Re: (OT) WW III?

James L. Hankins wrote:

This is RGP, man, not the Oxford Debate Club.

Then your "12 year-olds" question is even sillier.


No, you cited it as support for your assertion that the phrase has a clear
meaning (that the FF understood it). The FF didn't abandon the phrase
because the phrase doesn't really mean anyting to begin with.

Bull***. It not only means something, but is a major subject not only
of philosophy, but of legal theory as well. Hobbes, Locke, et al
seemed to think it meant something, as did the FFs. They were of the
view that natural law transcends man-made law.


Especially if you happened to black at that time.

You're putting the cart before the horse again by asserting that the
lack of legal recognition of something is de facto proof of its
non-existence.


It's not a silly question. It illustrates the point that "natural righst"
is a point of view, not a natrual fact.

It's not a scientifically verifiable fact, no. But I thought we had
already agreed that this was a philosophical point. Furthermore, your
opinions on the validity of natural rights couldn't possibly be more
irrelevant with regard to the FF's views on the matter.


So, then...where did our (the people's) rights come from?



From the Government we created. From us, essentially. Because that was our
viewpoint when we set up the government, not because such rights actually
exist and the FF's will was bent that way.


Again...bull***. The writings of the FF's makes it clear that most of
them very much adhered to a philosophy of natural rights.


If I didn't think I was talking to a 12 year-old before, I might have
to reconsider that view at this point.



Now, grape, that's a little bit insecure and hyper-sensitive.

Not if you actually understand either of those terms.


That's the point. The "right to be free" has no meaning outside its
application and implementation of a political or other belief system.

And what is the law based on? You have things seriously backward
James.


Really? The "natural and inalienable rights" allow you to do this? If you
lived in feudal Japan would they still allow you to do that?

Your entire argument seems to be predicated on the baseless assertion
that the concept of any right ceases to exist in any situation where
said right is not able to be exercised, for any reason at all. THAT,
my friend, is a completely meaningless position.

The logical conclusion is that, if a Constitutional amendment were
passed tomorrow that permitted any local magistrate to decree, at
his/her complete discretion, that your possessions could be taken by
him/her and your family summarily executed...then no one (apart from
those who cared directly about you and yours) should give a flying fig,
since you don't have any right to life, property, etc. anyway. Is that
really what you contend was the philosophical basis for the Bill of
Rights?

.