UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (70) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts 10+ Year Anniversary! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 134228  
Subject: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 2:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 48
I lurk on PA but don't post there anymore. Why bother, really? All they do is take a perfectly reasonable statement, retort "you're stoopid, Bush sucks!" and get 100 recs. I see zero benefit to me to play their silly game so instead I post my thoughtful posts here and at RECF where I can expect a modicum of reasoned debate as we don't all agree on every aspect of everything.

Of course if your post hits Best Of you're sure to get a few wackos commenting, like my post that made the shocking point that our rights aren't given to us by the government via the Consitution but rather pre-exist the Constitution as they are inherent, inalienable rights. I did make the error of listing "God" as a possible source of those rights (I thought I had said there were other options but once you say the "G" word nothing else in the sentence matters apparently).

There've been a few upset libs railing that it's really government that gives us rights and how dare I or anyone else deny that. Frankly they make good little foot soldiers for tyranny but, being useful idiots, don't realize it. It's telling, really. Perhaps the ultimate litmus test is to simply ask "From where do our rights, such as the right to life and to keep and bear arms, derive?" Liberals actually seem to believe that the government gives them to us, and of course the government can take them away on a whim. How that's at all compatible with freedom is beyond me, sounds like a prefect recipe for tyranny/dictatorship but apparently liberals need not concern themselves with such dangers.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114015 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 3:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
I lurk on PA but don't post there anymore. Why bother, really? All they do is take a perfectly reasonable statement, retort "you're stoopid, Bush sucks!"

That's sort of how I'm beginning to feel about posting here, without the "Bush sucks" part, obviously.

I thoroughly enjoy discussing issues with you, Radish and a few others. I always learn something new and important from you because of your knowledge and p.o.v. Phil sharpens my arguments and is unfailingly civil. But some of the others... well, you know...



I did make the error of listing "God" as a possible source of those rights (I thought I had said there were other options but once you say the "G" word nothing else in the sentence matters apparently).

That wasn't a mistake. You're point about fundamental rights was clear. However, in practical terms, the recognition of those rights comes from men and laws. To use your terms (I think) the rights may be God-given, but unless men and their governments respect them, they remain abstractions, not realities. North Koreans, like Americans, may have a God-given right to, say, bear arms, but so what?

There've been a few upset libs railing that it's really government that gives us rights and how dare I or anyone else deny that.

That's no more a fair characterization of their position than their caricature of yours.


Liberals actually seem to believe...

You're generalizing. I'm entangled in a mostly pointless discussion about using racial categories to measure of school performance. Remarkably, to me anyway, some conservatives are arguing in favor of using racial categories, at least to make a particular political point. It wouldn't be valid for me to claim "Conservatives actually seem to believe in racism..." Would it?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114017 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 3:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
How that's at all compatible with freedom is beyond me, sounds like a prefect recipe for tyranny/dictatorship but apparently liberals need not concern themselves with such dangers.

Dangers? They see that as what they want to be when they grow up - their career goal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SooozFool Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114025 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 5:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 26
Well, by dismissing that thread as a "hornet's nest of stupid," and flatly lying about its content, you've made it clear that "reasoned debate" is exactly what you are *not* interested in.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114026 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Colovion,

Perhaps the ultimate litmus test is to simply ask "From where do our rights, such as the right to life and to keep and bear arms, derive?"

The problem with asking this question is that the word "rights" has multiple meanings. For many people, their answer to this question is quite different depending on which meaning of "rights" is used. There's really nothing in that question which clarifies which of at least two conflicting meanings of "rights" is intended.

For example, one meaning of "rights" is: the set of all things that are permitted under existing laws, regulations, court rulings, and so forth (in other words, "that which is just" where "just" means "compliant with the existing system of justice"). From your comment "Liberals actually seem to believe that the government gives them to us, and of course the government can take them away on a whim", I think it's quite clear that you don't mean for that definition to be used in answering the question. But you didn't say that in the question itself.

I would certainly give entirely different answers to the following two questions:

1. From where do our moral rights, such as the right to life and to keep and bear arms, derive?

2. From where do our legal rights, such as the right to life and to keep and bear arms, derive?

Phil

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114028 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 5:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Perhaps the ultimate litmus test is to simply ask "From where do our rights, such as the right to life and to keep and bear arms, derive?"
---
The problem with asking this question is that the word "rights" has multiple meanings. For many people, their answer to this question is quite different depending on which meaning of "rights" is used. There's really nothing in that question which clarifies which of at least two conflicting meanings of "rights" is intended.


I love you, Phil. You're a semanticist after my own heart. Without an agreed upon definition of terms, discussion is pointless and misunderstandings are inevitable. I get hammered here when I point out stuff like this. Carry on.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114031 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 7:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
xLife,

I get hammered here when I point out stuff like this.

Why does the saying, "when you act like a nail, everyone around you acts like a hammer" come to mind? Or maybe I don't have that saying quite right...

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 307wolverine Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114038 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 8:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Libs were born to lick the master's boot. It's what they do.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SooozFool Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114041 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 9:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Libs were born to lick the master's boot. It's what they do

Who's the master? And you can't say Obama, because people have been pressing for strong gun controls (including people like James Brady, President Reagan's former press secretary) long before this administration came along. Conservatives generally don't like anything changed, and it's liberals who fight for change. Masters are generally perceived as both holding power and wanting to keep it, so those who resist change (that would be conservatives) tend to be quite cozy with the masters' boots, if that's the analogy you like to use. I don't think that's particularly fair or accurate as applied to all conservatives, or to all gun owners. But it's completely senseless as applied to liberals on the issue of gun regulation.

The NRA profits handsomely from the position that no gun controls whatsoever are acceptable. The NRA's position on just about everything is that there just aren't enough guns out there (to fight bad guys, to hold in case Obama takes 'em away, to get ready to beat back those tyrant-loving [yet oddly, unarmed] liberals). With those profits, the NRA buys influence in our federal and state legislatures. They're better at it than just about any other special interest group you can name, because despite the money the financial and pharmaceutical industries throw around in legislatures, they can't get regular people to do a whole lot of letter writing and internet posting about how they're going to start a civil war if somebody restricts gun ownership in any way. (I would love to see that kind of passion about derivatives regulation, but am not holding my breath on that one.)

In sum, if there's anything getting licked, it ain't gun control advocates doing the servicing. Follow the money; there's your answer as to who's behaving in an easily-manipulated, subservient fashion.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jakalant Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114045 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/11/2013 11:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Liberals actually seem to believe that the government gives them to us, and of course the government can take them away on a whim. How that's at all compatible with freedom is beyond me, sounds like a prefect recipe for tyranny/dictatorship but apparently liberals need not concern themselves with such dangers.

Guess you have never been a slave, as many on the planet have been over the millennium. Your idea of freedom is wrapped up in the fact that you have never been oppressed. Nor have any of your forebears that you remember. If you had been it would be obvious to you that

the belief in God can only take you to the altar of freedom.

If you want to walk down the aisle with freedom you better have a government that goes along with that idea. We didn't have that kind of govt in this country til 1863. Where was god for the slaves in 1862, Where was god for the serfs in Russia in 1916. Where was god for the poor in France in 1788. Where was he for the Jews in Germany for so many years? Where is (s)he now for the women in Afghanistan? For the press in China? For gays to marry in South Carolina.

Your idea of freedom doesn't really have anything to do with freedom beyond your neighborhood.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114048 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 1:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I did make the error of listing "God" as a possible source of those rights (I thought I had said there were other options but once you say the "G" word nothing else in the sentence matters apparently).

That wasn't a mistake. You're point about fundamental rights was clear. However, in practical terms, the recognition of those rights comes from men and laws. To use your terms (I think) the rights may be God-given, but unless men and their governments respect them, they remain abstractions, not realities.

Laws, written by men, merely codify that which is already known: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Clear as the nose on one's face.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114049 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 2:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And you can't say Obama, because people have been pressing for strong gun controls (including people like James Brady, President Reagan's former press secretary) long before this administration came along.

James Brady was just a press secretary who happened to work for a Republican president, who got shot. Of course someone who got shot is going to press for strong gun control laws. How would you expect such a person to feel?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114050 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 2:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
CCinOC,

Clear as the nose on one's face.

Perhaps you could clarify for me which "certain unalienable Rights" men are endowed by their Creator with besides Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? A self-evidently true list of them, preferably.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114051 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 5:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Perhaps you could clarify for me which "certain unalienable Rights" men are endowed by their Creator with besides Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? A self-evidently true list of them, preferably."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Unalienable_rights

"An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, expand on these themes:"

There is much more info there.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114052 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 5:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The right to private property should rank very high on any list.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114055 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 6:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Who's the master? And you can't say Obama, because people have been pressing for strong gun controls
__________________________________

Obama is the Master?

LOL

Obama is nothing more than a turnkey

A person or group asking for max freedom, freedom to the point where you think it is dangerous is the master? A master that folks kowtow to?

A master who asks nothing but freedom, absolute and unbridled on one small issue

Geeeez, more proof God does have a sense of humor. But you do have my pity, that myopia has to hurt.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114058 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 8:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Of course if your post hits Best Of you're sure to get a few wackos commenting, like my post that made the shocking point that our rights aren't given to us by the government via the Consitution but rather pre-exist the Constitution as they are inherent, inalienable rights. I did make the error of listing "God" as a possible source of those rights (I thought I had said there were other options but once you say the "G" word nothing else in the sentence matters apparently).

If God gives you the rights, why aren't they universal? I'm told over and over that they don't have those rights in Russia. God doesn't know where Russia is? I'm told that the first thing Hitler did was take away the guns. God couldn't see that coming?

If Rights are inherent, we don't need government at all. No need for civil rights laws allowing blacks to vote, because that would be automatic, right? No need for anti discriminatory laws about paying women equally for equal work. Heck, we wouldn't need a Constitution at all, would we? What's the point of a Second Amendment? Or a First? Or a Fifth or Sixth?

If the Rights are "inherent", why have there been so few of them over the history of the human race? God can't tell a government what to do, so the government can overrule all these "inherent" rights? Is that your argument?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114061 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 9:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Laws, written by men, merely codify that which is already known: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Lovely sentiment. Yet it took 88 years to abolish slavery in the U.S. and 144 years before women were able to vote. Point is that these rights may be "God-given," but that means zilch if governments don't recognize them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scaryblondechick Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114065 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 10:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Point is that these rights may be "God-given," but that means zilch if governments don't recognize them.

I agree completely; and I have heard the argument that if it can be taken from you, limited, suspended, precluded, then it is not a right but a privilege - which I consider valid.

The counter argument is that the suspension of a right does not render it non-existent. Just because something is abstract doesn't mean it isn't real; cf mathematics. A man sitting in a jail cell still possesses the "right" to freedom. He simply may not exercise it - other than in the abstract.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114067 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 10:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I agree completely; and I have heard the argument that if it can be taken from you, limited, suspended, precluded, then it is not a right but a privilege - which I consider valid.
____________________

I admit it, my jaw just dropped

Exactly what do you think there is, that can not be taken from you?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ekavana186 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114068 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 11:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I>(I thought I had said there were other options but once you say the "G" word nothing else in the sentence matters apparently).


In their worldview "G" (capital G) does not trump "g" (lower case g) or government, in this case. Nor does any other being or entity trump "g". That is what scares me.

Ed

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114070 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 1:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sic sempervivum tyrannous, eh Colo? That's a perfect screen for a "patriot."

By the way, our rights come from the People, period.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114071 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 1:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"If God gives you the rights, why aren't they universal?"

They are universal, hence God given. What God gives, no man may rightfully take away.

"I'm told over and over that they don't have those rights in Russia. God doesn't know where Russia is? I'm told that the first thing Hitler did was take away the guns. God couldn't see that coming?"

This is what deep understanding and rational thought is to the Left? Wow!

"If Rights are inherent, we don't need government at all."

That follows no logical thought pattern anywhere in existence.

"No need for civil rights laws allowing blacks to vote, because that would be automatic, right?"

At its core, our government is a representative government. They represent the people and they should ensure everyone's rights. It is known as security. Again, your logic is flawed because you lack a deep understanding of the issue of natural rights.

"If the Rights are "inherent", why have there been so few of them over the history of the human race? God can't tell a government what to do, so the government can overrule all these "inherent" rights? Is that your argument?"

No, the intelligent argument is that God given rights may not be taken by a just government. That would be the opposite of your argument.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114072 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 1:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
By the way, our rights come from the People, period.

No they don't. Who the frack taught you civics or government?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scaryblondechick Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114075 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 2:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I admit it, my jaw just dropped.

Was it in the way of your reading the rest of the post? Essentially I'm making the same more or less semantic exercise made previously, the essence of which is that there is a difference between possessing a right (a moral right) and exercising a right (a political right). And just as an aside, I do wonder what good a "right" does you in the absence of an ability to exercise it; but my own musing is kind of off the point.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 307wolverine Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114076 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 2:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The Daily Kos, FireDogLake, Media Matters, etc....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114079 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 2:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Why is it so hard for the greylings to understand that government is instituted to SECURE rights that ALREADY exist?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: paralwaysgood Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114080 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 2:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
In the referenced thread, Colovion opens with the following statement:

"From whence to these rights come? God, our Creator, the birth of Western Civilization, what you believe is between you and your idea of creation."

There is nothing that comes between "me" and creation, except for evolution of life and society. There is nothing else there. There are no inalienable rights, simply a mutual desire to have a civil and thriving society. Whatever it takes.

The belief in God, and that human beings are uniquely deserving of special consideration in the world, distorts the debate. Most people want civil society, despite the sacrifices made in a world where the fittest survive. As an American, I want America to thrive and survive, whatever it takes.

Human beings aren't special. They're just smarter and capable of more complex socities. In the end, we are all squirrels looking for nuts, and there is no higher ideal. We are animals, trying to stay warm, well fed, have friends to enjoy and snuggle up with, and to procreate if we can. That's it. That's life, that's what the people say, flying high in April, shot down in May.

And that's not stupid. That's just a difference in fundamental beliefs. My beliefs free me from any thoughts about the afterlife, and to appreciate the one life I get. You only live but once, and when you're dead, you're done. So let the good times roll.

One more just to confuse things, since I'm quoting favorite songs:

"No guru, no method, no teacher
Just you and I and nature
And the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost
In the garden wet with rain."

-- Van Morrison

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114082 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 2:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why is it so hard for the greylings to understand that government is instituted to SECURE rights that ALREADY exist?

Some governments are instituted to do precisely the opposite. I'd guess that most are.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114083 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 3:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Was it in the way of your reading the rest of the post? Essentially I'm making the same more or less semantic exercise made previously, the essence of which is that there is a difference between possessing a right (a moral right) and exercising a right (a political right). And just as an aside, I do wonder what good a "right" does you in the absence of an ability to exercise it; but my own musing is kind of off the point.
_____________________________

Your argument? Go read it

You flat out stated, that nothing that can be taken away is a right.

Nothing got in the way of reading the rest of the gibberish.

Though that monument to absurdity did tower over the rest of the post.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scaryblondechick Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114087 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 3:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You flat out stated, that nothing that can be taken away is a right.

I said no such thing. I flat out stated that I had heard the argument, and that I considered the argument to be valid. A valid argument doesn't make a thing true, nor does an invalid argument make a thing untrue. I agree that the point is worth arguing, that's all. What I did "flat-out" state was that an agreement that, regardless of the source or existence of the right, it meant "zilch" if governments didn't recognize it - i.e., if the right were incapable of exercise.

This you call gibberish and absurdity. I'm sure I don't know why I bother; so in that respect, I suppose you're right.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scaryblondechick Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114088 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Lousy editing. This should read:
"What I did 'flat-out' state was an agreement ..." Sorry for the redundant "that".

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114092 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 6:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Vile,

"An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. ...

I've got some time. Is there a link to this exhaustive list of self-evident unalienable rights?

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114103 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/12/2013 11:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
James Brady was just a press secretary who happened to work for a Republican president, who got shot. Of course someone who got shot is going to press for strong gun control laws.

That's hardly an "of course" as quite a lot of people who have been shot - including the President you refer to - have continued (or even begun) to uphold a right to have weapons for self-defense.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114104 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/13/2013 2:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No they don't. Who the frack taught you civics or government?

Who do you think they come from?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114105 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/13/2013 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Was it in the way of your reading the rest of the post? Essentially I'm making the same more or less semantic exercise made previously, the essence of which is that there is a difference between possessing a right (a moral right) and exercising a right (a political right). And just as an aside, I do wonder what good a "right" does you in the absence of an ability to exercise it; but my own musing is kind of off the point.
____________________________________

Sorry, just wanted to give you a real answer, since it seems an honest, though to me I still admit silly question.

What good does a right do? None at all. Understanding and trying to live the difference between and right and wrong does no good at all.

If you are living in a totally amoral society, or a society with rights granted by government, with no belief in natural rights, it is actually a huge handicap.

Of course, if you want to create a society which will prosper, and in which the best is actually desired for all citizens, it is very valuable to have rights above laws

To your point, as I pointed out in a different thread. It did Jews in Germany no good at all to have natural rights, in a society that believed rights came from the government. However, it did them a lot of good to be able to find other societies that believed in natural rights as those societies battled for them and took them in etc.

The potenetial evil of the society that you seem to believe does exist which I am forever grateful does not, would IMO be a living hell IMO

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114106 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/13/2013 4:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Who do you think they come from?

You're born with them as an American (because our Constitution doesn't cover other countries). Either God or Allah or Gaea or the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave them to you.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114107 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/13/2013 5:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

You're born with them as an American (because our Constitution doesn't cover other countries). Either God or Allah or Gaea or the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave them to you.


So you're saying that God, Allah or whoever gives these rights to Americans because of our Constitution?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114109 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/13/2013 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're born with them as an American

That's only because We the People said it was so.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114110 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/13/2013 6:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
That's only because We the People said it was so.

I'm going to ask this again: Who the frack taught you civics? It's becoming clear you don't know zip about your country.

Here: The People don't grant anything in terms of rights. The government doesn't grant anything in terms of rights. Why? Because if you give someone the power to grant, you also by default give them the power to withhold or deny.

Here in America, things don't work that way. The government, in the form of Congress, shall not pass any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government also can't stick soldiers in your house. Can't unreasonably search your home. Can't try you for something twice. Can't make you testify against yourself. Can't seize your property without just compensation. Can't deny you counsel or a jury, or hold up your trial.

And guess what? Even if the Constitution missed something, it doesn't mean the government can take it away.

It's one of the greatest documents written in the history of mankind. That more Americans don't read it and understand it is a crying shame.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114112 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/13/2013 6:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm going to ask this again: Who the frack taught you civics? It's becoming clear you don't know zip about your country.

Dope, if anything is clear, it's that you don't even understand what you write. You wrote: "You're born with them [rights] as an American (because our Constitution doesn't cover other countries)."

If the rights are dependent on the Constitution, as you argue, then they're dependent on men.

Here's the thing: rights may be "God-given," but that's meaningless in practice unless it's recognized by men.

This whole conversation reminds me of the skit in "The Life of Brian" about a guy who insists he has the right to bear children.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114115 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/13/2013 10:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"I'm going to ask this again: Who the frack taught you civics? It's becoming clear you don't know zip about your country."

Once again, Dope's failure to comprehend his opponents position leads him to believe his opponents are ignorant. Worst part isit is his own ignorance that leads him to this conclusion.

"Here: The People don't grant anything in terms of rights. The government doesn't grant anything in terms of rights. Why? Because if you give someone the power to grant, you also by default give them the power to withhold or deny."

Hmm, you have close to the right answer but still don't grasp it.

Answer this question Dope, who has the power to take away the rights granted in the Constitution?

How was the right to drink alcohol taken away from American citizens and then how was the right given back?

The People through their representative governments took away and then regranted that right. Who has the power to amend the constitution?

"It's one of the greatest documents written in the history of mankind. That more Americans don't read it and understand it is a crying shame."

Irony is the best form of humor.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114116 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 1:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And who created the Constitution? "we the People..."

maybe you should read it again.

And by the way, the People got some big things wrong. It's a work in progress.

Yeah. You need to read it. The government has three branches, two of which are required to enact a law, not one as you state. And all those rights can be limited, and have been.

As for missing stuff, you are wrong too. There is an amendment process, and there is a common law that fills the gaps as well.

It is a great document, a living one, not some dead 18th Century golden calf.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scaryblondechick Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114117 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 1:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sorry, just wanted to give you a real answer, since it seems an honest, though to me I still admit silly question.

Thanks for this. I'm maybe not the best guy to debate, all things considered; my family runs to literalism, and I have been known to argue ad absurdum only for the sake of logical argument. Sometimes a healthy slap upside the head does me good. And sometimes not.

What good does a right do? None at all. Understanding and trying to live the difference between and right and wrong does no good at all.

If you are living in a totally amoral society, or a society with rights granted by government, with no belief in natural rights, it is actually a huge handicap.


I'm not sure what you mean by "natural rights", but I think it's a Christian concept; and if those rights are what others call "god-given" then we may have a problem. Can you make an argument for those rights without reference to a deity? If not, then how do you justify their exercise? I'm asking seriously.

Of course, if you want to create a society which will prosper, and in which the best is actually desired for all citizens, it is very valuable to have rights above laws.

I'm not entirely certain that this is true, particularly if you think rights come from a deity. Again, I don't rule out the idea that human rights exist per se. But as an atheist I'd be glad if those rights had a human and not a preternatural source. And I rely on laws enormously, because as an atheist I am automatically in a minority myself. Their civil protections are very important to me; and I have never assumed that this protection is a "natural" right, except as it is granted to me to exercise that right. (For which, by the way, thank you, sincerely.)

To your point, as I pointed out in a different thread. It did Jews in Germany no good at all to have natural rights, in a society that believed rights came from the government. However, it did them a lot of good to be able to find other societies that believed in natural rights as those societies battled for them and took them in etc.

This argument skirts Godwin's Law closely; don't think I didn't notice. And you are halfway to arguing my point by bringing it up. Their rights - such as they were - meant nothing in the absence of the ability to exercise them. The Jewish people found themselves unable to exercise any rights at all, unless they traveled to places where their rights were recognized. How does that make those rights universal? Perhaps in their existence, but certainly not in their exercise. Hence, their rights were conditional upon where they found themselves.

The potenetial evil of the society that you seem to believe does exist which I am forever grateful does not, would IMO be a living hell IMO

You lost me here, I really just don't understand what you mean. Can you be a little clearer?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114118 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 2:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
And who created the Constitution? "we the People..."


Which means you've...missed the point.

Yeah. You need to read it. The government has three branches, two of which are required to enact a law, not one as you state. And all those rights can be limited, and have been.

Laws originate the legislative branch.

As for missing stuff, you are wrong too. There is an amendment process, and there is a common law that fills the gaps as well.

Umm. I was paraphrasing the 9th and 10th Amendments, which state:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts 10+ Year Anniversary! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114141 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 3:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I do wonder what good a "right" does you in the absence of an ability to exercise it;

So the slaves really didn't have a right to be free... seeing as they couldn't exercise that right in pre-civil war southern America. You would have fit in well with the pre-civil war Dems.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts 10+ Year Anniversary! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114143 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Answer this question Dope, who has the power to take away the rights granted in the Constitution?

If a right is granted by the Constitution then all you have to do in order to take away that right is change the Constitution.

But our rights to life, liberty, to keep and bear arms, and the like aren't granted by the Constitution. They're recognized by it, but they were pre-existing. There's really no rational argument to be made against that historically or semantically. To do so is to utterly fail to understand our history, philosophy and the English language.

Once again I'm perplexed by the insistence that we cede the power to deprive us of our rights to the government by declaring they gave us our rights in the first place. What good can come of that? We spent thousands of years getting to the point where we agreed that wasn't the case... now an entire ideology wants to revert back to it?!? You're literally throwing away the greatest achievement of western civilization... your freedom! You don't have to pray to a god for these rights, just accept them! You sure as hell shouldn't thank a government for them, you're missing the point entirely if you do!

Choose to be free, it's as simple as that.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCinOC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114148 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 4:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Colovion, you've got to remember that the thinking processes of the Left are flawed, just like a cake with a missing ingredient won't rise.

Scary, huh?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114151 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 5:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Once again I'm perplexed by the insistence that we cede the power to deprive us of our rights to the government by declaring they gave us our rights in the first place.

I'm perplexed too because no one is insisting or declaring any such thing.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BuyLower Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114154 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
But our rights to life, liberty, to keep and bear arms, and the like aren't granted by the Constitution. They're recognized by it, but they were pre-existing. There's really no rational argument to be made against that historically or semantically. To do so is to utterly fail to understand our history, philosophy and the English language.

Once again I'm perplexed by the insistence that we cede the power to deprive us of our rights to the government by declaring they gave us our rights in the first place. What good can come of that? We spent thousands of years getting to the point where we agreed that wasn't the case... now an entire ideology wants to revert back to it?!? You're literally throwing away the greatest achievement of western civilization... your freedom! You don't have to pray to a god for these rights, just accept them! You sure as hell shouldn't thank a government for them, you're missing the point entirely if you do!


Well said. In my opinion (since I don't believe in a Creator) I view the Founding Fathers as putting forth certain ideals that should come from being human. Obviously, the Constitution could be amended in such a way that those ideals could be curbed, but that wouldn't change their ideals.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114155 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 5:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Colovion,

But our rights to life, liberty, to keep and bear arms, and the like aren't granted by the Constitution. They're recognized by it, but they were pre-existing. There's really no rational argument to be made against that historically or semantically.

Perhaps not an argument "against that", but an argument questioning its significance is pretty easy.

Clearly, from context, you're going with "moral rights" (as opposed to "legal rights") and likely referring to the rights highlighted in the Declaration of Independence ("...[all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...").

The problem with these rights is, to use an old saying, "there's no 'there' there". To put it more specifically, let's call our universe Universe A. Imagine another universe, Universe B, where there are no such rights but is otherwise identical. Now, practically speaking, what is the difference between Universe A and Universe B? There isn't any significant difference. Sure, in Universe A when the government allows slavery one can pronounce that the government is wrong for abusing the [moral] rights of the slaves, by quoting the above lines from the Declaration. In Universe B, you can still say that the government is wrong if it allows slavery, but you don't have that flowery prose to conjure up in support.

What other difference is there?

One could say, perhaps, that in Universe A the moral rights guide the members of government to create legal rights which correspond. For that to be true, though, there'd have to be at least some agreement as to what the "certain [unspecified] unalienable Rights" are. My own personal experience is that, when asked to come up with an exhaustive list, no two people come up with the same list (unless they go with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness covers it all").

Phil

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114156 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/14/2013 5:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But our rights to life, liberty, to keep and bear arms, and the like aren't granted by the Constitution. They're recognized by it, but they were pre-existing.

Maybe, but what practical good was a black man's God-given rights before the passage of the 13th Amendment?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114162 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 2:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The problem with these rights is, to use an old saying, "there's no 'there' there". To put it more specifically, let's call our universe Universe A. Imagine another universe, Universe B, where there are no such rights but is otherwise identical. Now, practically speaking, what is the difference between Universe A and Universe B?

I'm sure the universes as a whole wouldn't notice any difference, but Universe B contains no humans.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114163 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 4:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
warrl,

I'm sure the universes as a whole wouldn't notice any difference, but Universe B contains no humans.

I don't understand that response at all, unless it's your way of saying "I have no meaningful reply, so I'll say something that's a non-sequitur".

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Colovion Big funky green star, 20000 posts 10+ Year Anniversary! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114169 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 9:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
One could say, perhaps, that in Universe A the moral rights guide the members of government to create legal rights which correspond. For that to be true, though, there'd have to be at least some agreement as to what the "certain [unspecified] unalienable Rights" are. My own personal experience is that, when asked to come up with an exhaustive list, no two people come up with the same list (unless they go with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness covers it all").

True, but the RKBA has been an agreed-upon moral right in Western Civilization for a long, long time. A frequently violated right, to be sure, but it's one even Aristotle spoke of (basically saying that only armed people can be considered free, everyone else is either enslaved or potentially enslaved). It's been the case that armed=free, disarmed=not free since the dawn of our civilization. We simply can't be the flag-bearer for Western Civ, the bastion of freedom, if we don't respect the right to keep and bear arms.

Which arms? Back in Aristotle's day arms were pointy sticks. We've certainly come a long way since then, and so have our arms. Those arguing that "the Founders only had muskets, so that's all it refers to" either are ignoring the thousands of years of history of this right or are utterly ignorant of it. They might as well be arguing that we can only have pointy sticks! It's a ridiculous argument only worth mentioning to point out its absurdity and, unfortunately, frequency. It can't be taken seriously, anyone making it has no serious understanding or argument (not that you are, but others have and no doubt will make it in response to what I wrote above).

There's no way to read what the Founders wrote about the RKBA at the time, the people they cited, etc. and not come to the conclusion that they were referring to a pre-existing right that each of us has individually as humans which no just government can take away from us.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114170 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 9:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Locke also wrote about natural rights to life, liberty, and property which influenced some of the founding fathers.

"In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114175 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 10:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Which arms? Back in Aristotle's day arms were pointy sticks. We've certainly come a long way since then, and so have our arms. Those arguing that "the Founders only had muskets, so that's all it refers to" either are ignoring the thousands of years of history of this right or are utterly ignorant of it. They might as well be arguing that we can only have pointy sticks! It's a ridiculous argument only worth mentioning to point out its absurdity and, unfortunately, frequency.

Okay, but there's a lot of distance between pointy sticks and thermonuclear weapons. If the right to bear arms is to be balanced by public safety considerations, where do you draw the line? That's what the debate is really about.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114195 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 4:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm sure the universes as a whole wouldn't notice any difference, but Universe B contains no humans.

I don't understand that response at all, unless it's your way of saying "I have no meaningful reply, so I'll say something that's a non-sequitur".


That was a meaningful response.

Humans have human rights. Things that don't have human rights aren't human. If nothing has human rights, there are no humans.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114205 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 6:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Colovion,

We simply can't be the flag-bearer for Western Civ, the bastion of freedom, if we don't respect the right to keep and bear arms.

I think that's true whether "certain" mystical "unalienable Rights" exist or not, though.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114207 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 6:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
warrl,

That was a meaningful response.

Humans have human rights. Things that don't have human rights aren't human. If nothing has human rights, there are no humans.


Ooookay. I suppose I'll grant that one. It's pretty much indistinguishable from this:

Person A: All people have huge blue imaginary friends that they can count on throughout their lives.

Person B: Hmmm... imagine a Universe A, this one, and a Universe B where there aren't any imaginary friends at all. What's the difference, practically speaking?

Person A: There's no humans in Universe B.

Person B: Why not?

Person A: Because humans have huge blue imaginary friends. Things that don't have huge blue imaginary friends aren't human. If nothing has huge blue imaginary friends, there are no humans.

Person B: Ooookay. I suppose I'll grant that one.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114213 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 7:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
We simply can't be the flag-bearer for Western Civ, the bastion of freedom, if we don't respect the right to keep and bear arms.

I think that's true whether "certain" mystical "unalienable Rights" exist or not, though.

Phil
_________________

So basically you agree they are required for man to be free, but you do not want to claim them as a natural right.

Others, IMO rightly, claim that freedom is the natural state of man, and anything else is a false construct based on faulty law.

Perhaps you simply do not believe there is a state of grace for man that is freedom, not something to strive for but something that should simply be. I and other disagree.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114221 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 9:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
lowstudent,

So basically you agree they are required for man to be free, but you do not want to claim them as a natural right.

I don't agree that creator-endowed moral (or "natural") rights are required. Every purpose I can think of that they might serve can be served in many different ways, and I see nothing to suggest that these other ways are necessarily inferior. Further, as described in the Declaration, I'd say the creator-endowed self-evidently-true rights can never be proven to exist, nor proven to not exist... nor apparently even defined with great specificity.

Others, IMO rightly, claim that freedom is the natural state of man, and anything else is a false construct based on faulty law.

I would also claim that freedom is the natural state of man, but I'd claim that's true simply because I state it as an axiom... not because of any other source. But I certainly wouldn't claim that "anything else" besides this base-state of freedom is "a false construct". Indeed, I'd say that people form governments to protect themselves from certain aspects of the base-state freedoms... like the freedom for some other guy to beat you up and steal everything you have. To the extent that the people voluntarily give up some of their base-state freedoms in exchange for things like the "rule of law", this new situation is neither a false construct nor faulty law... indeed, it's the basis of all law.

Perhaps you simply do not believe there is a state of grace for man that is freedom, not something to strive for but something that should simply be.

I'm not aware of any precise definition for "state of grace for man", so I have trouble understanding your comment.

I and other[s] disagree.

Hence the discussion. Perhaps I'll learn something from your position, perhaps you'll learn something from mine... perhaps both will happen.

Phil

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114226 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 9:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I would also claim that freedom is the natural state of man, but I'd claim that's true simply because I state it as an axiom... not because of any other source
_____________________

OK got it, your just dancing on the head of a pin to deny the creator part.

Have fun, so we basically agree and you are enjoying being Felix on this topic that is fine, have fun

It is the natural state and the 'state' is a fake construct, whatever.

It just raises bile in me, when folks disagree just to disagree or for some anterior motive, just the way I am.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoelCairo Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114228 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 10:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And all that came from the people. Which was my point. It did not come from the states. It did not come from some deity. It was not inherent in the rights of property that you like to favor over human rights.

It was by the People. And they can change the division between the states and the federal government when they get it wrong, as they have on a number of occaisions. After all, we're only human.

BTW, you should pay more attention to the 13th, 14th Amendment, and 15th Amendments than the 9th and 10th. That's the response to the failure of the Constitution and the first 12 Amendments to create a humane, logical, stable and moral government and nation.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xLife Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114232 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 10:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You can settle this argument with a simple question: which would you rather have, the God-given rights of a North Korean or the rights guaranteed by the man-made laws of the United States?

Assuming these rights are God-given, they're useless unless respected and enforced by government and society.

In the alternative, assuming there's no such thing as God-given rights, the recognition of rights by government and society makes them real.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114235 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/15/2013 11:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
lowstudent,

OK got it, your just dancing on the head of a pin to deny the creator part.

Have fun, so we basically agree and you are enjoying being Felix on this topic that is fine, have fun


Well, I suspect (but I'm not positive) that your freedom doesn't include a natural right to beat up some other person and steal everything that person has, whereas my base-state freedom does. If that's true, then I'm not just denying the creator portion. Our views of what constitutes natural freedom are quite different.

It just raises bile in me, when folks disagree just to disagree or for some anterior motive, just the way I am.

Perfunctory apologies. I'm not intending to annoy, it's just that I don't see the "self-evidently-true creator-endowed unspecified unalienable rights" as being much of a debating point. It's more along the lines of meaningless flowery prose, to my mind. It's like the founders were reluctant to say that putting their own personal integrity on the line in declaring independence wasn't enough, and they needed to write in some greater good. Come on, man up... the founders' integrity and dedication is enough for me, and probably for most people as well.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ggleblanc2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114236 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/16/2013 4:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm not intending to annoy, it's just that I don't see the "self-evidently-true creator-endowed unspecified unalienable rights" as being much of a debating point. It's more along the lines of meaningless flowery prose, to my mind.

Phil can hold whatever attitude he wishes.

When a majority of people hold this attitude, as it seems they do, the United States of America is no more. America becomes (and is) a confederation of competing interests.


Remember,
Faith in God
Hope in the future based on knowing the truth
Charity to our fellow men and women
Duty to ourselves, our community, and our country.

Gilbert

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114238 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/16/2013 6:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ggleblanc2,

When a majority of people hold this attitude, as it seems they do, the United States of America is no more. America becomes (and is) a confederation of competing interests.

If we were talking about the US Constitution, I'd agree. But we're talking about introductory text of the Declaration of Independence. Whole different ballgame.

The whole "independence from Britain" thing is pretty much settled now and over with. The whole Constitution thing is ongoing... I hope.

Phil

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lowstudent Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114239 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/16/2013 6:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well, I suspect (but I'm not positive) that your freedom doesn't include a natural right to beat up some other person and steal everything that person has, whereas my base-state freedom does. If that's true, then I'm not just denying the creator portion. Our views of what constitutes natural freedom are quite different.
__________________________________

OK, then you do not believe in some state of natural rights at all.
I agree, that with others that without an acknowledgement that the right you say flows only through the state being a natural right, that all is indeed lost. You believe solely in man as an animal trained by the state.

I believe man is more than that, with a rabid subset of those who can deny that natural state of human interaction.

As far as annoying? My problem not yours, I did not believe you viewed humanity as you do. I did not believe it, and thought you in fact as you stated did believe in natural rights -- in not living together without threat to property or health you indeed do not believe in natural rights. It is a view I disagree with, but certainly your difference was for more than in dancing with words, it was my lack of understanding.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Radish Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 114241 of 134228
Subject: Re: Hornet's nest of stupid Date: 1/16/2013 6:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
lowstudent,

You believe solely in man as an animal trained by the state.

Not at all. I believe that governments are instituted by men, and that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. At least, the consent of those initially governed. It gets murky after a generation or so.

I see government as one of the great achievements of mankind. Like many other great achievements, it is a tool, or amplifier if you will. It can take the good will of a few, like America's founders for example, and amplify that into prosperity for an entire country. Or it can take the bad will of a few, and amplify that to horrifying tyranny. And pretty much anything between.

I did not believe it, and thought you in fact as you stated did believe in natural rights -- in not living together without threat to property or health you indeed do not believe in natural rights.

I believe the ability to live together without threat to property or health comes from, as I said above, the will of a few good people setting up a great government and the will of a vast number of relatively good people maintaining that vision.

Phl

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (70) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement