Passenger killed by air marshall

Nyarlathotep said:
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?
Click to expand...

Grammatron said:
Can't be from DoI, it's not a legal document, remember?
Click to expand...

I am not talking about the legality. I am talking about where the rights are coming from.
 
LeFevre said:
Then why the freakout on the DOI? If you agree it isn't legal, then why again are you going back to discussing it?
Click to expand...
I am guessing it goes something like this...
  1. A month ago, Larsen probably did believe that the DOI has some legal standing, and was just spouting off on something he knew little about, but it was a good excuse for him to bash the US and accuse us of all being a bunch of brainwashed religious extremists.
  2. He has now been shown that the DOI has no legal standing.
  3. Being THE GREAT CFLARSEN, he can't admit he was wrong.
  4. What we are seeing now is equivalent to a scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Hopping on one leg, the other leg and both arms cut off already..."The Black Knight always triumphs! I am invincible!"
Some people have a very hard time admitting defeat.
 
CFLarsen said:
I am not talking about the legality. I am talking about where the rights are coming from.
Click to expand...

That implies that you think rights come from DoI, or something said in DoI, that is wrong, at least in the United States of America.
 
Freakshow said:
I am guessing it goes something like this...
  1. A month ago, Larsen probably did believe that the DOI has some legal standing, and was just spouting off on something he knew little about, but it was a good excuse for him to bash the US and accuse us of all being a bunch of brainwashed religious extremists.
  2. He has now been shown that the DOI has no legal standing.
  3. Being THE GREAT CFLARSEN, he can't admit he was wrong.
  4. What we are seeing now is equivalent to a scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Hopping on one leg, the other leg and both arms cut off already..."The Black Knight always triumphs! I am invincible!"
Some people have a very hard time admitting defeat.
Click to expand...
How busy you are, ignoring me.
 
CFLarsen said:
Rights are endowed in the DoI. Correct?
Click to expand...

Claus, the DiI is not a legally binding document. It was a notification to the King of England that the colonies were in revolt, no more, no less.

The constitution, not the DoI, protects whatever rights that exist.
 
CFLarsen said:
Rights are endowed in the DoI. Correct?
Click to expand...

No. The DoI claims that men are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". It makes no claims to endown anyone with any rights and, since it is not a legal document, would be powerless to do so even if it did cso claim.
 
jj said:
Claus, the DiI is not a legally binding document. It was a notification to the King of England that the colonies were in revolt, no more, no less.

The constitution, not the DoI, protects whatever rights that exist.
Click to expand...

Exactly, if any document can be claimed to endow us with rights it is the constitution, not the DoI.

The DoI could have read "Dear George, we're outta here. Bite us." and as long as the constitution still read the same as it does now, we'd ahve the same rights.
 
jj said:
Claus, the DiI is not a legally binding document. It was a notification to the King of England that the colonies were in revolt, no more, no less.

The constitution, not the DoI, protects whatever rights that exist.
Click to expand...

Grammatron said:
I do not understand, can you rephrase that please?
Click to expand...

Nyarlathotep said:
No. The DoI claims that men are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". It makes no claims to endown anyone with any rights and, since it is not a legal document, would be powerless to do so even if it did cso claim.
Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time: I am not claiming that the DoI is a legally binding document. I'm not talking about protecting rights. I am talking about rights being endowed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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
Click to expand...

Your rights are secured by laws made by government. But your rights are endowed by your Creator.
 
CFLarsen said:
[
Your rights are secured by laws made by government. But your rights are endowed by your Creator.
Click to expand...

Yes, precisely, the DoI it claims the rights have already been endowed by some undefined Creator. Thus the DoI does not endow any rights to anyone nor does it claim to. Thus, how can it be said to be the basis for our rights?
 
Thanz said:
Upchurch -

I have no idea what the criteria is for a transfer of a thread to "Abandon All Hope", but judging just from the title this thread has to qualify. You're a mod. Can't you give this thing an indecent burial?
Click to expand...
How about a spilitting so other adults can continue to discuss what they've been discussing with other adults within the rules this forum set instead of asking for a silencing of other adults buy a locking of the discussion?
 
Grammatron said:
Incorrect, if you base this claim on DoI.
Click to expand...

You are wrong:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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
Click to expand...
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Yes, precisely, the DoI it claims the rights have already been endowed by some undefined Creator. Thus the DoI does not endow any rights to anyone nor does it claim to. Thus, how can it be said to be the basis for our rights?
Click to expand...

Where does it say that the rights have already been endowed?
 
My powerful brain done just blowed hisself up by trying to reconcile these last two posts. They certainly do appear to be mutually contradictory.

This will be my only feeding of this troll.

Bye.
 
CFLarsen said:
Where does it say that the rights have already been endowed?
Click to expand...

The part where it says "They have been endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights". That's the only part where any rights are mentioned being endowed by anyone. It doesn't say the document endows anyone with any rights, it says "the Creator". One can only presume that this creator (however you define him) existed prior to the writing of the DoI.

Further, Thomas Jefferson (like many politcal thinkers of his day) was a proponent of the idea of natural law, that some rights just are, so it is unlikely that he would have even felt that ANY document COULD give out the rights he mentioned. He would have beleived that the rights existed regardless of whether a piece of paper said so or not. Thus it is exceedingly unlikely that he would have even MEANT the DoI to mean anything other than, "We have these rights, you are stepping on them, we're leaving"
 
Nyarlathotep said:
The part where it says "They have been endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights".
Click to expand...

That's not what it says. "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

Nyarlathotep said:
That's the only part where any rights are mentioned being endowed by anyone. It doesn't say the document endows anyone with any rights, it says "the Creator". One can only presume that this creator (however you define him)
Click to expand...

Oops. Slip? :)

Nyarlathotep said:
existed prior to the writing of the DoI.
Click to expand...

I'll return to your previous post:

Nyarlathotep said:
Yes, precisely, the DoI it claims the rights have already been endowed by some undefined Creator. Thus the DoI does not endow any rights to anyone nor does it claim to. Thus, how can it be said to be the basis for our rights?

Further, Thomas Jefferson (like many politcal thinkers of his day) was a proponent of the idea of natural law, that some rights just are, so it is unlikely that he would have even felt that ANY document COULD give out the rights he mentioned. He would have beleived that the rights existed regardless of whether a piece of paper said so or not. Thus it is exceedingly unlikely that he would have even MEANT the DoI to mean anything other than, "We have these rights, you are stepping on them, we're leaving"
Click to expand...

This strengthens my argument that the Creator is God: Rights just...well, "are" in the sense that it's outside what man has created, and are endowed to us by their Creator.

If man hasn't created something, what has, if not God?

This leads us back to the "rights just are, existing outside anything"-argument. But what, in nature, indicates that we have the right to pursue happiness? That we are free? Ants have slaves. Is a flea "happy"?

Is it only humans that have these rights? If so, why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom