On Government

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Blue. Or, I call “blue” the color that the sky is .[/quote]

Thank you, you’ve again allowed me to skip some questions.

So we both agree that the color you see, and have been trained to call “blue” may not be the same color I see and have been trained to call “blue” correct?[/quote]

I haven’t kept up on all the research, but I believe that there is evidence to suggest that this is literally the case.

[quote]

Every been on an airplane?

What color is the sky when you clear the clouds?[/quote]

Many times on an airplane, but I actually don’t know how to answer this. You mean still looking up? Deep navy. Looking out level? Still blue.

*I am probably on my way out now. Will be back tomorrow for sure, as I know I’m going to enjoy this.

102

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

That the initiation of force is necessary to acquire something is proof enough that the initiator is violating the right of another. [/quote]

No, you’re assuming that that rights exist. We’re not talking about violation yet. Show that the right itself exists.
[/quote]

If A is living, prove that B has a claim to A’s life. If A is the original possessor of C, prove that B has a legitimate claim to C. If A wants to run on his property and is also allowed to run on D’s property, prove that B can justly use force to prevent A from running.

The right is obvious to all-unless B would permit A to _____ him first, he acknowledges that he is in the wrong.

103

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

That the initiation of force is necessary to acquire something is proof enough that the initiator is violating the right of another. [/quote]

No, you’re assuming that that rights exist. We’re not talking about violation yet. Show that the right itself exists.
[/quote]

If A is living, prove that B has a claim to A’s life.[/quote]

I don’t contend that.

Let’s not interchange terms. We’re talking about rights.

I contend that nobody has a natural right to anything. Including lives. So why would I prove that anybody has a natural right, or claim if they are synonymous here, to anybody else’s life, when they don’t even have one to their own?

[quote]
If A is the original possessor of C, prove that B has a legitimate claim to C. If A wants to run on his property and is also allowed to run on D’s property, prove that B can justly use force to prevent A from running.[/quote]

See above.

104

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

That the initiation of force is necessary to acquire something is proof enough that the initiator is violating the right of another. [/quote]

No, you’re assuming that that rights exist. We’re not talking about violation yet. Show that the right itself exists.
[/quote]

If A is living, prove that B has a claim to A’s life.[/quote]

I don’t contend that.

Let’s not interchange terms. We’re talking about rights.

I contend that nobody has a natural right to anything. Including lives. So why would I prove that anybody has a natural right, or claim if they are synonymous here, to anybody else’s life, when they don’t even have one to their own?

[quote]
If A is the original possessor of C, prove that B has a legitimate claim to C. If A wants to run on his property and is also allowed to run on D’s property, prove that B can justly use force to prevent A from running.[/quote]

See above.[/quote]

Like I(and another poster, whose username I can’t recall) said, it’s probably better that we only talk about negative rights. If A is living, the onus is on B to justify killing A.

Everyone acknowledges that rights exist.

105

I was really hoping some leftists would join in the discussion so I could pick apart their convoluted batshit arguments. Sandra Fluke has a right to other people’s money and a right to force private religious institutions to provide her with abortifacients so she can commit infanticide because she has a right to commit infanticide.

106

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

That the initiation of force is necessary to acquire something is proof enough that the initiator is violating the right of another. [/quote]

No, you’re assuming that that rights exist. We’re not talking about violation yet. Show that the right itself exists.
[/quote]

If A is living, prove that B has a claim to A’s life.[/quote]

I don’t contend that.

Let’s not interchange terms. We’re talking about rights.

I contend that nobody has a natural right to anything. Including lives. So why would I prove that anybody has a natural right, or claim if they are synonymous here, to anybody else’s life, when they don’t even have one to their own?

[quote]
If A is the original possessor of C, prove that B has a legitimate claim to C. If A wants to run on his property and is also allowed to run on D’s property, prove that B can justly use force to prevent A from running.[/quote]

See above.[/quote]

Like I(and another poster, whose username I can’t recall) said, it’s probably better that we only talk about negative rights. If A is living, the onus is on B to justify killing A.

Everyone acknowledges that rights exist.[/quote]

Well this one is pretty simple. Prove that negative rights exist then.

107

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Blue. Or, I call “blue” the color that the sky is .[/quote]

Thank you, you’ve again allowed me to skip some questions.

So we both agree that the color you see, and have been trained to call “blue” may not be the same color I see and have been trained to call “blue” correct?[/quote]

I haven’t kept up on all the research, but I believe that there is evidence to suggest that this is literally the case.

[quote]

Every been on an airplane?

What color is the sky when you clear the clouds?[/quote]

Many times on an airplane, but I actually don’t know how to answer this. You mean still looking up? Deep navy. Looking out level? Still blue.

*I am probably on my way out now. Will be back tomorrow for sure, as I know I’m going to enjoy this.[/quote]

LMAO…

So. We both understand that what we are seeing is the sky, and that the sky is a color. The fact that we don’t both see the same color doesn’t matter, just that is has one (or multiple shades of one, or some mixture of a few, either way color is fucking there, and we agree it is there).

And we both know that even if it is completely covered with clouds, the sky is still the same color it was without clouds, it is just the clouds are stopping our view of it.

So we both know the sky has a color (freedom), and we both know even if clouds are in the way (the state) the sky’s color is still there.

Now you want me to prove what makes the sky have a color, and I say the point is that is there is a color, whatever method we use to explain the color doesn’t make the color stop being there.

The entire story of man is a quest for freedom. Freedom from nature, freedom from other men, freedom. Proving to you, or not, that this is “bestowed” upon birth by a higher power, grand architect or just inherent instinct doesn’t change that it is there, you acknowledge it and that it is a very real concept.

108

^^You’ve just shown that freedom exists and that it’s desirable. You haven’t proven that man has an entitlement to freedom.

109

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Like I(and another poster, whose username I can’t recall) said, it’s probably better that we only talk about negative rights. If A is living, the onus is on B to justify killing A.

Everyone acknowledges that rights exist.[/quote]

Well this one is pretty simple. Prove that negative rights exist then.
[/quote]

A baby is born and is living-to justly take his life, is the potential taker of that life not responsible for proving he is justified in doing so? If a man is running, without violating the rights of another, is the onus not on the man who may potentially stop the runner to show that he justified in doing so? If a man discovers a previously unclaimed tree, which a second man later tries to claim, is the onus not on the second to prove that the tree is rightfully his?

I asked three questions earlier that show that everyone acknowledges the existences of three rights. No right is inalienable, which was already pointed out by another poster; but the existence of rights to life, liberty, and property are acknowledged by everyone. Those rights may not be respected by all, but everyone acknowledges their existence.

110

[quote]NickViar wrote:

A baby is born and is living-to justly take his life, is the potential taker of that life not responsible for proving he is justified in doing so?

[/quote]

That would depend on whether the baby has a right to life.

Where do the rights of the other come from?

That would depend on whether or not the other runner has a right to be left alone.

That would depend upon whether or not either of them had a right to private property.

Let’s assume for argument’s sake that I’m a psychopath and I don’t acknowledge that anyone has any rights. Prove to me that these rights exist.

No they’re not.

[quote]

Those rights may not be respected by all, but everyone acknowledges their existence.[/quote]

No they don’t. You haven’t proved their existence.

111

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^You’ve just shown that freedom exists and that it’s desirable. You haven’t proven that man has an entitlement to freedom.[/quote]

One isn’t entitled to it at all.

No one said being able to enjoy and exercise your rights was free, easy or otherwise granted to you without some sort of effort or diligence.

112

.

113

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^You’ve just shown that freedom exists and that it’s desirable. You haven’t proven that man has an entitlement to freedom.[/quote]

One isn’t entitled to it at all.

No one said being able to enjoy and exercise your rights was free, easy or otherwise granted to you without some sort of effort or diligence. [/quote]

Entitlement is synonymous with rights. A right is something that one is entitled to.

114

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^You’ve just shown that freedom exists and that it’s desirable. You haven’t proven that man has an entitlement to freedom.[/quote]

One isn’t entitled to it at all.

No one said being able to enjoy and exercise your rights was free, easy or otherwise granted to you without some sort of effort or diligence. [/quote]

Entitlement is synonymous with rights. A right is something that one is entitled to.[/quote]

I suppose I’m stuck on some twisted connotation of “entitled” and missed your point.

My point being: Rights are there, we agree on that. Do they disappear if not respected?

If you answer no, then there is your proof. If you answer yes… Well its an entirely different conversation.

115

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^You’ve just shown that freedom exists and that it’s desirable. You haven’t proven that man has an entitlement to freedom.[/quote]

One isn’t entitled to it at all.

No one said being able to enjoy and exercise your rights was free, easy or otherwise granted to you without some sort of effort or diligence. [/quote]

Entitlement is synonymous with rights. A right is something that one is entitled to.[/quote]

I suppose I’m stuck on some twisted connotation of “entitled” and missed your point.

My point being: Rights are there, we agree on that. Do they disappear if not respected?

If you answer no, then there is your proof. If you answer yes… Well its an entirely different conversation. [/quote]

My answer is no they do not disappear and the reason is they are inalienable and granted by the creator. I was trying to get NickViar to explain why he believes they exist and so far he hasn’t been able to do so.

116

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

My answer is no they do not disappear and the reason is they are inalienable and granted by the creator. [/quote]

Oh…

lol. We’re basically on the same page then, lol.

117

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Blue. Or, I call “blue” the color that the sky is .[/quote]

So we both agree that the color you see, and have been trained to call “blue” may not be the same color I see and have been trained to call “blue” correct?[/quote]

I haven’t kept up on all the research, but I believe that there is evidence to suggest that this is literally the case.

[/quote]

This is the coolest thing I’ve heard in a long time BTW, and if you run across it and don’t mind linking for my lazy ass that would be great.

118

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Blue. Or, I call “blue” the color that the sky is .[/quote]

So we both agree that the color you see, and have been trained to call “blue” may not be the same color I see and have been trained to call “blue” correct?[/quote]

I haven’t kept up on all the research, but I believe that there is evidence to suggest that this is literally the case.

[/quote]

This is the coolest thing I’ve heard in a long time BTW, and if you run across it and don’t mind linking for my lazy ass that would be great.[/quote]

119

500×826 124 KB

Tyrian purple from the murex shell. Best colour eva!

120

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

My answer is no they do not disappear and the reason is they are inalienable and granted by the creator. [/quote]

Oh…

lol. We’re basically on the same page then, lol. [/quote]

SM’s direct response to the cloud/sky analogy, which was very interesting by the way, is my response as well. I am not arguing that freedom/life is not desirable–only that, if there is a natural right to it, that natural right has not been evidenced or even clearly defined.

But in the end it will finally boil down to this, above. Creators and rights specifically granted by them. Thing is, we are still missing the convincing evidence.