Define "rights".

[haymarket]

Haymarket: How do you define Faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. In other words, Faith is an actual substance, Faith is evidence. To me, Faith is when you KNOW something is true even though it hasn't been proved yet. I feel that you think Faith is just another term for 'Blind Belief' that wishful thinking, pie in the sky people want to believe.

faith is when you believe what you chose to believe when there is no hard evidence to tell you your belief is valid.

 

[chuck71]

Nobody does. He's so full of crap, his eyes are brown.

He's so full of crap, he blows his nose with toilet paper!

 

[haymarket]

my signature says it all hay!

you failed terribly when you stated..... ratify........more reading on your part will bring you up to speed.

YOu have not pointed out one factual error in any of the three statements. The stuff you are raving about IS NOT what my statements say.

Yet again, you post evidence of other things besides what I am claiming.

 

[Master PO]

Very good! At last, something from you that I can agree with. I can also see your point that the Founders (many of them) were hypocrites because they talked about freedom while at the same time owning slaves. I can't get into their minds, but I feel that deep down they knew Slavery was wrong---Just speculation on my part, no proof to back it up.

most of the founders could not end slavery because no DOI would have ever been created, and also no constitution , the founders felt slavery would end, by the time of their deaths has stated by James Madison.

 

[Master PO]

YOu have not pointed out one factual error in any of the three statements. The stuff you are raving about IS NOT what my statements say.

Yet again, you post evidence of other things besides what I am claiming.

my signature says it all!

 

[Green Man]

faith is when you believe what you chose to believe when there is no hard evidence to tell you your belief is valid.

You seem to be conflating faith with opinion.

If one holds an opinion, do you consider that faith? For instance, if I prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla, what sort of hard evidence would tell whether that opinion was valid?

Do you consider all opinions to be a matter of faith?

 

[chuck71]

What makes you think I do not believe in a god or God?

If you do believe in God (not 'a god'), then I am happy to be wrong about you. Most of what you post suggests that you do not believe in a higher power, but if you do, I'm glad to stand corrected!

 

[Master PO]

If you do believe in God (not 'a god'), then I am happy to be wrong about you. Most of what you post suggests that you do not believe in a higher power, but if you do, I'm glad to stand corrected!

haymarket does not believe in anything of god or a higher power, he believes people create their own rights, and those officials elected by the people rule over the people.

the federal government is the sole authority.

 

[chuck71]

I agree that it is a document of great merit. One of the greatest in my humble opinion.

And that makes it even more sad that so many of the Founders were hypocrites living a lie.

Haymarket, if we lived in those times and were wealthy Southerners, we would probably own slaves ourselves. It was deeply embedded in the Southern economy. It makes me sad too, because they were men of such great enlightenment.

 

[Fletch]

Baloney. Worse - its yesterdays baloney that has been digested and the remains of which are now headed down the porcelain receptacle.

If a person states loudly that they are against pedophilia but at the same time are engaged in the sex act of buggering a ten year old - who in the world would accept their hollow words as what they truly believe over their despicable and contrary actions?

That is exactly what Jefferson and some of the others were doing via slavery when they wrote those lies.

Actions speak louder than words. If you want to know what a man really believes, watch what he does not what he says. Talk is cheap.

What makes you such a slippery devil and why conversations with you are just endless games of tail chaising is that you speak out of both sides of your mouth. And when you disagree with a particular proposition, you either mischaracterize it or just fail to grasp it. According to your position, slaves in Jeffersons era had no rights because the state--who is the arbiter and distributor of rights in your eyes didn't grant any such things to blacks. So in truth, you would have been a defender of the Founders slave ownership because you would have lacked any real moral foundation to oppose it. What Jefferson and friends did was come up with the moral argument for the abolition of slavery that you, even to this day, fail to grasp. You are like a modern day Scribe who sees law as an end in itself. The founders believed that there was a moral law that governed all things and that human law, to be just, must be governed by it as well. You confuse morality with majority, have your head buried in concrete and bend to the will of the mob, I assume because your mind is incapable of grasping the abstract or adhering to any moral principles. Rights are a moral concept derived from an understanding of an objective moral code. That, however, is too much for you. It is much easier for you cling to the childish notion that rights are passed out by the state like candy on Halloween.

 

[chuck71]

sept 17th is constitution day,...."Proposed Constitution signed; Convention adjourns indefinitely

copies of the constitution were then sent out to the states, with it needing 9 states to ratify it....9 votes ratification was reached on June 21 1788, making the constitution binding.

Ok, so it was actually ratified on June 21 1788.

 

[johndylan1]

This is from the three volume authoritative Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged.... Merriam Webster 1981 - Chicago, Illinois its the set that comes with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Volume II, page 1955, column 2 on that page,



There you have it. Note that both variations include the language about the government AS BY AUTHORITY and BY THE LAW and the additional element that it be LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE and SECURED TO A PERSON BY LAW. I have maintained that a RIGHT is a behavior protected and recognized by the government. The definitions provided confirm that with the elements I stated.

It says "or" not "and"...

 

[johndylan1]

What makes you such a slippery devil and why conversations with you are just endless games of tail chaising is that you speak out of both sides of your mouth. And when you disagree with a particular proposition, you either mischaracterize it or just fail to grasp it. According to your position, slaves in Jeffersons era had no rights because the state--who is the arbiter and distributor of rights in your eyes didn't grant any such things to blacks. So in truth, you would have been a defender of the Founders slave ownership because you would have lacked any real moral foundation to oppose it. What Jefferson and friends did was come up with the moral argument for the abolition of slavery that you, even to this day, fail to grasp. You are like a modern day Scribe who sees law as an end in itself. The founders believed that there was a moral law that governed all things and that human law, to be just, must be governed by it as well. You confuse morality with majority, have your head buried in concrete and bend to the will of the mob, I assume because your mind is incapable of grasping the abstract or adhering to any moral principles. Rights are a moral concept derived from an understanding of an objective moral code. That, however, is too much for you. It is much easier for you cling to the childish notion that rights are passed out by the state like candy on Halloween.

During my studies in psychology there was a segment that was about levels of thought associated with the developmental process. I can't remember the exact percentage but there is actually a segment of the population that, for what ever reason, is incapable of achieving anything more than the most basic levels of abstraction. So you may be on to something here....

 

[haymarket]

You seem to be conflating faith with opinion.

If one holds an opinion, do you consider that faith? For instance, if I prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla, what sort of hard evidence would tell whether that opinion was valid?

Do you consider all opinions to be a matter of faith?

No it is your opinion based on your faith.

 

[haymarket]

Haymarket, if we lived in those times and were wealthy Southerners, we would probably own slaves ourselves.

Lets deal with reality not a time machine please.

 

[haymarket]

It says "or" not "and"...

regarding what?

here was my post - IN FULL


This is from the three volume authoritative Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged.... Merriam Webster 1981 - Chicago, Illinois its the set that comes with the Encyclopedia Britannica. Volume II, page 1955, column 2 on that page,

RIGHT: 2c - a power, privilege or immunity vested in one (as by authority or social custom), 2d(1) - a power or privilege vested in a person by the law to demand action or forbearance by another: a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will not will do or will not do a given act: a capacity or privilege, the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law

There you have it. Note that both variations include the language about the government AS BY AUTHORITY and BY THE LAW and the additional element that it be LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE and SECURED TO A PERSON BY LAW. I have maintained that a RIGHT is a behavior protected and recognized by the government. The definitions provided confirm that with the elements I stated.

 

[haymarket]

What makes you such a slippery devil and why conversations with you are just endless games of tail chaising is that you speak out of both sides of your mouth. And when you disagree with a particular proposition, you either mischaracterize it or just fail to grasp it. According to your position, slaves in Jeffersons era had no rights because the state--who is the arbiter and distributor of rights in your eyes didn't grant any such things to blacks. So in truth, you would have been a defender of the Founders slave ownership because you would have lacked any real moral foundation to oppose it. What Jefferson and friends did was come up with the moral argument for the abolition of slavery that you, even to this day, fail to grasp. You are like a modern day Scribe who sees law as an end in itself. The founders believed that there was a moral law that governed all things and that human law, to be just, must be governed by it as well. You confuse morality with majority, have your head buried in concrete and bend to the will of the mob, I assume because your mind is incapable of grasping the abstract or adhering to any moral principles. Rights are a moral concept derived from an understanding of an objective moral code. That, however, is too much for you. It is much easier for you cling to the childish notion that rights are passed out by the state like candy on Halloween.

What unadulterated BS. It is sad that you cannot quote me but instead prefer to mischaracterize my statements in your own twisted words. Very very sad.

This line from you is pure made up crap

So in truth, you would have been a defender of the Founders slave ownership because you would have lacked any real moral foundation to oppose it.

There is a huge chasm between the two positions that one simply acknowledges reality and the opposite one supports a bad policy which is a direct contradiction to ones own stated beliefs as they were with Jefferson and some of the Founders. For you to jump to the ridiculous conclusion that I would have supported slavery shows how intellectually bankrupt you are that you have to resort to such perversion and twisting of what i actually said.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Green Man]

No it is your opinion based on your faith.

I see. So you consider opinions to be based on faith.

So then your opinion that people don't have a moral entitlement to life, liberty, and property is based based on your faith.

 

[haymarket]

I see. So you consider opinions to be based on faith.

So then your opinion that people don't have a moral entitlement to life, liberty, and property is based based on your faith.

I don't have any idea what you think a moral entitlement is and what it has to do with ones Constitutional rights.

 

[Fletch]

What unadulterated BS. It is sad that you cannot quote me but instead prefer to mischaracterize my statements in your own twisted words. Very very sad.

I didn't mischaracterize you at all. Whats very very sad is your unwillingness to come to terms with the foolishness of your own positions

 

[haymarket]

my signature says it all!

actually - it does not. Actually it says far from the whole picture.

Here are the sources for the statements I have made:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FACT:
The Continental Congress – which still functioned at irregular intervals – passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation.

FACT:
The Articles Congress certified eleven ratification conventions had adopted the proposed Constitution for their states on September 13, 1788, and in accordance with its resolution, the new Constitutional government began March 4, 1789.[42] (See above Ratification and beginning.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights

FACT:
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the ten successfully ratified amendments on March 1, 1792.[58]



The facts are as I have been stating them. If you don't like them, take it up with the authorities cited in the Wikipedia article.

 

[haymarket]

I didn't mischaracterize you at all. Whats very very sad is your unwillingness to come to terms with the foolishness of your own positions

Then simply quote me on what you claim I said.

Why can't you do that?

answer: because it would not say what you want it to say.

 

[Fletch]

I don't have any idea what you think a moral entitlement is and what it has to do with ones Constitutional rights.

Here is a perfect example of what I am saying. You cannot grasp that there is a moral component to any just law. The Constitution is the legal embodiment of a specific moral code not some floating abstraction.

 

[Fletch]

Then simply quote me on what you claim I said.

Why can't you do that?

answer: because it would not say what you want it to say.

You have stated many times that there are no innate rights and that rights are whatever the state dishes out. Are you now denying this?

 

[Green Man]

I don't have any idea what you think a moral entitlement is and what it has to do with ones Constitutional rights.

As we have discussed, if you Google the phrase "define right", you will see that the word right is defined as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

Constitutional rights would be a legal entitlement, which is different from a moral entitlement.

See, some people hold the opinion that people are entitled to such things as life, liberty, and property. I realize that, based on your faith, you think that people are NOT entitled to such things. That is our fundamental difference. You think that people are entitled only to what the government say, while I think that people are entitled to such things as life, liberty, and property DESPITE what the government says.