Anybody else ready for libertarianism?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It seems to me that you assume that your definition of 'rights' is superior to everybody else's. I like to hear how you justify that belief.

Even if you are right that all rights are natural, you still need to explain what our natural rights are.

Don't even bother. Libertarians see "Natural Rights" like psychics see auras. They are just sort of "out there". Floating around in the air. Sort of woo-woo like.

 

[Earthborn]

It seems to me that you assume that your definition of "need" is better than everyone else's.

Okay, "need" is perhaps too big a word. After all: you don't 'need' to convince anyone. It's more a matter of what you want and whether you are willing to do the things that are necessary to achieve it.

If you want to convince others that your argumentation is valid, then you also want to explain others what people's natural rights are and explain how they are derived.

That might also help in showing that they exist.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Don't even bother. Libertarians see "Natural Rights" like psychics see auras. They are just sort of "out there". Floating around in the air. Sort of woo-woo like.

That you would say that shows you just how little you understand the subject. And I see you have no cites for those claims you made.

Okay, "need" is perhaps too big a word. After all: you don't 'need' to convince anyone. It's more a matter of what you want and whether you are willing to do the things that are necessary to achieve it.

The fact that you would even use the word "need" means that you have a certain view about what the word means, just as I have a certain view of what the word "rights" means. If we don't consider our own definitions to be correct, and we consider all possible definitions to of exactly the same validity, then words become meaningless. So I don't think that your implication that I am being conceited for considering words to have particular meanings is called for.

That might also help in showing that they exist.

Saying that natural rights exist is simply the same as saying that there are actions which are morally wrong. If you don't accept that premise, then I don't see how there is enough common ground for us to have any discussion on the subject.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Saying that natural rights exist is simply the same as saying that there are actions which are morally wrong. If you don't accept that premise, then I don't see how there is enough common ground for us to have any discussion on the subject.

Can you please list the complete set of (natural) rights?

 

[CFLarsen]

You clearly aren't paying attention to the thread.
...
For what? Actually providing cites for your claims?
...
You asked what the purpose of a platform is. I told you what the purpose of a platform is. That's the very epitome of a sequitur. It's truly a testament to you complete lack of honesty that you can pretend otherwise.
...
I have already pointed out that this is a dishonest question, designed to misrepresent rather than elucidate. That you still insist on asking it is further proof of your dishonesty.
...
I never claimed it does. Liar.

Wow. Shanek Reincarnated.

Rounded to the nearest 100%, zero.

This is not what "rounded" means.

That wasn't the question. The question was "Do you still maintain that it rounds to 0%?" which dishonestly implied that I was making that claim.

Shanek Reincarnated.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Can you please list the complete set of (natural) rights?

Oh dear. I do hope you're not holding your breath!

 

[DavidJames]

I just think that the idea of absorbing dollars into your mind is a rather odd concept.

I just reread my comment and it makes perfect sense using the bold definition. I wasn't referring to the $'s being assimilated, rather the concept.

It may very well be that it is I that has a conception of the word different from the accepted usage, but I don't think that "assimilate" means quite what you think it means.

I quoted The Free Dictionary Link???? I bolded the usage, sheesh, what more do you want.

It seems to me that if you have anything of value to say, then you should say it, rather than posting rude comments, while at the same time claiming to be polite.

I'm sorry, I should have posted my point and not the rude remark. Ok, here you go...

You posted these gems when it was pointed out that Badnarik gained .33% of the vote which when rounded (to the nearest whole number) is ZERO. Do you see the decimal point and the percent sign DO YOU? It was pointed out that Kerry received 48.27% of the vote. Do you see the percent sign??? Do you know what it means????

After all, Kerry’s share of the vote rounds to 0 as well. “Anti-woo-woo” indeed.

Kerry's share of the vote was .48, which rounds to 0.

Did you think no one would notice when you dishonestly changed 48% to .48 in order to justify your position.

for shame!

 

[Art Vandelay]

Can you please list the complete set of (natural) rights?

Can you please list the complete set of situations in which you would give a warning to a poster?

Wow. Shanek Reincarnated.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

This is not what "rounded" means.

Yes, it is. You clearly has no understanding of math.

[duplicate post]

You posted these gems when it was pointed out that Badnarik gained .33% of the vote which when rounded (to the nearest whole number) is ZERO.

WRONG! Claus is rounding to the nearest percentage, not the nearest whole number. 48.27%, rounded to the nearest whole number, is zero. Clearly, you too do not understand math.

Do you see the decimal point and the percent sign DO YOU? It was pointed out that Kerry received 48.27% of the vote. Do you see the percent sign??? Do you know what it means????

You're ranting. An argument should consist of logically supported assertions, not a bunch of random questions followed by a bunch of question marks.

Did you think no one would notice when you dishonestly changed 48% to .48 in order to justify your position.

I didn't change anything. That's his share. He received 59,028,109 votes out of a total of approximately 122,300,000. 59,028,109 divided by 122,300,000 is .4827. What in the world is dishonest about that? Claus changed that to 48.27%, and now you're claiming that I'm being dishonest.

for shame!

You're the one that should be ashamed.

 

[Darat]

Art - can you list the complete set of natural rights?

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you please list the complete set of situations in which you would give a warning to a poster?

Quit stalling. Answer Darat's question.

WRONG! Claus is rounding to the nearest percentage, not the nearest whole number. 48.27%, rounded to the nearest whole number, is zero. Clearly, you too do not understand math.

(groan)......

I didn't change anything. That's his share. He received 59,028,109 votes out of a total of approximately 122,300,000. 59,028,109 divided by 122,300,000 is .4827. What in the world is dishonest about that? Claus changed that to 48.27%, and now you're claiming that I'm being dishonest.

Changed it?? Art, do you understand what .4827 is? That's not 48.27%?

And may I ask: What education do you have?

 

[gnome]

Ok... this is easily cleared up. Everything rounds to zero if you round to a large enough number. To truly compare figures you must round to the same decimal.

If one figure rounds to zero at a higher decimal spot, then that figure is larger than the other, by that many orders of magnitude.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Art - can you list the complete set of natural rights?

Stop it!! Your killing me!!!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quit stalling. Answer Darat's question.



(groan)......



Changed it?? Art, do you understand what .4827 is? That's not 48.27%?

And may I ask: What education do you have?

Is it time for this yet?

 

[DavidJames]

I didn't change anything. That's his share. He received 59,028,109 votes out of a total of approximately 122,300,000. 59,028,109 divided by 122,300,000 is .4827. What in the world is dishonest about that? Claus changed that to 48.27%, and now you're claiming that I'm being dishonest.

You're the one that should be ashamed.

You are dishonest because you are changed Claus's assertion. He presented the question using the percent sign YOU changed to a decimal. Why? Why would you change Claus's number from 48.27% to .4827, you did that, why? You deliberately misrepresented him, why?

 

[Kerberos]

We are talking about different meanings of "freedom".

I'm aware of that, can you give your definition?

Asking for a proof of the existence of natural rights is like asking what color the number five is.

I suppose so, the number five has no colour, and natural rights have no existence.

"Natural rights" is redundant, as all rights are natural. "Socially constructed rights" is a contradication, since if they are socially constructed, they aren't rights. As such, it cannot be defended rationally.

Wrong on all counts. Rights are defined by dictionary.com as "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

"You're not getting the point.

Pray explain the point then.

 

[gnome]

You are dishonest because you are changed Claus's assertion. He presented the question using the percent sign YOU changed to a decimal. Why? Why would you change Claus's number from 48.27% to .4827, you did that, why? You deliberately misrepresented him, why?

Oh, for Euclid's sake...

48.27% = .4827

They are interchangeable. There is no dishonesty in using either figure.

 

[varwoche]

Oh, for Euclid's sake...
48.27% = .4827
They are interchangeable. There is no dishonesty in using either figure.

Sorry Gnome but despite your math correctness, 48.27% rounds down to 0% in two places, one being Planet X and the other being the Art V's whimsical post.

 

[DavidJames]

Oh, for Euclid's sake...

48.27% = .4827

They are interchangeable. There is no dishonesty in using either figure.

Please, give me some credit of course they are the same.

The original assertion was that .33% rounds to 0%. Art came back and said .4827 also rounds to 0. He couldn't say 48.27% rounds to 0% so he restated the percentage as a decimal. It is mathematically correct, but intellectually dishonest. Does that make sense?

 

[CFLarsen]

Please, give me some credit of course they are the same.

The original assertion was that .33% rounds to 0%. Art came back and said .4827 also rounds to 0. He couldn't say 48.27% rounds to 0% so he restated the percentage as a decimal. It is mathematically correct, but intellectually dishonest. Does that make sense?

For some reason, Art doesn't want Kerry to get 48%.

 

[hgc]

...
Whenever you feel like it you can define natural rights and prove their existence...

Natural rights:

This is Libertopia. No intersection with human civilization.