does not have 'free will' in the way that we humans seem to. I can prove this actually:

1. God is omniscient
2. God knows the outcome of all of His 'decisions' (since He knows everything)
3. God has goals (if He is like us)
4. God 'chooses' the course of action that leads to those goals (if He is like us)
5. God is bound to the course of action that suits his goals

Thus I do not believe that either God does not have goals or God does not have free will if, in fact, He does exist.

You guys do realize that Setarcos isn't expecting anyone to "prove" anything here right? He's just set up what he believes is "logic" at odds with everything we're saying. In fact he's just lazily arguing from the side that, from his perspective, doesn't have the burden of proof. It's kind of distressing that you guys are letting such a pathetic piece of shit push your buttons so easily. Can't you see he's just an ?

 

[Intense]

Until You Prove God doesn't exist, your Victory Dance is Premature. Your assumption is Concession is offensive and flawed.

Your Presumption that to Prove or Disprove God's existence needs to be proved, should be demonstrated either way by example, by you, doubting Thomas.

I know I already mentioned this, but the whole essence of God is that you can't prove or disprove His existence right? Remember faith? I do believe that God, if He does exist, does not have 'free will' in the way that we humans seem to. I can prove this actually:

1. God is omniscient
2. God knows the outcome of all of His 'decisions' (since He knows everything)
3. God has goals (if He is like us)
4. God 'chooses' the course of action that leads to those goals (if He is like us)
5. God is bound to the course of action that suits his goals

Thus I do not believe that either God does not have goals or God does not have free will if, in fact, He does exist.

You guys do realize that Setarcos isn't expecting anyone to "prove" anything here right? He's just set up what he believes is "logic" at odds with everything we're saying. In fact he's just lazily arguing from the side that, from his perspective, doesn't have the burden of proof. It's kind of distressing that you guys are letting such a pathetic piece of shit push your buttons so easily. Can't you see he's just an ?

If I did not have a Personal Relation With God, in the Now, i might take pause. If I were to communicate to You that I have never been alone in My entire Life, Anywhere, could You relate to that in any way shape or form? There is an Awareness, a Presence, that You cannot hide from forever.

Setarcos, Lives with His own being, just like the rest of us. Just don't try to pet or feed him, and watch your fingers. Always watch your fingers around Liberals! Do you know why?

 

[rubberhead]

This is exactly what the Constitution does. It grants and denies rights to a government. Notice the language of the first amendment ("shall not abridge"). What is there to "abridge" if the Constitution is defining peoples' rights. The rights defined by the first amendment must already exist if they are not abridged by the Constitution.

Wrong. The Fed is granted no rights, only powers and authority. Read the document carefully.

A 'power' is just what we call a right that we give to a governing body, isn't it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's still a Right even if the government can take it from you.

Laboring under an oppressive, Librul Fascist government only means that our ability to act on our rights is diminished; the Rights are still there!

 

[Setarcos]

Another basic point is that the majority is not always out of phase with Justice.

Then a state in which such a majority always ruled could be just? you just contradicted yourself.

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.

Your conclusion implies that the majority is never right, which is a mis characterization

Actually, that's what you claimed. See above.

. In Our system the Majority is not always the Ultimate decider.

The mob is the final; arbiter in all circumstances, no matter what veneer is given to the mob.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. We can be called a Democratic Republic. Even should there be a Super Majority of 76% or 95%, there still is Due Process

Not if the mob decides to Abandon the system altogether. (You know, like the Republicans keep talking about since Obama got elected).

The Ultimate Decision and Power from My Personal Perspective, lies first with God

Define:God

Next with the Government as the Controlling Authority, and Always with the Individual Through Conscience,

The Government/State is but the veneer placed upon the mob.

 

[Setarcos]

the very reason that Individual Perspective exists is a Proof of Inalienable Rights.

Demonstrate.

To Prove Inalienable Rights Exist or Not.

You claim the positive. You bear the burden of proof.

To Prove that Good or Evil Exist or not.

There are no absolute "moral" values.

What is Superstition?

Apparently, the very foundation for your worldview.

 

[Setarcos]

This is exactly what the Constitution does. It grants and denies rights to a government. Notice the language of the first amendment ("shall not abridge"). What is there to "abridge" if the Constitution is defining peoples' rights. The rights defined by the first amendment must already exist if they are not abridged by the Constitution.

Wrong. The Fed is granted no rights, only powers and authority. Read the document carefully.

Hamilton the Power Monger would have argued that when Government has the Power Government Assumes the Right.

What Hamilton says doesn't matter. The Constitution grants the fed no rights, only power and authority.

 

[Setarcos]

Prove God doesn't exist

I am God.

Prove otherwise



When you grow up, Google the Burden of Proof and come back when you're able to hold intelligent discourse.

You are like the child at the magic show, staring in amazement. I, on the other hand already snuck backstage and gota look at how many of the tricks are performed

 

[Setarcos]

This member should be chastized for her deceitpful hubris and ostricized from this debate... having demonstrated her own poor characeter....

Are you familiar with the concept of irony?

 

[Setarcos]

Until You Prove God doesn't exist, your Victory Dance is Premature. Your assumption is Concession is offensive and flawed.

Your Presumption that to Prove or Disprove God's existence needs to be proved, should be demonstrated either way by example, by you, doubting Thomas.

I know I already mentioned this, but the whole essence of God is that you can't prove or disprove His existence right?

Then it is a meaningless word, since to claim something cannot be falsified is, in essence, to refuse to define it.

Deists forwarded the position to escape the fact that their god is running out of gaps.

Remember faith?

You mean Hebrews 11:1?

1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

In other words, 'faith' is wishful thinking and childish fantasies. It is the total rejection of all reason.
​

1. God is omniscient
2. God knows the outcome of all of His 'decisions' (since He knows everything)
3. God has goals (if He is like us)
4. God 'chooses' the course of action that leads to those goals (if He is like us)
5. God is bound to the course of action that suits his goals

Unless X is free to work in ways that would hinder its progress towards such goals, or they were defined in such a way that they might be met in a number of ways.

That you attack my person because you find logic counter to your delusions and lies is quite revealing.

 

[Setarcos]

This is exactly what the Constitution does. It grants and denies rights to a government. Notice the language of the first amendment ("shall not abridge"). What is there to "abridge" if the Constitution is defining peoples' rights. The rights defined by the first amendment must already exist if they are not abridged by the Constitution.

Wrong. The Fed is granted no rights, only powers and authority. Read the document carefully.

A 'power' is just what we call a right that we give to a governing body, isn't it?

If you don't know the difference, I suggest you start studying and rely on more than Locke and 4k year old bedtime stories for your information

 

[rubberhead]

You mean Hebrews 11:1?

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

In other words, 'faith' is wishful thinking and childish fantasies. It is the total rejection of all reason.
​

But you have faith in reason? Is that 'wishful' or 'childish'? I'm sure that you will say not, but it is faith nonetheless.

1. God is omniscient
2. God knows the outcome of all of His 'decisions' (since He knows everything)
3. God has goals (if He is like us)
4. God 'chooses' the course of action that leads to those goals (if He is like us)
5. God is bound to the course of action that suits his goals

Unless X is free to work in ways that would hinder its progress towards such goals, or they were defined in such a way that they might be met in a number of ways.

X, being omniscient, would know that those 'ways' would hinder its progress and thus would find other ways (being omnipotent as well as omniscient). If the goals of X might be met in a number of ways, then X would be restricted to one of those ways. X would not be able to take a course that would lead to a mistake. The freedom to make mistakes is an integral part of free will.

That you attack my person because you find logic counter to your delusions and lies is quite revealing.

I attack your person because you're clearly a dipshit. But now I see that you're a crying dipshit. Sorry I made you cry dipshit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.

Then no government can be based on justice, for the mob is always the ultimate decider. At most, the minority can limit the options of the masses to obedience or war. The decision to obey or fight, however, always rests, in the end with the mob and those who comprise it.

Simply not so. The Persians and the Romans demonstrated what can happen to a mob. Our U.S. government backed down the farrighoid mobs at the townhall meetings, telling them to behave or go to jail. They continued to scowl, but discontinued to howl. A mob can generally be handled by a government.

 

[Liability]

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.

Then no government can be based on justice, for the mob is always the ultimate decider. At most, the minority can limit the options of the masses to obedience or war. The decision to obey or fight, however, always rests, in the end with the mob and those who comprise it.

Simply not so. The Persians and the Romans demonstrated what can happen to a mob. Our U.S. government backed down the farrighoid mobs at the townhall meetings, telling them to behave or go to jail. They continued to scowl, but discontinued to howl. A mob can generally be handled by a government.

Bullshit. Our U.S. government? As opposed to somebody else's U.S. government?

And you're full of shit anyway. OUR government didn't tell ANYBODY at town hall meetings "to behave," nor would such a stupid effort have been effective. The town hall meetings went on and the protestors still stood up and howled their protests EXACTLY as they should have. There was no "mob."

The government was compelled to ******* listen. And the outcome is not yet certain.

 

[Intense]

Quote: Originally Posted by Intense
Another basic point is that the majority is not always out of phase with Justice.

Setarcos: Then a state in which such a majority always ruled could be just? you just contradicted yourself.

No, I did not contradict Myself. I corrected You. Numbers have no bearing on Right or wrong, Conscience does, whether in the Majority or Minority is not Relevant to Justification.

Seta, You are so full of shit basing argument on false premises, false representations. You are disingenous, and playing word games. You obstruct, divert, add meaning, take away meaning, The more I study Your Nature, the more disappointed in those responsible for Your Education. I like Ignoring better than untwisting your perversions, My kid's are grown, I'm taking a break from day care. I prefer Ignoring You to playing fetch. Bye. Bye.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The member seta has repeatedly for herself making emphatic assertions which have been repeatedly, directly and unambiguously challenged; challenges which she has overtly ignored; and where such has lead to sound and wholly incontrovertible refutation, she has ignored the refutation and remained to post on the pretense that her position remains whole.

As such she is hereby judged immoral, lacking sufficient character required to participate in adult discourse; particularly where such discourse pursues the basis of truth in sustainable governance; and as a result is sentenced to ignore.

TTFE ya lyin' sack of shit.

 

[Diuretic]

Oh look a pile-on!

As if Setarcos could give a **** eh?

Why the bloody hell does it have to get personal? Yes the style is reminiscent of someone who has sipped - watch out wanker literary reference incoming - from the Pierian Spring but so what? The style doesn't invalidate the points made.

But here we have a pile-on and Pub doing his trivilialising "she" thing. What the ****'s with that? Is it useful to use the female pronoun as an insult? Is it somehow devastating to - in a medium that doesn't count gender as being important - call a poster who is probaby a male, a female?

Yes there could be some growing up done here, but it's not limited to one of us.

 

[Intense]

Oh look a pile-on!

As if Setarcos could give a **** eh?

Why the bloody hell does it have to get personal? Yes the style is reminiscent of someone who has sipped - watch out wanker literary reference incoming - from the Pierian Spring but so what? The style doesn't invalidate the points made.

But here we have a pile-on and Pub doing his trivilialising "she" thing. What the ****'s with that? Is it useful to use the female pronoun as an insult? Is it somehow devastating to - in a medium that doesn't count gender as being important - call a poster who is probaby a male, a female?

Yes there could be some growing up done here, but it's not limited to one of us.

I don't think it should bother a Female, only a male. That would be one of Setarcos's lesser problems. Considering what we have put up with, that seems light handed to me. The style does invalidate the points made when they are purposely misunderstood, when objects are inserted and removed, they distort. Rather than rational Argument we are reduced to repairing misdirection and allegations from false assumption. It's tiring.