Define "rights".

[haymarket]

So in other words, in your mind there is no difference between a man and a dog, you feel the two should be treated differently based upon...nothing. So if I disagree and hold people as slaves you have no moral argument against me, you just disagree based upon some random human feelings that you have at that particular moment. Boy, you would have been a very effective abolitionist. Not.

I really have no idea why you would say silly things like that when my recent posts say just the opposite. Now you are just making it up as you go along.

 

[haymarket]

Other people.

And you wallow in the self imposed delusion that they exist in some sort of sealed vacuum away from the rest of society which includes government?

 

[haymarket]

Please describe your observations of this special status.

already did that.

 

[Green Man]

And you wallow in the self imposed delusion that they exist in some sort of sealed vacuum away from the rest of society which includes government?

People ARE society.

 

[Fletch]

How does one observe anything?

You are dodging. Lets do a though experiment here: its 1840, Green Man and I own slaves and you do not. Somewhere in the back of you head a thought appears that leads you to think that maybe slavery should be ended. Convince us that we should free our slaves.

 

[Green Man]

already did that.

Really? You described your observations of this special status? Do you have a link?

EDIT - Forget it. Put your energy into answering Fletch's question. I'd prefer to see that answer over continuing to get the the runaround.

 

[haymarket]

You are dodging. Lets do a though experiment here: its 1840, Green Man and I own slaves and you do not. Somewhere in the back of you head a thought appears that leads you to think that maybe slavery should be ended. Convince us that we should free our slaves.

I already told you why it was wrong because humans are not property. But the fact is that you are trying to move the issue to a different arena that is make believe.

I do not live in 1840.
Green Man and you do not live in 1840.
Neither of you are slave owners.

Lets deal with the real world we live shall we? I am no longer a college sophomore who cannot sleep at 3 AM who pontificates about these sort of WHAT IFS with others of the sort hopped up on too much caffeine and an exaggerated sense of their own intelligence and self importance.

 

[haymarket]

Really? You described your observations of this special status?

2108 and 2109. We already went through this and now you want to buy another ticket for the same merrygo round ride.

 

[Green Man]

2108 and 2109. We already went through this and now you want to buy another ticket for the same merrygo round ride.

As I said, forget it. I don't care. I'd rather you put your energy into answering Fletch's question.

 

[haymarket]

As I said, forget it. I don't care. I'd rather you put your energy into answering Fletch's question.

You asked.
I gave you the answer.
Its there.

You seem to be getting frustrated. Take a bit of time to regroup and relax. I am going to do my morning run and will return in a bit.

As to Fletch - His question was answered.

 

[Green Man]

You asked.
I gave you the answer.
Its there.

You seem to be getting frustrated. Take a bit of time to regroup and relax. I am going to do my morning run and will return in a bit.

As to Fletch - His question was answered.

Not frustrated at all. There's just no point in both Fletch and I asking you the exact same questions.

I saw your dodge of Fletch's question.

 

[Green Man]

I already told you why it was wrong because humans are not property.

In the scenario Fletch just asked about, humans ARE property. Haymarket's task is to convince us that we should free our slaves.

But the fact is that you are trying to move the issue to a different arena that is make believe.

I do not live in 1840.
Green Man and you do not live in 1840.
Neither of you are slave owners.

Lets deal with the real world we live shall we? I am no longer a college sophomore who cannot sleep at 3 AM who pontificates about these sort of WHAT IFS with others of the sort hopped up on too much caffeine and an exaggerated sense of their own intelligence and self importance.

This is a dodge.

 

[chuck71]

I respectfully disagree.

Like all people, haymarket has a theory of rights. He doesn't reveal very much of it, but we know a little something about it.

According to his theory of rights, the government can strip rights from people. For example, he believes that the government can strip people of the right to free speech. Punishing someone for speaking out, according to his theory, means that the government has eliminated the right to free speech.

His theory of rights also rejects the idea of natural rights, rights that people have by virtue of simply being humans. Again, his theory, his belief system.

Anyway, my point is that he, like everyone else, has a theory of rights that is as much a part of a belief system as the theories he mocks and rejects.

Our important rights, free speech, the Right to keep and bear arms, the right to be secure in your person, possessions, etc... and not subject to unreasonable search and seizure, are not 'Man-made Rights'. The Framers mentioned that we have those Rights, but they never claimed to GIVE them to us. They are God given Rights which no man-made legislative body can take away, unless we let them, which would mean we don't deserve them. "The cost of Freedom has always been high, but Americans have always paid it". John F. Kennedy.

 

[chuck71]

I thought you might be interested, which is why I added my comment. Check out article 7 of the Constitution:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

If that's true, it doesn't make sense. Certainly ALL the States have to go along with the Ratification, like it or not.

 

[chuck71]

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

I disagree. Faith is when you know something to be true whether you choose it or not, whether you like it or not. Call It 'Intuition' or 'Esp' or whatever, but you KNOW that it's true.

 

[Green Man]

If that's true, it doesn't make sense. Certainly ALL the States have to go along with the Ratification, like it or not.

That's not what the constitution says. It says that when 9 states ratified it, it would be established between those states.

Take a look again: "...between the States so ratifying the Same."

 

[chuck71]

Lets deal with reality not a time machine please.

Ha Ha! I'm simply putting myself in the same situation that the Founders would be in and saying I would probably be no better. There's nothing wrong with using a time machine to try and understand the situations people had to deal with.

 

[haymarket]

Not frustrated at all. There's just no point in both Fletch and I asking you the exact same questions.

I saw your dodge of Fletch's question.

You got the answer. Like it or not - I could not care less.

 

[haymarket]

In the scenario Fletch just asked about, humans ARE property. Haymarket's task is to convince us that we should free our slaves.



This is a dodge.

No - they are humans and being TREATED as property.

Perhaps its a chrysler.

 

[haymarket]

Ha Ha! I'm simply putting myself in the same situation that the Founders would be in and saying I would probably be no better. There's nothing wrong with using a time machine to try and understand the situations people had to deal with.

Good luck with that. I prefer to deal with reality.

 

[Green Man]

No - they are humans and being TREATED as property.

Yes, treated as property under the law. Your task was to explain why the law ought to be changed to treat them differently.

 

[chuck71]

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.

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.

What I have repeatedly stated is that rights are a two step process that begins with the people demanding that a certain behavior be protected by the government as a right so they exert enough power or influence to force that to happen. That is NOT "whatever the state dishes out". It is what the people can achieve.

Again, you attempt to distort.... to pervert.... to change .... what I actually said into some foreign version that you made up out of your own intellectual bankrupt thinking.

What is it that tells the People that a 'certain behavior be protected by the Government? It is their innate understanding of God Given Rights!

 

[haymarket]

Yes, treated as property under the law. Your task was to explain why the law ought to be changed.

I already did that.

But ask yourself this question: If such a mind as that of Jefferson claimed to know what he was doing was wrong, and he wrote a statement of his beliefs that showed he was doing wrong, and he continued to do it anyway despite his own argument - what argument can anyone make that Jefferson did not make that is going to convince anyone?

That reality shows the utter foolishness of attempting to engage in such silly speculation.

 

[haymarket]

What is it that tells the People that a 'certain behavior be protected by the Government? It is there innate understanding of God Given Rights!

The collective will of the people - or at least enough of them - as expressed through discourse and public action.

 

[Green Man]

I already did that.

You said that people ought not be treated as property. But you didn't explain why you believe this.