- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,692
- Reaction score
- 3,368
- Location
- TN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That would be science, not "belief"/"faith". When it comes to facts, science will always trump faith.
No, it isn't. That is pure unadulterated nonsense. The right to life is based on our ability to kill and our willingness to do so in self-defense, such that any society that does not recognize the right to life is inherently unstable.
It sure doesn't have to be based on fact, though. Don't we have plenty of evidence in hand that it's usually NOT based on fact?You must have some basis for your belief. There must be something it is based on.
If there's no proof that X does not exist, then that alone isn't reason to just assume X does exist. However, it is also not a basis on which to say "X does not exist" as a factual statement. You and others continuously try to defend the position that "lack of evidence = does not exist." It's an indefensible position because existence does not depend on evidence. Perception depends on evidence.There's no proof it doesn't exist therefore why not assume it does, right?
It sure doesn't have to be based on fact, though. Don't we have plenty of evidence in hand that it's usually NOT based on fact?
False. A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability.any society that doesn't recognize self ownership is inherently unstable.
If there's no proof that X does not exist, then that alone isn't reason to just assume X does exist. However, it is also not a basis on which to say "X does not exist" as a factual statement. You and others continuously try to defend the position that "lack of evidence = does not exist." It's an indefensible position because existence does not depend on evidence. Perception depends on evidence.
There's a similar idea in the movie Gamer - except it didn't exactly "divorce" someone from their body. They knew what was happening even though someone else was controlling them through an interface.I think it is rather self-evident than the individual "owns" themselves. "Ownership" is also inherent and cannot be transferred, there is no way to divorce your consciousness from your body (well barring death I suppose). As such, your body is yours and yours alone.
BTW, anyone seen a show called Dollhouse? I thought that it developed into a pretty decent show, but had a scary premise. And that premise was a technology which would allow an individual to divorce their consciousness from their body and thus sell or rent out their body.
False. A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability.
Stories are not only concocted but packaged and sold everyday without any basis in fact. Whether anyone will actually believe the story is another question. When stories become faith is where the problems often start.So you can concoct any story you want without any factual basis?
Regarding your question, such as?
Stories are not only concocted but packaged and sold everyday without any basis in fact. Whether anyone will actually believe the story is another question. When stories become faith is where the problems often start.
Maybe you misunderstood my comment?? Christianity all by itself gives us untold numbers of beliefs that are not based in fact.
No one said that either.false. a society that feels that self ownership is trumped by the needs of the community is a horrible foundation based on the rule of which men are in charge at the time.
No one said that either.
No one said that either.
. . . . P-R-O-P-E-R-T-Y
:allhail
Nobody said anything about such a society at all. I said, "A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability." Address that.false. a society that feels that self ownership is trumped by the needs of the community is a horrible foundation based on the rule of which men are in charge at the time.
Nobody said anything about such a society at all. I said, "A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability." Address that.
Existence does not depend on evidence which is explains why atoms existed far before we had evidence of them. Perception depends on evidence. This is really basic stuff here.Existence doesn't depend on evidence?
No. That's not even close to a logical conclusion to come to from what I said.So everything exists?
No, you did not. You went on about some society that nobody mentioned.I already addressed your unsubstantiated opinion with one of my own.
Existence does not depend on evidence which is explains why atoms existed far before we had evidence of them. Perception depends on evidence. This is really basic stuff here.
No. That's not even close to a logical conclusion to come to from what I said.
I don’t think this concept is too far from the ideal of self-ownership either. I think that in this case you can certainly also make the claim that government doesn’t own you since you cannot be owned.No, you did not. You went on about some society that nobody mentioned.
Again, I said, "A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability." Address that.
No, you did not. You went on about some society that nobody mentioned.
Again, I said, "A society that acknowledges that people cannot be owned offers a fine foundation for stability." Address that.
I'm saying, "existence does not depend on evidence."Ok. How isn't it? Are you not saying "just because there isn't evidence now, doesn't mean there won't be in the future?"
Yes, everything COULD exist. However, that's not what you said, you said:If that's the case then everything could exist.
So everything exists?
I find your opinion false too and you have provided nothing to validate yours as is often the case with libertarian fantasies, but that's beside that point.again, I find your opinion, false.
You provided nothing to validate your opinion, and seem offended that I reject it outright.
Yeah, and Al Capone had a social contract with the people in his neighborhood. They fulfill their duty to pay their taxes to him, and he doesn't break their legs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?