Best debater award

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And we've all established that your opinion means little .

I concede you this. I think apolyton underestimates me, in part because I post here to improve my English. In my philosophy department I pwn everyone.

...yeah that's it...

You still never realized that the war of everyone against everyone means we have a right to everything in the state of nature.

[Fake Boris]

As it is right now, 10.55 PM Eastern time, I have updated the nominations

Keep the nominations coming.

BTW, Berzerker, I can't count your votes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You still never realized that the war of everyone against everyone means we have a right to everything in the state of nature.

And you got so pwned on this fact by asserting the utter ridiculousness than the right to nothing = right to everything, I wonder why ANYONE takes you seriously?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you got so pwned on this fact by asserting the utter ridiculousness than the right to nothing = right to everything, I wonder why ANYONE takes you seriously?

There is a book, taught in all Universities in the world, called the 'Leviathan' and written by an Englishman named Thomas Hobbes, whose life spawned from 1588 to 1679, which defends the exact same theory.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well at least we know you are a Hobbesian. Explains a lot... especially since he's kinda been discredited... well except in the brutal monarchies of the world .

And from what I remember, Hobbes defended a theory that in a state of nature there is a right to nothing. Not a right to everything, which is something only a King can have.

[Fake Boris]

Wait, you fool.

I am not an Hobbesian. I never said that I believe in rights of nature.

My intervention in the debate was to say that IF there are rights of nature, they can only have been like Hobbes described them.

And Hobbes has been discredited because of his views on human nature (rational selfishness), not because his theory is inconsistent, far from that.

I think there is a difference between being an pwned idiot and defending something said by Hobbes.

[Winston]

Thanks for updating.

How about also giving everybody one blocking vote, to strike one of the nominations off the list?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And from what I remember, Hobbes defended a theory that in a state of nature there is a right to nothing. Not a right to everything, which is something only a King can have.

You are an Hobbesian yourself- that you know it or not, many ideas you defend are very Hobbesian in nature.

Basically, Hobbes said that everyone believes they have a right to anything, and will only cede it to a Leviathan. The Leviathan has a right to everything by virtue of positive right, not natural right.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You are an Hobbesian yourself- that you know it or not, many ideas you defend are very Hobbesian in nature.

Basically, Hobbes said that everyone believes they have a right to anything, and will only cede it to a Leviathan. The Leviathan has a right to everything by virtue of positive right, not natural right.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Please, Asher FakeBoris, NOT IN THIS THREAD.

[Fake Boris]

Asher, you forgot the 'my love' part. Ahem, yeah.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My intervention in the debate was to say that IF there are rights of nature, they can only have been like Hobbes described them.

Funny you forgot about that other English philosopher, Locke.. call yourself a philosophy person do you .

Basically, Hobbes said that everyone believes they have a right to anything, and will only cede it to a Leviathan. The Leviathan has a right to everything by virtue of positive right, not natural right.

Yes, they believe they have a right to anything, but yet, in actuality they have a right to nothing (since their 'right' can be taken away by the stronger). That is why they MUST have a Leviathan so that he can grant them the right to life and security. The Leviathan is the only one who has a right to everything.

You are an Hobbesian yourself- that you know it or not, many ideas you defend are very Hobbesian in nature.

Such as? I've never known myself to defend total 'security'.

[Fake Boris]

Imran, we shouldn't be debating this right now in this thread. My assignment for Tuesday is to read Locke, so your time waiting won't have been wated.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


I haven't

You have to have actually engaged in a debate 1st.

[Alexander's Horse]

true, one swish from my mighty tail is usually enough.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Theben -

I've never seen DF lose a debate and that includes the one time he and I were debating the validity of Gulf War II... Maybe DF knows of a debate he feels he lost, but I don't and I see no proof from you.

Woah, no Thieven?! You must be in a good mood today.

I'm sure DF doesn't feel he ever lost a debate. But you can't claim 'victory' when the other side(s) leave in frustruation b/c one constantly repeats the same false premise over and over.

David loses a debate the moment he opens his mouth.

What Slowwy said.