Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 6, 2004, 08:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
i have one question.

why do we assume we have inalienable rights?
oh sure it was cute when locke said it, and even cuter when jefferson reiterated

but why do we assume we have any rights at all?
least of all life, most of all liberty?

i dont want to sound like a facist, but to part of any organizationy ou must respect its rules, the rules which are implemented to protect the majority of members.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Excellent question. I put it in the "unassailable assertion" category. Jefferson said it was self-evident. Another way to put it is that in the state of nature, people have liberty. It's natural, is the answer.

If we don't have rights, then, you must prove the point. I've never seen proof otherwise, but I am open minded!

Sandy · Mar 6, 2004, 08:58 am

Liberty! It's there for the taking, but it must be recognized for what it is. To me Liberty is living a life without government interference. I was taught (as most of us were) to live by a set social rules so we don't hurt or steal from each other but it doesn't stop there! We should act independently from each other and especially independently from the government.

We are losing our liberties and freedoms because we all believe the government owes us some kind of quality of life that we can't seen to find on our own. We have looted the American system to the point that the last 2 generations can't seem to function without Big Daddy's help.

We have given the government control over our education system, our banking system, our social laws and now even our zoning residential laws. We no longer even want the final decision on our labor laws, our insurance coverage or the kind of cars we drive. We have become pawns to our politicians!

I don't know how much longer we can continue to trust our government when so many of our elected officials are corrupt to the bone. Back away from the government! Stand on our own feet, find our own jobs, live by our own standards and stop the politicians from being able to buy our votes.

Mar 6, 2004, 09:45 am

Mia,

Once again I must point out that you have maintained the false accusation that I have offered you ANY insult: <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If you still don't understand, then just heap on some more insults and I'll just let them be.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

All I have ever asked of your, and all I have offered to you, is honest, civil, intellectual discussion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Lightbearer: Did you somehow read my posts to mean I believe the world is flat? I was saying it is clearly round, but if someone here wanted to state it was flat, would you take the time to debate it with them, complete with offering proof and citing sources?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Did you read my post at all? I pointed out that using YOUR flat earth analogy, yoru role was not that of the round earth person, but rather that of the flat earther. Just as you noted with the flat earther, you simply claimed that your conclusions are obvious, despite the many clear refutations and direct citations of evidence directly counter to your assumptions.

One of the problems of simply assuming your beliefs to be true and obvious, especially when they remain unexamined, is that you are very likely to continue to hold false beliefs.

As to whether I would take the time to discuss the issue with someone who adopted that attitude, I believe that my actions have answered that by engaging you honestly, civilly, while employing the tools of reason and evidence.

My goal is always to move forward, to learn more, to move that much closer to truth and knowledge. Take that as you will.

Mar 6, 2004, 10:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LiveAndLetLive,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
i have one question.

why do we assume we have inalienable rights?
oh sure it was cute when locke said it, and even cuter when jefferson reiterated

but why do we assume we have any rights at all?
least of all life, most of all liberty?

i dont want to sound like a facist, but to part of any organizationy ou must respect its rules, the rules which are implemented to protect the majority of members.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Excellent question. I put it in the "unassailable assertion" category. Jefferson said it was self-evident. Another way to put it is that in the state of nature, people have liberty. It's natural, is the answer.

If we don't have rights, then, you must prove the point. I've never seen proof otherwise, but I am open minded!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

ive never seen anything remotely similar to proof that we have inalienable rights

the term selfevident is a loaded term

to some people it is selfevident that eating animals is bad

to others it is selfevident that god is or isnt real

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 7, 2004, 09:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)

ive never seen anything remotely similar to proof that we have inalienable rights

the term selfevident is a loaded term

to some people it is selfevident that eating animals is bad

to others it is selfevident that god is or isnt real<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes, there's no "proof," as in a mathematical formula. It IS an "unassailable assertion." It must be DIS-proven. Can you disprove it?

gecko · Mar 7, 2004, 04:12 pm

why is it unassailable?

ive seen a lot of proof that some people dont know what to do with free will

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 7, 2004, 04:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
why is it unassailable?

ive seen a lot of proof that some people dont know what to do with free will<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
well, all right then, it IS theoretically assailable, I've just never SEEN a cogent counter.

Pretty much everyone can be perceived at time to time as not knowing "what to do with free will." Jefferson answered that one, too:

"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

The operative phrase is "to secure these rights." Not to "do good," "make the world safe for democracy," to create "New Deals," etc.

dotcoma · Mar 7, 2004, 04:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
why is it unassailable?

ive seen a lot of proof that some people dont know what to do with free will<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'd like to see your proof...

Impenitent · Mar 7, 2004, 05:07 pm

some people are freely pious and others are freely sinners...

which is what to do?

that is your proof...

people do whatever they wish, they know not what to do

Mar 7, 2004, 05:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
people do whatever they wish, they know not what to do<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How do you reconcile this statement with itself? That there is no single path for everyone does not demonstrate an ignorance as to what to do with free will. Sure some will choose one path, others another, and yet others still another.. in fact we ought to be surprised if any two actually choose the same path.

Impenitent · Mar 7, 2004, 05:30 pm

there is no path... they don't know what to do with their free will... if they knew what "to do", they'd do the same thing "to do"...

that is proof of free will... they do different things freely

Mar 7, 2004, 05:34 pm

Why do you think that everyone would choose the same path if freely allowed to do so? Why wouldn't interest still be different? Why wouldn't tastes remain different? Why would not heirarchies of value remain different?

I agree that there is free will, I am curious about this idea that no one knows what to do with it. I would argue that the existence of different paths no more demonstrates an ignorance of what to do, than it demonstrates a certainty of knowledge of what path to choose.

I would also point out that none of us has the perspect to determine what is "the right" path for any individual, except perhaps ourselves. So for all appearances, everyone could well be on such a path.

gecko · Mar 8, 2004, 04:45 am

so light baby you just proved why anarchy is a bad gig
if everyman does what he likes what happens when what he/she wants is anathema to others?

Impenitent · Mar 8, 2004, 01:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
Why do you think that everyone would choose the same path if freely allowed to do so? Why wouldn't interest still be different? Why wouldn't tastes remain different? Why would not heirarchies of value remain different?

I agree that there is free will, I am curious about this idea that no one knows what to do with it. I would argue that the existence of different paths no more demonstrates an ignorance of what to do, than it demonstrates a certainty of knowledge of what path to choose.

I would also point out that none of us has the perspect to determine what is "the right" path for any individual, except perhaps ourselves. So for all appearances, everyone could well be on such a path.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

IF there were one path, everyone would follow it...
everyone acts differently, hense, no one path, no knowledge of the path...

if everyone believed they knew what to do, they'd follow the same path of what to do... that's religion... but there are different religions... different paths, but according to the believers of the path, their way is the truth and the light ect ad nauseaum...

is there certainity behind religion? no... but religious adherents believe their path is the one... their path is the one to them... they "know" it is so... the fact that their "knowledge" of the path is not actually knowledge, for if it were, everyone who knew would follow the path...

dotcoma · Mar 8, 2004, 01:11 pm

You guys are right. People are stupid. Let's get George Bush to lead us into the light.

Mar 8, 2004, 02:23 pm

Imp,

I have already addressed this point but let me bring it up yet again: upon what do you base the assumption that there could only be one path that is identical for everyone?

Impenitent · Mar 8, 2004, 04:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
Imp,

I have already addressed this point but let me bring it up yet again: upon what do you base the assumption that there could only be one path that is identical for everyone?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I never assumed that there was, you assumed that I assumed...

there are many others who believe they have the one path, they are religious... I am not religious

Mar 8, 2004, 05:12 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
there is no path... they don't know what to do with their free will... if they knew what "to do", they'd do the same thing "to do"...

that is proof of free will... they do different things freely<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Here you explicitly make the claim that you pretend was an assumption on my part. Now that there is no doubt, and can no longer be any pretense, I ask yet again, why is it that you assume that there can be only one path? Why do you exclude the overwhelmingly likely possibility that free will does NOT lead to a single path, but to a great many differing for each individual?

Impenitent · Mar 8, 2004, 05:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
there is no path... they don't know what to do with their free will... if they knew what "to do", they'd do the same thing "to do"...

that is proof of free will... they do different things freely<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Here you explicitly make the claim that you pretend was an assumption on my part. Now that there is no doubt, and can no longer be any pretense, I ask yet again, why is it that you assume that there can be only one path? Why do you exclude the overwhelmingly likely possibility that free will does NOT lead to a single path, but to a great many differing for each individual?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

:rolleyes: read carefully... I said there is NO PATH ... they do DIFFERENT things FREELY...

Mar 8, 2004, 07:25 pm

And I ask again upon what, besides your presumptions of omniscience, do you base this groundless claim which denies that paths CAN IN FACT EXIST AND NOT BE ONE PATH.

And as for reading carefully, how about you read YOUR OWN WORDS: <blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
there is no path... they don't know what to do with their free will... if they knew what "to do", they'd do the same thing "to do"...
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mar 6, 2004, 08:18 am	#41 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) i have one question. why do we assume we have inalienable rights? oh sure it was cute when locke said it, and even cuter when jefferson reiterated but why do we assume we have any rights at all? least of all life, most of all liberty? i dont want to sound like a facist, but to part of any organizationy ou must respect its rules, the rules which are implemented to protect the majority of members.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Excellent question. I put it in the "unassailable assertion" category. Jefferson said it was self-evident. Another way to put it is that in the state of nature, people have liberty. It's natural, is the answer. If we don't have rights, then, you must prove the point. I've never seen proof otherwise, but I am open minded!

Mar 6, 2004, 09:45 am	#43 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Mia, Once again I must point out that you have maintained the false accusation that I have offered you ANY insult: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If you still don't understand, then just heap on some more insults and I'll just let them be.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> All I have ever asked of your, and all I have offered to you, is honest, civil, intellectual discussion. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Lightbearer: Did you somehow read my posts to mean I believe the world is flat? I was saying it is clearly round, but if someone here wanted to state it was flat, would you take the time to debate it with them, complete with offering proof and citing sources?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Did you read my post at all? I pointed out that using YOUR flat earth analogy, yoru role was not that of the round earth person, but rather that of the flat earther. Just as you noted with the flat earther, you simply claimed that your conclusions are obvious, despite the many clear refutations and direct citations of evidence directly counter to your assumptions. One of the problems of simply assuming your beliefs to be true and obvious, especially when they remain unexamined, is that you are very likely to continue to hold false beliefs. As to whether I would take the time to discuss the issue with someone who adopted that attitude, I believe that my actions have answered that by engaging you honestly, civilly, while employing the tools of reason and evidence. My goal is always to move forward, to learn more, to move that much closer to truth and knowledge. Take that as you will.

Mar 6, 2004, 10:46 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LiveAndLetLive,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) i have one question. why do we assume we have inalienable rights? oh sure it was cute when locke said it, and even cuter when jefferson reiterated but why do we assume we have any rights at all? least of all life, most of all liberty? i dont want to sound like a facist, but to part of any organizationy ou must respect its rules, the rules which are implemented to protect the majority of members.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Excellent question. I put it in the "unassailable assertion" category. Jefferson said it was self-evident. Another way to put it is that in the state of nature, people have liberty. It's natural, is the answer. If we don't have rights, then, you must prove the point. I've never seen proof otherwise, but I am open minded!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> ive never seen anything remotely similar to proof that we have inalienable rights the term selfevident is a loaded term to some people it is selfevident that eating animals is bad to others it is selfevident that god is or isnt real

Mar 7, 2004, 09:57 am	#45 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) ive never seen anything remotely similar to proof that we have inalienable rights the term selfevident is a loaded term to some people it is selfevident that eating animals is bad to others it is selfevident that god is or isnt real<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, there's no "proof," as in a mathematical formula. It IS an "unassailable assertion." It must be DIS-proven. Can you disprove it?

Mar 7, 2004, 04:47 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) why is it unassailable? ive seen a lot of proof that some people dont know what to do with free will<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> well, all right then, it IS theoretically assailable, I've just never SEEN a cogent counter. Pretty much everyone can be perceived at time to time as not knowing "what to do with free will." Jefferson answered that one, too: "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..." The operative phrase is "to secure these rights." Not to "do good," "make the world safe for democracy," to create "New Deals," etc.

Mar 6, 2004, 08:58 am	#42 (permalink) (top)
Sandy Igneous Magma Posts: 267	Liberty! It's there for the taking, but it must be recognized for what it is. To me Liberty is living a life without government interference. I was taught (as most of us were) to live by a set social rules so we don't hurt or steal from each other but it doesn't stop there! We should act independently from each other and especially independently from the government. We are losing our liberties and freedoms because we all believe the government owes us some kind of quality of life that we can't seen to find on our own. We have looted the American system to the point that the last 2 generations can't seem to function without Big Daddy's help. We have given the government control over our education system, our banking system, our social laws and now even our zoning residential laws. We no longer even want the final decision on our labor laws, our insurance coverage or the kind of cars we drive. We have become pawns to our politicians! I don't know how much longer we can continue to trust our government when so many of our elected officials are corrupt to the bone. Back away from the government! Stand on our own feet, find our own jobs, live by our own standards and stop the politicians from being able to buy our votes.

Mar 7, 2004, 04:12 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	why is it unassailable? ive seen a lot of proof that some people dont know what to do with free will

Mar 7, 2004, 04:50 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) why is it unassailable? ive seen a lot of proof that some people dont know what to do with free will<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'd like to see your proof...

Mar 7, 2004, 05:07 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	some people are freely pious and others are freely sinners... which is what to do? that is your proof... people do whatever they wish, they know not what to do "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 7, 2004, 05:14 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by people do whatever they wish, they know not what to do<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How do you reconcile this statement with itself? That there is no single path for everyone does not demonstrate an ignorance as to what to do with free will. Sure some will choose one path, others another, and yet others still another.. in fact we ought to be surprised if any two actually choose the same path.

Mar 7, 2004, 05:30 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	there is no path... they don't know what to do with their free will... if they knew what "to do", they'd do the same thing "to do"... that is proof of free will... they do different things freely "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 7, 2004, 05:34 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Why do you think that everyone would choose the same path if freely allowed to do so? Why wouldn't interest still be different? Why wouldn't tastes remain different? Why would not heirarchies of value remain different? I agree that there is free will, I am curious about this idea that no one knows what to do with it. I would argue that the existence of different paths no more demonstrates an ignorance of what to do, than it demonstrates a certainty of knowledge of what path to choose. I would also point out that none of us has the perspect to determine what is "the right" path for any individual, except perhaps ourselves. So for all appearances, everyone could well be on such a path.

Mar 8, 2004, 04:45 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	so light baby you just proved why anarchy is a bad gig if everyman does what he likes what happens when what he/she wants is anathema to others?

Mar 8, 2004, 01:05 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Why do you think that everyone would choose the same path if freely allowed to do so? Why wouldn't interest still be different? Why wouldn't tastes remain different? Why would not heirarchies of value remain different? I agree that there is free will, I am curious about this idea that no one knows what to do with it. I would argue that the existence of different paths no more demonstrates an ignorance of what to do, than it demonstrates a certainty of knowledge of what path to choose. I would also point out that none of us has the perspect to determine what is "the right" path for any individual, except perhaps ourselves. So for all appearances, everyone could well be on such a path.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> IF there were one path, everyone would follow it... everyone acts differently, hense, no one path, no knowledge of the path... if everyone believed they knew what to do, they'd follow the same path of what to do... that's religion... but there are different religions... different paths, but according to the believers of the path, their way is the truth and the light ect ad nauseaum... is there certainity behind religion? no... but religious adherents believe their path is the one... their path is the one to them... they "know" it is so... the fact that their "knowledge" of the path is not actually knowledge, for if it were, everyone who knew would follow the path... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 8, 2004, 01:11 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
dotcoma Volcanic Erupter Posts: 3,154	You guys are right. People are stupid. Let's get George Bush to lead us into the light.

Mar 8, 2004, 02:23 pm	#56 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Imp, I have already addressed this point but let me bring it up yet again: upon what do you base the assumption that there could only be one path that is identical for everyone?

Mar 8, 2004, 04:23 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) Imp, I have already addressed this point but let me bring it up yet again: upon what do you base the assumption that there could only be one path that is identical for everyone?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I never assumed that there was, you assumed that I assumed... there are many others who believe they have the one path, they are religious... I am not religious "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 8, 2004, 05:12 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by there is no path... they don't know what to do with their free will... if they knew what "to do", they'd do the same thing "to do"... that is proof of free will... they do different things freely<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Here you explicitly make the claim that you pretend was an assumption on my part. Now that there is no doubt, and can no longer be any pretense, I ask yet again, why is it that you assume that there can be only one path? Why do you exclude the overwhelmingly likely possibility that free will does NOT lead to a single path, but to a great many differing for each individual?

Mar 8, 2004, 05:56 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Lightbearer,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by there is no path... they don't know what to do with their free will... if they knew what "to do", they'd do the same thing "to do"... that is proof of free will... they do different things freely<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Here you explicitly make the claim that you pretend was an assumption on my part. Now that there is no doubt, and can no longer be any pretense, I ask yet again, why is it that you assume that there can be only one path? Why do you exclude the overwhelmingly likely possibility that free will does NOT lead to a single path, but to a great many differing for each individual?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> :rolleyes: read carefully... I said there is NO PATH ... they do DIFFERENT things FREELY... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 8, 2004, 07:25 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	And I ask again upon what, besides your presumptions of omniscience, do you base this groundless claim which denies that paths CAN IN FACT EXIST AND NOT BE ONE PATH. And as for reading carefully, how about you read YOUR OWN WORDS: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by there is no path... they don't know what to do with their free will... if they knew what "to do", they'd do the same thing "to do"... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>