• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Agree with Declaration of Independence?

Do You Agree with Declaration of Independence?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 81.1%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • Total voters
    37
Big Steve said:
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...
Click to expand...

As I responded to someone else, imagine someone in 2320 saying you can't judge Osama Bin Laden by modern standards.

I "just can't do that?" I just can't apply the standard of "it's wrong to own people?" ****ing watch me.

I wonder what the overlap is between people demanding I not judge the founding fathers on modern standards who also want to judge me based on a two thousand year old book.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
You really have no argument. Just a naked assertion Jefferson was "making a witty statement." :rolleyes:

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.
Click to expand...

All I need is a naked assertion. That is all you have if you claim he actually meant what he said. And considering that the cliche is an absurdity, no one is created equal. Then your assertion has less credibility that mine.

You're splitting hairs. The right to rule is a right to govern.

I am not arguing that might makes right. You simply assume that must be a basis if anyone rejects the silly notion given that we are all equal. Nor do I support the artificial bloodline as a right to rule. Again, nothing more than you assuming that if I do not support a republic then I must support monarchism. You do realise this is not the 17th century and there are other options?

The declaration is propaganda. It is meant to stir the heart not the mind. At best it was the first lie the then to be formed american republic government told its people.
 
ecofarm said:
Equal before the law, before the government. What kind of an idiot doesn't know that. Racist idiots pretend not to know that.

"But some people aren't the same!" We hear the racists.
Click to expand...
They do like to conflate things. Not even Marx believed everyone was an exact clone of another but far righties love to go after people that dont read all their stuff, strawmen are easier to break down.
 
bomberfox said:
They do like to conflate things. Not even Marx believed everyone was an exact clone of another but far righties love to go after people that dont read all their stuff, strawmen are easier to break down.
Click to expand...

Only idiot racist children could even begin to buy it. That's gotta be the target audience, right? Can you think of any other appropriate target audience?
 
skeptic llc said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is better than many other people, actually. Endowed is not an easy word to remember.
 
jonny5 said:
The one you replied to. The topic, the poll.
Click to expand...
I answered your poll. I voted "other". That was one of your "answers", wasn't it? The question is really unanswerable because it depends on how you interpret the words. Since everyone interprets the words in their own way then everyone would answer yes (which is what has happened so far), and yet two different people would mean it in two different ways. For me, I need someone to tell me their exact interpretation of the sections and then I would have to vote yes or no depending on their interpretation of that particular section. And, I would keep in mind that this document reflects the 1776 time period, not the 21st century.
 
jonny5 said:
Just in case you havent actually read it.

www.archives.gov

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 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
Click to expand...
It's probably fair to point out that the Declaration ceased to exist as a legal document the minute the first shot was fired.

It does not say that all men are equal. Only that all men are created equal.

It does not say that government exists to secure the rights.
 
Moderate Right said:
I answered your poll. I voted "other". That was one of your "answers", wasn't it? The question is really unanswerable because it depends on how you interpret the words. Since everyone interprets the words in their own way then everyone would answer yes (which is what has happened so far), and yet two different people would mean it in two different ways. For me, I need someone to tell me their exact interpretation of the sections and then I would have to vote yes or no depending on their interpretation of that particular section. And, I would keep in mind that this document reflects the 1776 time period, not the 21st century.
Click to expand...

To me that sounds like you dont agree with it then. Which is fine. I suspect most people dont care about liberty if it means govt will give them free healthcare.
 
jonny5 said:
To me that sounds like you dont agree with it then. Which is fine. I suspect most people dont care about liberty if it means govt will give them free healthcare.
Click to expand...
I agree with it 100% if it is interpreted my way.
 
jonny5 said:
You have the same right to YOUR house as I do to mine.
Click to expand...
And if our houses are unequal what would that make the two rights?
 
grip said:
I don't think most of today's society even understands the DOI.
Click to expand...
It is taught to every 11th Grade Student.... and most do not understand it. Many don't care... many are too stupid... many can't get off their cell phone... many are on tic tok... many ... well, just rest assured that most students today are year behind previous generations.
 
RAMOSS said:
Why do you think that?
Click to expand...

Logic, reason and philosophy are the foundations of The Enlightenment. Rights are abstract social objects and are studied by sociology. Universal agreements, socially natural rights, are driven by species survival not individual survival.
 
Jefferson largely plagiarized Locke and I like Locke so, on that basis, I agree with it.
 
Moderate Right said:
So, you're saying that I must interpret the words YOUR way?
Click to expand...

Im saying if you have to change the meaning, then you dont agree with it, obviously. Its like saying do you agree murder is wrong? Well it depends what you mean by murder. Do you mean self defense? Killing a soldier in war? Do you agree the sun is hot? Well depends what you mean by hot.
 
jonny5 said:
Im saying if you have to change the meaning, then you dont agree with it, obviously. Its like saying do you agree murder is wrong? Well it depends what you mean by murder. Do you mean self defense? Killing a soldier in war? Do you agree the sun is hot? Well depends what you mean by hot.
Click to expand...
But the meaning is open to interpretation. That's why I said that I agree with it 100% if it is interpreted MY way. Apparently, you believe that I should interpret it YOUR way. And, you said the exact same thing as I did! You agree with it 100% if it is interpreted YOUR way. We both seem to agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom