- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Why should anyone care what Jefferson believed when we're trying to establish what actually exists in objective reality? Jefferson's opinions mean exactly what everyone else's opinions do. Jack squat.
I did in post 689. Did you miss it? Do you not understand it?
beliefs originate in the mind and that is where they reside.
Tell it to Turtle as he keeps insisting it applied to only white men of property. What you seem to minimize by simply calling him a 'hypocrite' does not do justice to the actual events of Jeffersons life where he owned over 100 slaves for decades. that sort of actions goes far far far beyond mere hypocrisy. It shows he never believed the hollow words that others want to deceive themselves in believing matter more than actual daily actions for his entire adult life.
Many would be wrong.
your concept of "existence" is flawed. you are trying to apply existence as it pertains to say a Building or a car or a court case to the existence of something like Catholicism, Communism, Confucianism or Natural rights
But I can define Catholicism, communism, Confucianism and show that those things actually exist in the real world. You can't do that with natural rights. You cannot show in any way, shape or form that they are real. Come on, this is getting ridiculous, at least try to limp away with some modicum of self-respect intact.
Why should anyone care what Jefferson believed when we're trying to establish what actually exists in objective reality? Jefferson's opinions mean exactly what everyone else's opinions do. Jack squat.
It's easy to know if someone is wrong. Compair their statment with the facts, and if the two don't match, the statement is wrong. Very simple.well, I'm not one that believes they are synonymous, but i'm also not one to positively declare those who do are wrong.
from my understanding , Human rights are a more comprehensive list of rights that primarily stem from, or are intimately related to, natural rights...but i haven't put much time into direct comparisons of the two.
But I can define Catholicism, communism, Confucianism and show that those things actually exist in the real world. You can't do that with natural rights. You cannot show in any way, shape or form that they are real. Come on, this is getting ridiculous, at least try to limp away with some modicum of self-respect intact.
My description applies to both, and I don't really see a distinction as far as my comment applies between the two. A better contrast would be natural rights vs. legal rights. A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members. A person has a natural right to life, but depending on the type of society/government (or lack thereof) the legal right may not exist, rending the natural right rather meaningless in practice.You're talking about Human Rights, and I agree, but this thread is about Natural Rights.
The only diference between a Natural Right and a Human Right is that a Natural Right cannot be taken away or given up. Other than that they are identical.My description applies to both, and I don't really see a distinction as far as my comment applies between the two.
You're talking about Civil Rights, which are not the topic of this thread.A better contrast would be natural rights vs. legal rights. A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members. A person has a natural right to life, but depending on the type of society/government (or lack thereof) the legal right may not exist, rending the natural right rather meaningless in practice.
Some people wrote them down, yes. Those people were wrong, provably so.they are enumerated in the DiO, and the US Constitution... they have been recorded, explained, and argued for thousands of years through the philosophical writings of numerous philosophers and political thinkers.
soooo.. now that we have cleared up, in the affirmative, the question of "are they real?"... we can move on.
I think we first got on the subject when someone mentioned Jefferson owned slaves. Yeah, he owned slaves. He was also a brilliant writer. That's why the committee tasked to come up with the Declaration of Independence asked him to draft it.
they are enumerated in the DiO, and the US Constitution... they have been recorded, explained, and argued for thousands of years through the philosophical writings of numerous philosophers and political thinkers.
soooo.. now that we have cleared up, in the affirmative, the question of "are they real?"... we can move on.
rejected as contrary to reality. its a silly argument. Even if Jefferson did not believe that those rights applied to ALL MEN so what. Your silly attempt to try to undermine the scope of the BIll of Rights based on that claim is beyond bogus
a vacuous reply referring to a similarly vacuous reply does not an argument make.
such as the belief that natural rights do not exist ?
Keep in mind these men had already achieved varying degrees of success under British rule. Some of them became tremendously wealthy. It's certainly not like they would have been destitute if they hadn't risen up against the British. Not all of them were slave holders, and some of them only reluctantly agreed to commit what amounted to treason. One notable example is John Adams, who was on the committee to draft the Declaration. So whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, these men did risk everything, including their lives, to gain independence for the colonies from Britain. And before you lambaste people like Adams who agreed to permit slavery in the new union, there wouldn't have been one without out it. They needed votes, and the only way to get them was compromise with the hope that slavery would one day become a thing of the past, which it ultimately did only at great cost.
You're conflating "natural rights" with rights dictated by society.Then how are people not entitled to the 'right' to self-defense? You claim we dont, that we MUST let a judge and jury decide.
Keep in mind these men had already achieved varying degrees of success under British rule. Some of them became tremendously wealthy. It's certainly not like they would have been destitute if they hadn't risen up against the British. Not all of them were slave holders, and some of them only reluctantly agreed to commit what amounted to treason. One notable example is John Adams, who was on the committee to draft the Declaration. So whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, these men did risk everything, including their lives, to gain independence for the colonies from Britain. And before you lambaste people like Adams who agreed to permit slavery in the new union, there wouldn't have been one without out it. They needed votes, and the only way to get them was compromise with the hope that slavery would one day become a thing of the past, which it ultimately did only at great cost.
None of which proves that what he wrote was factually true.
So do we reject the time old adage that ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS and now accept the premise that ones actions for a lifetime mean precious little or even nothing compared to one statement to the contrary given to justify separating from England?
Yes, perhaps the extremely naive would accept such a ridiculous claim.
Remember this: A critical word in the title of the tread is "believe." I believe the 50-60 million people Mao wiped off the planet had a right to live because I think man's ability to reason, experience, and feel places him above things. You apparently don't believe they did. Can you prove your belief with facts? I'm gonna take a stab and say no. :2wave:
That still doesn't prove they're real, it just proves they've been popular. Try again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?