Welcome Guest

Okay, so then you disagree with the basic premise

Posted on: October 28, 2016 at 11:03:54 CT

ummmm MU

Posts:

44901

Member For:

13.28 yrs

Level:

User

M.O.B. Votes:

of natural rights. There is no purpose in going forward with the logical proof of natural rights with you.

Congratulations, you are now officially in the company of the near-universally maligned people of history.

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

MESSAGE THREAD

JG, please answer this question without singing and dancing - pickle MU

- 10/28 10:45:58

ask woddy guthrie(nm) - escalade NWMSU - 10/28 11:31:07

Why do you believe I can/t haven't answered all your questio - JG A - 10/28 10:48:17

can I sell my part, can I exercise my property rights since - 90Tiger MU - 10/28 11:01:08

Yes - JG A - 10/28 11:06:38

patently false (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 10/28 11:49:06

Except its true - JG A - 10/28 12:46:56

lmao wut? - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 10/28 11:15:31

That makes no sense at all (nm) - pickle MU

- 10/28 11:12:49

See reply to Tigermatt - JG A - 10/28 11:33:04

Correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't the gov't sell - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:10:48

its a republic - JG A - 10/28 11:32:19

I think you can do better on this one (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:36:51

They at least axe for public comment - JG A - 10/28 11:39:14

Non-answer. More singing and dancing (nm) - pickle MU

- 10/28 11:34:59

Correct answer and then yes - JG A - 10/28 11:39:37

That makes absolutely no f**king sense. (nm) - TigerMatt MU

- 10/28 11:08:59

To an idiot - JG A - 10/28 11:32:41

Timestamp. It is owned by all of us? - pickle MU

- 10/28 10:51:55

That would include the Bundys, too. - Alferd Packer MU

- 10/28 11:03:38

Not include, they are sole owners (nm) - pickle MU

- 10/28 11:12:18

RE: Why do you believe I can/t haven't answered all your questio - TigerMatt MU

- 10/28 10:49:53

People don't have natural rights (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 10:47:21

This is frankly untrue - ummmm MU - 10/28 10:50:31

Prove it (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 10:54:01

They only exist if God exists despite the illogical - Butcher of Bakersfield STL - 10/28 11:23:20

One big heaping logical fallacy, MU98 (nm) - pickle MU

- 10/28 11:25:28

Also, in case you didn't see it: - ummmm MU - 10/28 10:57:36

What type of proof would you accept? - ummmm MU - 10/28 10:56:52

Submit your proof, and I'll evaluate it (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 10:57:24

Natural rights are logically deduced. - ummmm MU - 10/28 10:58:16

That's not proof. Prove it (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 10:59:13

Which right do you feel doesn't exist - your right to - 90Tiger MU - 10/28 11:03:01

I have been provided no proof that any natural rights exist - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:04:17

You are asserting a proof of existence is required fo - 90Tiger MU - 10/28 11:12:53

LMAO. They exist, because someone made them up? - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:16:48

No, humans observed and acknowledged them (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 10/28 11:50:05

So natural rights are human constructs? (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:51:27

Are you reading what I type or just inserting your own words - 90Tiger MU - 10/28 12:26:46

No, they are discovered in the same way that many - ummmm MU - 10/28 11:58:10

Though that is not what he said, a lot of things exist - ummmm MU - 10/28 11:22:38

Then what did he say? What proof did he provide - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:26:42

He said that natural rights are logically deduced (nm) - ummmm MU - 10/28 11:27:15

Who determines what is logical? (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:33:07

RE: Who determines what is logical? (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 10/28 12:27:31

Logic (nm) - ummmm MU - 10/28 11:42:52

I'm walking you through the logical proof of them. - ummmm MU - 10/28 10:59:48

My life will be taken away from me - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:01:24

Then you own nothing. Theft does not exist (nm) - pickle MU

- 10/28 11:19:21

theft can often be conclusively proven with evidence - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:21:27

How can theft exist if there are no property rights? - pickle MU

- 10/28 11:22:57

I will, gladly - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:25:55

That's a laydown - pickle MU

- 10/28 11:32:50

you say natural rights exist. Prove it (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:35:27

You're dodging (nm) - pickle MU

- 10/28 11:50:53

No, you're dodging (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:54:50

You won't allow that to occur because you reject - ummmm MU - 10/28 11:30:59

You can't prove the basic premise (nm) - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:35:49

Premises aren't proven. - ummmm MU - 10/28 11:43:21

Okay, so then you disagree with the basic premise - ummmm MU - 10/28 11:03:54

Prove the basic premise - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:05:52

I can't. It necessitates that you believe - ummmm MU - 10/28 11:17:30

So, if I reject your unproven belief, it somehow is evil? - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:24:29

Yes, rejecting that each individual has a right to his life - ummmm MU - 10/28 11:28:05

The irony in all of this - pickle MU

- 10/28 11:27:41

It is also ironic that you can't provide proof of natural - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:35:05

that's called an infringement on your right - the right is - 90Tiger MU - 10/28 11:03:38

what right is inherent? How is it inherent? What makes it - TigerJackSwartz MU

- 10/28 11:05:14