Communism killed 94 million people in the 20th century

*sigh*

Seriously people, Lai is just a troll. 

jimkabrhel

Yes, but how else is one to waste time when they should be working?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

That's funny. On the previous page you just denied that Native Americans had the same rights as you (and not the first time you've stated such ether). You frequently give excuses as to why this group or that group doesn't have rights.

worlock77

Again you don't even realize how you contradict yourself. If rights are inherent to a person's existence, as you claimed in the previous quote, then a person has them whether they conceptualize them or not. If rights only exist fort those who conceptionalize them then they are not inherent to a person's existence.

And the fact that you people assume I am joking when I talk about these issues just shows how ignorant you are about philosophy, because these are basic principles of Objectivism. The questions of if we have rights, why we have rights, and how we have rights, are the basis of any social philosophy. You people are just ignorant.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] They are not excuses, they are reasons. I do not need to excuse facts. I do not need to excuse anything. It is impossible to possess a right that you are incapable of conceptualizing. A right is an abstract immaterial intellectual conception. It exists within the mind, and if it does not and cannot exist within one's mind then that mind does not and cannot possess it. This is a very simple concept and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it shows that you are stubborn and have a personal vendetta against me. You are more interested in disagreeing with me on anything you can and creating the illusion of me being wrong than you are in simply understanding the world around you.

Laihendi

Again you don't even realize how you contradict yourself. If rights are inherent to a person's existence, as you claimed in the previous quote, then a person has them whether they conceptualize them or not. If rights only exist fort those who conceptionalize them then they are not inherent to a person's existence.

Do you ever grow tired of trying to tap dance around the implications of your own statements?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

And? :|

Capitalism is a superior economic philosophy but economics itself doesn't kill people. The communist nations of the past failed (or were crud) due to lack of equal rights, individual rights, and freedoms that not just America but most of the Western world benefited from.

nunovlopes

Then how do you explain tribes in Africa that are still essentially communist, and perfectly happy? Communism clearly works at a smaller scale. Like in a household where only the man or woman works, but the bank account is shared and both use it as needed, and the house and all items in it belongs to both. That's communism at a tiny scale, but the essence is there.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

*sigh*

Seriously people, Lai is just a troll. 

worlock77

Yes, but how else is one to waste time when they should be working?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Again you don't even realize how you contradict yourself. If rights are inherent to a person's existence, as you claimed in the previous quote, then a person has them whether they conceptualize them or not. If rights only exist fort those who conceptionalize them then they are not inherent to a person's existence.

worlock77

Do you ever grow tired of trying to tap dance around the implications of your own statements?

And again, you are showing that you do not understand what I am saying. Rights are inherent to those who have them - that is, those who are intellectually capable of having them. If you cannot conceptualize rights then they are not inherent to your existence.

And the fact that you people assume I am joking when I talk about these issues just shows how ignorant you are about philosophy, because these are basic principles of Objectivism. The questions of if we have rights, why we have rights, and how we have rights, are the basis of any social philosophy. You people are just ignorant.Laihendi

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

*sigh*

Seriously people, Lai is just a troll. 

kingkong0124

Yes, but how else is one to waste time when they should be working?

I'm salaried, not hourly. As long as I get sh*t done by the deadline then the boss doesn't care how much I dick around on the internet.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] And again, you are showing that you do not understand what I am saying. Rights are inherent to those who have them - that is, those who are intellectually capable of having them. If you cannot conceptualize rights then they are not inherent to your existence.

And the fact that you people assume I am joking when I talk about these issues just shows how ignorant you are about philosophy, because these are basic principles of Objectivism. The questions of if we have rights, why we have rights, and how we have rights, are the basis of any social philosophy. You people are just ignorant.jointed

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] And again, you are showing that you do not understand what I am saying. Rights are inherent to those who have them - that is, those who are intellectually capable of having them. If you cannot conceptualize rights then they are not inherent to your existence.Laihendi

Do you ever grow tired of trying to tap dance around the implications of your own statements?

Produce a post where I've stated such. And myself and others have been countering your bullsh*t for months. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and say "nuh-uh" doesn't change that. Nor does it change the fact thay you're contradicting yourself then trying to dance around that contradiction. You can't say right are "natural" and inherent to man's existence and then say that only certain men have rights. Well you can say it, but you can't say it and expect people to take you seriously.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] And again, you are showing that you do not understand what I am saying. Rights are inherent to those who have them - that is, those who are intellectually capable of having them. If you cannot conceptualize rights then they are not inherent to your existence.

And the fact that you people assume I am joking when I talk about these issues just shows how ignorant you are about philosophy, because these are basic principles of Objectivism. The questions of if we have rights, why we have rights, and how we have rights, are the basis of any social philosophy. You people are just ignorant.Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Do you ever grow tired of trying to tap dance around the implications of your own statements?

worlock77

Produce a post where I've stated such. And myself and others have been countering your bullsh*t for months. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and say "nuh-uh" doesn't change that. Nor does it change the fact thay you're contradicting yourself then trying to dance around that contradiction. You can't say right are "natural" and inherent to man's existence and then say that only certain men have rights. Well you can say it, but you can't say it and expect people to take you seriously.

And again, the statement that rights are inherent to man's existence raises the question of what man is. To say that all humans are men in the Objectivist sense is just a collectivist idea.

@Jointed - If you read the essay I linked it will address any question you have about natural rights.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Do you? You are the one who says rights are determined by law rather than nature. You are the one who believes Hitler as within his rights to murder 6 million jews because the laws he wrote said he could. Until you form an actual counter-argument against the Objectivist theory of rights you have no right to criticize it.Laihendi

Produce a post where I've stated such. And myself and others have been countering your bullsh*t for months. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and say "nuh-uh" doesn't change that. Nor does it change the fact thay you're contradicting yourself then trying to dance around that contradiction. You can't say right are "natural" and inherent to man's existence and then say that only certain men have rights. Well you can say it, but you can't say it and expect people to take you seriously.

Of course you duck the contradiction in your conflicting statements. Yet you've never addressed the simple question of what rights do you have if there is nobody to enforce them? Without some body of enforcement then what's to stop me from taking your posessions or forcing you off your land? What good are your "natural rights" then?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

*sigh*

Seriously people, Lai is just a troll. 

kingkong0124

Yes, but how else is one to waste time when they should be working?

Meh, I'm on spring break this week.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Produce a post where I've stated such. And myself and others have been countering your bullsh*t for months. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and say "nuh-uh" doesn't change that. Nor does it change the fact thay you're contradicting yourself then trying to dance around that contradiction. You can't say right are "natural" and inherent to man's existence and then say that only certain men have rights. Well you can say it, but you can't say it and expect people to take you seriously.

worlock77

Of course you duck the contradiction in your conflicting statements. Yet you've never addressed the simple question of what rights do you have if there is nobody to enforce them? Without some body of enforcement then what's to stop me from taking your posessions or forcing you off your land? What good are your "natural rights" then?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] No one has ever presented a logical line of reasoning to discredit any of the ideas I have presented. And of course you have never explicitly stated that Hitler was within his rights to murder the jews, and that is the point. You cannot even realize that that is the implication of the idea that rights are determined by whatever the law is, even when someone (like me) explicitly points it out to you. You just deny, roll your eyes, resort to name calling, or any other method of evasion you can come up with. If rights are determined by the law, then any government is necessarily within its rights to commit any atrocity that it allows itself to. I do not believe that you are so unintelligent that really believe that. I do not believe that you are so unintelligent that you are really incapable of recognizing the logical contradictions of such a belief.Laihendi

Of course you duck the contradiction in your conflicting statements. Yet you've never addressed the simple question of what rights do you have if there is nobody to enforce them? Without some body of enforcement then what's to stop me from taking your posessions or forcing you off your land? What good are your "natural rights" then?

I'll answer that question after you've answered mine and not until then.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Of course you duck the contradiction in your conflicting statements. Yet you've never addressed the simple question of what rights do you have if there is nobody to enforce them? Without some body of enforcement then what's to stop me from taking your posessions or forcing you off your land? What good are your "natural rights" then?

worlock77

I'll answer that question after you've answered mine and not until then.

And again you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what the term "natural rights" even means. The questions of what you can/cannot do, and what you should/should not do are two completely different things, and that is the difference between the law and natural rights.Laihendi

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] And again you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what the term "natural rights" even means. The questions of what you can/cannot do, and what you should/should not do are two completely different things, and that is the difference between the law and natural rights. Have you even read a single essay on natural rights? Your posts indicate that you have not. Yes or no question: Was Hitler within his rights to murder 6 million Jews?Laihendi

I'll answer that question after you've answered mine and not until then.

And again you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what the term "natural rights" even means. The questions of what you can/cannot do, and what you should/should not do are two completely different things, and that is the difference between the law and natural rights.Laihendi

I understand full and well what the term means. Now quit evading my questions.

No one has ever presented a logical line of reasoning to discredit any of the ideas I have presented.Laihendi

And again you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what the term "natural rights" even means. The questions of what you can/cannot do, and what you should/should not do are two completely different things, and that is the difference between the law and natural rights.Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]No one has ever presented a logical line of reasoning to discredit any of the ideas I have presented.PannicAtack

Yup. 

Laihendi: "I'm rational. My ideas are correct. Therefore, everyone else is irrational, wrong, and thus evil, according to Rand, who I idolize."

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]No one has ever presented a logical line of reasoning to discredit any of the ideas I have presented.jimkabrhel

Yup. 

Laihendi: "I'm rational. My ideas are correct. Therefore, everyone else is irrational, wrong, and thus evil, according to Rand, who I idolize."

Ad hominem. Your argument is invalid.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

I'll answer that question after you've answered mine and not until then.

worlock77

And again you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what the term "natural rights" even means. The questions of what you can/cannot do, and what you should/should not do are two completely different things, and that is the difference between the law and natural rights.Laihendi

I understand full and well what the term means. Now quit evading my questions.

What is not a meaningless question is the question of whether Hitler was within his rights to murder 6 million Jews. It is a simple yes/no question, and YOU are evading it. You are evading what any moral person would be able to answer, easily and without hesitation. The fact that you are unwilling to simply say that Hitler was not within his rights to commit genocide against the Jews demonstrates your depravity.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Yes they have. You just tend to ignore it.

Aljosa23

Yup. 

Laihendi: "I'm rational. My ideas are correct. Therefore, everyone else is irrational, wrong, and thus evil, according to Rand, who I idolize."

Do not call me a troll.

I am not a **** troll. I am sick of being called a **** troll.

Laihendi

i already told you, ill stop calling you a troll when you give me no reasons too

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

I am not a **** troll. I am sick of being called a **** troll.

Aljosa23

i already told you, ill stop calling you a troll when you give me no reasons too

You got Lai to swearsertisk. Bravo, Sir.

man, he PM'd me a few weeks ago asking me to stop calling him a troll

was funny as hell

we're calling him out on his gig and he's sad to see it die

man, he PM'd me a few weeks ago asking me to stop calling him a troll

was funny as hell

we're calling him out on his gig and he's sad to see it die

coolbeans90

Lai if you just admit to trolling I'll gladly play along and indulge you

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Yup. 

Laihendi: "I'm rational. My ideas are correct. Therefore, everyone else is irrational, wrong, and thus evil, according to Rand, who I idolize."

Laihendi

Do not call me a troll.

man, he PM'd me a few weeks ago asking me to stop calling him a troll

was funny as hell

we're calling him out on his gig and he's sad to see it die

coolbeans90

Just got that PM today. Sad stuff.

man, he PM'd me a few weeks ago asking me to stop calling him a troll

was funny as hell

we're calling him out on his gig and he's sad to see it die

coolbeans90

You people have not read a single **** page of Ayn Rand so you have no right to call me a troll. If you do not have even the slightest understanding of Objectivism or libertarianism then you have no right to criticize them.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

man, he PM'd me a few weeks ago asking me to stop calling him a troll

was funny as hell

we're calling him out on his gig and he's sad to see it die

Ace6301

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Wonder why successful laisseiz faire systems are non existant NEWMAHAY

You people have not read a single **** page of Ayn Rand so you have no right to call me a troll. If you do not have even the slightest understanding of Objectivism or libertarianism then you have no right to criticize them.

Laihendi

How do you know that we haven't read Ayn Rand?

Rights are inherent to those who have them - that is, those who are intellectually capable of having them. If you cannot conceptualize rights then they are not inherent to your existence.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

You people have not read a single **** page of Ayn Rand so you have no right to call me a troll. If you do not have even the slightest understanding of Objectivism or libertarianism then you have no right to criticize them.

jimkabrhel

How do you know that we haven't read Ayn Rand?

You people have not read a single **** page of Ayn Rand so you have no right to call me a troll. If you do not have even the slightest understanding of Objectivism or libertarianism then you have no right to criticize them.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

You people have not read a single **** page of Ayn Rand so you have no right to call me a troll. If you do not have even the slightest understanding of Objectivism or libertarianism then you have no right to criticize them.

Aljosa23

Lai, do you have a shrine dedicated to ayn rand and other ayn rand paraphernalia? DroidPhysX

And who determines the Western canon? You are just making a hazy appeal to authority, and appeal to consensus combined into one. The Communist Manifesto is probably the most laughably and perfectly incorrect political manifesto that has ever been written. Every prediction he made was wrong.Laihendi

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Lai, do you have a shrine dedicated to ayn rand and other ayn rand paraphernalia? Laihendi

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Lai, do you have a shrine dedicated to ayn rand and other ayn rand paraphernalia? Laihendi

I'm glad we finally got that straight. 

You people have not read a single **** page of Ayn Rand so you have no right to call me a troll. If you do not have even the slightest understanding of Objectivism or libertarianism then you have no right to criticize them.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]And who determines the Western canon? You are just making a hazy appeal to authority, and appeal to consensus combined into one. The Communist Manifesto is probably the most laughably and perfectly incorrect political manifesto that has ever been written. Every prediction he made was wrong.Aljosa23

Look at the extreme feminists and multiculturalists in Finland and Sweden who are creating laws against freedom of speech in the name of arbitrary political correctness. Look at all the failed businesses here in America being propped up by subsidies. Look at the anti-intellectual propaganda campaign in the schools where professors preach that the mind is incapable of knowing, that reason is futile, that rights do not exist, that chaos and misery are the natural states of existence for man. That is exactly what Ayn Rand warned us about.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

You people have not read a single **** page of Ayn Rand so you have no right to call me a troll. If you do not have even the slightest understanding of Objectivism or libertarianism then you have no right to criticize them.

Ace6301

Reminds me of this quote from Raj Patel:

There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kids life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs.