Do You Agree with Declaration of Independence?

[Bullseye]

Ok, so that's your rebuttal? Great. Irrelevant. They restricted the power of slave states. That was good. Not as good as, you know, not owning people.nd

AS I SAID, from the founding we worked to limit and ultimately end slavery.

Let's say slavery was legal today. I assume you believe slavery is wrong. Would you buy a slave anyway?

More proof that whoever said "There is no such that as a stupid question" was wrong.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I thinkthey know, but how do you teach them about consequences? To forgoe immediate gratification? Same for men.

Increase literacy among women in third world countries and all those countries' problems go down.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

No one ever said slavery WAS good. the Founders worked to restrict the powers of slave-holding states and to limit its spread.

The Founders knew slavery was BAD, AND they worked to limit its spread, WHILE owning slaves.

Did not know this.

 

[Bullseye]

The Founders knew slavery was BAD, AND they worked to limit its spread, WHILE owning slaves.

Did not know this.

And . . .?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

AS I SAID, from the founding we worked to limit and ultimately end slavery.

Not everybody. If you recall, a whole bunch of Americans did their very best to destroy the U.S. in order to preserve slavery. They said so in their letters of secession. Subsequent to that attempt, they erected monuments to the military and political leaders who led the insurrection. To this very day, millions of Americans believe the wrong side won the American Civil War.

After they lost the war, those folks then legislated many laws that deliberately limited former slaves and offspring of former slaves from reaping the benefits of full citizenship. This was Americans who did this, not some foreign immigrants looking to invade and destroy America. This was homegrown. And they weren't focused of immigration, they wanted to do this to other natural-born citizens.

The problem that these WHITE MEN have today is that they see the complexion of American changing, and with that change they see themselves losing the power and influence they have enjoyed since before the founding. We met many of these "very fine people" a few years ago in Charlottesville, Virginia. What was it they were chanting?

"You. Will Not. Replace us!"

 

[Stealers Wheel]

And . . .?

All men are created equal, of course!

 

[soylentgreen]

Wrong...



...and in this case not quite the complete point of the statement.

You seem to forget that not only was there a King in England, there was a whole class of hereditary nobility. Then there were Emperors, Sultans, ruling Princes and Dukes, and Lords of all kinds in Europe and around the world. ALL claiming a "natural right" to rule the lower classes.

The "we are all created equal" was a statement that NO ONE had a "natural right to rule" anyone else.

No, if all you can do is deny then I have said nothing wrong.

What a load of crap. Considering the author of that went on to help create a government. Really! No one has a natural right??? You have never come across the term alpha male/ female. Natures natural development of who rules and who follows.

The statement was nothing more than low wit. A sarcastic way of telling a king he is no better than the next man. That is the only sensible meaning that can be derived from the statement because thinking it somehow means people are actually equal or that no one has a right to rule is even more laughable.

 

[skeptic llc]

How many of you can recite the Declaration of Independence without clicking on the OP link?

Not even close for me -- I remember this much from a song we sang in grade school: "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." Beyond that, I can't recite a thing.

 

[Captain Adverse]

No, if all you can do is deny then I have said nothing wrong.

What a load of crap. Considering the author of that went on to help create a government. Really! No one has a natural right??? You have never come across the term alpha male/ female. Natures natural development of who rules and who follows.

The statement was nothing more than low wit. A sarcastic way of telling a king he is no better than the next man. That is the only sensible meaning that can be derived from the statement because thinking it somehow means people are actually equal or that no one has a right to rule is even more laughable.

You really have no argument. Just a naked assertion Jefferson was "making a witty statement."

1. An elected government does not have a "natural right to rule," it has the right to govern given via the will of the people. Even then it is a temporary right, for a term of years, with many restrictions.

2. Meanwhile, in a "principality" that ruler agrees with your position; that simply by dint of "noble birth" they have the natural right to rule. Doesn't matter if they are cruel, rapacious, or even weak and merely buoyed up by the strength of their enforcers.

Your argument is the same as theirs, might makes right. But the mighty can be slain in their sleep, poisoned, stabbed in the back, or overpowered by numbers, and this makes a mockery of your "natural right to rule" argument.

The author of the Declaration was basing his assertions on views obtained through a lifetime of political discussion, debates, and knowledge garnered from classical literature.

 

[jonny5]

Increase literacy among women in third world countries and all those countries' problems go down.

What about the US, since thats the topic? We have similar population problems.

 

[AmNat]

1. everyone is equal

No one is equal. The quoted idea, totally at variance with reality, has been responsible for more carnage and death than any other ideology in history.

 

[Parrish]

1. In the context of politics, yes. We are equal in that no one has the right to rule over anybody else.

2. Yes, but life, liberty, and property (a la Locke) is more precise.

3. Lol, no. The state is the biggest violator of human rights that has ever existed.

4. Irrelevant. In politics, might makes right. As one leftist hero put it - political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Jefferson replaced " property" with "happiness" because slaves were considered as property.

 

[CaughtInThe]

I agree with the Declaration of Independence because it gave us a way to fix things that they screwed up on initially.

 

[jonny5]

No one is equal. The quoted idea, totally at variance with reality, has been responsible for more carnage and death than any other ideology in history.

Everyone is equal in terms of their rights. That was the meaning.

 

[Moderate Right]

I need to own food to live. I don't need to own property to live.

But you raise an interesting point. Most of the starvation in this world isn’t due to a lack of food, it's due to a lack of money to buy it. That seems wrong.

I don't agree with either one of these. In most all cases, you need to either own or lease property to live.

Most of the starvation in this world IS due to lack of food. While many of these people (in shithole countries) are dirt poor, the fact is, there is a lack of food. If you gave them each one thousand dollars they would still have a lack of food.

 

[Moderate Right]

It's a lovely saying, teaching a man to fish, I assume, means working for wages. You know how little money those who pick and process our food make?

LOL. So, you are defending California's insistence on having illegals so that they can earn less than minimum wage, the backbone of the California economy?

 

[Big Steve]

He wrote “all men are created equal” while there was a literal slave in the next room.

He did.

But slaves weren't considered "men". As has been stated, they were property.

The problem with all of this is that those on the left have decided that we're going to hold those who lived in the 18th century to the morality standards of the 21st century, and you just can't do that...

 

[aociswundumho]

Jefferson replaced " property" with "happiness" because slaves were considered as property.

I know. I suspect at the time he was the world's biggest hypocrite.

 

[Parrish]

I know. I suspect at the time he was the world's biggest hypocrite.

Perhaps you should read up on Jefferson's viewpoint on enslavement and the dilemma the others Founders found themselves in with the the signers from slave-owning colonies.

 

[aociswundumho]

He did.

But slaves weren't considered "men". As has been stated, they were property.

The problem with all of this is that those on the left have decided that we're going to hold those who lived in the 18th century to the morality standards of the 21st century, and you just can't do that...

Most of the founders knew slavery was wrong, but many of them kept slaves anyway. For example, Jefferson referred to slavery as a "moral depravity."

Nobody is perfect. If you are looking for perfect people, you're on the wrong planet.

 

[jonny5]

He did.

But slaves weren't considered "men". As has been stated, they were property.

The problem with all of this is that those on the left have decided that we're going to hold those who lived in the 18th century to the morality standards of the 21st century, and you just can't do that...

Thats just politics of division. Theyre using past mistakes to harm people now in order to win power. When the mistakes were long since corrected. Selective history.

 

[aociswundumho]

Perhaps you should read up on Jefferson's viewpoint on enslavement and the dilemma the others Founders found themselves in with the the signers from slave-owning colonies.

There was nothing stopping Jefferson from freeing the slaves that he owned. He knew it was morally wrong, but he kept them anyway.

Do you disagree with any of the above claims? If yes, say why.

 

[Parrish]

There was nothing stopping Jefferson from freeing the slaves that he owned. He knew it was morally wrong, but he kept them anyway.

Do you disagree with any of the above claims? If yes, say why.

Read more. It may enlighten your thinking.

Have a pleasant day.

 

[Moderate Right]

Just in case you havent actually read it.

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Stone Engraving of the parchment Declaration of Independence (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum.) The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

www.archives.gov

TLDR

1. everyone is equal
2. everyone has a natural right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness
3. govt exist to secure these rights
4. everyone has a right to alter or abolish govt

I had to vote "other". Like the bible, other things, and the Declaration of Independence, they can be interpreted in different ways by different people and people often twist their words to mean what they want them to mean.

1. Everyone is equal - does it actually say that? Or does it just say that Men are created equal? Women were not mentioned and, in fact, did not have equal rights as men. Transgenders were not mentioned. Are transgenders men? Today we refer to blacks as men and women but in those days many blacks were property and we have proof that they were bought and sold as property. Nowhere does in mention that blacks were anything other than just property. Today's interpretation is that they are men and women.

2. Everyone has a natural right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness - what in the hell does that mean anyway, especially the happiness part? OK. Everyone has the right to live. I'll go along with that but what about capital punishment? What happened to their right to life? What about fetuses? What about their right to life? Liberty, OK, everyone has the right to be free. I'll go along with that too. But, does that mean no one should ever go to jail because everyone has the right to liberty? Does it say that only non-criminals have the right to liberty? And what about the pursuit of happiness? How about that person in jail? Do they have the right to pursue happiness? What about being a member of the KKK? If that makes someone happy do they have the right to pursue happiness? How about stalking a beautiful woman? If that makes you happy, do you have the right to pursue happiness? How about if robbing banks makes you happy?

3. govt exist to secure these rights - another example of, what does that really mean? Does it mean that the government has laws in order to secure our rights, even though those same laws can take our rights away? Or, does it mean government exists with a national defense in order for us to keep our rights? Or, does it include other stuff too?

4. everyone has a right to alter or abolish govt - does it get specific? What ways does it say we can abolish government? Does it list steps, or does it just say everyone has the right to alter or abolish government? Does it specify if they were talking about collectively, or does one lone individual have the right to alter or abolish government?

 

[jonny5]

I had to vote "other". Like the bible, other things, and the Declaration of Independence, they can be interpreted in different ways by different people and people often twist their words to mean what they want them to mean.

1. Everyone is equal - does it actually say that? Or does it just say that Men are created equal? Women were not mentioned and, in fact, did not have equal rights as men. Transgenders were not mentioned. Are transgenders men? Today we refer to blacks as men and women but in those days many blacks were property and we have proof that they were bought and sold as property. Nowhere does in mention that blacks were anything other than just property. Today's interpretation is that they are men and women.

2. Everyone has a natural right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness - what in the hell does that mean anyway, especially the happiness part? OK. Everyone has the right to live. I'll go along with that but what about capital punishment? What happened to their right to life? What about fetuses? What about their right to life? Liberty, OK, everyone has the right to be free. I'll go along with that too. But, does that mean no one should ever go to jail because everyone has the right to liberty? Does it say that only non-criminals have the right to liberty? And what about the pursuit of happiness? How about that person in jail? Do they have the right to pursue happiness? What about being a member of the KKK? If that makes someone happy do they have the right to pursue happiness? How about stalking a beautiful woman? If that makes you happy, do you have the right to pursue happiness? How about if robbing banks makes you happy?

3. govt exist to secure these rights - another example of, what does that really mean? Does it mean that the government has laws in order to secure our rights, even though those same laws can take our rights away? Or, does it mean government exists with a national defense in order for us to keep our rights? Or, does it include other stuff too?

4. everyone has a right to alter or abolish govt - does it get specific? What ways does it say we can abolish government? Does it list steps, or does it just say everyone has the right to alter or abolish government? Does it specify if they were talking about collectively, or does one lone individual have the right to alter or abolish government?

You didnt answer the question.