Gordie
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Insults and name calling, the same old same old. If you would just cite the authority for your position the argument would be over.
Where did you get this:
Is this from a book that could be cited as a source, or did you just make it up? If it is from an authoritative source, please cite, if not, then how does it carry any more weight than the rest of your opinion? What can you cite to show that your opinion carries more authority than mine?
You accuse others of just repeating themselves, but you will not answer questions directly, will not cite authority, will just keep saying that because you say so, it must be so.
How stupid would we have to be to just go along with someone,just because they said so. I'm sorry, but you will have to do a little better than that to convince me. It will take more than just your word to sway me,because I say so. I guess that is a product of my growing up in "The Show Me State".
You still do not show how driving a caris a natural right (nothing natural about a car, they don't grow on trees, they don't get dug up from the ground, they don't self reproduce, we aren't born with one), so the burden of proof is still yours in that driving is a natural right.
Everyone here but you and marshaul seem to understand the arguments being put forth by both sides, orat least you are the only ones claiming that the others don't understand. You are the first to go personal in your attacks, the sign of a weak personwith a weak argument. So that makes me wonder about who the dense one is.
AWDstylez wrote:
wrightme wrote:The faulty logic you have provided from the beginning does not pass for such. Each time I requested supporting information or clarification for your illogical connections, you simply insulted me and failed to address the inconsistencies in your argument.
As I have stated over and over, you have NOT provided a logical connection for your position, and when I have provided a logical connection between the actual rights in question, and your attempt to tie a "right to drive" to them, all you can do is call me "dense." Try arguing in good faith, and you may have a chance to provide information that will actually prove your point. You have not done so.
Ok captain intranetz argument citation master, address this one that's been raised multiple times so that everyone can watch you side step the issue and instead present a volley of counter-questions.
This is inarguable FACT the nature of "natural rights," if it were not so, they would not be natural rights. So the basis of the statement issound. Now address the issue...
And it's all futile anyway, because when talking about natural rights the burden of proof is on the person claiming the right DOES NOT exist. It falls on you to prove that driving IS NOT a right, not on me to prove that it is. If you reverse the burden of proof, than suddenly the only things that are "rights" are those enumerated in the Constitution or law. Again, comprehend the position and arguments being made FIRST. After you thoroughly understand the position, then you can start crying because you don't like it.
If the burden of proof is shifted to the populace to prove that anything IS a rightbefore it can be so (rather than to thegovernment to provethings AREN'T rights, and therefore regulate them), then rights are something fought for by the people and then granted by the government, not something that exists as part of nature like the laws of physics. Do you understand that? If you do not, then we cannot continue on because you are too stupid.
Insults and name calling, the same old same old. If you would just cite the authority for your position the argument would be over.
Where did you get this:
This is inarguable FACT the nature of "natural rights," if it were not so, they would not be natural rights. So the basis of the statement issound. Now address the issue...
And it's all futile anyway, because when talking about natural rights the burden of proof is on the person claiming the right DOES NOT exist. It falls on you to prove that driving IS NOT a right, not on me to prove that it is. If you reverse the burden of proof, than suddenly the only things that are "rights" are those enumerated in the Constitution or law. Again, comprehend the position and arguments being made FIRST. After you thoroughly understand the position, then you can start crying because you don't like it.
Is this from a book that could be cited as a source, or did you just make it up? If it is from an authoritative source, please cite, if not, then how does it carry any more weight than the rest of your opinion? What can you cite to show that your opinion carries more authority than mine?
You accuse others of just repeating themselves, but you will not answer questions directly, will not cite authority, will just keep saying that because you say so, it must be so.
How stupid would we have to be to just go along with someone,just because they said so. I'm sorry, but you will have to do a little better than that to convince me. It will take more than just your word to sway me,because I say so. I guess that is a product of my growing up in "The Show Me State".
You still do not show how driving a caris a natural right (nothing natural about a car, they don't grow on trees, they don't get dug up from the ground, they don't self reproduce, we aren't born with one), so the burden of proof is still yours in that driving is a natural right.
Everyone here but you and marshaul seem to understand the arguments being put forth by both sides, orat least you are the only ones claiming that the others don't understand. You are the first to go personal in your attacks, the sign of a weak personwith a weak argument. So that makes me wonder about who the dense one is.