What Constitutes a "Right?"

[AdlerianThinker]

. He claims that all are equal in the "Natural State".

Turn on National Geographic or Google Alpha Males.


His picture of nature is simply not accurate in the least.

WHich does nothing to prove your point.

I have to prove nothing.

Actually, yes, you do. If you are asserting that God does not exists, you must bear your burden of proof, even as you have demanded such of others. Don't be an intellectual weenie.

Those who assert a thing exists bear the burden of proof. Locke's argument was deconstructed twice in this thread- once by showing the fallacy of Hume's guillotine and also by showing his premises to be incorrect- making anything inferred from them invalid.

No, simpleton. Those who assert a supposition bear the burden of proof. I have met mine. You assert God does not exist. Prove it. Go.

You have deconstructed nothing, except the assumption that you understand logic, and can be reasonable.

You assert God does not exist. Prove it. Go.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

You've yet to demonstrate that

And you have yet to defend your position.

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Yours is a variation of example 3.


You must demonstrate the thing in question exists. To expect someone to prove the negative is logically fallacious and dishonest.

From your link.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

My claim is that God does exist. I have met my burden of proof.

You have made a positive assertion that God does not exist. You have not supported your assertion.

As you have made a positive assertion, asking you to meet your burden of proof is not asking you to prove a negative. All that does is show me you don't know what that means.

You are like a little child using big words to impress people, but are an empty shell, with no intellectual substance.

If you are asserting that yours is not a positive assertion (God does not exist.), then you are asserting a belief, which cannot be proven nor can it be used as a basis to refute another belief.

So, my little juvenile buddy, which is it? Are you positively asserting that God does not exist, or are you stating a belief?

 

[AdlerianThinker]

The desire for fairness usually only exists in those who have less.

I find it interesting how oft 'rights' has been redefined in this thread by those seeking to establish something called 'rights'

I find it funny that you try to redefine a lot of things.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

In other words,the poster s unable to refute, so (s)he hides away and refuses to address. Refusing to een attempt a rebuttal is a concession that one cannot. Therefore, the discussion is over and rubberhead admits to being wrong.

Define: reputation
Define: "runs away"
Define "een attempt a rebuttal"
Define: concession

What is interesting is that a person who's screen name is 'Socrates' spelled backwards is so far from true Socratic thinking to be a slur on the name of that august intellect.

 

[Intense]

Wow, there's a lot of extra stuff in there I think.

Here's my (much shorter) list:

1. Everyone wants to have maximal control of their own destiny. Therefore a just society is a free society, to the extent that people aren't robbing others of their freedom.

2. No one can justify requiring (by force) that a group or individual is held above others or, in other words, are/is entitled to rights to which other groups or individuals are not entitled.

3. If people are free, then they must be allowed to retain the fruits of their labor. If an individual's belongings can be rightfully confiscated, then that individual is being robbed of their time (they must have spent time producing or cultivating the item).

These three principles apply to any State, including the State of Nature. People may not follow them in the State of Nature as they often do not follow them now. In fact, not following them has become institutionalized in the name of the "public interest" in many places. However, we can still apply these principles and recognize where they apply and use them to deem an interaction "right" or "wrong" by our interpretation of these principles. We shouldn't be arguing whether these principles exist, we should be arguing over the interpretation of them. If someone wants to argue that one of these principles is unjust, I would love to see that argument. I doubt that it would have any merit, but I would read it and fully consider it nonetheless. That is, unless Setarcos wrote it, cuz he's a jackass and he's on my ignore list.

Define Destiny.... Fail.... Only Kidding

Three nice thoughts. Here is where things can get weird though.

Free Health care.
Free Prescriptions.
Free Dental.
Free Cable.
Free Mass Transit.
Free Utilities.
Free Gasoline.
Free Wireless.
Free Phones.
Free Hotel Stays.

The one Reality these Fantasies share with the word free removed, they are all marketable private property. They have Value. They have cost. Someone has to pay. Someone has to provide the labor.

When I say "free people", I don't mean slaves that you don't have to pay for. Nothing is free in the sense that it has zero cost. This is precisely because people are free, and useful things generally don't come into existence without the effort of people. The third principle entitles each person to what they produce.

I wasn't referring to your use of the word free, but the Statists denying Natural Law, and then enslaving the Masses to cater to the needs of the Privilaged Few, who Rule, and are understandably more equal.

 

[rubberhead]

[In other words,the poster s unable to refute, so (s)he hides away and refuses to address. Refusing to een attempt a rebuttal is a concession that one cannot. Therefore, the discussion is over and rubberhead admits to being wrong.

Define: reputation
Define: "runs away"
Define "een attempt a rebuttal"
Define: concession

What is interesting is that a person who's screen name is 'Socrates' spelled backwards is so far from true Socratic thinking to be a slur on the name of that august intellect.

I didn't say that, you're misquoting! See how I quoted?

 

[rubberhead]

I wasn't referring to your use of the word free, but the Statists denying Natural Law, and then enslaving the Masses to cater to the needs of the Privilaged Few, who Rule, and are understandably more equal.

I figured. Statists only hope to be accepted into the Inner Party where they don't have drink Victory Gin, Victory Coffee and they can turn off their telescreens. They want to be big brother. The newest and most insidious brand of statism is socialism. "Let the state provide for you", they say. What they really mean is, "let the state decide how to spend your money." It's insane and I can't believe that anyone is falling for it. Pray for America folks.

 

[Intense]

[In other words,the poster s unable to refute, so (s)he hides away and refuses to address. Refusing to een attempt a rebuttal is a concession that one cannot. Therefore, the discussion is over and rubberhead admits to being wrong.

Define: reputation
Define: "runs away"
Define "een attempt a rebuttal"
Define: concession

What is interesting is that a person who's screen name is 'Socrates' spelled backwards is so far from true Socratic thinking to be a slur on the name of that august intellect.

I didn't say that, you're misquoting! See how I quoted?

You folks keep Quoting from that Albert Pike Wannabe, Setarcos, I just ate man! Miss quoting, son of a farm animal! LOL Try not to quote the pecker head too much.

 

[Intense]

Rights
First published Mon Dec 19, 2005; substantive revision Mon Jul 9, 2007
Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states.

Rights dominate most modern understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Rights structure the forms of our governments, the contents of our laws, and the shape of morality as we perceive it. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.

This entry begins by describing the nature of rights: their classification, their composition, and their function. We then take a brief look at the history of the language of rights, and various relationships between rights and reasons. The major contemporary philosophical approaches to the justification of rights are compared, and the entry concludes by surveying criticisms of rights and "rights talk." The focus throughout is on theoretical questions concerning rights in general instead of on any particular controversial right.

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Intense]

A perspective on Individual Rights by an Atheist. Though not in total agreement, a respected and valued, opinion.

Individual Rights
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values. -Ayn Rand

Individual Rights — Ayn Rand Lexicon

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And you have yet to defend your position.

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Yours is a variation of example 3.


You must demonstrate the thing in question exists. To expect someone to prove the negative is logically fallacious and dishonest.

From your link.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

My claim is that God does exist. I have met my burden of proof.

You have made a positive assertion that God does not exist. You have not supported your assertion.

As you have made a positive assertion, asking you to meet your burden of proof is not asking you to prove a negative. All that does is show me you don't know what that means.

You are like a little child using big words to impress people, but are an empty shell, with no intellectual substance.

If you are asserting that yours is not a positive assertion (God does not exist.), then you are asserting a belief, which cannot be proven nor can it be used as a basis to refute another belief.

So, my little juvenile buddy, which is it? Are you positively asserting that God does not exist, or are you stating a belief?

Oh my... So we're once again subjected to Seta's absurdity, despite her having been relegated to being seen but not heard, as is the sustainable state of all children.

FTR: The default anti-theist argument rests within the simple scope of "Nuh -huh..."

What you fail to be recognizing friend is that the idiot Seta 'feels' very strongly that your evidence, failing to convince her to change her mind... demonstrates the failure of the evidence.

Understand that in DOZENS, if not hundreds of threads, across dozens of such sites, I have oft' trotted out a scenario wherein, it is postulated that the anti-thiest at issue is selected by God for an audience.

In the scenario, God comes to the anti-theist and in every conceivable way, demonstrates his status as God; his means... answers every question, performs miracle after miracle... leaving absolutely NO POTENTIAL FOR DOUBT.

I close by asking the anti-theist what would be their response...

Without exception, the response is that they would consider that such was a function of clinical delusion; that such was a manifestation of illusion brought about by some cognitive neurosis; an hallucination...

Whereupon I belittle them for their failure to accept tangible emperical evidence, which is of course the basis of their argument that god doesn't exist... and that they're response discredits them personally along with their ideology and it's principle argument on the whole.

Anti-theists are idiots... and this without exception. And while some argue that many anti-theists are professionals, thus proving that they're NOT idiots at all, but very high level intellects... whereupon I encourage them to read the transcripts of Dr. Michael Newdow as he pleaded his case, contesting "under God" in the America Pledge of Allegience... before the SCOTUS.

That dude is an imbecile of the first order... he just happens to be a fairly high functioning imbecile.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

In other words,the poster s unable to refute, so (s)he hides away and refuses to address. Refusing to een attempt a rebuttal is a concession that one cannot. Therefore, the discussion is over and rubberhead admits to being wrong.

Define: reputation
Define: "runs away"
Define "een attempt a rebuttal"
Define: concession

What is interesting is that a person who's screen name is 'Socrates' spelled backwards is so far from true Socratic thinking to be a slur on the name of that august intellect.

Oh man... why did you give the little twirp that one? She's been DESPERATE for SOMEONE to notice that for WEEKS...

But, now that it's done, it's done... so it should be noted that it serves reason perfectly... The idiot Seta is the antithesis of Socrates and Socratic reasoning on the whole; defining instead the "Sophist" which was demonstrated and lamented by Socrates throughout Plato's writings... bulk of which she's ignorant; her some knowledge being likely comprised through having scanned a crib sheet on "Republic."

 

[NYcarbineer]

And you have yet to defend your position.

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Yours is a variation of example 3.


You must demonstrate the thing in question exists. To expect someone to prove the negative is logically fallacious and dishonest.

From your link.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

My claim is that God does exist. I have met my burden of proof.

You have made a positive assertion that God does not exist. You have not supported your assertion.

As you have made a positive assertion, asking you to meet your burden of proof is not asking you to prove a negative. All that does is show me you don't know what that means.

You are like a little child using big words to impress people, but are an empty shell, with no intellectual substance.

If you are asserting that yours is not a positive assertion (God does not exist.), then you are asserting a belief, which cannot be proven nor can it be used as a basis to refute another belief.

So, my little juvenile buddy, which is it? Are you positively asserting that God does not exist, or are you stating a belief?

You're claiming that an unsubstantiated assertion that God exists, is PROOF? That you need not furnish any evidence to support that claim to have satisfied the burden of proof requirement?

A claim without supporting evidence does not need to be disproven because it has proven nothing.

On topic:

If you want to prove that we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, you must first prove the existence of that Creator. Otherwise your assertion of the existence of such rights is merely an unproven belief or opinion.

 

[rubberhead]

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Yours is a variation of example 3.


You must demonstrate the thing in question exists. To expect someone to prove the negative is logically fallacious and dishonest.

From your link.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

My claim is that God does exist. I have met my burden of proof.

You have made a positive assertion that God does not exist. You have not supported your assertion.

As you have made a positive assertion, asking you to meet your burden of proof is not asking you to prove a negative. All that does is show me you don't know what that means.

You are like a little child using big words to impress people, but are an empty shell, with no intellectual substance.

If you are asserting that yours is not a positive assertion (God does not exist.), then you are asserting a belief, which cannot be proven nor can it be used as a basis to refute another belief.

So, my little juvenile buddy, which is it? Are you positively asserting that God does not exist, or are you stating a belief?

Oh my... So we're once again subjected to Seta's absurdity, despite her having been relegated to being seen but not heard, as is the sustainable state of all children.

FTR: The default anti-theist argument rests within the simple scope of "Nuh -huh..."

What you fail to be recognizing friend is that the idiot Seta 'feels' very strongly that your evidence, failing to convince her to change her mind... demonstrates the failure of the evidence.

Understand that in DOZENS, if not hundreds of threads, across dozens of such sites, I have oft' trotted out a scenario wherein, it is postulated that the anti-thiest at issue is selected by God for an audience.

In the scenario, God comes to the anti-theist and in every conceivable way, demonstrates his status as God; his means... answers every question, performs miracle after miracle... leaving absolutely NO POTENTIAL FOR DOUBT.

I close by asking the anti-theist what would be their response...

Without exception, the response is that they would consider that such was a function of clinical delusion; that such was a manifestation of illusion brought about by some cognitive neurosis; an hallucination...

Whereupon I belittle them for their failure to accept tangible emperical evidence, which is of course the basis of their argument that god doesn't exist... and that they're response discredits them personally along with their ideology and it's principle argument on the whole.

Anti-theists are idiots... and this without exception. And while some argue that many anti-theists are professionals, thus proving that they're NOT idiots at all, but very high level intellects... whereupon I encourage them to read the transcripts of Dr. Michael Newdow as he pleaded his case, contesting "under God" in the America Pledge of Allegience... before the SCOTUS.

That dude is an imbecile of the first order... he just happens to be a fairly high functioning imbecile.

Getting a degree is a matter of:

1) paying money
2) assuming an ideology
3) studying facts

I have ordered this list by importance. That is, if you don't study facts, then you can get by with assuming an ideology. If you don't do either 2 or 3 then you can get by just paying the money. If you don't believe me, go do some surveys at universities in the US.

I therefore submit that being "educated" has a very elastic meaning.

 

[rubberhead]

Define: reputation
Define: "runs away"
Define "een attempt a rebuttal"
Define: concession

What is interesting is that a person who's screen name is 'Socrates' spelled backwards is so far from true Socratic thinking to be a slur on the name of that august intellect.

Oh man... why did you give the little twirp that one? She has been DESPERATE for SOMEONE to notice that for WEEKS...

But, now that it's done, it's done... so it should be noted that it serves reason perfectly... The idiot Seta is the antithesis of Socrates and Socratic reasoning on the whole.

Well, Plato did think that authoritarianism was a good idea. I'm not sure what Socrates's thoughts on the issue were, but most of that elitist classical garbage is antiquated beyond relevance.

 

[Intense]

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Yours is a variation of example 3.


You must demonstrate the thing in question exists. To expect someone to prove the negative is logically fallacious and dishonest.

From your link.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

My claim is that God does exist. I have met my burden of proof.

You have made a positive assertion that God does not exist. You have not supported your assertion.

As you have made a positive assertion, asking you to meet your burden of proof is not asking you to prove a negative. All that does is show me you don't know what that means.

You are like a little child using big words to impress people, but are an empty shell, with no intellectual substance.

If you are asserting that yours is not a positive assertion (God does not exist.), then you are asserting a belief, which cannot be proven nor can it be used as a basis to refute another belief.

So, my little juvenile buddy, which is it? Are you positively asserting that God does not exist, or are you stating a belief?

You're claiming that an unsubstantiated assertion that God exists, is PROOF? That you need not furnish any evidence to support that claim to have satisfied the burden of proof requirement?

A claim without supporting evidence does not need to be disproven because it has proven nothing.

On topic:

If you want to prove that we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, you must first prove the existence of that Creator. Otherwise your assertion of the existence of such rights is merely an unproven belief or opinion.

And we wonder from where The Empire State gets It's Essence. We ain't sharing no Glory with no God we cannot see or touch. The Power is Our's!!! Our's!!! Our's to do with as we will, by the Power of The State!!! Glory To The State!!!! Glory to What It claimed Yesterday!!! Glory to What It will Change Today!!! Allegiance to what It Will change Again Tomorrow!!! Heil!!! Heil!!!

One Fact is that You are Outnumbered by believers. That includes, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and more. It was also the Basis for the Laying of the Foundation of this Nation. Fact, based on Faith.

 

[Intense]

What is interesting is that a person who's screen name is 'Socrates' spelled backwards is so far from true Socratic thinking to be a slur on the name of that august intellect.

Oh man... why did you give the little twirp that one? She has been DESPERATE for SOMEONE to notice that for WEEKS...

But, now that it's done, it's done... so it should be noted that it serves reason perfectly... The idiot Seta is the antithesis of Socrates and Socratic reasoning on the whole.

Well, Plato did think that authoritarianism was a good idea. I'm not sure what Socrates's thoughts on the issue were, but most of that elitist classical garbage is antiquated beyond relevance.

Probably because He was Lazy. Raising the bar was too much for his sorry ass.

 

[Setarcos]

Ah yes, Liberty, the latest conservative fad.

I hope that we can all agree that liberty is important regardless of our political orientation.

Thats the Point of the Debate. To the Statist Liberty does not exist without State Consent.
To the Declarationist Liberty is From an Authority Higher than Government, recognized and protected by the individual, the society, and the government.

The Statist is Jealous of having to answer to anything outside of the state. The state does not like to compete or have to Justify Itself, yet wants everything to be under It's Control. The Statist sees the State as above the Law. Exempt.

And the liberal sees liberty as effectively limitless in an anarchy and realizes that for a peaceful civilization to exist, certain liberties must be curtailed for the good of everyone. The liberal, therefore, sets his mind to determining what liberties must be curtailed for a peaceful society to exist and how best to protect all the rest of Man's liberties from his fellow Man.

 

[Setarcos]

There are Natural Rights and Constructed Rights. .

Only the latter has been demonstrated

 

[Setarcos]

. If you are asserting that God does not exists, you must bear your burden of proof

As was shown before and linked numerous times, that is a lie.

Google: burden of proof

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

see example 3