Child Slavery

[JackCuyler]

@Spideynw

@Daniel Muffinburg

Why not?

Do you assume unicorns exist unless someone proves otherwise or do you assume unicorns do not exist until proven otherwise? Do you assume someone is guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty? Do you assume animals can reason until proven otherwise or do you assume animals cannot reason until proven otherwise? Do you assume babies can reason until proven otherwise or do you assume babies cannot reason until proven otherwise?

It has to do with the negative proof fallacy. If you do not understand it, you should go talk to a college English professor.

You are demonstrating your misunderstanding of the negative proof fallacy (argument from ignorance). It works both ways. The assumption that unicorns exist until proven otherwise is a perfect example of the negative proof fallacy. The assumption that unicorns do not exist until proven otherwise is also a perfect example of the same fallacy.

All of your examples demonstrate this fallacy. In the case of innocent until proven guilty, it is a willful argument from ignorance. The presumption of innocence is a legal fiction.

[Stranger]

@Daniel Muffinburg

You say no. Me say why not. You say no. Me say why not no.

That about sums up your contribution to these forums.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Orthogonal

How can they prove that they are rationale, if at the time they are making their case for rationality you do not believe that they are rationale, therefore any argument made for rationality can be discarded. What is the catalyst to becoming rationale and the process for demonstrating rationality?

Simply enough the fact that they are arguing for their rationality is the proof that they are rational.

So if a human cannot communicate with any other human and, thus, cannot argue for its rationality, does that human not have rights?

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

You say no. Me say why not. You say no. Me say why not no.

That about sums up your contribution to these forums.

It also sums up your thread on IP fallacies. But hey, we’re not perfect. Or maybe you are. Just give me a one-liner to prove that you are. Or am I asking you to prove a negative?

[jaredsmith]

@Stranger

@jaredsmith

So I have the right to enslave you against your will so long as you are only so many minutes old?

How can a minutes-old baby be enslaved? In what kind of alternate bizarro universe does that work?

Please tell me where in my argument I talked of such a baby? You are the one saying someone can be enslaved so long as they are under a certain number of minutes old. This is bizzaro and absurd.

[Stranger]

@Daniel Muffinburg

So if a human cannot communicate with any other human and, thus, cannot argue for its rationality, does that human not have rights?

No.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

So if a human cannot communicate with any other human and, thus, cannot argue for its rationality, does that human not have rights?

No.

Does any human have rights if it has never argued for its rights?

[Stranger]

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

So if a human cannot communicate with any other human and, thus, cannot argue for its rationality, does that human not have rights?

No.

Does any human have rights if it has never argued for its rights?

Immaterial.

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

So if a human cannot communicate with any other human and, thus, cannot argue for its rationality, does that human not have rights?

No.

You know that strictly translates to, “Yes, children still have rights.”? [:P]

Anyhow, I remember reading a while back about slaveowners being responsible for crimes committed by their slaves against freemen. When I tried to find more about this last week, I couldn’t turn up much. Anyone got any info?

I still don’t really feel prepared to attempt to make the case I am going to. I think you guys will be a little surprised where this ends up. Before that though I am going to try to elaborate on the whole needs and obligations thing.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

So if a human cannot communicate with any other human and, thus, cannot argue for its rationality, does that human not have rights?

No.

Does any human have rights if it has never argued for its rights?

Immaterial.

What is immaterial? I do not understand your answer.

[Stranger]

@Daniel Muffinburg

What is immaterial? I do not understand your answer.

If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound if there is no one around to hear it?

That is immaterial.

[jaredsmith]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

What is immaterial? I do not understand your answer.

If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound if there is no one around to hear it?

That is immaterial.

“Does any human have rights if it has never argued for its rights?”

This is completely relevant to the topic though.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

What is immaterial? I do not understand your answer.

If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound if there is no one around to hear it?

That is immaterial.

Yes. However, I do not understand how it is analogous, especially since I did not understand the original response. Are you saying that a human has rights even if it has never argued for its rights?

[Stranger]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Yes. However, I do not understand how it is analogous, especially since I did not understand the original response. Are you saying that a human has rights even if it has never argued for its rights?

I’m saying that is immaterial.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

Yes. However, I do not understand how it is analogous, especially since I did not understand the original response. Are you saying that a human has rights even if it has never argued for its rights?

I’m saying that is immaterial.

Why is it immaterial?

[Stranger]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Why is it immaterial?

You sound like a child who just learned the meaning of the word why. Because.

Let that be the beginning of your journey to enlightenment.

[filc]

@Stranger

You sound like a child who just learned the meaning of the word why. Because.

Let that be the beginning of your journey to enlightenment.

Attacking him isn’t going to make your argument more legit. Disgusting that you got your MVP when all you’ve ever offered this forum is this and your so called IP communism critique’s.

[Stranger]

@filc

Disgusting that you got your MVP when all you’ve ever offered this forum is this and your so called IP communism critique’s.

I’m amused by your anger given that I am the last person who cares about such things as MVP badges. In fact I’m worried that I was awarded it just to embarrass me.

[filc]

That would be amusing.

But not as amusing as this.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Stranger

@Daniel Muffinburg

Why is it immaterial?

You sound like a child who just learned the meaning of the word why. Because.

Let that be the beginning of your journey to enlightenment.

Your response had three sentences. I think’s that two more than your average. Keep up the improvement.