|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
AE writes:
It is where Columbo was born...Duh!! 1st of all where the hell is Columbia?Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Taz writes:
Yeah! - America should become:
What's that? You imgregnated a 9 year old girl? That's ok, since you belong to a certain tribe, you are free to do whatever the hell you want to very young girls. First, I want to see America bombing abortion clinics in Great Britain.Then, I want to see America bombing Germany - because even if socialism isn't actually illegal, we all know it is wrong. News just in: a 17 year old girl just gave birth in the UK. But the British police won't do a damn thing to the father because... wait for it... it's some kind of tradition in the UK and we have to respect and be polite to their 'back-watered' way of life. But only perverts would allow girls to have sex under the age of 18!!Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taz writes:
Are you saying that they aren't and how did you come to that decision? Are you saying a 9 year old is mature enough to make the decision herself? What about a 5 year old?At what age are they mature enough and how did you come to that decision? (I'll skip over the obvious slippery slope fallacy.) Taz writes:
And your response is a perfect demonstration of how you ignore any arguments that you cannot counter. Your response is a perfect demo of what I meant by being in the extreme of anything. Are you going to invade Ireland to prevent people having sex before 18?Are you going to invade Great Britain to prevent people having sex before 17? Are you going to invade Denmark to prevent people having sex before 16? Are you going to invade Austria to prevent people having sex before 15? Are you going to invade Spain to prevent people having sex before 14? Who died and made you fucking king? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taz writes:
Well, that doesn't really answer any of my questions. Extreme. So, just because I don't condone impregnating a 5 or 10 year old then I must want to invade the country and make them have sex at 18. Yeah, again, perfect demo as to how you think in the extreme. Perhaps you are just struggling with the hypocrisy you must display to criticise Colombia but not the rest of the world. Perhaps you are struggling to understand how you can complain about Colombia but not Spain. Taz writes:
You don't have a point. Again, you're demonstrating my point exactly. Either I don't have an opinion on these things at all or I am king of the universe. 2 extreme positions.You are simply demanding that countries that disagree with you should be 'corrected'. And you can't even explain how you came to your 'opinions'. Taz writes:
Wrong. You seem to think that I'm also incapable of thinking anything beyond the ridiculous extreme positions that you can understand.I think that you are incapable of thinking anything beyond your own ridiculous extreme positions, which you have more than clearly demonstrated. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taz writes:
But you are the person refusing to read what I wrote.
Um, go back and read what you wrote. Taz writes:
Well, that doesn't really answer any of my questions. I said society shouldn't tolerate impregnating 10 year olds just because it's some tribal tradition.Perhaps you are just struggling with the hypocrisy you must display to criticise Colombia but not the rest of the world. Perhaps you are struggling to understand how you can complain about Colombia but not Spain. Taz writes:
Are you not wanting to impose your beliefs on other countries?
In other words, in your mind one can either believe anything goes OR we invade other countries to impose our beliefs on others. Taz writes:
You don't have a point. And that's exactly what I've been trying to point out.You are simply demanding that countries that disagree with you should be 'corrected'. And you can't even explain how you came to your 'opinions'. Taz writes:
Wrong. You seem incapable of thinking beyond those 2 ridiculous extreme positions.I think that you are incapable of thinking anything beyond your own ridiculous extreme position, which you have more than clearly demonstrated. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
Well, if I bought some heroin for my kids from an undercover policeman, first they would take my cocaine from me (loss of property) and then they would imprison me (loss of liberty). Certain countries would then sentence me to death (loss of life). Locke proposed three basic rights: life, liberty, and estate (property) Would that government be prosecuted for breaching my inalienable human rights?Would the European Court of Human Rights demand I be released? Would Amnesty International even raise an eyebrow? Would even you object? Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
So, my rights are superseded if they conflict with someone else's rights? It has been determined that drug trafficking threatens the human rights of others, namely the increase in crime rates. This is why drug commerce is punished. Perhaps I have misunderstood what inalienable human rights are.I thought that they couldn't be taken away. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
Well, any punishment is a breach of my inalienable human rights. You can be punished if your actions harm others. What is so hard to understand here? But you seem to support people's inalienable human rights being removed. Your statements have people's human rights added and removed at your whim, to suit your own needs. "You have the right to liberty! But not if you do something that I don't like! Or that someone else doesn't like! Or that a government has deemed wrong!" taq writes:
But inalienable means that they can't be taken away. Self-defense is also one of those rights, your right to protect yourself from others. This is part of Locke's view of the social contract:So if you say that they can be taken away, then they are not inalienable human rights. They are simply subjective opinions that vary per person/country with no universal consistency or agreement. Your claims that we "ought to" have human rights is as worthless as claiming that god "ought to" exist.Wishing for things does not make them magically exist. Human rights are no better than religious beliefs; founded on various traditions, habits and cultures with no actual basis in reality other than as a mental construct imagined by humans.We are not "bound morally, by The Law of Nature" - we are disparate entities that have differing opinions on what people should be able to do. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Huntard writes:
A bit off-topic, so I'll keep it brief, but Taq cited drug trafficking as the 'problem' activity and not drug use. A question that pops into my mind is whose rights are violated by you taking heroin? Or by you allowing your children to take heroin?But yes, it is a bit of a circular argument: "illegal drug" trafficking is illegal because "illegal drug trafficking" has bad consequences. Making the drug legal would break that chain. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Those are crap prophesies since none of them have happened.
Perhaps that alone could be considered proof that your god doesn't exist. Buzsaw writes:
Yes, you could. You get the picture. I could go on and on. But that has never made you right. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
One word: Dignitas. You fear death. You also know that others fear death, and the actions that cause them to fear death. Therefore, you should not do those things.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
No. Panda writes: Do you want to die? Taq writes: One word: Dignitas. You fear death. You also know that others fear death, and the actions that cause them to fear death. Therefore, you should not do those things.But many people do. Your claim (which I quoted) is patently false.
Taq writes:
That 'argument' is also false. P1: You fear death.P2: Fear is a very, very negative experience. You don't want to experience fear of death. P3: Empathy allows you to know that others fear death in the same way. P4: You are able to determine which of your actions creates the same negative experience in others. C: You ought not to cause fear of death in others since it is something that you don't want to experience. Premise 1 is false - Not everyone fears death. In fact, many people long for it. Premise 2 is false - Many people enjoy being scared. People go on helter-skelter rides because they like being scared by death. Premise 3 is false - Empathy fools you into thinking that other people feel the same way as you do. Your conclusion: worthless. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
caffeine writes:
I completely agree with your conclusion. All you're both arguing about is 'do right and wrong really exist'. No, of course not - they're things we make up. Rights are things that individuals/societies/cultures make up. But that flies in the face of human rights being intrinsic, inalienable or universal - as Taq claims.Instead they are transitory, conditional and subjective. caffeine writes:
Sure, we make them up because they benefit our own society. But we make them up for good reasons.But different societies make up different rights. There is no global consensus. Rights seem to simply be an emergent property of having laws.But different laws produce different rights and "no law" produces "no rights". Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
But since it is not 100% true, it undermines your claims of human rights being intrinsic. As a general rule, they do.Your claim (which I quoted) is blatantly false. Perhaps you should try to correct it, rather than use weasel words to wriggle out of being wrong. Taq writes:
But there is a fatality rate and people still go on those rides. People would not be on those rides if there was a 10% fatality rate.Premise 2 is still false regardless of the risk: the hazzard still exists and people still enjoy the fear of death. Taq writes:
We can also tell that people don't fear death. I never said that empathy was infallible. The point stands that we are able to determine that others fear death, and they do.Premise 3 fails to support your conclusion. In summary:Your conclusion continues to be baseless and worthless. Causing people to be scared of death may or may not be an ok thing to do. It depends.There is no human right pertinent to deciding which is correct. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Taq writes:
You agree it is not 100% therefore it is not intrinsic. As a general rule, they do.
Panda writes: But since it is not 100% true, it undermines your claims of human rights being intrinsic.
Taq writes: It is intrinsic. It is still there even in those suffering pain. If they felt there was another option to end their pain I am sure they would take that option instead of death.By definition, something is not intrinsic if not everyone has it. You really need to look up what these words mean before you continue using them. Taq writes:
Your reply has not even attempted to support your premise. There is not a 10% fatality rate, and the death rate is about the same as driving down the freeway.Your 2nd premise remains false. Taq writes:
Then you seem to agree with me that premise 3 fails to support your conclusion.
Panda writes:
Then you seem to agree with me that empathy works. We can also tell that people don't fear death.Premise 3 fails to support your conclusion. Panda writes:
Because if there was a pertinent human right then you would have stated it and not replied with the impossible demand for me to "prove a negative". Causing people to be scared of death may or may not be an ok thing to do. It depends.There is no human right pertinent to deciding which is correct. Taq writes: How did you determine this?Even you (who continues to assert the existence of human rights) are unable to supply a single human right which isn't situational, conditional and subjective. In summary: you have failed to substantiate any of your claims regarding human rights.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024