Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Just a yes or no would be fine, thank you.
Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?
Passenger killed by air marshall
- Thread starter Jas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- air marshal passenger
Do you understand that the USC and its subsequent amendments is the most authoritative document in the US and that the DoI does not override that authority?
That means: "Yes".
- I do not claim that King George's power came from God. I claimed - and have backed it up with evidence - that people at the time believed that King George's power came from God. Do you understand the difference?
- What about King George himself?
- Where, exactly, do I say that I think it is a legal document?
- Could you stop asking me questions I have answered? It is most destructive to the debate.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Wonderful. So, now that we've established that the USC is the authority when it comes to the US and that the DoI has no legal standing in the US, let's return to your question: "Where do US rights come from?"
On the one hand, we have the DoI. You assert that the rights described there come from God. On the other hand, we have the USC. The USC also describes rights but those rights come from "We the people".
Now, given that we've agreed that the USC, and not the DoI, is the most authoritative document in the US, it is rather easy to see that our rights come from the USC and not the DoI. That is to say, our rights come from "We the people" and not "their Creator".
Wouldn't you say?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I am. I'm starting with the oldest and moving forward.
Answer my questions:
- I do not claim that King George's power came from God. I claimed - and have backed it up with evidence - that people at the time believed that King George's power came from God. Do you understand the difference?
- What about King George himself?
- Where, exactly, do I say that I think it is a legal document?
- Could you stop asking me questions I have answered? It is most destructive to the debate.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I do not claim that King George's power came from God. I claimed - and have backed it up with evidence - that people at the time believed that King George's power came from God. Do you understand the difference?
Yes. You'll have to forgive me for thinking you meant what you said, i.e. "Georgie got his power and authority from God."
What about King George himself?
I can really only speculate. I can't speak to the dead (or read their minds) and I've seen no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
Where, exactly, do I say that I think it is a legal document?
Everytime you asserted that statements made in the DoI are reflective on the modern US Government.
Could you stop asking me questions I have answered?
Once you actually answer them, yes.
Now, shall we return to you older question or are you going to start asking me quesitons I have already answered?
You can be as condescending as you like. You are not the sole arbiter of how this debate must develop.
Thank you. Then I expect you to refrain from bringing this up in the future.
No, you can not "only speculate". You can look at the evidence and draw the conclusion. If George III did not claim that his power came from God, why was it necessary for Davis to be so specific?
Where, exactly?
In which case, you will, in the future, refrain from asking me questions I have already answered.
Now, shall we return to you older question or are you going to start asking me quesitons I have already answered?
Answer my question first: Where, exactly, do I say that I think it is a legal document? Quotes, please.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Hmm.... It seems that you're determined to not address the central theme by focusing on the irrelevent details.
But surely, if you're going to claim that King George had this much spirtual belief in his own devine right to rule, surely you can find some more direct evidence to back it up. Perhaps you could find something in what he has said to Parliment.
Fine, I'll go back to my original position that it is a matter of putting the DoI on equal footing with the USC which indicates that you you think that the DoI is legally equivalent to the USC. There is plenty of examples of this throughout the thread, but let's see whether or not you agree with my position in post #1263. That should show who is correct on this point.
Specific? It was less than half a sentince out of an entire speech.
But surely, if you're going to claim that King George had this much spirtual belief in his own devine right to rule, surely you can find some more direct evidence to back it up. Perhaps you could find something in what he has said to Parliment.
Oh, so this is where you were going with that whole "I don't 'do' anything here. This is an online forum. All you have from me is what I say." thing.
Fine, I'll go back to my original position that it is a matter of putting the DoI on equal footing with the USC which indicates that you you think that the DoI is legally equivalent to the USC. There is plenty of examples of this throughout the thread, but let's see whether or not you agree with my position in post #1263. That should show who is correct on this point.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
And why would he do that? Because.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Then why bring up DoI since the USC is a the authority on such matters, especially as far as USA is concerned.
I point out where the rights come from, that's all.
Oh. OK. So, now, it is an "irrelevant detail" whether I have claimed that the DoI is a legal document or not.
Pardon me for asking, but just what the hell have you been on about for quite a while now? Do I need to tally just how many posts of yours that have dealt with this false claim of yours?
You don't need an entire speech to be specific.
I showed you evidence. You rejected it. Not my problem.
That does not say anything about me claiming that the DoI is a legal document.
Are you going to produce your evidence or not?
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Yes, but, why bring up DoI?
Because that's where your rights are endowed you.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
I don't see how this follows. If you agree that rights are a legal construct and you agree that the DoI is not a legal document then how can you argue that rights come from the DoI? How can something that is purely a matter of legal standing, rights, flow from a document with no legal standing at all?
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Can't be from DoI, it's not a legal document, remember?
Funny, but for such a self-declared global sophisticate as Claus, he certainly has trouble with basic concepts. For instance, in this thread alone he has demonstrated a complete inability to define:
Rights.
Religion.
Religious.
Creator.
Legal.
Illegal.
King.
Queen.
Official State Religion.
Secular.
Superstition.
Royalty.
Government.
Deism.
...and of course...
PROOF.
I'm with Thanz, find a dark hole someplace and shove this thread down into it. And by dark hole, I don't mean Denmark.