Libertarian Discussion Forum | Political Discussion Forums

To: Jim S who wrote (8805)	4/28/2012 7:05:10 PM
From: SocratesJohnson	of 9212

Especially the placing, and the acceptance, of the burden of proof to the negative side of the debate. I assume you mean that those who assert that natural rights exist are the ones who need to provide evidence for them? If I claim to have a right, and I exercise it, then I have that right. There are many examples of that not working. If I go on someone's property and pick their apples without them noticing I can claim I have a right to do so but I'd be very wrong. Whatever you want is a right, and the powers that be can deny you that right. I agree with you about the UN "rights". It's an example of why I distrust the idea of natural rights.....Anybody can claim a right to do anything. I think Edmund Burke was against the idea of natural for that reason. Now, please, go back to the shifting burden of proof. Those who assert that something exists are the one's who need to provide evidence for the existence of it.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: SocratesJohnson who wrote (8797)	4/29/2012 12:36:11 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation of 9212

I did. Aristotle.....Next question? You misunderstood Aristotle's position. He didn't say that owning slaves was a natural right. He said that some people are naturally slaves and some people are naturally masters. There was nothing about "rights" in his statements about slavery. I have provided irrefutable evidence that I have a brain.......If you can't comprehend that unbelievably obvious fact you really shouldn't attempt any sort of discussion do to a shocking inability to comprehend simple reasoning. 25 years ago I worked on an expert system based product that could give responses to typed or verbal questions that mimicked human responses. And artificial intelligence has come a long way in 25 years. Where it is highly unlikely that you are an AI machine, the fact that we are seeing text responses to our messages is not proof that there is a human body at the other end of the conversation. You have provided evidence, but it is not irrefutable. That is true but in many cases absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. yes, in many cases, not all

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (8813)	4/29/2012 1:26:50 PM
From: SocratesJohnson	of 9212

He didn't say that owning slaves was a natural right. He said that it's the natural order which, according to you, means that it's a natural right. Some of our founders assumed that property rights were natural rights and that slaves were property......They therefore thought that owning slaves was a natural right. 5 years ago I worked on an expert system based product that could give responses to typed or verbal questions that mimicked human responses. No computer would provide the sort of responses that I've gone in for. You worked with computers so you should know that. You have provided evidence, but it is not irrefutable. Actually it is irrefutable. If you can show that computers respond the way I do I'll retract that statement......Until then my assertion stands. yes, in many cases, not all I think I had specified that. I think I had said that "in many cases" absence of of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. If you don't have that as a working assumption you quickly get into trouble. How do you know that there isn't a natural right to own slaves?...........You don't really but there is no reason to think that such a right exists and a lot of reasons to think that it doesn't.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read