Passenger killed by air marshall

[CFLarsen]

I am not wrong since DoI is irrelevant to my rights.

Absolutely not. It's all about where your rights come from.

Do you think that rights just "are"?

 

[Grammatron]

Absolutely not. It's all about where your rights come from.

Ok then, what relation does DoI have to where my rights come from?

Do you think that rights just "are"?

Just are what?

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok then, what relation does DoI have to where my rights come from?

Been there, done that.

Just are what?

They just exist. They have always been there. They can't be taken away from you.

Is this what you believe? If not, where do your rights come from?

 

[Upchurch]

Claus, you've agreed that the rights talked about in the DoI are contradicted by the USC. That suggests that there are at least two different sets of rights going on here.

What, in your mind, is the difference between the DoI rights and the USC rights?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

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



Oops. Slip?



I'll return to your previous post:



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?

None of that is relevant to the fact that the DoI neither endows anyone with any rights nor claims to do so, unless you want to claim that it is to be interpreted that the writing of the DoI CAUSED this "Creator" to endow men with rights which is both inconsistant with the author's known beliefs and far from the most Occam-friendly reading of the document.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm amazed at the lengths to which people will go to avoid having to admit error. Sheesh. You're not being graded. You're allowed to miss a few.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Absolutely not. It's all about where your rights come from.

Do you think that rights just "are"?

Why would Gram's (or any 21st century American's) view of rights necessarily be the same as Thomas Jefferson's. It might be but then again it might not be.

This is the thing that baffles me about the whole "DoI mentions God=American's are religious"argument. By your logic 100 years from now the US could be composed 100% of atheists, but since our DoI mentions God, we would still be a religious country unless we invented a time machine and sent a killer robot into 1776 to stop Thomas Jefferson from inserting that word into the DoI.

The funny thing is, I don't even disagree that Americans are generally religious. I don't agree that the DoI is the root cause of that, and it sure the hell isn't a symptom. The use of the word "Creator" in the DoI speaks to the religiousity of people in 1776, it has squat to do with their attitudes towards religion or rights in 2006.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, you've agreed that the rights talked about in the DoI are contradicted by the USC. That suggests that there are at least two different sets of rights going on here.

What, in your mind, is the difference between the DoI rights and the USC rights?

Where have I agreed that they are contradicted?

 

[CFLarsen]

None of that is relevant to the fact that the DoI neither endows anyone with any rights

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the DoI describes who/what endows the rights.

nor claims to do so, unless you want to claim that it is to be interpreted that the writing of the DoI CAUSED this "Creator" to endow men with rights which is both inconsistant with the author's known beliefs and far from the most Occam-friendly reading of the document.

I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that the DoI describes who/what endows the rights.

Why would Gram's (or any 21st century American's) view of rights necessarily be the same as Thomas Jefferson's. It might be but then again it might not be.

This is the thing that baffles me about the whole "DoI mentions God=American's are religious"argument.

I'm not saying that.

By your logic 100 years from now the US could be composed 100% of atheists, but since our DoI mentions God, we would still be a religious country unless we invented a time machine and sent a killer robot into 1776 to stop Thomas Jefferson from inserting that word into the DoI.

I'm not saying that. You are a religious country because people are, by and large, religious.

The funny thing is, I don't even disagree that Americans are generally religious. I don't agree that the DoI is the root cause of that, and it sure the hell isn't a symptom. The use of the word "Creator" in the DoI speaks to the religiousity of people in 1776, it has squat to do with their attitudes towards religion or rights in 2006.

My point exactly. It does, in fact, speak of the religiosity of 1776-Americans (or, if we are to be nitpicking, Colonials).

I can't remember if you've said it earlier, but do you think that rights just are? They just exist, regardless of deities and politicians?

 

[Freakshow]

I'm amazed at the lengths to which people will go to avoid having to admit error. Sheesh. You're not being graded. You're allowed to miss a few.

"The Black Knight always triumphs! I am invincible!"
"You're a loony..."

I think I'm going to go watch that right now...

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm not saying that. You are a religious country because people are, by and large, religious.



My point exactly. It does, in fact, speak of the religiosity of 1776-Americans (or, if we are to be nitpicking, Colonials).

Then why have you spent the last 30-odd pages arguing about the use of the word "Creator" in the DoI?

I can't remember if you've said it earlier, but do you think that rights just are? They just exist, regardless of deities and politicians?

If you define "rights" as "those things that it would be considered immoral to forbid by law", my view of rights is that they stem from the mores of your society. I.e modern western society agrees that freedom of speech is generally a good thing and that it should not be limited without a compelling reason (i.e no yelling fire in a crowded thater), therefore that is a "right". a short, oversimplified explanation is that I beleive they DO exist independant of dieties and politicians because they are granted, in effect, by concensus.

Thomas Jefferson would, I am sure, disagree.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then why have you spent the last 30-odd pages arguing about the use of the word "Creator" in the DoI?

It isn't the religiosity of Americans I am talking about. I doubt anyone in their right mind would argue against the high level of religiosity of Americans, also in past times.

It's that you get your rights (as a means to separate yourself from King George III) from a supernatural being.

I know you disagree that this is so. But that's what I'm arguing.

If you define "rights" as "those things that it would be considered immoral to forbid by law", my view of rights is that they stem from the mores of your society. I.e modern western society agrees that freedom of speech is generally a good thing and that it should not be limited without a compelling reason (i.e no yelling fire in a crowded thater), therefore that is a "right". a short, oversimplified explanation is that I beleive they DO exist independant of dieties and politicians because they are granted, in effect, by concensus.

Thomas Jefferson would, I am sure, disagree.

What about the rights mentioned in the DoI?

Are there any rights that cannot be denied you by society (or government)?

 

[Upchurch]

Where have I agreed that they are contradicted?

Cute. Right here, Claus.

 

[Grammatron]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the DoI describes who/what endows the rights.



I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that the DoI describes who/what endows the rights.

Except DoI is irrelevent when it comes to rights.

 

[Ed]

"The Black Knight always triumphs! I am invincible!"
"You're a loony..."

I think I'm going to go watch that right now...

My cell phone says "I feel fine" upon ringing. It said "I'm not dead yet" until I went to see a relative in a nursing home. I thought that that might have been in poor taste. Then again, they might have chimed in "neither are we".

Have you programmed something witty on your cell yet?

I also like the line "Big Chinee fella" from Jaws. Gotta rip the soundtrack.

 

[CFLarsen]

Cute. Right here, Claus.

Thank you.

The difference between the DoI rights and the USC rights is that the DoI rights are unalienable endowed by a supernatural force, while the USC rights are social constructs.

What takes precedence in real life? USC rights?

Is the right to carry arms an unalienable right?

If it is an irrelevant detail whether I have claimed that the DoI is a legal document or not, just what 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?

Are you going to produce your evidence that I have claimed that the DoI is a legal document or not?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

What about the rights mentioned in the DoI?

Are there any rights that cannot be denied you by society (or government)?

The rights mentioned in the DoI are broad vague concepts. It's like asking if I agree fuzzy animals are nice.

As for whether they can be denied, as I understand the definition of a 'right' a right cannot be denied by the society by definition, it would be contradictory since a right is something that comes from society in the first place. If it was denied by society it wouldn't be a right. Likewise, as I understand the definition of a right, it would be immoral of government to deny it as well, without some overriding reason, i.e government takes away my right to freddom of speech in saying I can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater since my doing so could cause a panic that would deprive my fellow citizens of their right to live. But to take away my right to freedom of speech to say 'Bush is a weenie' would be wrong since ther is no compelling argument as to why that right should be taken away. So government can't take that right away from me in that sense.

 

[CFLarsen]

The rights mentioned in the DoI are broad vague concepts. It's like asking if I agree fuzzy animals are nice.

As for whether they can be denied, as I understand the definition of a 'right' a right cannot be denied by the society by definition, it would be contradictory since a right is something that comes from society in the first place. If it was denied by society it wouldn't be a right. Likewise, as I understand the definition of a right, it would be immoral of government to deny it as well, without some overriding reason, i.e government takes away my right to freddom of speech in saying I can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater since my doing so could cause a panic that would deprive my fellow citizens of their right to live. But to take away my right to freedom of speech to say 'Bush is a weenie' would be wrong since ther is no compelling argument as to why that right should be taken away. So government can't take that right away from me in that sense.

But who decides what is an overriding reason? Society, right?

Are there any rights that are not social constructs?

 

[Upchurch]

Thank you.

You're welcome.

The difference between the DoI rights and the USC rights is that the DoI rights are unalienable endowed by a supernatural force, while the USC rights are social constructs.

What takes precedence in real life? USC rights?

I would say that only the rights that has any effect in real life whatsoever takes any precedence. As we have discussed, that would be the rights described in the USC.

What do you think takes precedence? The rights described in a 230+ year old letter to a dead king or the rights described in a legal document that is still in force today and is actually effects the daily lives of US citizens?

Is the right to carry arms an unalienable right?

No, but unalienability is not a requirement for rights, as far as I am aware.

If it is an irrelevant detail whether I have claimed that the DoI is a legal document or not, just what 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?

Ah, but it may just still be relelvent, though you may not see it.

You see, if you do think that the DoI rights take precedence over the USC rights, as I think you will, then what you are doing is saying that a non-legal document carries more weight than a legal one. However, there are lots of non-legal documents that describe or merely discuss rights. If you are to decide that the DoI's rights take precedence over a legal document, we must also consider the precedence of other non-legal documents.

Of course, this is all dependant upon which set of rights you think takes precedence and why.

Are you going to produce your evidence that I have claimed that the DoI is a legal document or not?

I thought we weren't going to keep asking questions that have already been answered? If not, I can go back and start dragging out a very long list that you have not satisfactorily answered as well. The last time I did that, you got quite upset.

 

[CFLarsen]

I would say that only the rights that has any effect in real life whatsoever takes any precedence. As we have discussed, that would be the rights described in the USC.

And as such, all rights can be removed/rescinded/whatever-the-term-is.

What do you think takes precedence? The rights described in a 230+ year old letter to a dead king or the rights described in a legal document that is still in force today and is actually effects the daily lives of US citizens?

My point about the DoI is not, and has never been, about the legality of the rights. Only where those rights came from.

No, but unalienability is not a requirement for rights, as far as I am aware.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

You see, if you do think that the DoI rights take precedence over the USC rights

I don't.

, as I think you will

I won't.

, then what you are doing is saying that a non-legal document carries more weight than a legal one. However, there are lots of non-legal documents that describe or merely discuss rights. If you are to decide that the DoI's rights take precedence over a legal document, we must also consider the precedence of other non-legal documents.

Of course, this is all dependant upon which set of rights you think takes precedence and why.

A rather futile point, I think.

I thought we weren't going to keep asking questions that have already been answered? If not, I can go back and start dragging out a very long list that you have not satisfactorily answered as well. The last time I did that, you got quite upset.

Very well: You have not been able to produce your evidence that I have claimed that the DoI is a legal document.