If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free [W:1235:1274]*****************

OldFatGuy said:

It's easy to claim high moral ground after the fact, especially after 50 years or more.

My morals are not your morals, and neither of our morals would be recognizable to those who preceded us living in a world of other circumstances from the past. People and what they believe are a product of their times, no more or less stupid, no more or less righteous in their beliefs of the human condition.

Doesn't make you smarter, or more moral (whatever that means), but it does display your lack of sensitivity to those whose experiences led to where you are today. I'm not speaking of justification, but I am speaking of understanding and empathy. Get off that high horse of arrogance, and start learning how much you don't know. Have faith that with the passing of time, there will be those in future who look back upon you as a barbarian steeped in superstition. It's inevitable.

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

My beliefs about slavery are opinion. Your beliefs about natural rights are opinion.

What is fact is that only the government can create laws which support or deny rights. That is a simple fact.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

It is apparent that the crowd that most embraces the natural rights theory in the modern world are the same people by and large who resent government and refuse to give it proper credit for many things. So it is against their basic instinct for them to credit government with the awarding of rights when the people demand them. It violates every ounce of their conservative anti-government belief system for them to have to do that. So they cling to this creative fiction that our rights come from mythical gods in the sky dispensing them like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers. That is more comforting than to accept that government provides rights when the people demand them.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Nope.. wrong yet again.

Click to expand...

RF667799 said:

Better rephrase or you're back where you started. How can something be supported or denied unless it independently exists?

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

That's nice. The BOR can be changed or torn up entirely

Click to expand...

zsu2357 said:

As the saying goes " The road to hell is paved with good intentions " and maybe you and your buds have good intentions,but you should really think it through. Just saying.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Where are you getting that from? Anything in the Constitution can be changed and the first ten Amendments contain no special proviso that exempts them that I know of.

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

You must also be someone who believes Jefferson and Washington to have been morally repugnant people

Click to expand...

It is ironic that two prominent Founding Fathers who owned slaves (Thomas Jefferson and George Washington) were both early, albeit unsuccessful, pioneers in the movement to end slavery in their State and in the nation.

As Jefferson and Washington sought to liberalize the State’s slavery laws to make it easier to free slaves, the State Legislature went in exactly the opposite direction, passing laws making it more difficult to free slaves. (As one example, Washington was able to circumvent State laws by freeing his slaves in his will at his death in 1799; by the time of Jefferson’s death in 1826, State laws had so stiffened that it had become virtually impossible for Jefferson to use the same means.) What today have become the almost unknown views and forgotten efforts of both Washington and Jefferson to end slavery in their State and in the nation should be reviewed. Consider first the views of George Washington. Born in 1732, his life demonstrates how culturally entrenched slavery was in that day. Not only was Washington born into a world in which slavery was accepted, but he himself became a slave owner at the tender age of 11 when his father died, leaving him slaves as an inheritance. As other family members deceased, Washington inherited even more slaves. Growing up, then, from his earliest youth as a slave owner, it represented a radical change for Washington to try to overthrow the very system in which he had been raised. Washington astutely recognized that the same singular force would be either the great champion or the great obstacle to freeing Virginia’s slaves, and that force was the laws of his own State. Concerning the path Washington desired to see the State choose, he emphatically declared:

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Do you have an actual refutation besides that opening opinion?

Click to expand...

zsu2357 said:

And tell me which of the first ten do you speak of? Stupid me,#2 so after the 2nd which one goes or gets changed and so on? I think that " special proviso that exempts them " would be a lot of pissed people,military included.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Yes.

but evidence doesn't matter to your ideology.

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

No they were not deprived of a right. There are no universal rights or universal morality. Morality is defined by each person. When enough people defined slavery as immoral it was outlawed. Its as simple as that

Click to expand...

jet57 said:

Look, you nor any of your friends are able to prove that natural exist beyond a belief.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

aha - the invisible kind only understood by those who are trusted with the secret handshake!!!!

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Yep...you got that right.. its a vast right wing conspiracy. Who knew that the founding fathers.. that set up the federal government.. who wrote about natural rights, etc... were right wing extremists.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Not at all. Both were slave owners.. both were born into owning slaves. Both later realized the hypocrisy of rights for themselves but not for their slaves. Both later worked to try and abolish slavery or at least make it easier for slaves to be freed.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

Yep...you got that right.. its a vast right wing conspiracy. Who knew that the founding fathers.. that set up the federal government.. who wrote about natural rights, etc... were right wing extremists.

Click to expand...

zsu2357 said:

But yet of course you and your friends are able to prove different then?

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by vegas giants View Post
You have a belief system ....nothing more. It is no more valid than santa claus or the tooth fairy

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Well lets see... if you believed as the Founder did that
*** slavery was permissable
*** women had no rights
*** the vote should be restricted to white male property owners
*** the people of the states should have their Senators picked by the legislature

yeah- that would make you a right winger to be sure.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

I see.. so according to you then.. slavery was not a human rights violation? According to you.. there was no reason for the civil war, and for protecting the rights of African americans?

Click to expand...

zsu2357 said:

vg did or do you have little kids? If so did you blow the whistle on santa and the tooth fairy? Betting you did. Can't let that belief system get in the way.

Click to expand...

vegas giants said:

The founding fathers believed ni natural rights. So what? Many people do. That does not make them a fact. It makes them a widely held belief system like christanity or Islam.

Click to expand...

jaeger19 said:

I already have.

Heck.. you proved it. You wrote "someone says it".

Where did they come up with the idea that there was a right? How does "one person "says it".. if no such thing exists without a GOVERNMENT or society.. making it?

You just proved that people just naturally believe that rights exists.. outside of government and society.. and because of that.. they get government and society to protect their rights.

You proved it Jet.. with your very argument.

Click to expand...