The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The right to harm or take life. What justifies it, in your opinion? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4
Davit Sicseek
View Profile
Inner circle
1818 Posts

Profile of Davit Sicseek
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 20:10, Woland wrote:...
The Declaration declares that the fundamental rights of man are endowments from the Creator, and may not be infringed by any government.

That's the main point. The founders recognized that there is an Authority over the world, greater than any human power. And they understood that however you conceive of that Authority, it endowed all men with inalienable rights. And the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect those rights from being taken away by tyrants of whatever kind....

Some of the founding father's weren't believers.

Altough I subscribe to the concept of unalienable rights/natural rights - there is nothing to suggest they are god given or that there exists any other authority over the world. There is a long history of philsophers employing the same concept without resorting to the notion of a 'creator'.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-10-24 09:18, Hawkan wrote:
Only about 4% of us have the mental ability, or are "disposed" in such a way to be able to kill another human being (did that make sense? English is not my native language). Killing within one´s own species are very rare, also in nature.

Studies from wars show that very few soldiers actually shoot at another human, no matter what the circumstances. It has nothing to do with being good or bad.

Hĺkan
:wavey:


True on a base line level. BUT push a person to the point of fight or flight, a child in danger or a loved one, adrenaline changes things. Yes in general most do not have it in them to kill.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Davit,

Whatever the individual Founders believed, they agreed with the wording of the Declaration, and signed their names to it, at the risk of their lives.

The important point, for the purposes of this discussion, is that they recognized that unalienable human rights are derived from an Authority higher than that of human government, and may not be infringed legitimately by any human government.

Peace Out.

Woland
Davit Sicseek
View Profile
Inner circle
1818 Posts

Profile of Davit Sicseek
Quote:
The important point, for the purposes of this discussion, is that they recognized that unalienable human rights are derived from an Authority higher than that of human government, and may not be infringed legitimately by any human government.

The rights don't derive from any authority, they are self evident. Many non-believers both before and after the time of the founding fathers have regognised and supported the exact same concepts. The fact that a single document suggests this links derive from a 'creator' doesn't mean that is actually the case. See John Locke for instance.

I realise I am treading on dangerous turf when it comes to discussing American history as an Englighman that hasn't studied it in detail... but... I have always been under the impression that the Declaration was a document of compromises and that Jefferson's decision to use 'creator' rather than 'god' was a concious one. If one really must bring a creator into it then I nominate my mother and father as being the authority that my inalienable rights derive.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Davit,

All of politics is an exercise in compromises, but I think most of the Declaration was accepted without much debate. A paragraph denouncing King George for allowing the slave trade was removed from Jefferson's first draft.

As to whether the unalienable rights of man are self-evident . . . the Founders used that language in describing their whole series of syllogisms, saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident . . ." but some would complain that is the language of misdirection . . . I think it is evident from widespread experience that the rights of man are not self-evident to many people in many parts of the world . . . many if not all of the rights we enjoy in the Anglosphere are absent from the lives of hundreds of millions of people . . .

Upon what basis would you defend your individual rights when confronted by a univocal judiciary, military, and political bureaucracy that could "prove" that the exercise of your rights was inimical to the "common good"?

You'd soon have grown accustomed to gold mining in subzero temperatures on a strict ration just below the starvation level . . .

May I commend to your attention the "Kolyma Tales" of Varlam Shalamov?


Peace Out.

Woland
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-24 10:29, Davit Sicseek wrote:
The fact that a single document suggests this links derive from a 'creator' doesn't mean that is actually the case. See John Locke for instance.


Of course, the fact that a single authority (John Locke for instance) suggests that...


Well, never mind.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
Quote:
On 2010-10-24 09:46, Davit Sicseek wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 20:10, Woland wrote:...
The Declaration declares that the fundamental rights of man are endowments from the Creator, and may not be infringed by any government.

That's the main point. The founders recognized that there is an Authority over the world, greater than any human power. And they understood that however you conceive of that Authority, it endowed all men with inalienable rights. And the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect those rights from being taken away by tyrants of whatever kind....

Some of the founding father's weren't believers.

Altough I subscribe to the concept of unalienable rights/natural rights - there is nothing to suggest they are god given or that there exists any other authority over the world. There is a long history of philsophers employing the same concept without resorting to the notion of a 'creator'.


If you are referring to Thomas Jefferson, that's kind of half correct. Not that I would defend the "right," or anything, being a heathen myself.
Jefferson followed the moral tenets espoused by Christianity, but not the supernatural overtones. He believed that attending communal service could provide a moral framework, and that Jesus was a great teacher. He did not, however, believe him to be God incarnate. Nor did he believe in miracles or other fantastic supernatural overtones.
The term often used to describe his religio-philosophical beliefs is "enlightenment deist."
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Critter,

You are right about Jefferson's beliefs. He concealed his beliefs from the public, but they are brought out in his letters, and in his personal recension of the Gospels, from which he removed any reference to anything "supernatural," but maintained the moral teachings expounded by Jesus.

Peace Out.

Woland
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-10-24 10:29, Davit Sicseek wrote:
Quote:
The important point, for the purposes of this discussion, is that they recognized that unalienable human rights are derived from an Authority higher than that of human government, and may not be infringed legitimately by any human government.


I realise I am treading on dangerous turf when it comes to discussing American history as an Englighman that hasn't studied it in detail... but... I have always been under the impression that the Declaration was a document of compromises and that Jefferson's decision to use 'creator' rather than 'god' was a concious one. If one really must bring a creator into it then I nominate my mother and father as being the authority that my inalienable rights derive.


Hey this is the Magic Café. Knowing what you are talking about, not having studied anything in detail are simply NOT a requirement for you to expouse your views and believe them 100% true.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-10-24 19:03, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-24 10:29, Davit Sicseek wrote:
Quote:
The important point, for the purposes of this discussion, is that they recognized that unalienable human rights are derived from an Authority higher than that of human government, and may not be infringed legitimately by any human government.


I realise I am treading on dangerous turf when it comes to discussing American history as an Englighman that hasn't studied it in detail... but... I have always been under the impression that the Declaration was a document of compromises and that Jefferson's decision to use 'creator' rather than 'god' was a concious one. If one really must bring a creator into it then I nominate my mother and father as being the authority that my inalienable rights derive.


Hey this is the Magic Café. Knowing what you are talking about, not having studied anything in detail are simply NOT a requirement for you to expouse your views and believe them 100% true.


Yup, nothing like running with something without bothering to check if there is a shred of truth, or if your just listening to the rantings of a bitter old man.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Wow how many threads do you want to continue this on GDW? I know you are upset that nobody agrees with childish views that Utopia will ever happen, but please let it go. Nobody wants to see anyone just follow me arround and start silly little half wit arguements. It is not productive. Please stop.

Look at it this way. When Utopia does happen, think of the huge I TOLD YOU SO you have comming!
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-10-25 09:43, Dannydoyle wrote:
Wow how many threads do you want to continue this on GDW? I know you are upset that nobody agrees with childish views that Utopia will ever happen, but please let it go. Nobody wants to see anyone just follow me arround and start silly little half wit arguements. It is not productive. Please stop.

Look at it this way. When Utopia does happen, think of the huge I TOLD YOU SO you have comming!


Just trying to point out how you are living contrary to what you are saying. If it just falls on deaf ears, then I'll stop. The question is then, why do you continue to pop up and comment on me when it comes to my political thoughts, and supposed "trolling."

As for the last point, beside the "utopia" assertion again, as I've said several times, I have no delusions of such a system, merely a better one than what we have now, I am looking at it that way. There is plenty happening to lead to such societies existing. There is, however, sadly no indication it will happen necessarily in our lifetimes. It may, but there isn't much to suggest one way or the other. It will happen, just a question of when.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
ed rhodes
View Profile
Inner circle
Rhode Island
2758 Posts

Profile of ed rhodes
Quote:
On 2010-10-24 12:07, Woland wrote:
Davit,

All of politics is an exercise in compromises, but I think most of the Declaration was accepted without much debate. A paragraph denouncing King George for allowing the slave trade was removed from Jefferson's first draft.



According to the musical "1776" (which, I hasten to add, the writers developed based on letters and papers from the Founding Fathers, most of the quotes in the musical can be traced back to these - the musical numbers, not so much) there were a LOT of changes in the Declaration before it was ratified. The slavery clause was just the one that caused the most contention.
"There's no time to lose," I heard her say.
"Catch your dreams before they slip away."
"Dying all the time, lose your dreams and you could lose your mind.
Ain't life unkind?"
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20613 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-10-25 11:23, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-25 09:43, Dannydoyle wrote:
Wow how many threads do you want to continue this on GDW? I know you are upset that nobody agrees with childish views that Utopia will ever happen, but please let it go. Nobody wants to see anyone just follow me arround and start silly little half wit arguements. It is not productive. Please stop.

Look at it this way. When Utopia does happen, think of the huge I TOLD YOU SO you have comming!


It will happen, just a question of when.


Anything but hope to back this up?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-10-25 21:40, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-25 11:23, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-25 09:43, Dannydoyle wrote:
Wow how many threads do you want to continue this on GDW? I know you are upset that nobody agrees with childish views that Utopia will ever happen, but please let it go. Nobody wants to see anyone just follow me arround and start silly little half wit arguements. It is not productive. Please stop.

Look at it this way. When Utopia does happen, think of the huge I TOLD YOU SO you have comming!


It will happen, just a question of when.


Anything but hope to back this up?

Just a few growing movements. It will start small. If it works, it will spread.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Yup, a can of warm worms. Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The right to harm or take life. What justifies it, in your opinion? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.17 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL