What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Contumacious]

So, while the subject is equality, natural rights, and the legitimacy of armed rebellion against the government,

was Lincoln full of shit in his Gettysburg address??

Abso-*******-lutely.


"...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The ************ wiped out over 600,000 Americans - one of the worst act of domestic terrorism in US soil, reduced the states to mere provinces , destroyed the currency, centralized power in DC, and imposed the first income tax in the nation's history.


.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So, while the subject is equality, natural rights, and the legitimacy of armed rebellion against the government,

was Lincoln full of shit in his Gettysburg address??

Abso-*******-lutely.


"...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The ************ wiped out over 600,000 Americans - one of the worst act of domestic terrorism in US soil, reduced the states to mere provinces , destroyed the currency, centralized power in DC, and imposed the first income tax in the nation's history.


.

ROFLMNAO... Well that's about as short-sighted a position as I've seen from this side lately...

Lincoln made a decision based upon two shitty options... Let the Union pass into history... or strike a hard line and force the south back into the union.

Now you can disagree with his decision... but you can't pretend that his decision was the 'wrong one; and that the counter position would have resulted in something less catastrophic...

 

[Old Rocks]

So, while the subject is equality, natural rights, and the legitimacy of armed rebellion against the government,

was Lincoln full of shit in his Gettysburg address??

Abso-*******-lutely.


"...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The ************ wiped out over 600,000 Americans - one of the worst act of domestic terrorism in US soil, reduced the states to mere provinces , destroyed the currency, centralized power in DC, and imposed the first income tax in the nation's history.


.

ROFLMNAO... Well that's about as short-sighted a position as I've seen from this side lately...

Lincoln made a decision based upon two shitty options... Let the Union pass into history... or strike a hard line and force the south back into the union.

Now you can disagree with his decision... but you can't pretend that his decision was the 'wrong one; and that the counter position would have resulted in something less catastrophic...

I'll be absolutely go to hell! You have posted something that I agree with totally.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's odd that the founders claim inalienable rights endowed by the Creator, that all men are created equal, etc., but then managed also to divine from God's message that specifically he meant all white males of property and position are created equal.

When did we decide God was wrong?

Sorry if I missed any replies but I'm still curious,

why did God tell the founders that equal rights did not include women and people of color??

You're a coward... read the thread and respond to the posts of the members that advanced you the courtesy of taking your position sufficiently seriously to offer a response.

Coming here to apologize for being a lazy reprobate is a flaccid function of intellectual impotence.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Abso-*******-lutely.


"...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The ************ wiped out over 600,000 Americans - one of the worst act of domestic terrorism in US soil, reduced the states to mere provinces , destroyed the currency, centralized power in DC, and imposed the first income tax in the nation's history.


.

ROFLMNAO... Well that's about as short-sighted a position as I've seen from this side lately...

Lincoln made a decision based upon two shitty options... Let the Union pass into history... or strike a hard line and force the south back into the union.

Now you can disagree with his decision... but you can't pretend that his decision was the 'wrong one; and that the counter position would have resulted in something less catastrophic...

I'll be absolutely go to hell! You have posted something that I agree with totally.

Congrats... Welcome to lucidity... I suspect it'll pass quickly, but we'll always have this moment Rocks.

 

[rubberhead]

"I'm am not a racist!!!!! I meant 'LAZY MINORITIES' in the best sense of that term!"

lol whatever you say rubberhead...

OK, then I say that I meant lazy minorities in the worst sense. The same goes for when I say lazy white people. I get it, you want to be the champion of the little guy, but it's not working here because I never said anything racist. You were looking for it though weren'cha?

People like you take advantage of the fact that racial injustice exists and thus become the most insidious perpetrators of it. You pretend to be stewards of the "cause" even when we have a black president. Racist nonsense.

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks for your unsupported statement of fact. OOh! Ooh! I wanna try:

"editec" is a retard. His "intelligence" is zero. No such thing exists in nature or in the state of anarchy.


WE CONSENT TO DEFER SOME OF OUR PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY TO THE STATE! ARE YOU AN AMERICAN? GOD I HOPE NOT!

I think ed has a better chance of proving that rights are a social invention than anyone who claims natural rights exist have of proving their case. Or at least providing a faintly persuasive argument for their case.

Do ya?

This is clearly a result of your own personal delusion; as I've proven half a dozen times, in incontrovertible terms... directly in response to the idiocy you've advanced.

That you failed to comprehend such, hardly effects the facts which are... YOU exist... you didn't create yourself... thus your life is a result of the endowment from that creator; and it follows that the endowment of that life serves a purpose; which it further follows is that you are rightfully entitled to pursue the fulfillment of that life; as long as you do not exercise that rightful entitlement to the detriment of the means of another who is equally entitled to pursue their life, to exercise that to which THEY are entitled.

Pub you are so full of shit sometimes

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks for your unsupported statement of fact. OOh! Ooh! I wanna try:

"editec" is a retard. His "intelligence" is zero. No such thing exists in nature or in the state of anarchy.


WE CONSENT TO DEFER SOME OF OUR PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY TO THE STATE! ARE YOU AN AMERICAN? GOD I HOPE NOT!

I think ed has a better chance of proving that rights are a social invention than anyone who claims natural rights exist have of proving their case. Or at least providing a faintly persuasive argument for their case.

Is Sin a Social Invention? Is Righteousness a Social Invention? Is Justice a Social Invention? Can You Prove it?

We have you beat. It was rigged from the start. You just didn't know it.

Sin. Sin is a religious concept. Religion is a human invention. So sin must be a human invention.

Righteousness. Righteousness is a word describing an attitude. Attitude is the product of human emotions. Human emotions are controlled by the brain and the endocrine system operating with one another.

Justice. Justice is a human invention. There's no justice in nature, it's "red in tooth and claw".

 

[Contumacious]

So, while the subject is equality, natural rights, and the legitimacy of armed rebellion against the government,

was Lincoln full of shit in his Gettysburg address??

Abso-*******-lutely.


"...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The ************ wiped out over 600,000 Americans - one of the worst act of domestic terrorism in US soil, reduced the states to mere provinces , destroyed the currency, centralized power in DC, and imposed the first income tax in the nation's history.


.

ROFLMNAO... Well that's about as short-sighted a position as I've seen from this side lately...

Lincoln made a decision based upon two shitty options... Let the Union pass into history... or strike a hard line and force the south back into the union.

Now you can disagree with his decision... but you can't pretend that his decision was the 'wrong one; and that the counter position would have resulted in something less catastrophic...

So, when your wife files for divorce you are going to beat her up and lock her in the basement?


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Your entire screed proves to an absolute certainty that you are grossly unqualified to be taken seriously by anyone but the most pathetic of fools; where is it stated, anywhere in the founding charter, or by any founding Father, that only white males are created equal?

By their failure to protect the equal rights of women and non-whites in the founding document that they signed. Proven by the fact that it required amendments decades later to establish such equal rights.

I can't believe you had to ask that question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -- Thomas Jefferson[/B]


.

So when John Wilkes Booth famously declared Lincoln a tyrant, he was merely acting out the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson,

and Jefferson's words stand as moral justification for Booth's killing of Lincoln??

(Reminder: Booth's words upon assassinating Lincoln 'Sic semper tyrannis' - Thus always to tyrants)

 

[Intense]

[
Your entire screed proves to an absolute certainty that you are grossly unqualified to be taken seriously by anyone but the most pathetic of fools; where is it stated, anywhere in the founding charter, or by any founding Father, that only white males are created equal?

By their failure to protect the equal rights of women and non-whites in the founding document that they signed. Proven by the fact that it required amendments decades later to establish such equal rights.

I can't believe you had to ask that question.

Wrong. They proposed the Ideal, and settled for the best they could agree on that would bring in all 13 states. The failure to protect has developed over time, yet it fails even today. We learn and we try to improve. We recognize and address, that does bring change, one group that made out far worse than blacks were the American Indian. Try reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". We have all survived some fucked up shit. There is good and bad in all of us, and plenty more than two sides to the account.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Your entire screed proves to an absolute certainty that you are grossly unqualified to be taken seriously by anyone but the most pathetic of fools; where is it stated, anywhere in the founding charter, or by any founding Father, that only white males are created equal?

By their failure to protect the equal rights of women and non-whites in the founding document that they signed. Proven by the fact that it required amendments decades later to establish such equal rights.

I can't believe you had to ask that question.

Wrong. They proposed the Ideal, and settled for the best they could agree on that would bring in all 13 states. The failure to protect has developed over time, yet it fails even today. We learn and we try to improve. We recognize and address, that does bring change, one group that made out far worse than blacks were the American Indian. Try reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". We have all survived some fucked up shit. There is good and bad in all of us, and plenty more than two sides to the account.

So your point is that the founders favored national unity over principle?

Was Nat Turner's slave rebellion justified, morally and in principle, by the Declaration of Independence, along with Jefferson's musings on the blood of tyrants?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Wrong. They proposed the Ideal, and settled for the best they could agree on that would bring in all 13 states. The failure to protect has developed over time, yet it fails even today. We learn and we try to improve. We recognize and address, that does bring change, one group that made out far worse than blacks were the American Indian. Try reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". We have all survived some fucked up shit. There is good and bad in all of us, and plenty more than two sides to the account.

You're actually agreeing with me now, in that much of Declaration of Independence was little more than lofty rhetoric.

 

[Intense]

By their failure to protect the equal rights of women and non-whites in the founding document that they signed. Proven by the fact that it required amendments decades later to establish such equal rights.

I can't believe you had to ask that question.

Wrong. They proposed the Ideal, and settled for the best they could agree on that would bring in all 13 states. The failure to protect has developed over time, yet it fails even today. We learn and we try to improve. We recognize and address, that does bring change, one group that made out far worse than blacks were the American Indian. Try reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". We have all survived some fucked up shit. There is good and bad in all of us, and plenty more than two sides to the account.

So your point is that the founders favored national unity over principle?

Was Nat Turner's slave rebellion justified, morally and in principle, by the Declaration of Independence, along with Jefferson's musings on the blood of tyrants?

Are you kidding? They were divided then too on almost everything. When weren't they? NY didn't even want to separate from England. Follow the money.

Thoreau was a favorite Super Hero of mine, does that answer my personal position on People owning other people? He like Locke, put Conscience first.

 

[rubberhead]

I think ed has a better chance of proving that rights are a social invention than anyone who claims natural rights exist have of proving their case. Or at least providing a faintly persuasive argument for their case.

Is Sin a Social Invention? Is Righteousness a Social Invention? Is Justice a Social Invention? Can You Prove it?

We have you beat. It was rigged from the start. You just didn't know it.

Sin. Sin is a religious concept. Religion is a human invention. So sin must be a human invention.

Righteousness. Righteousness is a word describing an attitude. Attitude is the product of human emotions. Human emotions are controlled by the brain and the endocrine system operating with one another.

Justice. Justice is a human invention. There's no justice in nature, it's "red in tooth and claw".

There is justice in human nature is there not? I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. We can impose such concepts on nature (ecological justice), but I agree that it's bullshit to do so.

 

[Intense]

Is Sin a Social Invention? Is Righteousness a Social Invention? Is Justice a Social Invention? Can You Prove it?

We have you beat. It was rigged from the start. You just didn't know it.

Sin. Sin is a religious concept. Religion is a human invention. So sin must be a human invention.

Righteousness. Righteousness is a word describing an attitude. Attitude is the product of human emotions. Human emotions are controlled by the brain and the endocrine system operating with one another.

Justice. Justice is a human invention. There's no justice in nature, it's "red in tooth and claw".

There is justice in human nature is there not? I mean, that's really what we're talking about here. We can impose such concepts on nature (ecological justice), but I agree that it's bullshit to do so.

I accept both concepts to be true. We see it through cause and effect. Not only does it exist, but it is exact.

 

[rubberhead]

[
Your entire screed proves to an absolute certainty that you are grossly unqualified to be taken seriously by anyone but the most pathetic of fools; where is it stated, anywhere in the founding charter, or by any founding Father, that only white males are created equal?

By their failure to protect the equal rights of women and non-whites in the founding document that they signed. Proven by the fact that it required amendments decades later to establish such equal rights.

I can't believe you had to ask that question.

I can't believe he had to either, because the Constitution doesn't specifically say that only white men are protected by it. It was unconstitutional to own slaves before the 13th amendment was added. Just like it was unconstitutional for the federal government to infringe on states' rights before the 10th amendment. Have you read the constitution? Why don't you cite an example of what you're talking about. If you're talking about the "other persons" thing, that's just about calculating how many representatives each state gets. Give me an example where the Constitution says that only white men's rights are protected. If you don't, I'll take that as a concession and an apology.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. They proposed the Ideal, and settled for the best they could agree on that would bring in all 13 states. The failure to protect has developed over time, yet it fails even today. We learn and we try to improve. We recognize and address, that does bring change, one group that made out far worse than blacks were the American Indian. Try reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". We have all survived some fucked up shit. There is good and bad in all of us, and plenty more than two sides to the account.

So your point is that the founders favored national unity over principle?

Was Nat Turner's slave rebellion justified, morally and in principle, by the Declaration of Independence, along with Jefferson's musings on the blood of tyrants?

Are you kidding? They were divided then too on almost everything. When weren't they? NY didn't even want to separate from England. Follow the money.

Thoreau was a favorite Super Hero of mine, does that answer my personal position on People owning other people? He like Locke, put Conscience first.

The point being that if the founders believed 'one nation, indivisible' to borrow a phrase, was more important than an idealistic adherence to principle, then there are alot of people in the anti-government, 'secessionist', states rights fanatic, 'liberty' crowd that are very misguided in invoking the founders to support their stances.

And Nat Turner? above? what do you think?

How about John Brown? His plan was to free and arm slaves to terrorize the South into ending slavery. Was he morally right, or wrong? Could he claim Jefferson's 'blood of tyrants' statement as supporting HIS cause?

How about the secession of the South? Was that supported in principle by the Declaration of Independence? Was it the South or Lincoln who could claim the founders as champions of their respective causes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Your entire screed proves to an absolute certainty that you are grossly unqualified to be taken seriously by anyone but the most pathetic of fools; where is it stated, anywhere in the founding charter, or by any founding Father, that only white males are created equal?

By their failure to protect the equal rights of women and non-whites in the founding document that they signed. Proven by the fact that it required amendments decades later to establish such equal rights.

I can't believe you had to ask that question.

I can't believe he had to either, because the Constitution doesn't specifically say that only white men are protected by it. It was unconstitutional to own slaves before the 13th amendment was added. Just like it was unconstitutional for the federal government to infringe on states' rights before the 10th amendment. Have you read the constitution? Why don't you cite an example of what you're talking about. If you're talking about the "other persons" thing, that's just about calculating how many representatives each state gets. Give me an example where the Constitution says that only white men's rights are protected. If you don't, I'll take that as a concession and an apology.

Slavery was not rendered unconstitutional by the ratification of the Constitution. Is that what you said? Are you insane?