What are people entitled to?

[Kendo 2]

At that point in time, African Americans weren't viewed as "men" any more than women were. It translated quite literally to WASP.

 

Still irrelevant.

[SilverDNA]

Lets not thrive to much in the history and take on the hot irons of today like " political motivated hate crimes vs. the human rights" .( as example)

You will fast knowtice on this that it comes down on how a constitution and the human rights are interpreted by those that are in power ... (hmm..)

And to simpfly this thesis even more it comes down on the gap between de faco and de jure. Now to give those in power a little lol and try as 5th class citizen to closes the gap. .... ( only an example how classicism works against the human rights)

Closing the gap between de facto and de jure is the main problem here in this debate, because every constitution can look good in the right light but where light is there are shadows...And if those shadows aren't looked at as well then there is danger, ( given enough of time of violations ) that you lose your constitution without knowing it.

Another factor i might put on the table here is when citizens don't uses there rights because gov officials, judges and the political parties have always more right than one lone citizen... unless .. the citizen(s) in question remembers how to walk tall and devotes a large chunk of his life time to lay open this.

in my personal opinion we should work on closing the gap between de facto and de jure.

Edited September 17, 2011 by SilverDNA

[kvnchrist]

As far as my wisdom holds, Naturally held entitlements include respect. As far as I know, no one has the wisdom to determine the intentions of others. Especially in the field of determining if someone is off topic or not. This to me is off topic, irrelevant and quit irritating. I love debates, that is why I post here. The main thing that happens, when you are the OP of a thread and want to save it and those that reply here, is the question of action. If you don't respond, you might loose the person getting judged and If you do respond you might loose the judge, which any way you look at it, you loose, There are less people to respond to your posts. This is why I pulled out of here the first time.

[HeyYou]

At that point in time, African Americans weren't viewed as "men" any more than women were. It translated quite literally to WASP.

 

Still irrelevant.

 

Then you miss the point entirely.

[Kendo 2]

At that point in time, African Americans weren't viewed as "men" any more than women were. It translated quite literally to WASP.

 

Okay man, I'm sorry but this makes no freak'n sense. I've gone back and read all of your posts three times and I'm still trying to figure out where 'It translated quite literally to WASP' connects to the balance of your posts in this thread. It just doesn't.

 

And I'm still trying to connect the implication that because slave owners wrote the Declaration that somehow invalidates it.

 

IF you have a point state it specifically.

 

@kvnchrist

I'm TRYING to get the guy to participate in a debate and not simply post random snipits.

[kvnchrist]

 

@kvnchrist

I'm TRYING to get the guy to participate in a debate and not simply post random snipits.

 

 

What he is trying to explain is that in the time frame that the constitution was created and ratified. The term All Men, did not apply to all men. Black men were considered 3/5th of a human being as far as being represented and were considered less than that by their owners. Women were not even considered in the constitution.

 

This to him is relevant. You have to take into account the intention of the framers of the constitution, not the words written down, sense what was written down was appropriate at the time. Freedoms, rights and entitlements are not the soul property of anyone or any group. If they are, then they aren't rights. They are exemptions. This goes to the core of why I made the original post. Natural rights are not dependent on the good will of those more affluent than you.

[Kendo 2]

What he is trying to explain is that in the time frame that the constitution was created and ratified. The term All Men, did not apply to all men. Black men were considered 3/5th of a human being as far as being represented and were considered less than that by their owners. Women were not even considered in the constitution.

That is all very true, but cherry-picking the context to bend it into what it isn't won't work. You have to look at the personal calibre of the men who wrote the Declaration. They believed they were given their position in society by Providence. They were demanding of themselves and held each other to higher standard. Their mindset would be completely alien to a modern man. Unfaithful husbands, unfit fathers and cruel masters were shunned in 'proper society'. People considered themselves as part whole and being an accepted member of society validated them. "What ye will that other men should not do to you, that do ye not to other men." They lived by that and believed themselves to be the caretakers of the people beneath them. Painting them with a broad brush and out of context is simply bad history lessons or an attempt to indict them for personal ideological reasons.

 

Natural rights are not dependent on the good will of those more affluent than you.

In 100% agreement.

[kvnchrist]

What he is trying to explain is that in the time frame that the constitution was created and ratified. The term All Men, did not apply to all men. Black men were considered 3/5th of a human being as far as being represented and were considered less than that by their owners. Women were not even considered in the constitution.

That is all very true, but cherry-picking the context to bend it into what it isn't won't work. You have to look at the personal calibre of the men who wrote the Declaration. They believed they were given their posistion in society by Providence. They were demanding of themselves and held each other to higher standard. Their mindset would be completely alien to a modern man. Unfaithful husbands, unfit fathers and cruel masters were shunned in 'proper society'. People considered themselves as part whole. "What ye will that other men should not do to you, that do ye not to other men." They lived by that and believed themselves to be the caretakers of the people beneath them.

 

Natural rights are not dependent on the good will of those more affluent than you.

In 100% agreement.

 

 

Yet, they never put on the shackles they placed on other men and toiled in the fields without compensation. What they believed in is freedom for themselves and those of like station.

 

Just who decided who was beneath who? They claimed that these inalienable rights were given down by a divine source, but they made sure they were passed on to those more appealing to them. I won't use Irony, I'll use hypocrisy, but in their minds it was providence. To me that is a city in rhode island

[Kendo 2]

You’re still judging them on the moral principles of today and not standards held 230 years ago. Applying modern sensibilities to the Founding Fathers is like people 230 years in the future applying their moral values to us. It just doesn't past the litmus test of reason.

[kvnchrist]

You’re still judging them on the moral principles of today and not standards held 230 years ago. Applying modern sensibilities to the Founding Fathers is like people 230 years in the future applying their moral values to us.

 

 

I think such sensibilities as mine were present back then as well. I've heard that the Southern States refused to sign on to the document, unless certain features were added. The document and the desire to create a union was more important than some of these rights they claim to have held. I love this country. I've fought for this country and will again, but I won't delude myself in the believing that those in power, back then and today, that they had a higher intent other than getting through a present dilema.