What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ken:

~5:00

'it would me morally wrong..'

Before that claim can stand, it must be demonstrated that objective moral values exist and that stopping someone from doing x is objectively immoral (if the moral values are subjective, then so are the rights, rendering the argument meaningless)

If you wish to appeal to morality, begin demonstrating the existence of objective moral values

Who's Ken?

At any rate, I don't wish to do anything at this point. I've established my point, and any reasonable person can at least understand my position and why I accept natural rights. You may have the last word, and I'm sure it'll be something about how I'm running away from your obvious intellectual superiority.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ken:

~5:00

'it would me morally wrong..'

Before that claim can stand, it must be demonstrated that objective moral values exist and that stopping someone from doing x is objectively immoral (if the moral values are subjective, then so are the rights, rendering the argument meaningless)

If you wish to appeal to morality, begin demonstrating the existence of objective moral values

Who's Ken?

At any rate, I don't wish to do anything at this point. I've established my point, and any reasonable person can at least understand my position and why I accept natural rights. You may have the last word, and I'm sure it'll be something about how I'm running away from your obvious intellectual superiority.

This thread is well over 100 pages, with most of them having posted clearly stated, unambiguous, objective moral values...

All this idiot does is troll for quarrels... But she does provide some clue to her goals through her screen name, wherein she demonstrates that she is the antithesis of a Socratic-logician.

The solution is ignore...

 

[Setarcos]

PI, does that mean Peter was the anti-christ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is morality without a belief in natural rights?

What is the right to pursue happiness, anyway? What if a person's pursuit of happiness involves immorality?

Happiness has never been found through immorality... such brings misery, chaos and calamity... and if pursued long enough, catastrophe is inevitable.

Who determines what is immoral? Is homosexuality immoral? Is homosexual marriage immoral? Is the desire of two persons to enter into a same sex marriage an example of the pursuit of happiness? If so, then does that make gay marriage an unalienable right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does a Mexican citizen, in the Pursuit of Happiness, have the Liberty to cross the border into the United States to find a better job and make for himself a better Life?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is not the inverse also as true as what you claim?

What's the 'inverse' of claiming that no one here (or anywhere) has proven the existence of God?

What if God exists and we don't?

Are we to deny all science and math, rooted in Theory? Is it to be discounted?

The argument about God's existence is not going to be proved here either way. You either believe or you don't. That is your business. What you Teach others as absolute, is held to account.

You're the one claiming as fact the existence of God. Are you backtracking now?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What is the right to pursue happiness, anyway? What if a person's pursuit of happiness involves immorality?

Happiness has never been found through immorality... such brings misery, chaos and calamity... and if pursued long enough, catastrophe is inevitable.

Who determines what is immoral? Is homosexuality immoral? Is homosexual marriage immoral? Is the desire of two persons to enter into a same sex marriage an example of the pursuit of happiness? If so, then does that make gay marriage an unalienable right?

Gay marriage is not an inalienable right because marriage itself is not an inalienable right. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such is up to private religious institutions to define.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Happiness has never been found through immorality... such brings misery, chaos and calamity... and if pursued long enough, catastrophe is inevitable.

Who determines what is immoral? Is homosexuality immoral? Is homosexual marriage immoral? Is the desire of two persons to enter into a same sex marriage an example of the pursuit of happiness? If so, then does that make gay marriage an unalienable right?

Gay marriage is not an inalienable right because marriage itself is not an inalienable right. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such is up to private religious institutions to define.

Marriage doesn't fall under the category of 'pursuit of happiness'?? (no jokes please)

If not, what are examples of pursuit of happiness?

 

[Intense]

What's the 'inverse' of claiming that no one here (or anywhere) has proven the existence of God?

What if God exists and we don't?

Are we to deny all science and math, rooted in Theory? Is it to be discounted?

The argument about God's existence is not going to be proved here either way. You either believe or you don't. That is your business. What you Teach others as absolute, is held to account.

You're the one claiming as fact the existence of God. Are you backtracking now?

Of Course not. My Life is Rooted in Belief in God. You clearly know my position. I know yours.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who determines what is immoral? Is homosexuality immoral? Is homosexual marriage immoral? Is the desire of two persons to enter into a same sex marriage an example of the pursuit of happiness? If so, then does that make gay marriage an unalienable right?

Gay marriage is not an inalienable right because marriage itself is not an inalienable right. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such is up to private religious institutions to define.

Marriage doesn't fall under the category of 'pursuit of happiness'?? (no jokes please)

If not, what are examples of pursuit of happiness?

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

 

[Intense]

Gay marriage is not an inalienable right because marriage itself is not an inalienable right. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such is up to private religious institutions to define.

Marriage doesn't fall under the category of 'pursuit of happiness'?? (no jokes please)

If not, what are examples of pursuit of happiness?

Marriage can fall under "pursuit of happiness" I suppose. You have the right to pursue marriage if you want to do so. You don't have a right to get married, however. That would infringe on the right of the religious institution to define marriage for its religion.

Marriage can be both Civil or Legal, and Religious.

 

[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.

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

???

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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.

I realized that from the first post I read.

1) I like poking things like that with a stick;
b) Showing others the idiotic things he/she/it posts is mildly amusing.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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."

Indeed.

Please excuse this noob!

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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.

Clearly you have not read the few posts I have in this thread.

I provided support for my assertion, explained that support, and even went so far as to explain the scope of my explanation.

What is now needed, post haste, is the evidence for the assertion that God does NOT exist.

Attempting to answer that challenge with the intellectually weak, "You cannot prove a negative" will only serve to show me you are incapable of engaging in this discussion, as I have explained that as well.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

There are Natural Rights and Constructed Rights. .

Only the latter has been demonstrated

The former has, you just don't believe it.

 

[rubberhead]

What is the right to pursue happiness, anyway? What if a person's pursuit of happiness involves immorality?

Happiness has never been found through immorality... such brings misery, chaos and calamity... and if pursued long enough, catastrophe is inevitable.

Who determines what is immoral? Is homosexuality immoral? Is homosexual marriage immoral? Is the desire of two persons to enter into a same sex marriage an example of the pursuit of happiness? If so, then does that make gay marriage an unalienable right?

Of course it does! File it under free agency! Anyone who says otherwise is selling their own irrelevant morals as the "right" ones. There are certain aspects to morality that are important, mostly those that are just restatements of the Golden Rule for example. There are others like anti-homosexuality which are self-sustaining and serve no purpose but to legitimize the alienation of someone just for being different. When I say self-sustaining, I mean that people are programmed to believe that homosexuality or any deviation from their accepted norms in sexuality is just wrong and that's all there is to it. Then, those who are compelled by their nature to engage in these things are forced into self-loathing secrecy.

Of course, the law doesn't have to recognize the marriage or give any sort of legal sanctity to it. That's the nature of law. It's interpreted as written. This is the difference between legal and natural rights. So, you can say your in a homosexual marriage, but the law may or may not recognize it.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

. 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

You have proven nothing of the sort, unless you are claiming that you do not assert that God does not exist.

Is that the case?

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Funny how much the RightWingers love their ignorance.

Why are they scared to actually address the refutations? Why do they lack testicles?

Since I have been addressing your "refutations"........

Explain how you know of the personal existence of fellow poster's genitalia?

 

[AdlerianThinker]

. 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

Not to mention 'appeal to ridicule' which the ones in this thread who can't refute you are resorting to, blissfully ignorant of how foolish it makes them look.

Falsely clinging to "Burden of Proof" is pretty foolish.

Were you blissfully aware of that?