Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Confused Liberal Ideology

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 12:57:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not attacking liberals, however I believe that their ideology contradicts each other.

They are pro-choice (pro-killing babies doesn't sound too well).
They are also anti-Euthanasia.

So basically, they are pro-killing innocent babies who have a whole life ahead of them while the don't support pulling the plug on severely ill patients.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 1:15:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
They're also generally anti-DP as well.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 1:32:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That is not a contradiction. They work on the basis that a fetus does not qualify as a human being. A terminally ill patient is a human being. Libertarianism on the other hand is a radical romanticism of natural rights to purport fundamentally flawed theories.

Why do we have rights? As a means of attaining happiness. Happiness is the ultimate reason of all human endeavors, not rights. Rights a means of attaining happiness. If there should be a situation in which the right of one impedes upon the happiness of the rest, then that right can be compromised. Is this not the logic when we incarcerate criminals?
Likewise, if the majority of a society would not be happy having drugs in their social environment, then they have the ability to outlaw it. It is only in the lawless wild that TRUE natural rights reside. When one enjoys the benefits of modern society, he cannot claim such total freedom to do as he wishes.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 1:34:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 12:57:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I'm not attacking liberals, however I believe that their ideology contradicts each other.

They are pro-choice (pro-killing babies doesn't sound too well).
They are also anti-Euthanasia.

So basically, they are pro-killing innocent babies who have a whole life ahead of them while the don't support pulling the plug on severely ill patients.

Liberals are generally pro on both.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 1:45:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 1:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
That is not a contradiction. They work on the basis that a fetus does not qualify as a human being. A terminally ill patient is a human being. Libertarianism on the other hand is a radical romanticism of natural rights to purport fundamentally flawed theories.

Why do we have rights? As a means of attaining happiness. Happiness is the ultimate reason of all human endeavors, not rights. Rights a means of attaining happiness. If there should be a situation in which the right of one impedes upon the happiness of the rest, then that right can be compromised. Is this not the logic when we incarcerate criminals?
Likewise, if the majority of a society would not be happy having drugs in their social environment, then they have the ability to outlaw it. It is only in the lawless wild that TRUE natural rights reside. When one enjoys the benefits of modern society, he cannot claim such total freedom to do as he wishes.

Libertarianism is the belief that society doesn't have the right to restrict the rights of the few for the benefit of the many unless those few are being punished for violating the rights of others. Drug use is nonviolent, which means that society doesn't deserve the power to forbid its use. Even if society thinks it will be happier by arresting and jailing drug users, which is a flawed idea in itself, such an action would make the drug user very unhappy and violate his right to use of his own property. You're advocating a different mindset, utilitarianism, which assumes that everyone must do things to make everyone happy, as opposed to each individual making choices for his own happiness.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 1:54:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 1:45:05 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/9/2011 1:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
That is not a contradiction. They work on the basis that a fetus does not qualify as a human being. A terminally ill patient is a human being. Libertarianism on the other hand is a radical romanticism of natural rights to purport fundamentally flawed theories.

Why do we have rights? As a means of attaining happiness. Happiness is the ultimate reason of all human endeavors, not rights. Rights a means of attaining happiness. If there should be a situation in which the right of one impedes upon the happiness of the rest, then that right can be compromised. Is this not the logic when we incarcerate criminals?
Likewise, if the majority of a society would not be happy having drugs in their social environment, then they have the ability to outlaw it. It is only in the lawless wild that TRUE natural rights reside. When one enjoys the benefits of modern society, he cannot claim such total freedom to do as he wishes.

Libertarianism is the belief that society doesn't have the right to restrict the rights of the few for the benefit of the many unless those few are being punished for violating the rights of others. Drug use is nonviolent, which means that society doesn't deserve the power to forbid its use. Even if society thinks it will be happier by arresting and jailing drug users, which is a flawed idea in itself, such an action would make the drug user very unhappy and violate his right to use of his own property. You're advocating a different mindset, utilitarianism, which assumes that everyone must do things to make everyone happy, as opposed to each individual making choices for his own happiness.

Drug use is not non-violent. Second hand smoke is responsible for 3,400 lung cancer deaths a year, and 46,000 deaths from heart disease a year (http://www.cancer.org... ) Heres the deal, I would have no problem with other people using drugs if it had no effect on bystanders, but it does! Libertarians are hypocrites, who by supporting drug legalization, but the happiness of a minority above the safety of others.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:00:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's not "Drug use" but "a specific drug delivery system."

One used largely for a perfectly legal drug. Most of the drugs that are outlawed are not smoked, and all of them can be used without smoking.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:04:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 1:54:04 PM, 000ike wrote:

Drug use is not non-violent. Second hand smoke is responsible for 3,400 lung cancer deaths a year, and 46,000 deaths from heart disease a year (http://www.cancer.org... )

How can such a claim be made? That would require the inhalation records of 49,400 people... and people don't keep data on what they breathe in a convenient microchip to be read by the coroner.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:06:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:00:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's not "Drug use" but "a specific drug delivery system."

One used largely for a perfectly legal drug. Most of the drugs that are outlawed are not smoked, and all of them can be used without smoking.

Okay then, there should be laws against smoking all together, and driving or operating machinery while under the influence of substances, or using drugs in any public settings including restaurants, offices, school grounds etc. That sounds fair.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:09:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:04:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/9/2011 1:54:04 PM, 000ike wrote:

Drug use is not non-violent. Second hand smoke is responsible for 3,400 lung cancer deaths a year, and 46,000 deaths from heart disease a year (http://www.cancer.org... )

How can such a claim be made? That would require the inhalation records of 49,400 people... and people don't keep data on what they breathe in a convenient microchip to be read by the coroner.

False dichotomy. Who says that is the only method of acquiring such data. In fact, on just thinking about it, all they need are proof that the cancer and heart disease were created by chemicals from tobacco smoke, the individual does not smoke, and they are constantly exposed to smoke. There are other methods I'm sure, but that is also a likely possibility.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:13:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A fetus is a human being.

Life begins at conception. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, a baby is formed. Albeit very small and microscopic, it eventually grows.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:14:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 1:54:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 1:45:05 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/9/2011 1:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
That is not a contradiction. They work on the basis that a fetus does not qualify as a human being. A terminally ill patient is a human being. Libertarianism on the other hand is a radical romanticism of natural rights to purport fundamentally flawed theories.

Why do we have rights? As a means of attaining happiness. Happiness is the ultimate reason of all human endeavors, not rights. Rights a means of attaining happiness. If there should be a situation in which the right of one impedes upon the happiness of the rest, then that right can be compromised. Is this not the logic when we incarcerate criminals?
Likewise, if the majority of a society would not be happy having drugs in their social environment, then they have the ability to outlaw it. It is only in the lawless wild that TRUE natural rights reside. When one enjoys the benefits of modern society, he cannot claim such total freedom to do as he wishes.

Libertarianism is the belief that society doesn't have the right to restrict the rights of the few for the benefit of the many unless those few are being punished for violating the rights of others. Drug use is nonviolent, which means that society doesn't deserve the power to forbid its use. Even if society thinks it will be happier by arresting and jailing drug users, which is a flawed idea in itself, such an action would make the drug user very unhappy and violate his right to use of his own property. You're advocating a different mindset, utilitarianism, which assumes that everyone must do things to make everyone happy, as opposed to each individual making choices for his own happiness.

Drug use is not non-violent. Second hand smoke is responsible for 3,400 lung cancer deaths a year, and 46,000 deaths from heart disease a year (http://www.cancer.org... ) Heres the deal, I would have no problem with other people using drugs if it had no effect on bystanders, but it does! Libertarians are hypocrites, who by supporting drug legalization, but the happiness of a minority above the safety of others.

Then make smoking in public illegal. People can still smoke in their own homes or at places that allow smoking. The majority of drug use, however, is non-violent.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:15:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:09:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:04:57 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/9/2011 1:54:04 PM, 000ike wrote:

Drug use is not non-violent. Second hand smoke is responsible for 3,400 lung cancer deaths a year, and 46,000 deaths from heart disease a year (http://www.cancer.org... )

How can such a claim be made? That would require the inhalation records of 49,400 people... and people don't keep data on what they breathe in a convenient microchip to be read by the coroner.

False dichotomy. Who says that is the only method of acquiring such data. In fact, on just thinking about it, all they need are proof that the cancer and heart disease were created by chemicals from tobacco smoke, the individual does not smoke, and they are constantly exposed to smoke. There are other methods I'm sure, but that is also a likely possibility.

But cancer and heart disease are not solely caused by tobacco. You would need to autopsy 50,000 people, chemically analyse them, have reliable information as to their lifestyle etc etc.

The anti-tobacco lobby does not do this, therefore these figures are at best guesstimates. But no one cares because tobacco is evil.

Why not just have smoking areas, that way only smokers are harmed, and they signed up to that. Personal responsibility for personal actions?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:18:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:13:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
A fetus is a human being.

Life begins at conception. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, a baby is formed. Albeit very small and microscopic, it eventually grows.

No, that is your own definition. Liberals have a different definition. Therefore it is not a contradiction.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:20:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:14:03 PM, mongeese wrote:

Then make smoking in public illegal. People can still smoke in their own homes or at places that allow smoking. The majority of drug use, however, is non-violent.

No. People have children, and kids are even WAY more susceptible to harm from second hand smoke.

"The Risks of Secondhand Smoke to a Child

Low birthweight for gestational age
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)- children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk of SIDS.
The EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 of these infections in children under 18 months annually
Asthma - According to the EPA, between 200,000 and 1,000,000 kids with asthma have their condition worsened by secondhand smoke every year. Also, passive smoking may also be responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma every year
Chronic respiratory symptoms such as cough and wheezing may be attributed to secondhand smoke.
Children who breathe in secondhand smoke are more likely to suffer from dental cavities, eye and nose irritation, and irritability
Middle ear infections - exposure to ETS causes buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 700,000 to 1.6 million physician office visits yearly" (http://quitsmoking.about.com... )
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:21:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:20:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:14:03 PM, mongeese wrote:

Then make smoking in public illegal. People can still smoke in their own homes or at places that allow smoking. The majority of drug use, however, is non-violent.

No. People have children, and kids are even WAY more susceptible to harm from second hand smoke.

Then make smoking in public illegal. People can still smoke in their own homes or at places that allow smoking.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:26:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:06:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:00:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's not "Drug use" but "a specific drug delivery system."

One used largely for a perfectly legal drug. Most of the drugs that are outlawed are not smoked, and all of them can be used without smoking.

Okay then, there should be laws against smoking all together,
Sure.

and driving or operating machinery while under the influence of substances
So you can't eat some special brownies and play video games or race on private property with consenting parties who are aware that you're high? Certainly however government property should ban the use of dangerous machinery while high, and many proprietors would be well advised to do the same.

or using drugs in any public settings including restaurants, offices, school grounds etc
None of those are "public settings." They all are or should be private property, with a drug policy up to the proprietor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:26:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:15:14 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

But cancer and heart disease are not solely caused by tobacco. You would need to autopsy 50,000 people, chemically analyse them, have reliable information as to their lifestyle etc etc.

Again, false dichotomy. I realize that statistics are not the most accurate projections, but their degree of precision is not determined by a selective few criteria. One does not need to chemically analyze the autopsy of 50,000 people to make any conclusions on their deaths.

The anti-tobacco lobby does not do this, therefore these figures are at best guesstimates. But no one cares because tobacco is evil.

Right, because its a smear campaign for a harmless substance?

Why not just have smoking areas, that way only smokers are harmed, and they signed up to that. Personal responsibility for personal actions?

They have those at 6 flags, and they are pure BS. You can still smell the fumes from a reasonable distance. There should be a closed room with a ventilation screen.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:28:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As for children assuming you think smoke won't travel outside the home (I don't but I can't realistically see a non-totalitarian regime managing to DO anything about smoke in the home), you have one of two options.

1. Children have rights, including the right to leave their parents.

2. Children do not have rights, who gives a f***?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:28:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As for children assuming you think smoke won't travel outside the home (I don't but I can't realistically see a non-totalitarian regime managing to DO anything about smoke in the home), you have one of two options.

1. Children have rights, including the right to leave their parents.

2. Children do not have rights, who gives a f***?

false dichotomy. How many times will i have to say this today?

Children have SOME rights. RIGHTS TO A DEGREE. There is no such thing as all or nothing with natural rights.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:50:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:26:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:15:14 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

But cancer and heart disease are not solely caused by tobacco. You would need to autopsy 50,000 people, chemically analyse them, have reliable information as to their lifestyle etc etc.

Again, false dichotomy. I realize that statistics are not the most accurate projections, but their degree of precision is not determined by a selective few criteria. One does not need to chemically analyze the autopsy of 50,000 people to make any conclusions on their deaths.

It is not a false dichotomy. You are telling me that nearly 50,000 people a year (in the US presumably) die due to second hand smoke. Not due to first hand smoke, diet, genetic factors, cocaine snorting... second hand smoke.

For this to be a scientific 'fact' there has to be EVIDENCE to back it up.


The anti-tobacco lobby does not do this, therefore these figures are at best guesstimates. But no one cares because tobacco is evil.

Right, because its a smear campaign for a harmless substance?

No, it's a smear campaign for a unhealthy substance.


Why not just have smoking areas, that way only smokers are harmed, and they signed up to that. Personal responsibility for personal actions?

They have those at 6 flags, and they are pure BS. You can still smell the fumes from a reasonable distance. There should be a closed room with a ventilation screen.

So that is why you boycott 6 flags?

You see libertarianism on some level does actually work, however it fails to factor in the spineless nature of man.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 2:58:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:20:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:14:03 PM, mongeese wrote:

Then make smoking in public illegal. People can still smoke in their own homes or at places that allow smoking. The majority of drug use, however, is non-violent.

No. People have children, and kids are even WAY more susceptible to harm from second hand smoke.

Then make it illegal to smoke in front of children. Not everyone has children, so this restriction would not affect everyone.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:04:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 1:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
That is not a contradiction. They work on the basis that a fetus does not qualify as a human being. A terminally ill patient is a human being. Libertarianism on the other hand is a radical romanticism of natural rights to purport fundamentally flawed theories.

Most liberals I know are pro-choice and euthanasia. They basically operate on a libertarian rights theory as far as social problems go but not with economics.

Why do we have rights? As a means of attaining happiness.

lol wut?

Happiness is the ultimate reason of all human endeavors, not rights. Rights a means of attaining happiness. If there should be a situation in which the right of one impedes upon the happiness of the rest, then that right can be compromised. Is this not the logic when we incarcerate criminals?

It's actually not. Criminals are incarcerated as a means to stop them from infringing on the rights of others. In America especially, the government was created almost exclusively to protect those rights. You know life, liberty, and all that.

Likewise, if the majority of a society would not be happy having drugs in their social environment, then they have the ability to outlaw it.

Lol if the majority of society isn't happy with Jews being alive can they kill them i.e. Nazi Germany? What's the difference? The Jew's "right" to life is infringing on the happiness of the Nazi's.

It is only in the lawless wild that TRUE natural rights reside. When one enjoys the benefits of modern society, he cannot claim such total freedom to do as he wishes.

Yes it's not as if one doesn't have a choice in receiving the alleged "benefits" of society so long as one wishes to reside on his or her own property. Oh wait...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:07:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:06:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:00:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's not "Drug use" but "a specific drug delivery system."

One used largely for a perfectly legal drug. Most of the drugs that are outlawed are not smoked, and all of them can be used without smoking.

Okay then, there should be laws against smoking all together, and driving or operating machinery while under the influence of substances, or using drugs in any public settings including restaurants, offices, school grounds etc. That sounds fair.

Why not just punish those who hurt others while under the influence. Obviously one is usually more likely to hurt someone else while driving under the influence but how does that give someone else the right to incarcerate them if they haven't actually done it? Should we incarcerate those who drive while angry since they're more likely to road rage?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:39:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 2:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:28:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As for children assuming you think smoke won't travel outside the home (I don't but I can't realistically see a non-totalitarian regime managing to DO anything about smoke in the home), you have one of two options.

1. Children have rights, including the right to leave their parents.

2. Children do not have rights, who gives a f***?

false dichotomy. How many times will i have to say this today?
True dichotomy, how many times will I have to say this this lifetime?


Children have SOME rights. RIGHTS TO A DEGREE.
That's simply not how rights work.

There is no such thing as all or nothing with natural rights.
There is no such thing as a right that isn't "all or nothing." That's why we call them rights-- they are absolutes, not to be crossed. If I have the right to property, I may do whatever I wish with my property. Any stopping of me can only have to do with things that aren't my property. If I wish to drive my car at my door, that is my right, it's only if I'm driving my car at your door that you can stop me, as the door is your property.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:44:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:39:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:28:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As for children assuming you think smoke won't travel outside the home (I don't but I can't realistically see a non-totalitarian regime managing to DO anything about smoke in the home), you have one of two options.

1. Children have rights, including the right to leave their parents.

2. Children do not have rights, who gives a f***?

false dichotomy. How many times will i have to say this today?
True dichotomy, how many times will I have to say this this lifetime?


Children have SOME rights. RIGHTS TO A DEGREE.
That's simply not how rights work.

There is no such thing as all or nothing with natural rights.
There is no such thing as a right that isn't "all or nothing." That's why we call them rights-- they are absolutes, not to be crossed. If I have the right to property, I may do whatever I wish with my property. Any stopping of me can only have to do with things that aren't my property. If I wish to drive my car at my door, that is my right, it's only if I'm driving my car at your door that you can stop me, as the door is your property.

In the land of reality you are completely wrong. Show me a single supposed right and I will show you that it exists only partially.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:53:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:44:45 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:39:00 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:30:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/9/2011 2:28:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As for children assuming you think smoke won't travel outside the home (I don't but I can't realistically see a non-totalitarian regime managing to DO anything about smoke in the home), you have one of two options.

1. Children have rights, including the right to leave their parents.

2. Children do not have rights, who gives a f***?

false dichotomy. How many times will i have to say this today?
True dichotomy, how many times will I have to say this this lifetime?


Children have SOME rights. RIGHTS TO A DEGREE.
That's simply not how rights work.

There is no such thing as all or nothing with natural rights.
There is no such thing as a right that isn't "all or nothing." That's why we call them rights-- they are absolutes, not to be crossed. If I have the right to property, I may do whatever I wish with my property. Any stopping of me can only have to do with things that aren't my property. If I wish to drive my car at my door, that is my right, it's only if I'm driving my car at your door that you can stop me, as the door is your property.

In the land of reality you are completely wrong. Show me a single supposed right and I will show you that it exists only partially.

Do you mean only exists partially due to government restriction or in actuality?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 3:56:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:53:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:


Do you mean only exists partially due to government restriction or in actuality?

Restriction by Government, society etc etc. If by actuality you are asking me if rights existed in some sort of platonic objective form then no that is not my opinion.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 4:03:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 3:56:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:53:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:


Do you mean only exists partially due to government restriction or in actuality?

Restriction by Government, society etc etc. If by actuality you are asking me if rights existed in some sort of platonic objective form then no that is not my opinion.

Yes, obviously governments and societies in general have a long history of restricting the rights of people through either some misguided attempt to protect others or through outright dictatorship. However, the general attitude I believe Ragnar holds(and I agree with) is that everyone has certain rights irrespective of the actions of others such as the right to appropriate unowned property, the right not to be agressed against, and the right to engage in any action not directly aggressing against someone else. Obviously it is easy to show that someone at one time or another has restricted these rights but it misses the point entirely, namely that rights in themselves cannot be justifiably infringed upon except through self defense.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2011 4:06:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/9/2011 4:03:05 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:56:50 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/9/2011 3:53:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:


Do you mean only exists partially due to government restriction or in actuality?

Restriction by Government, society etc etc. If by actuality you are asking me if rights existed in some sort of platonic objective form then no that is not my opinion.

Yes, obviously governments and societies in general have a long history of restricting the rights of people through either some misguided attempt to protect others or through outright dictatorship. However, the general attitude I believe Ragnar holds(and I agree with) is that everyone has certain rights irrespective of the actions of others such as the right to appropriate unowned property, the right not to be agressed against, and the right to engage in any action not directly aggressing against someone else. Obviously it is easy to show that someone at one time or another has restricted these rights but it misses the point entirely, namely that rights in themselves cannot be justifiably infringed upon except through self defense.

I understand, but ultimately rights are a question of will and force and this ultimately produces compromised arrangements.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.