And I have explained that his "gift" was useless in the United States for millions of people who were born into chattel slavery. Their right to freedom had nothing to do with any god. The government was the one who gave them their freedom.
You have never posted a convincing argument in the entire time you have been on this Forum.
Originally posted by BingB: Okee Dokee. The PEOPLE told the government to end slavery. I agree with you on that.
But it still proves my point that people rights do not come from god.
Yet the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to worship as one chooses, and prevents the government from endorsing one particular religion of all of the others.
Then God is not the one who grants the right to liberty because there were millions of people living as chattel slaves in the United States until the laws of the government changed.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: We the people of the United States believe our rights come from the following three sources:
GOD NATURE MAN
This post is a perfect example of what I have been saying about the people who make their politics the same as their culture. The fact that you believe that you can speak for all "the people of the United States" proves that you don't understand the United States. You believe that the United States only belongs to people who agree with you.
People in the middle like myself can see both sides of the argument. And it is clear that "the people of the United States" are pretty evenly split on where our rights come from.
You will never be able to see these issues clearly until you learn to separate your cultural beliefs from political discussions.
You are unable to prove me wrong, as I am right in what I say. Explain your logic, or review your comments and find your logic fails.
You do not even understand the concept of a "logical argument". A logical argument requires premises to support the conclusion. All you did was state a conclusion without any premise to support it. It is impossible for me to attack your argument because you never made an argument.
Based on your "logic" all I have to do to prove I am correct is to claim that I am correct.
Originally posted by BingB: You do not even understand the concept of a "logical argument". A logical argument requires premises to support the conclusion. All you did was state a conclusion without any premise to support it. It is impossible for me to attack your argument because you never made an argument.
Based on your "logic" all I have to do to prove I am correct is to claim that I am correct.
You see the problem now?
Why should I have to explain your missteps in logic when they are evident by rereading you own words?
Originally posted by BingB:This post is a perfect example of what I have been saying about the people who make their politics the same as their culture. The fact that you believe that you can speak for all "the people of the United States" proves that you don't understand the United States. You believe that the United States only belongs to people who agree with you.
People in the middle like myself can see both sides of the argument. And it is clear that "the people of the United States" are pretty evenly split on where our rights come from.
You will never be able to see these issues clearly until you learn to separate your cultural beliefs from political discussions.
Ok, I don't know what's going on here. I can't tell if you really just don't understand, or if you are intentionally trying to be obtuse for some weird argumentative reason; however, I'll try to explain it as SIMPLY as I possibly can.
Explained in the Declaration of Independence, and defined in the U.S. Constitution... which are written by our founders on behalf of "WE THE PEOPLE" ... defines that our rights come from THREE places:
- GOD: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator " - NATURE: "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station" - MAN: "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
... this is NOT a difficult concept to understand. These three things were defined specifically because they intended to encompass all manner of beliefs, pursuant to our society. It was done to make it abundantly clear that no matter what you believed, or where you stood on your views, that the rights of man are inalienable. For some reason, you can't stop your rambling on your soap box to think, read, and consider. Like... you're just repeating the same nonsense. In the last iteration of your account here, you stated you were a lawyer. This is the utmost basic/first concept that you learn when you get a law degree.
Since I think you may not still get it, let me expand. These three things were intentional... for example:
- King George says, "Your rights come from me," ... we would say, "No, they also come from God and Nature" - Pope Pius VI says, "Your rights come from God, and God told me (whatever)," ... we would say, "They also come from nature, and from man." - Fred says, "Your rights come from the government," ... we would say, the **** they do... they come from God, Nature, and Man.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-25-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... this is NOT a difficult concept to understand. These three things were defined specifically because they intended to encompass all manner of beliefs, pursuant to our society. It was done to make it abundantly clear that no matter what you believed, or where you stood on your views, that the rights of man are inalienable. For some reason, you can't stop your rambling on your soap box to think, read, and consider. Like... you're just repeating the same nonsense. In the last iteration of your account here, you stated you were a lawyer. This is the utmost basic/first concept that you learn when you get a law degree.
I never said I had a law degree, but I understand the argument. Here is the problem though. The Founding Fathers are not qualified to define "liberty" because they supported chattel slavery and did not allow women to vote.
If you want to claim that "liberty" comes from your god then you have to admit that the United States government was more powerful than your god when millions of people were legally owned as property.
The argument that all rights come from god is a tool of the libertarians who say the government should not do things like help the handicapped or provide a free public education.
Originally posted by BingB: I never said I had a law degree, but I understand the argument. Here is the problem though. The Founding Fathers are not qualified to define "liberty" because they supported chattel slavery and did not allow women to vote.
If you want to claim that "liberty" comes from your god then you have to admit that the United States government was more powerful than your god when millions of people were legally owned as property.
The argument that all rights come from god is a tool of the libertarians who say the government should not do things like help the handicapped or provide a free public education.
Ok, I tried to be nice... obviously, this is your weird way of trying to not be wrong in an argument. But at least you've made it clear tat this is your OPINION, which is essentially worthless when actual written law says otherwise. If you had just stated from the beginning that we were arguing YOUR OPINION, I would never have wasted my time.
Originally posted by BingB: I never said I had a law degree, but I understand the argument. Here is the problem though. The Founding Fathers are not qualified to define "liberty" because they supported chattel slavery and did not allow women to vote.
If you want to claim that "liberty" comes from your god then you have to admit that the United States government was more powerful than your god when millions of people were legally owned as property.
The argument that all rights come from god is a tool of the libertarians who say the government should not do things like help the handicapped or provide a free public education.
The above nonsense is how a Leftist admits that the state is his "god".
The above nonsense is how a Leftist admits that the state is his "god".
Yes, what this was, was basically his way of trying not to lose an argument he realizes that he's lost.
The discussion is about the Constitution, and where our rights come from. I clearly laid out that it comes from three equally valid places, so that no matter what you believe, it's still concrete. He sees this, tries to shimmy his way around the argument and focuses on God, which is one of the three components of where our rights come from, each of which is valid entirely on its own.
I've never seen someone have so much difficulty losing an argument. Like... I could care less if I lose an argument... it means I've learned something. But in this case, it's like the worst possible thing in the world... which is crazy.
Why do I even want to have a conversation with someone like this? There's no exchange of ideas... just insanity.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:which is essentially worthless when actual written law says otherwise.
There is no written law anywhere in the United States that says that our rights come from God. But there is lots of written opinion for both sides.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but it is a FACT that if you claim god gives liberty then you are admitting that your god is weaker than the United States government. Because our government denied liberty to millions for many years. The rights to liberty granted by your god were completely worthless when matched against the government of the United States.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 03-25-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: There is no written law anywhere in the United States that says that our rights come from God. But there is lots of written opinion for both sides.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but it is a FACT that if you claim god gives liberty then you are admitting that your god is weaker than the United States government. Because our government denied liberty to millions for many years. The rights to liberty granted by your god were completely worthless when matched against the government of the United States.
Fred... everyone here can see what you're doing. It's OK to get something wrong once in a while.
Because I know you like to reshape the narrative, I will RESTATE what I said. The founding documents specifically state (with quotes), that our rights come from THREE places. GOD, NATURE, and MAN. This is INTENTIONAL so that... for people like you who do not believe in God, there are TWO OTER places that our rights can be derived from. It is PERFECTLY OK that you don't believe in God, no one here really cares. And for the purpose of the founding of this country's system of governance, it was already accounted for. You still have TWO other places that you can claim your rights are derived from.
I don't really want your opinion, and I wish you had told me you were arguing opinion from the beginning as I wouldn't have wasted my time.
We are not trying to convince you that your rights come from God. We are proving to you that your rights come from any one of three places... one of which includes God, IF you believe in Him. Are we clear? YES... we're clear. You're still going to respond with nonsense... but so you understand, every once of us here recognize what you're doing, and what the facts are as they are written. You would be the person who believes their rights come from man. And our founding documents have you covered... because that's one of the three.
Originally posted by BingB: Then God is not the one who grants the right to liberty because there were millions of people living as chattel slaves in the United States until the laws of the government changed.
Buzz kill.
The laws of the United States government also allowed slave ownership.
Who gave us our freedom before we had a government ?
No one. That is why any place there is no government the people work hard to establish a government. With no government the only people who are free to do what they want are the people with the most power. and they people with the power exploit the weaker ones.
What specific society are you thinking of where people enjoyed freedom with no established government?
