Ok pumpkin, I'll bite.
Yes, facts can and have changed my mind.
Now let's see some.
What did we do? Harper Majority!!
- Thread starter YaYiP
- Start date
Yes, facts can and have changed my mind.
Now let's see some.
Well, how about I challenge one of you to a debate then? CDNBear....you seem to think it would be a waste of time to debate the issue, but you echo the same recycled and illogically inconsistent feelings as everyone else. No one ever says anything more than "It's my right" while using some variation of a slippery slope argument. Earlier I pointed out the logical consequences of the "it's my right" argument. One's right to own a slave is logically a equivalent argument unless you can give more of an explanation as to why your right should exist. No one understands this though and for that reason I may have to agree with you.....perhaps there is no point in debating this any further. Not because it’s beyond me, but because it would appear we seem to exist in parallel universes where the laws of logic and debate are somehow different. The laws in my universe are unique in that they give rise to intelligent life (though not by means of intelligent design). The laws are different in your universe in that the outcomes are not the same.
The gravamen of my case is perhaps loosely based on an article I once found in The Economist. It talks about how the “miracle of aggregation” does not always yield positive political outcomes. Further to this, a study done by Gabriel Lentz from MIT found that people could generally predict the winner of an election just by looking at them.
You could look those things up if you wish.....though I doubt you will. I have found people’s minds hard to change and I am reminded of a documentary I watched not long ago by Neil Degras Tyson who quoted some long since dead physicist as saying that old ideas usually have to die out as the people who hold them die out and when this finally happens, new ideas can finally be accepted.
Ahhhh........
There is, and never was, a right to a slave.
There is a right to property....you are confusing the two.
Not that I am surprised.
Slavery was, and is, a denial of rights.
Why does it say "free thinker" below your name? The only thing flowing freely in your head is the air flowing between your ears.
Only if you are willing to recognize the slave as human and in order to do that, the right to view them as property had to change. It was a right, now it's not.
You already presented a challenge. I adressed...
Wherein I answered the question you asked. Now live up to your end, and present the data.
We would have had to have had a discussion, for you to factually determine that. So leave your assumptions at the door.
That's right, I won't. That's not the offer you made.
You said you would put up the facts, if someone would answer the question, not tell me where to go and do research...
Chop, chop cocktart. Where are the facts you said you would present.
Perhaps, but it's not as entertaining as the tune yours whistles in a cross wind.
Only if you subscribe to the fundamentally flawed philosophy that rights are granted and removed by the government.
Rights are not granted or removed, they can only be recognized or denied.
Therefore, there has never been a right to own a slave..........because the slave has always had the right to be free. At one point that right was denied, which has absolutely no bearing on its existence.
Likewise the right to vote, which in broader terms means the right to be free, to be involved in the decisions that effect one's life. That right exists, it has always existed, but at times it has been denied.
The right to vote trumps all other arguments.
That is a shame.....delusion is always pitiful.
For your own good: You're an idiot. Get over yourself.
Does this mean you won't be living up to your end of the agreement?
I know what he's saying and it makes a great deal of sense.
In you case, a gag would be more appropriate.
lol
I'm typing from my Wii, so sometimes the words fudge up.
It should be gig, anyway.
You twit.
So Colpy presents at least a philisophically consistent argument...though he still does not show my main point to be flawed. So far he is the only one to do anything other than name calling....though he does that as well.