Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Your natural rights are yours, they can't just be signed away to another person. The only way anyone would want to do this if there was massive poverty and no welfare state. So the poor, the elderly and women would be tempted to do it because there was no where else to turn. What?? My natural rights are mine but I can't sign them away?? WTF And how about this. What if someone is homeless, has no job and is starving and they want to work for food and shelter from a private citizen and not tax the government. Why should they not be allowed to do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 This thread is ... http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4WEI_rUi4E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 What?? My natural rights are mine but I can't sign them away?? WTF And how about this. What if someone is homeless, has no job and is starving and they want to work for food and shelter from a private citizen and not tax the government. Why should they not be allowed to do this? Sure, if they want to, they can work. Why would they have to sign away their rights for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 That has to do with insurance fraud, and the high probability of damaging property that isn't your own, due to the nature of fire and proximity in most residential neighborhoods. You are certainly free to destroy your own house, however. No, actually arson is illegal. You are not allowed to burn down your own house under any circumstances. Which is what makes it a salient point: "you own it" does not mean "you get to do whatever you want with it." What?? My natural rights are mine but I can't sign them away?? WTF And how about this. What if someone is homeless, has no job and is starving and they want to work for food and shelter from a private citizen and not tax the government. Why should they not be allowed to do this? No, because they're natural, so they're not yours, because they're granted by the government, so they're the government's. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 No, actually arson is illegal. You are not allowed to burn down your own house under any circumstances. Which is what makes it a salient point: "you own it" does not mean "you get to do whatever you want with it." No, because they're natural, so they're not yours, because they're granted by the government, so they're the government's. Or something. Yes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Sure, if they want to, they can work. Why would they have to sign away their rights for that? Never said they have to. They should have the right to choose to. Yes!! So my rights have been granted to me by the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) No, actually arson is illegal. You are not allowed to burn down your own house under any circumstances. Which is what makes it a salient point: "you own it" does not mean "you get to do whatever you want with it." Arson is illegal for exactly the reasons I mentioned: the likely hood of spreading fire damaging adjacent properties. So let's refine your argument. The purpose of burning down ones home is to destroy it. You are perfectly free to demolish your home in other ways. And, as an aside, in many states you are permitted to burn down your home or other structures permitting that your burning is controlled so as not to spread, and the local fire departments have been notified and permissions granted. Edited December 22, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 So my rights have been granted to me by the government? Naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) This thread is ... http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4WEI_rUi4E yup, because you and others want to argue multiple issues simultaneously. that is a recipe for futility which is what has clearly resulted. but it well hides weak arguments. by now tanker has shown his true intentions which have nothing to do with statues to the confederacy (and have everything to do with "pure", wacko, extremist libertarian ideals) and you have equated buying a computer brand (when the alternative is likely trying to function without a computer at all) to chaining, whipping and raping people and then going to war to continue doing the same. that's what is ridiculous. unfortunately, to eliminate the silliness we need an unbiased judge to officiate and judge a winner in each separate debate (on each separate issue). i'd contribute to that cause. you? oh, well. i found a debate forum that i'm going to try. perhaps we can move this over there? nahhh, didn't think so. Edited December 22, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) yup, because you and others want to argue multiple issues simultaneously. that is a recipe for futility which is what has clearly resulted. but it well hides weak arguments. by now tanker has shown his true intentions which have nothing to do with statues to the confederacy (and have everything to do with "pure", wacko, extremist libertarian ideals) and you have equated buying a computer brand (when the alternative is likely trying to function without a computer at all) to chaining, whipping and raping people and then going to war to continue doing the same. that's what is ridiculous. unfortunately, to eliminate the silliness we need an unbiased judge to officiate and judge a winner in each separate debate (on each separate issue). i'd contribute to that cause. you? oh, well. i found a debate forum that i'm going to try. perhaps we can move this over there? nahhh, didn't think so. Pray tell, what are my "true intentions" birddog? Please tell me what I'm thinking. You can't even tell me what you're thinking when you make a moral argument. And you'll never survive on a debate forum, because you can't handle being challenged; and because you apparently can't differentiate between "winning a debate" and "holding the accurate position". Edited December 22, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 yup, because you and others want to argue multiple issues simultaneously. that is a recipe for futility which is what has clearly resulted. but it well hides weak arguments. by now tanker has shown his true intentions which have nothing to do with statues to the confederacy (and have everything to do with "pure", wacko, extremist libertarian ideals) and you have equated buying a computer brand (when the alternative is likely trying to function without a computer at all) to chaining, whipping and raping people and then going to war to continue doing the same. that's what is ridiculous. unfortunately, to eliminate the silliness we need an unbiased judge to officiate and judge a winner in each separate debate (on each separate issue). i'd contribute to that cause. you? oh, well. i found a debate forum that i'm going to try. perhaps we can move this over there? nahhh, didn't think so. You had an argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 You had an argument? Multiple ones, simultaneously. Unlike the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 yup, because you and others want to argue multiple issues simultaneously so. Again, incorrect. I stated my position quite clearly. It was about Gator and ISIS sharing a brain in how they choose to deal with the uncomfortable realities of our shared past. Then you made a bunch of moral arguments about slavery (of which I agree with the spirit, but not the details) with absolutely no regard to your own personal hypocrisy on the issue. I pointed our your hypocrisy in hopes of having an honest discussion about how it's not fair to judge the past with a modern lens... But instead of owning up to your own hypocrisy, you've run from it. You still don't want to comment on the fact you believe slavery (and anyone who supported the Confederacy must be pro slavery) is "bad" but supporting slave labor w your wallet is somehow okay? I'd love to hear your reasoning. As I said, I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm honestly trying to engage in a conversation on this topic with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) Again, incorrect. I stated my position quite clearly. It was about Gator and ISIS sharing a brain in how they choose to deal with the uncomfortable realities of our shared past. Then you made a bunch of moral arguments about slavery (of which I agree with the spirit, but not the details) with absolutely no regard to your own personal hypocrisy on the issue. I pointed our your hypocrisy in hopes of having an honest discussion about how it's not fair to judge the past with a modern lens... But instead of owning up to your own hypocrisy, you've run from it. You still don't want to comment on the fact you believe slavery (and anyone who supported the Confederacy must be pro slavery) is "bad" but supporting slave labor w your wallet is somehow okay? I'd love to hear your reasoning. As I said, I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm honestly trying to engage in a conversation on this topic with you. there needn't be. in fact, there shouldn't be. the two should be completely divorced. i can argue for something that i'm viscerally opposed to or argue against something that i passionately support. those are actually quite common debate circumstances. in this case, i'm doing neither but it matters not in regards to the actual argument. bringing up irrelevant and tangential side issue matters a great deal. Edited December 22, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) there needn't be. in fact, there shouldn't be. the two should be completely divorced. i can argue for something that i'm viscerally opposed to or argue against something that i passionately support. those are actually quite common debate circumstances. in this case, i'm doing neither but it matters not in regards to the actual argument. bringing up irrelevant and tangential side issue matters a great deal. Only when the arguments you are make across a spectrum of issues aren't logically consistent, the outcome being piecemeal and inconsistent morality, rife with special pleading. That's why you reject it. It's the only reason. Edited December 22, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 So my rights have been granted to me by the government? Absolutely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 there needn't be. in fact, there shouldn't be. the two should be completely divorced. i can argue for something that i'm viscerally opposed to or argue against something that i passionately support. those are actually quite common debate circumstances. in this case, i'm doing neither but it matters not in regards to the actual argument. bringing up irrelevant and tangential side issue matters a great deal. The issue of modern practices of slave labor is hardly tangential to a blanket statement of "slavery is bad." Absolutely So in the absence of government, I have no right to free speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) Absolutely Then those aren't rights, much less "natural rights". They are privileges bestowed upon you by the powerful; able to be stripped away just as easily. Under that line of reason, there is no absolute moral wrong in slavery; because if rights exist under those conditions, then when those rights disappear, there is no alternative moral argument to be made in their favor. Edited December 22, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 So in the absence of government, I have no right to free speech? would depend on the situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 would depend on the situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts