KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Maybe you should ask Larry the Cable Guy.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Letter to the Editor - Foreign Service Journal
- Thread starter XD Owner
- Start date
johnnyb
Banned
imported post
rodbender wrote:
rodbender wrote:
+1
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
KBCraig wrote:
Sorry grammar queen.
Care to add anything to the discussion while you're here or are you just around to criticize my late-night grammatical errors?
KBCraig wrote:
Sorry grammar queen.
Care to add anything to the discussion while you're here or are you just around to criticize my late-night grammatical errors?
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
I disagree. Firearms are necessary for proper self-defense in today's world because, well... good luck with your self-defense if you are unarmed and being shot at.
Banningadequate tools for self-defense is making self defense very difficult. In fact, I would say that as humans, arms are the natural route, and have existed since pre-historic times in the form of spears, bows etc. Arms are what give humans the ability to be superior to beast, and also what makes a weak human equal to a strong human. Depriving men of arms therefore is depriving them of a human right. I do not see this as a religiousissue.
Human rights/Natural Rightsdo NOT necessarily stem from religion.I do not see it as a religiousidea. I simply think that there are certain freedoms that all people should have and that is what makes it a human or a natural right. It is unnatural to deprive a human of certain tools since humans naturally rely on certain tools.
In my opinion banning arms for humans is like declawingan animaland then releasing it back into the wild, which I would consider cruel.
AWDstylez wrote:
I disagree. Firearms are necessary for proper self-defense in today's world because, well... good luck with your self-defense if you are unarmed and being shot at.
Banningadequate tools for self-defense is making self defense very difficult. In fact, I would say that as humans, arms are the natural route, and have existed since pre-historic times in the form of spears, bows etc. Arms are what give humans the ability to be superior to beast, and also what makes a weak human equal to a strong human. Depriving men of arms therefore is depriving them of a human right. I do not see this as a religiousissue.
Human rights/Natural Rightsdo NOT necessarily stem from religion.I do not see it as a religiousidea. I simply think that there are certain freedoms that all people should have and that is what makes it a human or a natural right. It is unnatural to deprive a human of certain tools since humans naturally rely on certain tools.
In my opinion banning arms for humans is like declawingan animaland then releasing it back into the wild, which I would consider cruel.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Felid`Maximus wrote:
So because you think it is, it is?
I don't disagree about the man over beast stuff and firearms as tools for defense, but I'm still waiting for someone to prove the existance of innate humans rights ("I think," "I feel," "It's always been that way," "The Declaration says so," none of that cuts it for real proof or even for establishing a point of origin), otherwise your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Felid`Maximus wrote:
So because you think it is, it is?
I don't disagree about the man over beast stuff and firearms as tools for defense, but I'm still waiting for someone to prove the existance of innate humans rights ("I think," "I feel," "It's always been that way," "The Declaration says so," none of that cuts it for real proof or even for establishing a point of origin), otherwise your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
AWDStylez,
With anything theoretical like rights, either side is going to find it extremely difficult to argue their source conclusively.
I do not believe that rights are "god given," because I believe basic human rights exist with or without religion or government.
I do believe that some rights are given by government, because of the existance of government. Property rights, Rights against search and seizure, self-incrimination, these "rights" only exist because the government chooses to recognize them.
Other rights, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Security & Happiness, are not granted by government. This cannot be absolutely proven or disproven, because the concept of rights is based in philosophy.
However, I have found overwhelming evidence that our government was instituted to protect the basic rights of its citizens. Its founders believed we have inalienable rights, and based our government on protecting those rights of the citizens, and the powers of the states. It does not presume to give us any rights, but to protect them.
Other than theological writings and discussion, are you able to find any evidence that countries give basic rights to their people? Constitutions, government laws, Bills of Rights, etc?
So basically, my belief tends to go the direction of the most evidence, which also seems to make the most sense to me. I know that I want to live, be free, and pursue safety & enjoyment. I'm lucky enough to live in the best country in the world to achieve those ends, because those rights are protected by my government.
...where not restricted by law ...
...Orygunner...
AWDStylez,
With anything theoretical like rights, either side is going to find it extremely difficult to argue their source conclusively.
I do not believe that rights are "god given," because I believe basic human rights exist with or without religion or government.
I do believe that some rights are given by government, because of the existance of government. Property rights, Rights against search and seizure, self-incrimination, these "rights" only exist because the government chooses to recognize them.
Other rights, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Security & Happiness, are not granted by government. This cannot be absolutely proven or disproven, because the concept of rights is based in philosophy.
However, I have found overwhelming evidence that our government was instituted to protect the basic rights of its citizens. Its founders believed we have inalienable rights, and based our government on protecting those rights of the citizens, and the powers of the states. It does not presume to give us any rights, but to protect them.
Other than theological writings and discussion, are you able to find any evidence that countries give basic rights to their people? Constitutions, government laws, Bills of Rights, etc?
So basically, my belief tends to go the direction of the most evidence, which also seems to make the most sense to me. I know that I want to live, be free, and pursue safety & enjoyment. I'm lucky enough to live in the best country in the world to achieve those ends, because those rights are protected by my government.
...where not restricted by law
......Orygunner...
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
The fact that it makes people feel opressed when it is taken away is what makes it a human right in my opinion.And in my thinking, in order to not be oppressive toa people, they must have access to arms. Same thing with other freedoms. Sometimes I feel opressed by certain laws about a wide variety of issues simply because I view them as unnatural to my way of life. And Ithink I live inperhaps the leastopressive society. People who live in areas where they are subject to torture, police state tactics, etc.must feel much more opressed. If the state banned certain religions and harshly punished the followers would you consider that to be a human rights violation?
I feel that search and siezure is also wrong. It is theivery. Just because the government allows it does not make it right. If the government steals your guns that is no different than someone across the street stealing them. Just because someone claims "power" over you steals your stuff,in my mind does not make ita justified moral action. How about if some crook breaks into your house and steals your stuff?If a crook kidnaps you and locks you in a small room for the rest of your life that would be wrong. Most of us agree that when the goverment does it its okay as long as the person deserved to be locked up. But what about when the government locks people up who never hurt anybody?
I don't think all "artificial constructs" should be equated to religion.
Truly all a man needs to survive is food and water on a regular basis. We could all live in7' x7'x7'concrete cells with no bed,and nothing but a hole in the wallwhich foodand water occasionallycomes out from. Sure something needs to be feeding you, but as an individual the food and water is all you need. Surely you agree that humansareentitled tomuch more than this. While different people have different ideas of exactly what these things are that humans are entitled to, these things are what I would call "rights."
Truly, things such as property ownership have a similarity to religion in that they are both simply an artificial construct. But take away all such "constructs" and what are you left with?
To answer your question, yes, because I think it is, it is. Rights are merely an artificial construct, and they are defined by those who claim them.
If your wondering, the reason I keep referring to religion, is because much earlieryou said it was a Chirstian idea, the right to bear arms. I disagree. It is an idea, but in my opinion not simply a Christian idea. There are people all over the world thatvalue a right to arms I think no matter their ideology.
We are lucky to have in our constitution certain specific rights codified and protected by our government, and by being codified it makes them much more apparent to us as being rights. There are other rights that we have that are not codified (the original opposition to the BOR was that with it they feared the government would limit people's rights to those enumerated). I think though, there are certain "rights" that mosthumans desire naturally, which include many of the ones in our BOR and many that aren't in the BOR. The BOR was merely an attempt to codify some of the most important ones. The reason I feel they are natural (or innate) is due to the way thehuman brain works and our instincts. As I don't think data yet exists to back up this notion based upon biology I could be wrong. But biology is what I am using to base my theory on, and that is my point of origin.
AWDstylez wrote:
The fact that it makes people feel opressed when it is taken away is what makes it a human right in my opinion.And in my thinking, in order to not be oppressive toa people, they must have access to arms. Same thing with other freedoms. Sometimes I feel opressed by certain laws about a wide variety of issues simply because I view them as unnatural to my way of life. And Ithink I live inperhaps the leastopressive society. People who live in areas where they are subject to torture, police state tactics, etc.must feel much more opressed. If the state banned certain religions and harshly punished the followers would you consider that to be a human rights violation?
I feel that search and siezure is also wrong. It is theivery. Just because the government allows it does not make it right. If the government steals your guns that is no different than someone across the street stealing them. Just because someone claims "power" over you steals your stuff,in my mind does not make ita justified moral action. How about if some crook breaks into your house and steals your stuff?If a crook kidnaps you and locks you in a small room for the rest of your life that would be wrong. Most of us agree that when the goverment does it its okay as long as the person deserved to be locked up. But what about when the government locks people up who never hurt anybody?
I don't think all "artificial constructs" should be equated to religion.
Truly all a man needs to survive is food and water on a regular basis. We could all live in7' x7'x7'concrete cells with no bed,and nothing but a hole in the wallwhich foodand water occasionallycomes out from. Sure something needs to be feeding you, but as an individual the food and water is all you need. Surely you agree that humansareentitled tomuch more than this. While different people have different ideas of exactly what these things are that humans are entitled to, these things are what I would call "rights."
Truly, things such as property ownership have a similarity to religion in that they are both simply an artificial construct. But take away all such "constructs" and what are you left with?
To answer your question, yes, because I think it is, it is. Rights are merely an artificial construct, and they are defined by those who claim them.
If your wondering, the reason I keep referring to religion, is because much earlieryou said it was a Chirstian idea, the right to bear arms. I disagree. It is an idea, but in my opinion not simply a Christian idea. There are people all over the world thatvalue a right to arms I think no matter their ideology.
We are lucky to have in our constitution certain specific rights codified and protected by our government, and by being codified it makes them much more apparent to us as being rights. There are other rights that we have that are not codified (the original opposition to the BOR was that with it they feared the government would limit people's rights to those enumerated). I think though, there are certain "rights" that mosthumans desire naturally, which include many of the ones in our BOR and many that aren't in the BOR. The BOR was merely an attempt to codify some of the most important ones. The reason I feel they are natural (or innate) is due to the way thehuman brain works and our instincts. As I don't think data yet exists to back up this notion based upon biology I could be wrong. But biology is what I am using to base my theory on, and that is my point of origin.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
I also believe that rape, murder, incest and cheating on your spouse are wrong. While I can give reasons for those beliefs and for other matters of my personal morality I cannot "prove" that they are correct and I can find another human being on the planet who disagrees with each of those positions.
Some things you have to either believe or not and the wonderful thing about the philosophy of the Founders is that you are left free to not believe in innate rights, to argue against the "self-evident" nature of the Founder's philosophy, and to express those opinions publicly without fear of recrimination.
AWDstylez wrote:
It is a philosophical construct and as such cannot be proved. The Declaration of Independence starts with "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." It was a statement of philosophical position that in the Founder's opinions was so obvious and incontrovertible as to be "self-evident". Obviously others, specifically the British Empire and Crown, disagreed that it was self-evident and attempted twice to subjugate the people who agreed with this philosophy. Most of us on the forum and I would hazard a guess that most citizens in America who have thought about it would agree with the Founder's position.
I also believe that rape, murder, incest and cheating on your spouse are wrong. While I can give reasons for those beliefs and for other matters of my personal morality I cannot "prove" that they are correct and I can find another human being on the planet who disagrees with each of those positions.
Some things you have to either believe or not and the wonderful thing about the philosophy of the Founders is that you are left free to not believe in innate rights, to argue against the "self-evident" nature of the Founder's philosophy, and to express those opinions publicly without fear of recrimination.
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
+1 Deepdiver
Very well stated, short and to the point, too!
...Orygunner...
+1 Deepdiver
Very well stated, short and to the point, too!
...Orygunner...
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
Kant believed the "fabric of the universe" was unknowable, but rational beings cannot help but make synthetic a priori judgments regarding it.
I think Plato in "The Euthyphro" pretty much demolished the idea that "the gods"--or any god-- could be the source of morality.
AWDstylez wrote:
I'm not sure Kant would say that morality is "man made" but rather, like time and space, necessary representations to a rational being. However, do not forget that in order to support his ethics Kant required that one also presuppose the existence of things such as a supreme being, personal immortality, free will-- in my opinion, his major flaw.So to sum that up, the God idea obviously doesn't fly and you made note of that yourself. So what you're left with is the Kantian idea that morals are not man-made, but are something that exists empiricallyas part of the fabric of the universe, like physics and math. That's the only possible foundation for universal, innate rights. Whether I agree or disagree with it I honestly have no idea. I'll let you know when I've studied enough philosophy to make an educated decision.
Kant believed the "fabric of the universe" was unknowable, but rational beings cannot help but make synthetic a priori judgments regarding it.
I think Plato in "The Euthyphro" pretty much demolished the idea that "the gods"--or any god-- could be the source of morality.