Ghogiel Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) Appeal to authority and a bandwagon argument? This is the platform upon which you will construct your arguments?YES. Yes it is. Founded on the FACTUAL statements of our founding fathers. It is my opinion based on solid and verifiable and well-documented facts.Okay, I just wanted to be clear on that. The founding fathers were just people, and people can be wrong. Their statements regarding the truth of natural rights is not factual because of who they are, nor does the fact that they founded this country prove that what they thought was factual. However, these arbitrarily chosen rights aren't good enough for me. These rights are good, but not granted by nature inalienably. If you have other evidence to support your claim that these rights are natural and inalienable, please feel free to bring it to the table.The founding fathers never said a word about natural rights they used the phrase inalienable rights which means if you check, a right that is "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." so the phrase " granted by nature inalienably" is a conjunction of terms that is your own making not one ever used by the Constitutional Congress or the Declaration of Independence framers.If one states that these rights cannot be taken away from the possessor, just because those rights say they can't be taken away, doesn't make it true, is called circular reasoning. one must demonstrate that they in fact cannot be taken away. For example a US citizen in a foreign country may no longer have those rights, where they would have once had them. Edited September 17, 2011 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 (Too long to re-quote)That's just fine, I'm an atheist, so I didn't really think the Natives were divinely inspired, so their use of slavery doesn't really matter to me or affect my argument against the divine inspiration of the declaration of independence. It is interesting though that Thomas Jefferson knew (or well, thought,) well and good that his ownership of slaves was immoral. I'm sure his internal struggle was great. However, I must say that the fact that he owned slaves doesn't mean he was unwise. It just means that if nothing else he was a hypocrite.I respect you and agree with you on quite a lot of things, but it seems historically incorrect to say Native Americans were not divinely inspired. Their tribes and civilization had a great deal to do with their worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted September 17, 2011 Author Share Posted September 17, 2011 The government giveth, the government taketh away. Look at the Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. The rights given by another aren't rights, they are benefits of being in the good graces of that group or individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I respect you and agree with you on quite a lot of things, but it seems historically incorrect to say Native Americans were not divinely inspired. Their tribes and civilization had a great deal to do with their worship. I think you and I are interpreting the phrase "divinely inspired" differently. What I meant when I said "divinely inspired" was "told what to do by a deity" as opposed to drawing inspiration from religious texts, as that was how I interpreted the way Kendo was using the phrase. I do agree that the Native Americans were deeply religious, and were inspired by their religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I respect you and agree with you on quite a lot of things, but it seems historically incorrect to say Native Americans were not divinely inspired. Their tribes and civilization had a great deal to do with their worship. I think you and I are interpreting the phrase "divinely inspired" differently. What I meant when I said "divinely inspired" was "told what to do by a deity" as opposed to drawing inspiration from religious texts, as that was how I interpreted the way Kendo was using the phrase. I do agree that the Native Americans were deeply religious, and were inspired by their religion.In that case we would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 (edited) Appeal to authority and a bandwagon argument? This is the platform upon which you will construct your arguments?YES. Yes it is. Founded on the FACTUAL statements of our founding fathers. It is my opinion based on solid and verifiable and well-documented facts.Okay, I just wanted to be clear on that. The founding fathers were just people, and people can be wrong. Their statements regarding the truth of natural rights is not factual because of who they are, nor does the fact that they founded this country prove that what they thought was factual. However, these arbitrarily chosen rights aren't good enough for me. These rights are good, but not granted by nature inalienably. If you have other evidence to support your claim that these rights are natural and inalienable, please feel free to bring it to the table.The founding fathers never said a word about natural rights they used the phrase inalienable rights which means if you check, a right that is "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." so the phrase " granted by nature inalienably" is a conjunction of terms that is your own making not one ever used by the Constitutional Congress or the Declaration of Independence framers.If one states that these rights cannot be taken away from the possessor, just because those rights say they can't be taken away, doesn't make it true, is called circular reasoning. one must demonstrate that they in fact cannot be taken away. For example a US citizen in a foreign country may no longer have those rights, where they would have once had them. I stated the simple facts so do not have to prove a thing, if you have a problem with the construction of the Declaration of Independence then thats your issue. Bringing in other countries is simply extraneous and irrelevant. It seems that you reserve the right to what you would like to call logical to yourself, am not going to play that sophist game with you. Edited September 18, 2011 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." Ok, so, a person can't GIVE away the rights, but the government sure as heck can TAKE them away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Obviously other countries matter. This topic is about humanity, not the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZ1029 Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing else. Anything else, you earn, or take. The first may also be rendered forfeit in my book if you seriously mess up. (read: I approve of the death penalty.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing else. Anything else, you earn, or take. The first may also be rendered forfeit in my book if you seriously mess up. (read: I approve of the death penalty.)Well put RZ those ARE the inalienable rights, no more no less. Though off topic, I agree with the latter half of your statement also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now