An Unalienable Right - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15156384
The Resister wrote:.....
When the Declaration of Independence was penned everybody had unalienable Rights. Only Whites had the privilege of voting and becoming citizens a few weeks after the ratification of the Constitution, but nobody can make an argument that God / a Creator gives people to a "right" to vote.
......


If you mean “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” when you are discussing unalienable rights, then it is a historical fact that chattel slavery existed in the US colonies and later the USA at the time.

Slavery, obviously, makes it impossible for slaves to enjoy their liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
#15156385
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you mean “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” when you are discussing unalienable rights, then it is a historical fact that chattel slavery existed in the US colonies and later the USA at the time.

Slavery, obviously, makes it impossible for slaves to enjoy their liberty or the pursuit of happiness.


Due to the trolling I will not discuss it with you, but at best you are dabbling in half truths. See you in another thread.
#15156387
The Resister wrote:Due to the trolling I will not discuss it with you, but at best you are dabbling in half truths. See you in another thread.


Insinuating that I am a troll and a liar is not very classy.

Anyway, are life, liberty, and TPoH all considered unalienable rights?

These are the unalienable rights mentioned in the DoI:

"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."

At the time these words were written, it was common to enslave people. And enslaving people deprives them of liberty. Thus, I judged the actions of the people of the time by their stated morals at the time, and it was not presentism.

After all morals and other social constructs, like rights, are not absolute.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15156392
The Resister wrote:inalienable right

In the real world, we are social beings. If you choose to live in society, you have chosen ("consented") to give up a portion of your freedoms.

an unalienable Right

We have shown, collectively, there are no such things as unlimited 'unalienable' rights as you define them.


:)
User avatar
By Drlee
#15156424
I will ignore the first part of your post. It is just whining because we do not agree with you and how dare we have the temerity to question you.


If any of you think drlie is knowledgeable or honest, you're wrong. He cannot factually show you a cite to anything supporting his position. He's gone off topic. He's mislead you with catchy phrases like "nuclear capable."


Well I actually named the units and the weapons systems. I even detailed the ammunition. Facts are often contentious things. You should try them some time.

Gun control wasn't even the topic.


You brought it up. Perhaps you should not have. Only you can decide. But you made it an issue.

I am an equal opportunity offender.


No. In your own post above you reserved your criticisms for
...Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Democrats, Progressives, or some devious political propaganda prostitute....


S
o, I'm going to frame this for you in terms that the people on this board understand. I'm sick and tired of the B.S. To show that, I will tell you right now without any hesitation or reservation: I am opposed to abortion.


What you are "sick and tired" of is of no concern to us. But I see now you want to discuss abortion.


But, if I were running for office, I would not advocate changing the law any other way than what the founders and framers intended.


But it appears you reject any other person, court or legislator who does the same thing but comes to a different conclusion than you do.

The United States Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the law, but they do not have the authority to reinterpret the law.


So your contention is that once the court makes a decision it cannot later be reversed? I disagree. And so does the court. It does it, at least in part, on average about once per year. So if they can reinterpret law to make a different decision was Brown a mistake?


So, it would be to my political benefit to applaud a court that over-turns Roe v. Wade, but it would be to the detriment of this country to allow an unelected body to legislate from the bench.


You need to read Roe V. Wade.

I have explained over and over again how the courts screwed us out of unalienable Rights. You can accept it on the basis of fact OR you can listen to the uneducated guru's guesses about what it is I believe in.


So you have an insult but no argument? OK. Noted.


My agenda is to reclaim Liberty.


But not by winning elections it would appear. By anonymously ranting on a message board.


The right is against that premise, claiming I'm everything except a son of God and the world famous guru here with - four posters (that apparently control what the whole board thinks if I accept the guy trolling me as him and his clique being everybody). I AM FED UP WITH THE STATUS QUO. MY CASE WAS MADE IN THE FIRST THREE POSTINGS ON THIS THREAD. Thank you and God Bless.


Sorry you are fed up. I think you can find other boards like this with a more sympathetic ear for your position. You should know that it is not going to get any easier for you here. If you read other threads here you would also see that we are just as tough on everyone. You are not getting special treatment.

You could learn from @Julian658 . If you think we are handling you roughly you should read how we have responded to him in the past. The thing is though that Julian makes his case and defends it in a civil manner. Agree with him or not he does not lose his cool in the face of debate. He is rather good at it actually.
#15156433
Pants-of-dog wrote:Insinuating that I am a troll and a liar is not very classy.

Anyway, are life, liberty, and TPoH all considered unalienable rights?

These are the unalienable rights mentioned in the DoI:

"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."

At the time these words were written, it was common to enslave people. And enslaving people deprives them of liberty. Thus, I judged the actions of the people of the time by their stated morals at the time, and it was not presentism.

After all morals and other social constructs, like rights, are not absolute.


1) The truth is never an insinuation

2) When Jefferson penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, the signatories were breaking with the status quo of government slavery. So judge the man. He had offspring by a Black woman. You're still on the losing end of this discussion (which is over)

3) If you don't like it, you can wimp out and call it a social construct. Our forefathers built the greatest country in the annals of history based upon those presuppositional principles.

Dude, for real, time to move on.
#15156434
ingliz wrote:In the real world, we are social beings. If you choose to live in society, you have chosen ("consented") to give up a portion of your freedoms.


We have shown, collectively, there are no such things as unlimited 'unalienable' rights as you define them.


:)


You've shown no such freaking thing and you should be ashamed of yourself for lying about it. NOTHING POSTED AS ATTACKS ON ME HAS CHANGED THE FIRST THREE POSTS OF THIS THREAD.
#15156435
The social contract known as the Constitution of the United States codified the unalienable Rights into the Bill of Rights. Through fraudulent and illegal means, the contract suffered a major breach and now we are not guaranteed unalienable Rights pursuant to the Constitution. This was shown in the first three posts of this thread and now we should move along. Nothing else to see here except critics blowing smoke, unable to sustain their argument with nothing but absolute lies.
#15156440
The Resister wrote:...
2) When Jefferson penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, the signatories were breaking with the status quo of government slavery. So judge the man. He had offspring by a Black woman. ....


So the right to liberty only constrains government? And you have no problem if private individuals or companies s deprive other humans of life, liberty, and tPoH. Is that what you are arguing?

I think that at the time, the British government owned slaves, and I think the newly formed US government also had slaves. They also made many laws supporting the slave trade. So it would be incorrect to claim that the signatories were breaking with the status quo of government slavery.

And yes, the man did have sex with a black girl. She was between 14 and 16 the first time he hot her pregnant. He was approximately 45 years old at the time. This would be considered statutory rape now, and if my guess is correct, this sex was not consensual on her part.

Is rape also all right when private individuals do it, as opposed to government?

3) If you don't like it, you can .... call it a social construct. Our forefathers built the greatest country in the annals of history based upon those presuppositional principles.


Yes, rigts are a social construct. Where else would they come from?
By ness31
#15156444
Dear Resister,

I’d like to help but your posts are too long and I am lazy. You do, however, seem to be pissing off the usual suspects, and this gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Keep on keeping on

:)
User avatar
By Julian658
#15156447
Pants-of-dog wrote:So the right to liberty only constrains government? And you have no problem if private individuals or companies s deprive other humans of life, liberty, and tPoH. Is that what you are arguing?

I think that at the time, the British government owned slaves, and I think the newly formed US government also had slaves. They also made many laws supporting the slave trade. So it would be incorrect to claim that the signatories were breaking with the status quo of government slavery.

And yes, the man did have sex with a black girl. She was between 14 and 16 the first time he hot her pregnant. He was approximately 45 years old at the time. This would be considered statutory rape now, and if my guess is correct, this sex was not consensual on her part.

Is rape also all right when private individuals do it, as opposed to government?



Yes, rigts are a social construct. Where else would they come from?


You are a recalcitrant presentist.

In the old days once a female menstruated she was a full grown woman. It was not uncommon to get married at age 13.

Slavery was the order of the day in the world until the late 19th century. I am not condoning the atrocities of the past, but your presentism is very obvious.
By ness31
#15156448
How old is the word ‘presentist’?
#15156451
Julian658 wrote:You are a recalcitrant presentist.


Again, when was the preamble to the DoI written? Was it written around the same time as when Jefferson was raping slaves? The answer is yes, so I am judging the actions of Jefferson and men like him by the morality they themselves preached at the time.

In the old days once a female menstruated she was a full grown woman. It was not uncommon to get married at age 13.


Depends on which old days and which culture. But this was not marriage. It was a case of a slaveowner having (probably non-consensual) sex with a slave.

Slavery was the order of the day in the world until the late 19th century. I am not condoning the atrocities of the past, but your presentism is very obvious.


Yes, slavery was the order of the day. And since that is the case, we can assume that rights change over time. And since that is the case, we know rights are not absolute or unalienable.

You have disproved the OP’s claims with a single word, julian!
User avatar
By ingliz
#15156457
@The Resister

No-one possesses rights simply by dint of being human. Inherent, imprescriptible, unlimited, and inalienable rights are a nonsense

The world found nothing sacred in the abstract nakedness of being human.

— Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

To have rights, individuals must be more than simply human. They must be members of a political community. Only then can a person enjoy enforceable rights.

When all rights are privileges granted by government, the right to be a citizen is the one right that makes the enjoyment of all other rights possible.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 12 Feb 2021 16:33, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Julian658
#15156458
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, when was the preamble to the DoI written? Was it written around the same time as when Jefferson was raping slaves? The answer is yes, so I am judging the actions of Jefferson and men like him by the morality they themselves preached at the time.



Depends on which old days and which culture. But this was not marriage. It was a case of a slaveowner having (probably non-consensual) sex with a slave.



Yes, slavery was the order of the day. And since that is the case, we can assume that rights change over time. And since that is the case, we know rights are not absolute or unalienable.

You have disproved the OP’s claims with a single word, julian!


Western values are a work in progress. The founding fathers did not get it right the first time but at least they were trying to improve on the tyranny of the old world. At the end of the day they were English men and rather racist. Ben Franklin used to say some Germans were too swarthy. We also know they looked down on the Irish. At that time slaves were not in their sights. Then ones that were not racist probably saw blacks in a condescending manner. That still happens today.
Last edited by Julian658 on 12 Feb 2021 16:41, edited 1 time in total.
#15156460
ingliz wrote:@The Resister

No-one enjoys inherent, imprescriptible, unlimited, and inalienable rights simply by dint of being human.

The world found nothing sacred in the abstract nakedness of being human.

— Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

To have rights, individuals must be more than simply human. They must be members of a political community. Only then can a person enjoy enforceable rights.

When all rights are privileges granted by government, the right to be a citizen is the one right that makes the enjoyment of all other rights possible.


:lol:


Your opinion runs 180 degrees opposite of what the founders and framers believed. They built the greatest nation in the annals of history. And your claim to fame is???
#15156461
ingliz wrote:In the real world, we are social beings. If you choose to live in society, you have chosen ("consented") to give up a portion of your freedoms.


We have shown, collectively, there are no such things as unlimited 'unalienable' rights as you define them.


:)


No you haven't. But keep believing your own lies. Maybe you will wake up in a totalitarian dictatorship one day.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15156462
You are a recalcitrant presentist.


Not at all. Jefferson stands condemned as do my forefathers, by the standards of their own time. Jefferson, Washington and other founders wrote about the ills of slavery and wished it, at least in their public pronouncements, to end.
whetherwhat the relationship between Hemmings and Jefferson was consensual but given the power dynamic it is very likely that it was not. At least initially.

That is, of course off-topic.

@The Resister This was shown in the first three posts of this thread and now we should move along. Nothing else to see here except critics blowing smoke, unable to sustain their argument with nothing but absolute lies.


Childish response. Nobody has lied here that I can see though you were woefully misinformed about a couple of items. If debate here is too hard for you perhaps you could find a better outlet for your ideas. If you have a website you could install a blog. Then you can pontificate without being questioned to your heart's content.

Your opinion runs 180 degrees opposite of what the founders and framers believed. They built the greatest nation in the annals of history. And your claim to fame is???


Your deification of the founders is noted.

I disagree that Ingliz' opinion "runs 180 degrees opposite of what the founders and framers believed".

And your claim to fame is?
User avatar
By ingliz
#15156463
The Resister wrote:They built the greatest nation in the annals of history

By what measure?


:lol:
#15156466
Julian658 wrote:Western values are a work in progress.
The founding fathers did not get it right the first time but at least they were trying to improve on the tyranny of the old world. At the end of the day they were English men and rather racist. Ben Franklin used to say some Germans were too swarthy. We also know they looked down on the Irish. At that time slaves were not in their sights. Then ones that were not racist probably saw blacks in a condescending manner.


Yes, exactly. I am glad you understand what I am trying to say.

Now, did you also understand how this ties to unalienable rights?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 11

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]