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...
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 Would your indentured servant be allowed to sing in the shower if it annoyed you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Would your indentured servant be allowed to sing in the shower if it annoyed you? Why do you always revert to this kind of idiocy? Explain how an individual would not have the freedom of speech in the absence of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 Why do you always revert to this kind of idiocy? Explain how an individual would not have the freedom of speech in the absence of government. Idiocy? You brought up indentured servitude, as if it could exist again. I have no idea what "absence of government" looks like. Anarchy? Would anyone have any rights in a anarchy situation that he/she could not wrestle away but with force or some consensus? So if no government to protect your rights, you better have a club, gun, flame thrower or fort or something, to defend your right, because if you can't defend it, you don't have it. Sorry, that's the best i can do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) Idiocy? You brought up indentured servitude, as if it could exist again. I'm making an overarching moral argument about natural rights, and the immorality of slavery. As such, I felt it important to make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary servitude. Slavery, in and of itself is neither immoral nor wrong. It becomes wrong, however, when it is involuntary and non-contractual; when you take something from someone that they would otherwise naturally possess as a condition of their basic humanity. I'm doing this because the only intellectually honest way to make a "should" argument, is to explain the moral underpinnings. This isn't a political discussion, it's a moral one. I have no idea what "absence of government" looks like. Anarchy? Would anyone have any rights in a anarchy situation that he/she could not wrestle away but with force or some consensus? So if no government to protect your rights, you better have a club, gun, flame thrower or fort or something, to defend your right, because if you can't defend it, you don't have it. Sorry, that's the best i can do Again, step away from the politics. Natural rights are part of the human condition. They are a fundamental part of us. Tom asked the question "In the absence of government, would you have the freedom of speech?" My answer is: Of course you would. Keep in mind, that's an entire different argument from "Could your rights be infringed?' My answer again: Of course they could. But then, that leads into a deeper discussion about the proper role of government in a society based on the concept of natural rights. Governments can either be instituted to defend those rights of their citizens, or to infringe those rights of their subjects; but they cannot to both, as the first is an admission that the people have absolute power over their government, and the second is an condition under which government has absolute power over it's people. Edited December 22, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Again, step away from the politics. Natural rights are part of the human condition. They are a fundamental part of us. Tom asked the question "In the absence of government, would you have the freedom of speech?" My answer is: Of course you would. Keep in mind, that's an entire different argument from "Could your rights be infringed?' My answer again: Of course they could. But then, that leads into a deeper discussion about the proper role of government in a society based on the concept of natural rights. Governments can either be instituted to defend those rights of their citizens, or to infringe those rights of their subjects; but they cannot to both, as the first is an admission that the people have absolute power over their government, and the second is an condition under which government has absolute power over it's people. If you want to really rile him up, just remind him that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Idiocy? You brought up indentured servitude, as if it could exist again. I have no idea what "absence of government" looks like. Anarchy? Would anyone have any rights in a anarchy situation that he/she could not wrestle away but with force or some consensus? So if no government to protect your rights, you better have a club, gun, flame thrower or fort or something, to defend your right, because if you can't defend it, you don't have it. Sorry, that's the best i can do Does the government "grant" rights, or "protect" them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Naturally. Well then it's settled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 I remember my last trip to Gettysburg, all those disgusting Confederate statues. They really should show some sensitivity and take those down. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Absolutely Granted or protected? Does the government "grant" rights, or "protect" them? Sorry. Didn't see this response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) The issue of modern practices of slave labor is hardly tangential to a blanket statement of "slavery is bad." the modern issue of slave labor has absolutely nothing to do with removing monuments on public land devoted to a regime that fought for slavery. if statues of steve jobs (and he supported a war to continue his ability to use such labor) we're being placed on state capitol grounds it would be salient to the discussion. what about this distinction do you find so difficult to comprehend? Edited December 22, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 the modern issue of slave labor has absolutely nothing to do with removing monuments on public land devoted to a regime that fought for slavery. if statues of steve jobs (and he supported a war to continue his ability to use such labor) we're being placed on state capitol grounds it would be salient to the discussion. what about this distinction do you find so difficult to comprehend? What other issues/movements do you feel this way about or is slavery just your B word du jour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) What other issues/movements do you feel this way about or is slavery just your B word du jour? pretty passionate about deliberate sabotage of discussions. also passionate about revealing this intent on doing this. Edited December 22, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino 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. What?! You're arguing slavery is morally wrong, yet your support of modern slavery is unrelated to the discussion? That's just a cowardly response, and untrue. It has EVERYTHING to do with your position on this matter. Had you said you object to the statues because they're ugly, then no. It would have nothing to do with it. But you didn't. You said you object to it because slabery is morally reprehensible -- yet you gleefully claim Apple as your go to company. It'd be more honest if you just admitted your own personal views do not line up with your public views. the modern issue of slave labor has absolutely nothing to do with removing monuments on public land devoted to a regime that fought for slavery. if statues of steve jobs (and he supported a war to continue his ability to use such labor) we're being placed on state capitol grounds it would be salient to the discussion. what about this distinction do you find so difficult to comprehend? I'm addressing YOUR positions on this matter, not the statues and memorials. So it has EVERYTHING to do with your position. Just admit it. You're a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 pretty passionate about deliberate sabotage of discussions. also passionate about revealing this intent on doing this. I'm just wondering if there are any other statues that we should be demanding be removed. Slavery can't be the only issue that offends people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 the modern issue of slave labor has absolutely nothing to do with removing monuments on public land devoted to a regime that fought for slavery. But you justified it with a blanket "slavery is bad" statement, and doubled-down on the stupid when you insisted that anyone who didn't support taking down the statues thought slavery was good. You inextricably linked "slavery is bad" with the extremely broad demonization of anything related to slavery. And yet, when Greg points out that you explicitly support slavery financially, your only response is "But that slavery has nothing to do with Confederate monuments!" How the hell do you think you're being rational? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I'm just wondering if there are any other statues that we should be demanding be removed. Slavery can't be the only issue that offends people. I'm offended by the sound of the 2nd and 4th switch positions on a Fender Stratocaster, and am actively seeking to have the Stevie Ray Vaughan statue here at Lady Bird Lake taken down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 But you justified it with a blanket "slavery is bad" statement, and doubled-down on the stupid when you insisted that anyone who didn't support taking down the statues thought slavery was good. You inextricably linked "slavery is bad" with the extremely broad demonization of anything related to slavery. And yet, when Greg points out that you explicitly support slavery financially, your only response is "But that slavery has nothing to do with Confederate monuments!" How the hell do you think you're being rational? Leave him alone. He's already declared his victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2015 Author Share Posted December 23, 2015 Does the government "grant" rights, or "protect" them?After you are granted citizenship the government protects your rights I remember my last trip to Gettysburg, all those disgusting Confederate statues. They really should show some sensitivity and take those down. . That's a battlefield, very different. Did you guys even read the original article I posted. Please go look at it and throw it in my face how those NO monuments DO celebrated a battle. They do. Tear them down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 After you are granted citizenship the government protects your rights So I don't have rights if I'm not a citizen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2015 Author Share Posted December 23, 2015 I'm making an overarching moral argument about natural rights, and the immorality of slavery. As such, I felt it important to make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary servitude. Natural rights are part of the human condition. They are a fundamental part of us. Tom asked the question "In the absence of government, would you have the freedom of speech?" My answer is: Of course you would. Keep in mind, that's an entire different argument from "Could your rights be infringed?' My answer again: Of course they could. But then, that leads into a deeper discussion about the proper role of government in a society based on the concept of natural rights. Governments can either be instituted to defend those rights of their citizens, or to infringe those rights of their subjects; but they cannot to both, as the first is an admission that the people have absolute power over their government, and the second is an condition under which government has absolute power over it's people. Very interesting. Sorry I had to cut some, it was just so I could reply. Illl agree that we feel it natural for us to speak out, or want privacy or have all our rights, but really, IMO, it's our government and our wonderful economic system that provides so much plenty for all that is the basis of our rights. Hunter gatherer societies had very high rates of violence because of scarcity. Our abundance is the root of our freedom. Slavery and indentured servitude took place in less materially wealthy societies for a reason. So I agree with you on the moral part, but it is the material wealth that makes our natural rights possible. And it's our government that makes the economy able to function. So I don't have rights if I'm not a citizen?Not as many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts