Do you believe that laws are the only thing define equality when it comes to gender?
Of course not, but YOU claimed that women had fewer “rights” than men when the nation was founded and I merely pointed out that was BS…which it was…and IS. At our founding, women could inherit, start a business, enter contractual relationships, even take up arms in defense of the colonies…and did.
I didn’t say “legal rights”…I said “rights”.
So exactly which form of Christianity should we not accept and why? For that matter, which form of Islam is unacceptable and why?
What “rights” do you believe women were denied?
The right to be men, I guess, and it’s all the patriarchy’s fault that women aren’t men
I’m a woman. I’ve NEVER felt that I had less rights than a man. If anything, men have less rights than women. Did you know that a man has absolutely NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER when it comes to abortion? Even if the man and woman are married, if the woman decides to abort their baby, the father has absolutely no legal leg to stand on, He simply must sit quietly in the corner and watch his child be slaughtered. Men have gone to court to try to stop their girlfriend or wife from having an abortion and not one single time has any father won . Now, if that isn’t having less rights (remember: abortion RIGHTS?) than women, I don’t know what does.
As for Roy Moore, I never heard of the man until on the news. It’s odd that these “sexual” encounters are always brought to light just before an election. And, why isn’t he getting the same treatment that the former White House SLOB was given???
Do you think that women had the same rights as men when the country was founded?
I get the impression that you have no idea what a “Right” is.
see below CSbrown
Quick dodge there, CSbrown.
I can answer that question, CT. He’s not getting the same treatment because he does NOT support abortion on demand…period.
Rights are an expression of the plurality of the values held by “the group”.
…which means precisely NOTHING.
What logic? You flatter yourself.
OK . . . you say long winded mental gymnastics is a “BASELESS GENERALIZATION”. I distilled your discussion of aliens and unicorns and then your painfully twisted ending of beliefs versus conclusions down to one simple sentence.
Do you dispute that reduced result?
BTW, FWIW, I agree with your evaluation of aliens and unicorns ONLY SO FAR AS THEY GO WITHIN THEMSELVES.
This guy, BTW, gives belivers in other life in the universe a bad name:
OK . . . now let’s address, or should I say “refut” (~grin~), what you call “logic”.
You went into a discussion of aliens and then unicorns and somehow arrived at a painfully tortured “distinction” between beliefs and conclusions. Nothing more than splitting semantic hairs.
My conclusion (belief?) is that if that’s what passes for “logic” in your book, you failed your “Critical Thinking” course.
Now let’s address “knowing” and “probable”.
(And, NO I’m not saying they are the same, or you’re splitting semantic hairs here.)
In this case, you’re just flat out wrong. AFAIK, making a “claim” is not necessarily an assertion of knowing. It can be . . . or not.
Claiming can also be an assertion of probability.
Was PD claiming a certainty, or a probability?
I don’t believe (CONCLUDE) anyone here asserts they are in possession of a working crystal ball (mine’s in the shop being repaired).
Back to your “logic” . . .
Where in the heck are you getting all this logic stuff?
What . . . did you read a book by S.I.Hiyakawa and all of a sudden become a master of semantics, or did you read a book by Bertrand Russell and all of a sudden become a master of metaphysics?
Seriously, is this stuff of your own devising or are you pulling it from somewhere else?
Am I calling your baby ugly here? You bet.
If you’ve hung around discussion boards for any length of time, you’ve either developed the requisite thick skin, or you perceive these as personal attacks (“internalizing”?)
They’re certainly not personal attacks. It’s just the nature of discussion boards, particularly political or religious boards.
Has my baby been called ugly? You bet. I expect it, and it doesn’t bother me at all.
Digging your heels in, eh?
You believe that since PD disagrees with you, he is “internalizing”. And you’re not?
I’m not going to use that distorted made-up definition of yours . . . “a belief justified on the evidence” . . . because it reduces a “belief” to something it’s not.
The OED definition of “belief”: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Wiki: Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
A belief is neither justified nor unjustified, just as an opinion is neither right nor wrong.
(I believe or have an opinion that red wine is better than white wine. You believe or have an opinion that white wine is better than red wine. Is either of us unjustified or wrong?)
I would claim to know just as much as you know about Moore’s circumstances . . . which is NOTHING.
C’mon, Brown . . . are you really that thick?
We both have opinions, different ones to be sure . . . and that’s as far as it goes.
Jeezzzz . . . Brown . . . are you reading comprehension challenged?.
Let me post this a second time:
You find that disappointing? Were you looking for something a little more concrete? Hoping for something with a little more meat on the bones?
That’s it my friend. Rights are what we convince each other we should value, that’s it. The universe doesn’t grant you rights, your god doesn’t grant you rights and even if you think he does your god enforce them?
Your rights come from the people that have the power of the plurality.
Is there a question here?
As I already say, my accusations of PD’s state of mind are just my opinion. There seems to be little shortage of opinions here when it comes to what I and the labels slapped on me “believe”.
This is your thoughtful deconstruction?
I believe you are alive. Is that just an opinion? Or if you prefer, as Kant said, “Cogito ergo sum”. Since he concluded that he couldn’t actually know that anyone besides himself was actually real.
Now perhaps we should just get out a dictionary…
Screenshot from Merriam-Webster:
- Unjustified belief
- Opinion (an example might be, but not limited to, belief based in dogma and dogmatic traditions.)
- Scientific belief (justified belief based on observational evidence and experience).
*** 2 and 3 can overlap.
Now unless you are into Sophistry, I assume you beleive we can know things that exist outside of our own minds?
If we define what “one” is and what every number that comes after it is, then if I have “one” here and “one” there and I put them together I can say I believe I have “two”. What is my evidence? Set Theory.
Bob. I like you. I really do, and I don’t mind you calling me names. I have thick skin, but let’s take care.
As to your comment, I wasn’t aware I ever claimed to know anything significant about Moore. PD seemed to think he could definitely say that he knew that Moore couldn’t be a pedophile because of rates of recidivism.
Now FWIW, I don’t claim to know or even think that Moore is a serial pedophile. It’s possible he didn’t do what he is accused of, or it’s possible he did and did it once. If he did it, A person in his position would have understood the gravity of what he (allegedly) did and I could believe that he possessed the desire for self-preservation and decided to move on to things that weren’t illegal.
Even without the accusations leveled against him, I believe he’s a terrible person based solely on his very public political views.
And we’re right back where we started.
Roy Moore and others like him, accused of sexual misconduct, should be afforded due process.
That was fun. Thanks for the thoughtful conversation. REally the only reason I ever came here to RO.
Long as this is the “Roy Moore” thread, I can’t help but laugh at a story I heard the other day on the radio. I haven’t personally fact checked it yet, so if there is more too it I’m sure someone will point it out, but if it is true…WOW.
Roy Moore, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama state Supreme Court, filed an injunction to have the election results in Alabama contested. According to reports, his case was thrown out because he filed his complaint in a court that does not have jurisdiction.
Now my first thought was that he didn’t file it himself, someone else did it on his behalf. I don’t know, but either way, it makes him or the people around him look pretty stupid, you must admit.
Not “denied”. “Didn’t have” if I follow what he wrote correctly.
Yes.Did the nation incorrectly protect those rights? Yes.
So nobody has them until a group grants them? Well, those Jews in Hitler Germany obviously didn’t have rights. What was all the fuss about then?
Fortunately, despite their society’s flaws, our founding fathers disagreed with you, paving a non-capricious, reasoned way toward equality.
Your argument for equality simply and immediately defeats equal rights arguments as the optional will of fickle masses with no moral weight. It is not argument.
So the only tangible thing you might use to convince other folks is their pure self-interest. You’re now caught up with Ayn Rand!
Do you believe in good and evil? Or has society merely convinced you that, Nazi Germany, for example, was evil. Perhaps you don’t think it was. But you do go on about “equal rights.” Why?