"If you can't defend your position against any argument, is it even worth defending?"

You missed the point here. I decline to argue with him personally. He does not qualify with that attitude and certainly isn't entitled to it just because he opened his mouth. If you have personal standards in anything in life, this should be pretty easy to understand. That doesn't mean that I'm not perfectly happy to defend my position if one comes to the table bringing some minimum level of dignity.

Now to your arguments:

--

"a right doesn't "pretend" to exist"

I said that we pretend they exist. It, obviously, can't do anything a human can, including pretending.

--

"it is all that remains when you remove the systems of man as they are the things you can do by birthright alone."

Isn't your definition simply a synonym for the word "power"? As a Crusoe person, you may perfectly defend yourself if you have the power to do so. In case you happened to be injured, what exactly does your right to defend yourself amount to other than your current incapacitated level of power to do so?

--

"Society is what imposes restrictions"

Correct. And by society we mean other people of power. Joe Smoe, the drug addict 200 miles away doesn't really impose anything on you.

So in a societal stage, what do your rights amount to other than the allowance you are permitted to have, gifted to you by the power struggle equilibrium of the era?

And how are those impositions different than the wild animal attacking you on the Crusoe island? If you are powerful you will survive the animal attack with few issues, if you are weak you will get more injuries. Exact same thing happens in a society based on your level of power. As one wise sage said ~2500 years ago, the Law is like a spiderweb. Catches the weak, breaks when the strong happen to pass through.

"The presidency is not about having the right enthusiasms, a good brain, and a good heart."

I think that this is where we disagree. These right there are the qualities of leadership. Isn't this exactly why we love Trump?

Well, it also needs a ton of money to survive the lawsuits and strong guts to not fold by the constant attacking - and Don happens to have both these assets.

While eating live bats :D

Kek willed that you shall upbrick threads and blessed you.

Yes. It has clearly worked.

The person you marry, you will have in your life for ever (theoretically). A thousand bucks isn't a criterion. You want to marry the best fit for you because you're going to live with the benefits and consequences of it.

"But that doesn't make them presidents."

Of course. It's the voters who make presidents.

"You can't have hereditary power"

They don't. Hereditary power means that you appoint the successor.

I really don't know where you see the other options. The abysmal hate and war against Trump clearly shows he was the right guy. And Don is following his steps aggressively. Honest question, who do you prefer better?

Two things.

• The apple falls near the apple tree. And what a damn YUUUGE apple tree we have now.
• We don't just like Don because he's GEOTUS offspring, we like him because he's a full-on MAGA GEOTUS offspring.

I'd absolutely do my appendix by a surgeon who is a kid of a surgeon who took out my father's appendix.

Well written article.

The masturbation mantra comeback was also rock solid.

Good, good, let the NYT speedometer make our election night again!

Yes, let's cast aside the great guy we already know so that we can hopefully find someone else, or well, maybe we will find it since the abound (but where somehow not chosen during the Obama elections), because of the danger of ... I don't know, what danger exactly?

It's only legal for CNN to watch the video.

Curiously enough, this miraculous panacea works only for Dems.

Good question!

But first of all, you are correct that I am arguing a lot. That's what one does when he does not assume that he knows everything - arguing is a means of approaching the truth. So I do suggest you too argue a lot but with care to not do it emotionally like that fool.

As an aside, I did not claim that all arguments are silly - I said that all arguments regarding rights are silly.

My position is that rights are based on power and power alone. So rights exists in the sense that your DMV license exists. But rights do not exist in the sense that a mountain exists (which is what the natural law basis basically is - the original commenter was referring to natural law).

In reductionist terms, for rights the word is "man giveth, man taketh away".

And this is exactly why arguments about rights are silly, since they're like arguing whether X's pink flying elephant is faster in space than Y's lunar spaceship - nonsense not based on reality.

It is not a counter-argument. It is a refusal to argue with him.

Or is it perhaps that you believe he has a right to get an answer by me, regardless of whether he meets or not my standards for discussion?

For posterity, just in case it goes down: https://archive.is/82DBu

You don't qualify to discuss with me with that attitude. Feel free to hop along now.

Not even Harvard agrees with you.

"Harvard did not apply for, nor has it received any funds through the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) for small businesses. Reports saying otherwise are inaccurate. President Trump is right that it would not have been appropriate for our institution to receive funds that were designated for struggling small businesses."

Basically a right is a thing we all pretend to exist (with a multitude of justifications), so all arguments are silly anyway.

Thank you, great link.

Weeeeellll, are we going to hear about THIS study not being a double-blind peer review study, or not?

(it's not blind and it's not peer reviewed at this time)

Sad but true.

I'm getting more and more convinced that the whole thing was blown so much out of proportion because it's some POWERFUL old people who have a high chance of dying. And how could they let THAT happen.

Bastardizing and exploit the meaning of words is the basis of the leftist handbook. So that's expected.

There exists another sinister side to the whole experts thingy. Another member today suggested Tom Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" for a nice exposition of the issue, especially wrt US politics. But on a more broader and historical view, its "modern" (as compared to "ancient") roots are on a socialist branch at around the time of the French revolution and the whole Ecole Polytechnique mentality of "well, look at all those wonderful things us scientist are responsible for, therefore we should be the rulers of the world".