Something to ponder... (Page 6/10)
olejoedad MAR 24, 07:30 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:

No they do not.

If you give me the details of your claim I will show how you are wrong.



You are unable to prove me wrong, as I am right in what I say.
Explain your logic, or review your comments and find your logic fails.
BingB MAR 24, 07:41 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


You are unable to prove me wrong, as I am right in what I say.
Explain your logic, or review your comments and find your logic fails.




You do not even understand the concept of a "logical argument". A logical argument requires premises to support the conclusion. All you did was state a conclusion without any premise to support it. It is impossible for me to attack your argument because you never made an argument.

Based on your "logic" all I have to do to prove I am correct is to claim that I am correct.

You see the problem now?
olejoedad MAR 24, 09:25 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
You do not even understand the concept of a "logical argument". A logical argument requires premises to support the conclusion. All you did was state a conclusion without any premise to support it. It is impossible for me to attack your argument because you never made an argument.

Based on your "logic" all I have to do to prove I am correct is to claim that I am correct.

You see the problem now?



Why should I have to explain your missteps in logic when they are evident by rereading you own words?

Do you see the problem now?
cliffw MAR 25, 08:59 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Who do you think ended slavery?



It wasn't leftoids.
ray b MAR 25, 09:33 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:


It wasn't leftoids.



ACTUAL IT WAS

RADICAL REPUBLICANS WERE LEFT AT THAT TIME

THE SOUTHERN SLAVE OWNERS WERE con's

you do not get to move players from their historical roles at your whim

THOSE ARE LIES
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 25, 09:35 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:This post is a perfect example of what I have been saying about the people who make their politics the same as their culture. The fact that you believe that you can speak for all "the people of the United States" proves that you don't understand the United States. You believe that the United States only belongs to people who agree with you.

People in the middle like myself can see both sides of the argument. And it is clear that "the people of the United States" are pretty evenly split on where our rights come from.

You will never be able to see these issues clearly until you learn to separate your cultural beliefs from political discussions.




Ok, I don't know what's going on here. I can't tell if you really just don't understand, or if you are intentionally trying to be obtuse for some weird argumentative reason; however, I'll try to explain it as SIMPLY as I possibly can.


Explained in the Declaration of Independence, and defined in the U.S. Constitution... which are written by our founders on behalf of "WE THE PEOPLE" ... defines that our rights come from THREE places:

- GOD: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator "
- NATURE: "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station"
- MAN: "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"


... this is NOT a difficult concept to understand. These three things were defined specifically because they intended to encompass all manner of beliefs, pursuant to our society. It was done to make it abundantly clear that no matter what you believed, or where you stood on your views, that the rights of man are inalienable. For some reason, you can't stop your rambling on your soap box to think, read, and consider. Like... you're just repeating the same nonsense. In the last iteration of your account here, you stated you were a lawyer. This is the utmost basic/first concept that you learn when you get a law degree.

Since I think you may not still get it, let me expand. These three things were intentional... for example:

- King George says, "Your rights come from me," ... we would say, "No, they also come from God and Nature"
- Pope Pius VI says, "Your rights come from God, and God told me (whatever)," ... we would say, "They also come from nature, and from man."
- Fred says, "Your rights come from the government," ... we would say, the **** they do... they come from God, Nature, and Man.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-25-2024).]

ray b MAR 25, 09:37 AM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


Why should I have to explain your missteps in logic when they are evident by rereading you own words?

Do you see the problem now?



YOU CAN'T THAT IS WHY YOU DO NOT

you claim a 2 time loser in vote counts was cheated
rather he cheated once and was UNABLE TO REPEAT THE CHEAT

JUST AS HE WILL LOSE AGAIN IN 24 AND CLAIM THE SAME CHEAT BS
BingB MAR 25, 03:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


Why should I have to explain your missteps in logic when they are evident by rereading you own words?

Do you see the problem now?


You are wrong. There are zero missteps in my logic.

And the proof that they do not exist is your in ability to identify even one.
BingB MAR 25, 03:43 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
... this is NOT a difficult concept to understand. These three things were defined specifically because they intended to encompass all manner of beliefs, pursuant to our society. It was done to make it abundantly clear that no matter what you believed, or where you stood on your views, that the rights of man are inalienable. For some reason, you can't stop your rambling on your soap box to think, read, and consider. Like... you're just repeating the same nonsense. In the last iteration of your account here, you stated you were a lawyer. This is the utmost basic/first concept that you learn when you get a law degree.





I never said I had a law degree, but I understand the argument. Here is the problem though. The Founding Fathers are not qualified to define "liberty" because they supported chattel slavery and did not allow women to vote.

If you want to claim that "liberty" comes from your god then you have to admit that the United States government was more powerful than your god when millions of people were legally owned as property.

The argument that all rights come from god is a tool of the libertarians who say the government should not do things like help the handicapped or provide a free public education.
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 25, 04:49 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
I never said I had a law degree, but I understand the argument. Here is the problem though. The Founding Fathers are not qualified to define "liberty" because they supported chattel slavery and did not allow women to vote.

If you want to claim that "liberty" comes from your god then you have to admit that the United States government was more powerful than your god when millions of people were legally owned as property.

The argument that all rights come from god is a tool of the libertarians who say the government should not do things like help the handicapped or provide a free public education.




Ok, I tried to be nice... obviously, this is your weird way of trying to not be wrong in an argument. But at least you've made it clear tat this is your OPINION, which is essentially worthless when actual written law says otherwise. If you had just stated from the beginning that we were arguing YOUR OPINION, I would never have wasted my time.