Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

What in the world are you talking about? We are seeing the religious people LOSE time and time again. The left is declaring their position as "moral" and shoving it down all of our throats because long ago we abandoned the Constitution and the concepts of rights and embraced "virtue". You are losing, and blowing off the concept of rights is the reason why.

---

Their position is your position. Their view of freedom is your view of freedom.

---

No it isn't.

---

Yeah it is.

---

No it isn't.. I disagree with leftists on everything.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

What in the world are you talking about? We are seeing the religious people LOSE time and time again. The left is declaring their position as "moral" and shoving it down all of our throats because long ago we abandoned the Constitution and the concepts of rights and embraced "virtue". You are losing, and blowing off the concept of rights is the reason why.

---

Their position is your position. Their view of freedom is your view of freedom.

---

No it isn't.

---

Yeah it is.

---

Just making up **** and attributing it to someone doesn't make it true.

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

And you don't need to religion to have "absolutes" or baselines.

Did you know that it's possible to be moral and NOT religious?

---

I didn't say you need to be religious. I think you need to be a creationist in order to have a basis for having moral convictions. You can be moral, but it would have no basis in materialism.

Eta: I'm talking soecifically about objective morality.

---

You sound like those woke people when they make **** up about everything.

I never said materialism. That was you. YOU keep saying you've got to have God (hey...that's religion).

And you keep bringing up moral relativism which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what aTmAg and I are saying.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Behavioral genetics studies generally disprove this statement. Religiosity is genetic. In other words, how religious you are, regardless of religion, is genetic.

What has happened with many former Christians is that they are now devout leftists. There is a reason people refer to cultural Marxism as a religion and not a normal political ideology.

Their kids are still religious, they are just devout to the leftist religion unfortunately.

We know this from identical twin studies where identical twins raised in different households were exactly the same level of devout to the religion or denomination they were raised in. Conversely, from adoptive sibling studies, how they were raised didn't matter and the siblings were generally devout or not similar to their biological parents.

---

Does it really matter if they are becoming atheists or praying to Marxism? Ether way you are screwed if you allow people to rule based on what they consider to be "virtue".

---

It's the exact opposite and we're seeing it play out. Moral relativism is coercive. What we can and can't say about what it means to be a man or a woman. What marriage is. What our children must be subjected to in school all follow. That's why I said that without any absolutes, relativism is the only absolute. Tolerance becomes an end unto itself.

---

And you don't need to religion to have "absolutes" or baselines.

Did you know that it's possible to be moral and NOT religious?

---

I didn't say you need to be religious. I think you need to be a creationist in order to have a basis for having moral convictions. You can be moral, but it would have no basis in materialism.

Eta: I'm talking soecifically about objective morality.

---

You sound like those woke people when they make **** up about everything.

I never said materialism. That was you. YOU keep saying you've got to have God (hey...that's religion).

And you keep bringing up moral relativism which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what aTmAg and I are saying.

---

He said you start with an axiom that everyone agrees with like that everyone has the same rights, which is preposterous. I said you can't work backwards from there and arrive at objective truth. He said you just use logic. I asked what set of principles he was using as a framework within which you could apply logic.

Neither of you will answer the question. There has to be an objective standard from which you can draw conclusions about what the good is. If there's not, you're left with moral relativism or subjective morality if you like.

The ideas about freedom you and most of the people here are promulgating line up well with Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty. He was an FDR liberal.

No. I want the government out of my life as much as possible.
Now if we are talking "against the laws of God," we already know the answer to that one. Yes.

this has devolved into the

worst.

thread.

ever.

now it is just

"nu uh

uh huh"

over and over

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?

---

Is a marriage license a legally binding contract?

Single losers who can't hang on to a mate wanting adultery legal…LOL.

Misery loves company.

Bob Lee said:

---

The ideas about freedom you and most of the people here are promulgating line up well with Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty. He was an FDR liberal.

---

Since Isaiah Berlin was British, me thinks you just googled "liberal + rights" and pasted the first example you could find. That you really have no idea what he wrote/said and don't even know how much he disagrees with me. Anybody who thinks FDR was worth a damn has fundamental disagreements with my philosophy and the notion of positive rights is absolutely bogus.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

The ideas about freedom you and most of the people here are promulgating line up well with Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty. He was an FDR liberal.

---

Since Isaiah Berlin was British, me thinks you just googled "liberal + rights" and pasted the first example you could find. That you really have no idea what he wrote/said and don't even know how much he disagrees with me. Anybody who thinks FDR was worth a damn has fundamental disagreements with my philosophy and the notion of positive rights is absolutely bogus.

---

You should read the lecture. You're just saying you could not possibly agree with his philosophy because he's a liberal. He was a New Deal, welfare state, liberal. The right to swing my fist ends at someone else's nose crap that you always hear from libertarians is exactly the kind of freedom Berlin was a proponent of. He puts it in almost those same terms.

C@LAg said:

---

this has devolved into the

worst.

thread.

ever.

now it is just

"nu uh

uh huh"

over and over

---

The worst thing about this thread is people commenting on how dumb the thread is.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

The ideas about freedom you and most of the people here are promulgating line up well with Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty. He was an FDR liberal.

---

Since Isaiah Berlin was British, me thinks you just googled "liberal + rights" and pasted the first example you could find. That you really have no idea what he wrote/said and don't even know how much he disagrees with me. Anybody who thinks FDR was worth a damn has fundamental disagreements with my philosophy and the notion of positive rights is absolutely bogus.

---

You should read the lecture. You're just saying you could not possibly agree with his philosophy because he's a liberal. He was a New Deal, welfare state, liberal. The right to swing my fist ends at someone else's nose crap that you always hear from libertarians is exactly the kind of freedom Berlin was a proponent of. He puts it in almost those same terms.

---

LOL. The "right to swing my fist" quote is from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. who died when Berlin was still in school, decades before Berlin gave his lecture. Holmes was a conservative republican not a liberal. You are just throwing crap hoping something sticks.

Berlin made up the concept of positive rights which is a load of crap. It's the same sort of thought that people use to pretend that healthcare or affordable housing is a right. It's nonsense.

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

Meanwhile, back on topic………

It would seem the definition of "adultery" being tossed around in this thread (married folks fooling around) is a rather narrow one. When taken to the much broader context, there will be lots of people caned in the coming theocracy.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

---

The rights themselves aren't the axioms. If everybody agreed with a given set of rights, then they would be the axioms, but we don't, so they aren't.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

---

The rights themselves aren't the axioms. If everybody agreed with a given set of rights, then they would be the axioms, but we don't, so they aren't.

---

The example you gave is that everyone has the same rights, which obviously isn't true. Everyone doesn't agree. How can you know what it is you have a right to or what you have freedom from, if you don't know what the good is, or what man's purpose is?

Someone else, in this thread, said we have the right to be a piece of ***** That sums up the problem with the liberal notion of negative freedom for me. It can't resolve the tension between liberty and justice.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

---

The rights themselves aren't the axioms. If everybody agreed with a given set of rights, then they would be the axioms, but we don't, so they aren't.

---

The example you gave is that everyone has the same rights, which obviously isn't true. Everyone doesn't agree. How can you know what it is you have a right to or what you have freedom from, if you don't know what the good is, or what man's purpose is?

---

Everybody does have the same rights. That was the whole purpose of deducing rights in the first place. They realized it was BS to have a caste system where kings/nobility have more rights than everybody else. Your attempts to disprove this was by citing things that weren't rights.

Quote:

---

Someone else, in this thread, said we have the right to be a piece of ***** That sums up the problem with the liberal notion of negative freedom for me. It can't resolve the tension between liberty and justice.

---

It depends son what it means to be a piece of ***** Do I have the right to murder, rape, and steal? No. Do I have the right to call people a-holes? Yes. To try to impose society so that nobody can be what you consider to be ****ty, would make you a piece of ***** Government should let people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, and then we should encourage people to be non-****ty through good words and deeds on top of that.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

---

The rights themselves aren't the axioms. If everybody agreed with a given set of rights, then they would be the axioms, but we don't, so they aren't.

---

The example you gave is that everyone has the same rights, which obviously isn't true. Everyone doesn't agree. How can you know what it is you have a right to or what you have freedom from, if you don't know what the good is, or what man's purpose is?

---

Everybody does have the same rights. That was the whole purpose of deducing rights in the first place. They realized it was BS to have a caste system where kings/nobility have more rights than everybody else. Your attempts to disprove this was by citing things that weren't rights.

Quote:

---

Someone else, in this thread, said we have the right to be a piece of ***** That sums up the problem with the liberal notion of negative freedom for me. It can't resolve the tension between liberty and justice.

---

It depends son what it means to be a piece of ***** Do I have the right to murder, rape, and steal? No. Do I have the right to call people a-holes? Yes. To try to impose society so that nobody can be what you consider to be ****ty, would make you a piece of ***** Government should let people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, and then we should encourage people to be non-****ty through good words and deeds on top of that.

---

Do we all agree that babies in the womb have a right to life? There's also the question about the ordering of rights that has to be resolved which, as best I can tell can't be resolved without a right understanding of Justice.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

---

The rights themselves aren't the axioms. If everybody agreed with a given set of rights, then they would be the axioms, but we don't, so they aren't.

---

The example you gave is that everyone has the same rights, which obviously isn't true. Everyone doesn't agree. How can you know what it is you have a right to or what you have freedom from, if you don't know what the good is, or what man's purpose is?

---

Everybody does have the same rights. That was the whole purpose of deducing rights in the first place. They realized it was BS to have a caste system where kings/nobility have more rights than everybody else. Your attempts to disprove this was by citing things that weren't rights.

Quote:

---

Someone else, in this thread, said we have the right to be a piece of ***** That sums up the problem with the liberal notion of negative freedom for me. It can't resolve the tension between liberty and justice.

---

It depends son what it means to be a piece of ***** Do I have the right to murder, rape, and steal? No. Do I have the right to call people a-holes? Yes. To try to impose society so that nobody can be what you consider to be ****ty, would make you a piece of ***** Government should let people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, and then we should encourage people to be non-****ty through good words and deeds on top of that.

---

Do we all agree that babies in the womb have a right to life? There's also the question about the ordering of rights that has to be resolved which, as best I can tell can't be resolved without a right understanding of Justice.

---

Babies in the womb absolutely have the right to life. And what you are talking about are right conflicts. Government absolutely does have a role in helping to resolve such conflicts in a way that maximizes liberty overall.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

---

The rights themselves aren't the axioms. If everybody agreed with a given set of rights, then they would be the axioms, but we don't, so they aren't.

---

The example you gave is that everyone has the same rights, which obviously isn't true. Everyone doesn't agree. How can you know what it is you have a right to or what you have freedom from, if you don't know what the good is, or what man's purpose is?

---

Everybody does have the same rights. That was the whole purpose of deducing rights in the first place. They realized it was BS to have a caste system where kings/nobility have more rights than everybody else. Your attempts to disprove this was by citing things that weren't rights.

Quote:

---

Someone else, in this thread, said we have the right to be a piece of ***** That sums up the problem with the liberal notion of negative freedom for me. It can't resolve the tension between liberty and justice.

---

It depends son what it means to be a piece of ***** Do I have the right to murder, rape, and steal? No. Do I have the right to call people a-holes? Yes. To try to impose society so that nobody can be what you consider to be ****ty, would make you a piece of ***** Government should let people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, and then we should encourage people to be non-****ty through good words and deeds on top of that.

---

Do we all agree that babies in the womb have a right to life? There's also the question about the ordering of rights that has to be resolved which, as best I can tell can't be resolved without a right understanding of Justice.

---

Babies in the womb absolutely have the right to life. And what you are talking about are right conflicts. Government absolutely does have a role in helping to resolve such conflicts in a way that maximizes liberty overall.

---

What I'm saying is that if you dodge the question of the truth about the human person, freedom can be manipulated to fit whatever conception of the human person you want.

I'm not saying you are defending a right to kill an unborn baby. You are just defending the framework the left is using to defend their rights to kill an unborn baby.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

---

The rights themselves aren't the axioms. If everybody agreed with a given set of rights, then they would be the axioms, but we don't, so they aren't.

---

The example you gave is that everyone has the same rights, which obviously isn't true. Everyone doesn't agree. How can you know what it is you have a right to or what you have freedom from, if you don't know what the good is, or what man's purpose is?

---

Everybody does have the same rights. That was the whole purpose of deducing rights in the first place. They realized it was BS to have a caste system where kings/nobility have more rights than everybody else. Your attempts to disprove this was by citing things that weren't rights.

Quote:

---

Someone else, in this thread, said we have the right to be a piece of ***** That sums up the problem with the liberal notion of negative freedom for me. It can't resolve the tension between liberty and justice.

---

It depends son what it means to be a piece of ***** Do I have the right to murder, rape, and steal? No. Do I have the right to call people a-holes? Yes. To try to impose society so that nobody can be what you consider to be ****ty, would make you a piece of ***** Government should let people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, and then we should encourage people to be non-****ty through good words and deeds on top of that.

---

Do we all agree that babies in the womb have a right to life? There's also the question about the ordering of rights that has to be resolved which, as best I can tell can't be resolved without a right understanding of Justice.

---

Babies in the womb absolutely have the right to life. And what you are talking about are right conflicts. Government absolutely does have a role in helping to resolve such conflicts in a way that maximizes liberty overall.

---

What I'm saying is that if you dodge the question of the truth about the human person, freedom can be manipulated to fit whatever conception of the human person you want.

I'm not saying you are defending a right to kill an unborn baby. You are just defending the framework the left is using to defend their rights to kill an unborn baby.

---

This exchange has been great.

The heart of the problem which Bob Lee is illustrating is that Liberalism (think Classical, American founding type) presupposes First Principles. It works well for a while in a homogeneous society but soon breaks down and is unable to resolve conflicts between opposed ideologies. This is why Liberalism by necessity is a totalizing ideology that must permeate every level of social interaction, lest it be overthrown by a more coherent and illiberal ideology.

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

---

The rights themselves aren't the axioms. If everybody agreed with a given set of rights, then they would be the axioms, but we don't, so they aren't.

---

The example you gave is that everyone has the same rights, which obviously isn't true. Everyone doesn't agree. How can you know what it is you have a right to or what you have freedom from, if you don't know what the good is, or what man's purpose is?

---

Everybody does have the same rights. That was the whole purpose of deducing rights in the first place. They realized it was BS to have a caste system where kings/nobility have more rights than everybody else. Your attempts to disprove this was by citing things that weren't rights.

Quote:

---

Someone else, in this thread, said we have the right to be a piece of ***** That sums up the problem with the liberal notion of negative freedom for me. It can't resolve the tension between liberty and justice.

---

It depends son what it means to be a piece of ***** Do I have the right to murder, rape, and steal? No. Do I have the right to call people a-holes? Yes. To try to impose society so that nobody can be what you consider to be ****ty, would make you a piece of ***** Government should let people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, and then we should encourage people to be non-****ty through good words and deeds on top of that.

---

Do we all agree that babies in the womb have a right to life? There's also the question about the ordering of rights that has to be resolved which, as best I can tell can't be resolved without a right understanding of Justice.

---

Babies in the womb absolutely have the right to life. And what you are talking about are right conflicts. Government absolutely does have a role in helping to resolve such conflicts in a way that maximizes liberty overall.

---

What I'm saying is that if you dodge the question of the truth about the human person, freedom can be manipulated to fit whatever conception of the human person you want.

I'm not saying you are defending a right to kill an unborn baby. You are just defending the framework the left is using to defend their rights to kill an unborn baby.

---

Where did I dodge questions about the human person? And you are wrong about freedom being manipulated to fit any conception. For example, libs try to claim the right to healthcare and affordable housing. But those are excluded from being rights as they impose toil on (non-parental) others.

And I use the rights case to argue the pro-life cause all the time. The right to remain alive simply trumps the right to no longer be pregnant. How do I know? Because we didn't have a rash of pregnant mother suicides prior to Roe v Wade. So that is a rights conflict that the baby should win every time.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

It's Berlin's concept of negative liberty

---

No, he was taking what was called "liberty" before and trying to redefine that as "negative liberty" and then make up a an additional set of rights under the guise of "positive liberty". It's a load of BS, and not at all what I have said here or anything I agree with.

FDR infringed on more rights than any president prior. He was the antithesis of a libertarian. Anybody who idolizes FDR is in the same boat.


How about we discuss what I have actually said rather than try to associate me with people I disagree with?

---

Okay. You're way off on Berlin, but how about you answer my question which was he couldn't resolve.

Logic doesn't work as an answer

---

Logic does work as an answer and I have no idea what question you are talking about.


Clearly you are way off, when you attribute quotes made to him that were famously made by a supreme court justice decades prior. Using Berlin as a strawman is not working for you.

---

I didn't attribute the quote to him. I said it is what Berlin's concept of negative freedom is in a nutshell.

The question is what is the framework within which you can apply logic?

We have to know that to reduce what are our rights

---

That wasn't Berlin's concept. That has been a concept long before Berlin by the likes of Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc. All who are conservative as hell. Trying to pretend Berlin made it up just so you can associate the entire concept with liberalism is disingenuous at best.


And I've already answered that question. You start with axioms that are universally agreed. (Which scripture is NOT)

---

Except they aren't universally agreed on. You might be the only person I know of who thinks animals have the same rights as humans. Children have different rights than adults. You're not seeing the issue here? You're starting from the finish line.

---

The rights themselves aren't the axioms. If everybody agreed with a given set of rights, then they would be the axioms, but we don't, so they aren't.

---

The example you gave is that everyone has the same rights, which obviously isn't true. Everyone doesn't agree. How can you know what it is you have a right to or what you have freedom from, if you don't know what the good is, or what man's purpose is?

---

Everybody does have the same rights. That was the whole purpose of deducing rights in the first place. They realized it was BS to have a caste system where kings/nobility have more rights than everybody else. Your attempts to disprove this was by citing things that weren't rights.

Quote:

---

Someone else, in this thread, said we have the right to be a piece of ***** That sums up the problem with the liberal notion of negative freedom for me. It can't resolve the tension between liberty and justice.

---

It depends son what it means to be a piece of ***** Do I have the right to murder, rape, and steal? No. Do I have the right to call people a-holes? Yes. To try to impose society so that nobody can be what you consider to be ****ty, would make you a piece of ***** Government should let people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others, and then we should encourage people to be non-****ty through good words and deeds on top of that.

---

Do we all agree that babies in the womb have a right to life? There's also the question about the ordering of rights that has to be resolved which, as best I can tell can't be resolved without a right understanding of Justice.

---

Babies in the womb absolutely have the right to life. And what you are talking about are right conflicts. Government absolutely does have a role in helping to resolve such conflicts in a way that maximizes liberty overall.

---

What I'm saying is that if you dodge the question of the truth about the human person, freedom can be manipulated to fit whatever conception of the human person you want.

I'm not saying you are defending a right to kill an unborn baby. You are just defending the framework the left is using to defend their rights to kill an unborn baby.

---

Where did I dodge questions about the human person? And you are wrong about freedom being manipulated to fit any conception. For example, libs try to claim the right to healthcare and affordable housing. But those are excluded from being rights as they impose toil on (non-parental) others.

And I use the rights case to argue the pro-life cause all the time. The right to remain alive simply trumps the right to no longer be pregnant. How do I know? Because we didn't have a rash of pregnant mother suicides prior to Roe v Wade. So that is a rights conflict that the baby should win every time.

---

How do you resolve what you're calling rights conflicts, which are just a conflict of wills, without raw coercion?

Edit: you have to demonstrate why your expression of free will has moral worth besides that it is an expression of your free will.

Bob Lee said:

---

How do you resolve what you're calling rights conflicts, which are just a conflict of wills, without raw coercion?

---

I don't. When we throw a murderer in jail, that is clearly coercion. We are effectively kidnapping him and putting in a cage for decades, which does infringe on his rights. However it is worth it. Because without doing so, then he and others like him would murder more people which would increase rights infringement overall. Government should strive to minimize rights infringement.

Quote:

---

Edit: you have to demonstrate why your expression of free will has moral worth besides that it is an expression of your free will.

---

I don't need to demonstrate any such thing. You merely say so since you are having a hard time wrapping your brain around the concept of rights, but you are wrong. There is no necessity to prove any statement of morality here.

https://soul-candy.info/2022/09/freedom-of-indifference-vs-freedom-for-excellence/

All your solutions for how to resolve conflict are purely pragmatic.

Bob Lee said:

---

https://soul-candy.info/2022/09/freedom-of-indifference-vs-freedom-for-excellence/

All your solutions for how to resolve conflict are purely pragmatic.

---

Is that supposed to be a criticism?

Quote:

---

pragmatic

adjective

dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

---

You prefer something that is nonsense and unrealistic?

In the end, somebody, whether it is police, judges, politicians, etc. have to make judgement calls on how best to maximize liberty. That's what elections are be for. But they should be limited by the Constitution (and SCOTUS) to stay within their bounds in doing so. All with the goal of maximizing liberty.



BTW, that link is blocked at my work.

aTmAg said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

https://soul-candy.info/2022/09/freedom-of-indifference-vs-freedom-for-excellence/

All your solutions for how to resolve conflict are purely pragmatic.

---

Is that supposed to be a criticism?

Quote:

---

pragmatic

adjective

dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

---

You prefer something that is nonsense and unrealistic?

In the end, somebody, whether it is police, judges, politicians, etc. have to make judgement calls on how best to maximize liberty. That's what elections are be for. But they should be limited by the Constitution (and SCOTUS) to stay within their bounds in doing so. All with the goal of maximizing liberty.



BTW, that link is blocked at my work.

---

It's not a criticism except to say that you can't mount a principled defense of your expression of free will. The only principle is the avoidance of a collision of wills, which isn't possible. That's the issue. Negative Liberty tries to resolve the problem of coercion, but it can't. The link is just a criticism of the enlightenment philosophers' notion of freedom. It explains my issue with it better than I can.

Bob Lee said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

this has devolved into the

worst.

thread.

ever.

now it is just

"nu uh

uh huh"

over and over

---

The worst thing about this thread is people commenting on how dumb the thread is.

---

No he's right. This thread sucks.