aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

Can you give me your definition of logic?

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

People disagree on rights because most people are not educated on them. They think rights are merely "really important entitlements" (like you apparently do).

And I assume the truths you are referring to are things like the 10 commandments, the golden rule, and whatnot? Because us Christians are merely "pretty damned sure" that those are truth. There is no way for us to know for sure (possibly until we die... and then it's too late for government purposes).

---

Like I apparently do? I'm saying rights are subjected first to truth. You're the one arguing for moral relativism as the only moral absolute.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

Those don't have to involve any kind of religion.

An atheist could agree with a Christian that murder is wrong.

---

What objective standard would an atheist point to to show that murder is wrong? Like Dostoevsky said, if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.

---

A person's right to life was taken from them through that murder.

There's your objective standard.

And you're taking a 19th century Russian novelist as your standard for rights?

---

His conclusion is correct. That's all. You're creating rights out of thin air. Where does the right to life come from? How do you know it's not okay to take a human life? Why is it totally fine to kill an animal and eat it?

---

Just because you say so doesn't make somebody's conclusions correct.

Animals have the same rights as we do. It just that our government is not obligated to protect their rights anymore than it is obligated to protect the rights of Chinese in China. The Chinese have their own government for that. We pay taxes to our government to help us protect our rights. Cows, chickens, etc. do not. They are not obligated to protect our rights and we are not obligated to protect theirs.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

And this has absolutely nothing to do with anything anyone is saying here (other than you)...

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

Can you give me your definition of logic?

---

logic

noun

[ol]

1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"

[/ol]

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

People disagree on rights because most people are not educated on them. They think rights are merely "really important entitlements" (like you apparently do).

And I assume the truths you are referring to are things like the 10 commandments, the golden rule, and whatnot? Because us Christians are merely "pretty damned sure" that those are truth. There is no way for us to know for sure (possibly until we die... and then it's too late for government purposes).

---

Like I apparently do? I'm saying rights are subjected first to truth. You're the one arguing for moral relativism as the only moral absolute.

---

I'm not claiming anything as a moral absolute.

I'm telling you what rights are and that government's role should be to protect them.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

Those don't have to involve any kind of religion.

An atheist could agree with a Christian that murder is wrong.

---

What objective standard would an atheist point to to show that murder is wrong? Like Dostoevsky said, if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.

---

A person's right to life was taken from them through that murder.

There's your objective standard.

And you're taking a 19th century Russian novelist as your standard for rights?

---

His conclusion is correct. That's all. You're creating rights out of thin air. Where does the right to life come from? How do you know it's not okay to take a human life? Why is it totally fine to kill an animal and eat it?

---

Just because you say so doesn't make somebody's conclusions correct.

Animals have the same rights as we do. It just that our government is not obligated to protect their rights anymore than it is obligated to protect the rights of Chinese in China. The Chinese have their own government for that. We pay taxes to our government to help us protect our rights. Cows, chickens, etc. do not. They are not obligated to protect our rights and we are not obligated to protect theirs.

---

To recap: Animals have the same rights that we do, but they don't pay for the privilege of our govt's protection.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

Those don't have to involve any kind of religion.

An atheist could agree with a Christian that murder is wrong.

---

What objective standard would an atheist point to to show that murder is wrong? Like Dostoevsky said, if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.

---

A person's right to life was taken from them through that murder.

There's your objective standard.

And you're taking a 19th century Russian novelist as your standard for rights?

---

His conclusion is correct. That's all. You're creating rights out of thin air. Where does the right to life come from? How do you know it's not okay to take a human life? Why is it totally fine to kill an animal and eat it?

---

Just because you say so doesn't make somebody's conclusions correct.

Animals have the same rights as we do. It just that our government is not obligated to protect their rights anymore than it is obligated to protect the rights of Chinese in China. The Chinese have their own government for that. We pay taxes to our government to help us protect our rights. Cows, chickens, etc. do not. They are not obligated to protect our rights and we are not obligated to protect theirs.

---

To recap: Animals have the same rights that we do, but they don't pay for the privilege of our govt's protection.

---

Correct. (and therefore shouldn't expect our govt's protection)

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

Can you give me your definition of logic?

---

logic

noun

[ol]

1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"

[/ol]

---

Thank you. What are the strict principles according to which reasoning is conducted? That's the question. That's what you're missing.

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

---

What he's saying is that it doesn't make sense to say that anything is not permitted absent a sole source of Truth. And he's right. God either exists or He doesn't exist. Your belief in Him is of no consequence.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

Those don't have to involve any kind of religion.

An atheist could agree with a Christian that murder is wrong.

---

What objective standard would an atheist point to to show that murder is wrong? Like Dostoevsky said, if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted.

---

A person's right to life was taken from them through that murder.

There's your objective standard.

And you're taking a 19th century Russian novelist as your standard for rights?

---

His conclusion is correct. That's all. You're creating rights out of thin air. Where does the right to life come from? How do you know it's not okay to take a human life? Why is it totally fine to kill an animal and eat it?

---

No it's not.

So, you're saying that someone that doesn't believe in God thinks they're allowed to kill anyone just because everything is permitted?

But, to answer your questions..

It's not ok to take a human life because that human has the right to life - INHERENTLY.

And it's ok to kill animals and eat them because they're tasty. If they weren't meant to be eaten then they shouldn't have been made out of meat.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

Can you give me your definition of logic?

---

You seriously need a definition for logic?

If that's the case, then there's no logic in continuing any debate.

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

---

facepalm indeed

What he is not getting is that not all Baptists agree with each other on the nature of God. Nevermind Catholics, Mormons. And WAY-nevermind Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

Are only the intersection of those beliefs allowed? Can I beat my wife because some Muslims think that is a-okay? Or is only the union allowed? So that none of us can make loans with interest, use electronics on Saturdays, etc. because somebody somewhere thinks those should be disallowed?

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

Can you give me your definition of logic?

---

logic

noun

[ol]

1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"

[/ol]

---

Thank you. What are the strict principles according to which reasoning is conducted? That's the question. That's what you're missing.

---

If you are trying to imply it has anything to do with God, then you are deluding yourself.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

---

What he's saying is that it doesn't make sense to say that anything is not permitted absent a sole source of Truth. And he's right. God either exists or He doesn't exist. Your belief in Him is of no consequence.

---

And that has nothing to do with whether rights exist or not.

So, if God does NOT exist, are you saying there would be NO rights?

BTW...which religion do we have to follow to ensure that we're getting the correct set of rights?

I'm a deist, so we don't have a handbook.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

Can you give me your definition of logic?

---

You seriously need a definition for logic?

If that's the case, then there's no logic in continuing any debate.

---

What I asked for was his definition. He keeps using the term as though it's a standard unto itself. It's not. I felt like that needed to be pointed out.

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

We TOLD Loretta this...and that it's not even the Romans fault.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

Can you give me your definition of logic?

---

You seriously need a definition for logic?

If that's the case, then there's no logic in continuing any debate.

---

What I asked for was his definition. He keeps using the term as though it's a standard unto itself. It's not. I felt like that needed to be pointed out.

---

You clearly need to do some reading on the subject.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

---

What he's saying is that it doesn't make sense to say that anything is not permitted absent a sole source of Truth. And he's right. God either exists or He doesn't exist. Your belief in Him is of no consequence.

---

And that has nothing to do with whether rights exist or not.

So, if God does NOT exist, are you saying there would be NO rights?

BTW...which religion do we have to follow to ensure that we're getting the correct set of rights?

I'm a deist, so we don't have a handbook.

---

It does not make sense to me, if you're a materialist, to talk in terms of our rights. That's correct.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

Can you give me your definition of logic?

---

You seriously need a definition for logic?

If that's the case, then there's no logic in continuing any debate.

---

What I asked for was his definition. He keeps using the term as though it's a standard unto itself. It's not. I felt like that needed to be pointed out.

---

Is this like the pronoun and cisgender argument where you're trying to use definitions that aren't standard? Because there's an actual standard definition for logic and he posted it. It is NOT rocket surgery.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

---

What he's saying is that it doesn't make sense to say that anything is not permitted absent a sole source of Truth. And he's right. God either exists or He doesn't exist. Your belief in Him is of no consequence.

---

And that has nothing to do with whether rights exist or not.

So, if God does NOT exist, are you saying there would be NO rights?

BTW...which religion do we have to follow to ensure that we're getting the correct set of rights?

I'm a deist, so we don't have a handbook.

---

It does not make sense to me, if you're a materialist, to talk in terms of our rights. That's correct.

---

So, you get to use your own definitions for words? Cool.

I'll stay here where we already have those defined.

And again, WHICH religion do we have to follow to get these rights you're saying are ONLY allowed because of God?

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

---

What he's saying is that it doesn't make sense to say that anything is not permitted absent a sole source of Truth. And he's right. God either exists or He doesn't exist. Your belief in Him is of no consequence.

---

And that has nothing to do with whether rights exist or not.

So, if God does NOT exist, are you saying there would be NO rights?

BTW...which religion do we have to follow to ensure that we're getting the correct set of rights?

I'm a deist, so we don't have a handbook.

---

It does not make sense to me, if you're a materialist, to talk in terms of our rights. That's correct.

---

So, you get to use your own definitions for words? Cool.

I'll stay here where we already have those defined.

And again, WHICH religion do we have to follow to get these rights you're saying are ONLY allowed because of God?

---

Any Abrahamic religion or even aristotelian philosophy will do.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

Bob Lee said:

---

Any Abrahamic religion or even aristotelian philosophy will do.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Many of them think flying airplanes into buildings is a perfectly allowable way to express grievances. That a-okay with you?

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Any Abrahamic religion or even aristotelian philosophy will do.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Many of them think flying airplanes into buildings is a perfectly allowable way to express grievances. That a-okay with you?

---

I'm only talking about what I'm calling rock bottom convictions. Establishing a set of immutable truths from which rights can be deduced. Try to keep up.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

Edited for spelling/clarification

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Any Abrahamic religion or even aristotelian philosophy will do.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Many of them think flying airplanes into buildings is a perfectly allowable way to express grievances. That a-okay with you?

---

I'm only talking about what I'm calling rock bottom convictions. Establishing a set of immutable truths from which rights can be deduced. Try to keep up.

---

Oh, I'm keeping up alright. You are the one behind.

Who gets to declare particular convictions as officially "rock bottom"?

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Only 20% of Americans attend church every week. If we start passing laws based on virtue then don't be surprised when the definition of "virtue" legally changes and you have degenerate stuff shoved down your throat.

That's why our system is based on rights, not virtue.

---

rights are based on our understanding of the virtues. Without virtue freedom is reduced to a single human faculty. The will.

---

No they aren't. They are deduced from logic.

---

That doesn't make any sense. Against which principles do you apply logic? There have to be a set of rock bottom convictions against which you can deduce anything. A set of absolutes.

---

You start with axioms that every (reasonable) person agrees with (like "everybody has the same rights"), and go from there. You don't start from any chapter in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. because there are widespread disagreements across those.

---

Do we all agree that everyone has the same rights? Do I, a father, have a right to the same kind of relationship with my children as their mother?

You have to start with a set of truths. You cannot work backwards from the conclusion.

---

What in the hell are you trying to state here?

---

That rights are a function of basic truths, and not the other way around. If I'm a man, and you tell me I have the right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can, it doesn't make it so.

If there are 2 apples and 3 people, and you guarantee everyone the right to a whole apple, everyone does not have a right to a whole apple.

---

Rights cannot violate logic. Therefore you do not have the "right to bring a child into existence in the same way a woman can" because that is not a right in the first place.

---

He's follows the unerring laws of Dostoevsky, who says everything is permitted if you don't believe in God...

---

What he's saying is that it doesn't make sense to say that anything is not permitted absent a sole source of Truth. And he's right. God either exists or He doesn't exist. Your belief in Him is of no consequence.

---

And that has nothing to do with whether rights exist or not.

So, if God does NOT exist, are you saying there would be NO rights?

BTW...which religion do we have to follow to ensure that we're getting the correct set of rights?

I'm a deist, so we don't have a handbook.

---

It does not make sense to me, if you're a materialist, to talk in terms of our rights. That's correct.

---

So, you get to use your own definitions for words? Cool.

I'll stay here where we already have those defined.

And again, WHICH religion do we have to follow to get these rights you're saying are ONLY allowed because of God?

---

Can you define marriage?

lethalninja said:

---

Should adultery (specifically, someone that is married having sex with someone they're not married to) be illegal? I don't think it should be, but I asked one of my friends and he said he wouldn't be opposed to it being illegal, although he didn't know what the punishment should be. What are your thoughts?

---

Like with pornography, drugs, and alcohol I'm not saying you can't do those things or have premarital sex, but it would be a lot cooler if you didn't.

I don't want to make things illegal for consenting adults, but it's ok to argue that society would be better without them.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Any Abrahamic religion or even aristotelian philosophy will do.

---

Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Many of them think flying airplanes into buildings is a perfectly allowable way to express grievances. That a-okay with you?

---

I'm only talking about what I'm calling rock bottom convictions. Establishing a set of immutable truths from which rights can be deduced. Try to keep up.

---

Oh, I'm keeping up alright. You are the one behind.

Who gets to declare particular convictions as officially "rock bottom"?

---

Ultimately the people will get what they want.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If God exists or not exists has no bearing on what government should do anymore than God's existence determines what time I should head home from work today.

---

If the government is doing something antithetical to the natural law, then we can objectively say it ought not to do that. We couldn't make judgements like that if God does not exist.

---

When you say "natural law" what do you mean?

---

It means that things in the physical world are ordered toward an end, and that we can know something about the goodness or correctness of a thing and its proper application based on that information.

---

We can know about the "goodness or correctness" somehow based on the notion that "things physical world are ordered toward an end"? This is a pile of gibberish that means nothing.

---

What would you say sex is for?