Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

How would you save what little rights you had left if by fear of threat or attack, you allow the government to chip away at your freedom, rights, and liberty?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26783points) August 27th, 2013

If you are one of them that cede or acquiesce your rights, liberty, and freedom to the government because the government pledges they can keep you and your family safe if you hand over some of your rights, privacy, liberties, etc. If you realize one day that they have taken most of them (liberties and right, etc) would it be too late for you to have the time or ability to save or preserve what little rights you had left?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

145 Answers

syz's avatar

Vote.

Blondesjon's avatar

I wake up every day and go to a job I chose to take. I can get in to a vehicle that I chose to buy and drive it wherever I choose to go. I legally drive it with a license I chose to obtain. I watch whatever I choose to watch on television and listen to whatever music I choose to listen to. I can call whomever I choose to call, on a phone I chose to have, and say to them whatever I choose to say. I can get on my computer and look at whatever I choose to look at. If I so choose, I can plant a garden in my backyard and plant whatever I choose to plant. I married the woman I chose to marry and love the three children we chose to have.

I have lived for forty two years and have heard, from the moment I was old enough to understand, that our freedoms are being taken away from us.

I somehow still find myself free to do what I choose to do.

Rarebear's avatar

You mean like restricting abortion access?

KNOWITALL's avatar

It’s never too late, you can always leave the country and choose another that suits you better.

Blondesjon's avatar

@Rarebear . . . like that will last long.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@syz Vote.
As we have seen in the past few years no vote is sacred or watertight. If the courts, government or certain groups want to, they can gut that. You might vote against the government being able to monitor cell calls, or placing surveillance cameras on public streets but there is no guarantee it won’t happen.

@Blondesjon I somehow still find myself free to do what I choose to do.

That is why it would be easy to slip it in by people who are so concerned with there ”me-ism” that they are like pigs in an apple orchard, they are happy munching away at the fallen apples they don’t even bother to look up. Should there be a hunter in the trees they would not realize it until a few fell to the arrow or bullet. Being so smug in the fact that you can do your activities today don’t mean you will have them tomorrow. Let a big enough disaster, terrorist attack, or catastrophe happen some executive order or martial law come into place, if you get back any liberty it will because they chose to give it back to you, not that you could take back on iota of rights you feel you deserve.

If I am incorrect, please tell me. Unless near 100% of the citizenry is willing to fight the government, the government can do what they please if they were near 100% committed to do it.

@Rarebear You mean like restricting abortion access?
@KNOWITALL Not necessarily, it might be a byproduct down the line, but I don’t think it will he the low hanging fruit like having your GPS monitored, your online activity spied on, restriction of movement or flying, financials scrutinized, etc.

It’s never too late, you can always leave the country and choose another that suits you better.
One, leaving the country you were in is not getting back what you lost; it is abandoning your home in hope of freedom that was taken from you. Second, by the time you realized you lost too much there might be restrictions on who can move where and how, or where you can travel, the borders might be closed. One might be too busy enjoying the steak of their choice, buying vehicles they choose to drive and going to the movies when they want to notice that they can’t escape until it is too late to fly out, or sail away.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central When I start getting official notice that my freedom is restricted in some way, and it makes me change the way I live my life, I’ll worry.

Is this about drones flying over the US or the Patriot Act, or just in general. I’m not doing anything wrong, so I’m okay with it, if so.

Pachy's avatar

I had just written the sentence, What little rights we still have left, @Hypocrisy_Central??? Have you ever been to North Korea or Iran when I saw your comment, @Blondesjon. Well said. I totally agree.

Blondesjon's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central . . . I’ll tell you what Chicken Little, as soon as I get hit by a piece of sky I’ll start worrying. Until then I’ll take forty-two years of personal experience over paranoid, sandwich board wearing, doom-crying that’s been going on since we crawled down out of the trees.

Life is too short to live in constant anger and fear.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@KNOWITALL Is this about drones flying over the US or the Patriot Act, or just in general. I’m not doing anything wrong, so I’m okay with it, if so.
I am not pointing to any instance or issue that. I am including anything that hasn’t happened yet, but in the future. When rights go, think of it as black ice, if you never thought you would run into black ice, you would never look out for it on the roadway. By the time you discover it, then it is too late, you are doing donuts out of control hoping you don’t hit anything.

Since you brought up specific things, let’s say the government planned to track any vehicle with a GPS system. It gets little press and people think if it keeps me safe, why not? ”I am not doing anything wrong”, so they think it will never apply to them. Lets say said person joins an adult league, book club, etc. They know the person who invited them, maybe others, but there are people they don’t know. Then weeks, maybe months later the feds come knocking at the door. Said person is made to go downtown to “have a chat”. Then the person is grilled on why they were on a team with members of such and such who was planning a terrorist attack, and are they sure they were not involved. If they ever went anywhere with the suspected person or even attended a BBQ at their house, said person would have to try to remember and come up with an alibi for the last X amount of months. All this because they thought “let them track people, I am not doing anything so they won’t bother me”.

@Pachyderm_In_The_Room What little rights we still have left, @Hypocrisy_Central???
I never said we only have a few rights left. I asked is what would you be able to do if you discovered most of the liberties you thought you had or did have was taken from you? If you would have any means to save what few you had left at that point? The best way to take something from someone is something they don’t know they have, or that they are not watching. To illustrate a point, to outsmart a monkey they put a narrow necked heavy vase in the open. They put nuts in the vase. The monkey can’t get to the nuts without putting a hand in to grab them. Once he has his hand in the trapper springs from his hiding place to get the monkey. The monkey doesn’t want to let go of the nuts in order to remove its hand and can’t carry away the vase, so it is trapped because it doesn’t want to let go of what it has. Make people comfortable, they are so busy with their nuts they don’t see their hand may one day they maybe in peril.

@Blondesjon I’ll tell you what Chicken Little, as soon as I get hit by a piece of sky I’ll start worrying.
Elementary my dear Watson, I am not worried.

Until then I’ll take forty-two years of personal experience over paranoid, sandwich board wearing, doom-crying that’s been going on since we crawled down out of the trees.
I did not come from anything that crawled out of trees, I like to know which of you have, and those of you have my sympathies. I guess we could use that for a lot of things, oil, pollution, ozone, etc. Until it actually causes a major affect, don’t worry about it.

Life is too short to live in constant anger and fear.
So why are so many people worrying about pollution traveling from Asia, we are not choking over here; the oil running out, we always find new sources; depleting ozone, heard that one for decades; or climate change, none had eradicated man from the planet yet, mankind will adapt with bigger A/C units, stronger heaters, etc. So, just live and not worry about those things, you will be mummy dust before any of that causes serious problems. ;-P

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I get it, my mom watches Jack Van Impe, King of Paranoia. I don’t buy into it, sorry.

Blondesjon's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central . . . We were discussing our freedoms being stolen from us. I don’t understand what that has to do with what my views may or may not be on pollution.

YARNLADY's avatar

The real issue is just who is this government you are on about, anyway? Have you run for office lately, or helped get a person you agree with elected?

I have not had any of my freedoms taken away, so I can’t really relate to your question.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Blondesjon We were discussing our freedoms being stolen from us. I don’t understand what that has to do with what my views may or may not be on pollution.
The question is, how you would save the rights you had left if the rights needed to save them were done away with. That has about as much to do with paranoia, mine especially directed to me; what does that have to do with rights lost?

How does it relate to pollution? Life is too short to worry about most of it. As you say, so long as you can eat, drink, and be merry don’t worry about what has not happened in the last 40 years. I can go with that.

@YARNLADY The real issue is just who is this government you are on about, anyway?
Whatever government you are under, providing you are not under a government that has already taken your rights.

I have not had any of my freedoms taken away, so I can’t really relate to your question.
Hopefully you haven’t, even if you don’t know you have. But it might not be freedoms; losing certain liberties can be just as bad. You can eat where you want, travel where you please for now, so never think you can’t. 8-o

Dutchess_III's avatar

What @Blondesjon said. And the fact that people are FREE to trash the government says a lot too.

For the longest time there was a privately owned sign on the edge of town, like the ones you see at the gas stations, where they swap out tiles to change ads, or the price of gas. This one read something like, “Thank you Obama for turning us into the USSA,” or something like that.

I thought, the person that put that up doesn’t REALLY believe that or he would have been afraid to put it up! He may say he does, but there is NO WAY he really does, or he would be afraid of Obama’s minions coming after him and burying him in some government secret dungeon, never to be heard of again! But there it sat for about 5 years, unmolested and unchanged.

josie's avatar

Yes. By that time it is always too late.

Democracy only works if everybody has a somewhat similar notion of limited government.

If that notion diverges significantly, democracy merely becomes a gradual evolution toward authoritarianism. No great civilization has deposed a dictator by voting.

Blondesjon's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central . . . In my original post, my answer to this question, I alluded to myself more than twenty times and no one else. I also used the words “freedom” and “choose” more times than I care to go back and count.

In fact I only brought up paranoia after being likened to “a pig in an apple orchard”, if I’m not mistaken.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Blondesjon In fact I only brought up paranoia after being likened to “a pig in an apple orchard”, if I’m not mistaken.
If you thought I was calling you a pig, my apologies, I was not clear. I was merely trying to convey that if you are busy worried about pollution, climate change, the ecology or anything else, or not worrying about anything because you can do them today, in the present. Like the pig in an orchard think not where or how the apples it eats got on the ground or worries if they will stop falling they can fall prey to any hunter in the branches. As long as one is focused intently on creature comforts, the government could, if they choose, sneak up on a apathetic populace rendering them unable to mount any resistance by the time they figure out what was going on.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

It is silly to think you have rights without Government, in fact it is laughable.

I understand a generation of rich people paying sociologist to find ways to divorce your notion of rights from government has been successful with you. I am pleased on their behalf that they have not wasted their money.

Stating the government is trampling your rights is asking me to pretend you had any before government established you did, or that democratic government is nothing other than the selection of certain individuals to represent you when we are deciding what is fair and what is not fair.

Any other interpretation of Government is some weird masturbatory fantasy wherein you are the heroic good guy and bad guys are out to get you. Which is very rarely true, unless your name is Bradely Manning or Snowden.

Paradox25's avatar

The problem is that many people play partisan politics on these issues. Freedom is also a very subjective term it seems.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

And now here is a lot of info from me. 0_o

What is freedom really? Why do we have work, why do we have to follow rules, why can’t we smoke marijuana without going to jail, yes we get some choices because if we didn’t imagine the upheaval it would cause then, like taking away guns.

The government has to be somewhat formidable with us because if not then they cannot impose rules on us, like sending out text messages at the Boston marathon to get of dodge, if you have freedom, then you should be able to choose another choice other than what the sms message says, but most people will adhere to the rules of the message out of fear or anxiety, so it is a formidable way for the government to control people and get them to comply but we know that in some situations people do not want to comply with rules, anyway on with it,. Sure I can choose when I can go look at the stars, what car to drive, or even if I want to drive, but everything I do comes with a price. Freedom doesn’t cost anything. My top 10 reasons why I think the government already takes my freedom.

#1 Canadian Martial Law In this video they show armored vehicles or rather military vehicles being made for Ontario (where I live), the types that are loud enough to disperse large crowds but they say are going to be used for “hostage situations” these vehicles are made for the RCMP which is a division of the Canadian armed forces not the police, and ironically on the side of the vehicle it says “POLICE RCMP”.

#2 Drop the KNIFE!! In this video they show a bunch of police in Toronto telling a young kid who is not erratic to drop the knife. One officer goes off with a bunch of shots and kills the kid, and if that wasn’t enough I am sure you hear the faint buzzing of a taser. Yes the cop is getting charged with murder, but that is not the point.

#3 Lets add tasers into EVERY police officers hand along with a gun to the already broken society This one is self explanatory and just adds to the nonsense of #2 and 4.

#4 Aron Firman. Just another tragic taser death. Aron Firman’s father talks about how he feels that the jury finds the police taser a factor in his sons death but that the science is unclear and so the police officer will not be charged with the death. So add more tasers to police hands means less likely that police officers may use their gun and even less likely they will go to jail for offenses if a murder occurs from an electrocution by a taser. My husband and were a witness to the death of a taser electrocution..not nice.

In the US you have Barack Obama.

#5 Kerry: Chemical use a ‘moral obscenity

#6 U.S. Bribed Muslim Brotherhood

#7 Signs of the coming?

#8 Russia: No proof regime behind alleged chemical weapons

#9 If you have 25 min to watch this it is about the American government, it’s interesting.

#10 World War 3??

And now I will conclude this with a special saying that a friend of mine always says to the municipality at tax season..“I will see you next year when you nail me some more”.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought “It is silly to think you have rights without Government, in fact it is laughable.”

Last I heard, all people were created equal. We are all born with rights. We’re born with equal rights. Governments do not, and can not give anyone more rights than what we are born with.

Governments can only take rights away, or allow you to enjoy rights you were born with. But they do not give rights.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Last I heard, the president of the United Fuckin states told you that. The same government you say cannot give you rights. He said that Government for the people should not perish from this earth, and then suspended habeaus corpus.

You continue to jerk off in the corner an tell me you were born with rights.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

It doesn’t matter who said those words. It could have been a homeless beggar. The words are true, regardless of what someone does to take your rights away.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies If it doesn’t matter. Than we are just two jerks in the street fighting. What we need is a government, to grant us rights and decide which one of us decides fair and not fair.

I hope, for your sake, without a government, you can take me in a fight.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

BTW… It wasn’t a president. Jefferson said it in the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

What rights can a government “grant” that we don’t already have?

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLie I am really trying to establish a logic basis to understand you. Are you agreeing that the founding fathers established rights as part of our earliest Government so I should respect them and nothing that you disagree with after? Or did these rights exist external prior to the founding fathers. Please, help me chose your own adventure.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The truths are said to be “self evident”. The founding fathers didn’t “establish” them. They acknowledged them.

I would be very fearful of any government that believed it could grant rights to anyone.

It would have to take them away first, just to grant them back.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The rights are “endowed” at birth. Not granted.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies So, in your imagination, these rights do not need the force of law or government. I am relieved. We can delete them from our constitution.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

It’s what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based upon.

The force of law is to enforce “legal” rights.

The force of law is to ensure “natural” rights.

More here.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The rights are “inalienable”... unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies So we can’t delete them, because of a document written 150 years later.

Please admit that Government grants rights @RealEyesRealizeRealLies. and they come from no other source. I am aware your whole world view is opposed to this, but your desperation to prove otherwise is getting sad.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

How can I admit something when you haven’t given me one reason to consider doing so?

The Declaration of Independence is a “declaration”... not a law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a “declaration”... not a law.

Seriously, where am I looking desperate here? Just stating the facts mam.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Where do they exist prior to the document that demands the king recognize them?

I am not aware that serfs in 17th century had rights. Is the constitution just a repetition? Or is it something new?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Natural rights since the beginning of “nature”. Natural… nature. A really long time.

Natural rights exist in nature.

Natural rights were rediscovered during the Aged of Enlightenment, to challenge the Divine right of Kings. They are the beginning of government as we know it today.

Natural rights (natural law) came before government. It wasn’t established by government.

Imadethisupwithnoforethought's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies OMG you have convinced me. My natural rights have been violated. Who should I contact to protect my natural rights?

I am done pretending natural rights are anything else than government conferred. You can keep imagining that they are some magical thing, but I am done playing make believe

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Having rights, and protecting them, are different things altogether.

Government can protect your rights… and should. But they cannot grant rights.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

When arrested, the police read your rights.

The first is a natural right… Right to remain silent. It shouldn’t even have to be said, and wouldn’t be if people understood about nature and natural rights. Of course no one can make me speak. Torture me and try, sure. But it doesn’t guarantee that I will. Because it’s my will, not yours.

The second is a legal right… Right to an attorney.

Dutchess_III's avatar

We were BORN with rights? How interesting. If that is true, then all animals are born with rights. What “rights” is a lion born with? What “rights” does a frog have? What “rights” does an amoeba have?

Rarebear's avatar

@Dutchess_III The idea of Natural Law is a very old one that goes back to Plato, and was the basis of “common law” and the British Conservative movement led by Edmund Burke in the 1700s. It’s the ideology is that all individuals are born with natural rights as endowed by God or Nature. This has been a powerful force in the American psyche (just read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence). Modern Conservative writers such as David Brooks and David Frum are proponents of this line of thinking.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Oh, I understand the concept, but does it apply only to humans and not to other animals? If so, I’d say it isn’t really valid. If we have any “rights’ it’s only because someone said we did, which is roughly the same thing as being granted rights.

Rarebear's avatar

@Dutchess_III I honestly don’t know if Plato, Edmund Burke, and Thomas Jefferson thought about animal rights regarding Natural Law. I tend to think not.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I doubt they considered themselves animals. I’m looking at it from a different perspective.

josie's avatar

If people don’t have any clue as to the difference between Rights as intrinsic, and rights as a political perk, then all just may be lost.

The Founders (actually, the philosophers who influenced them) saw Rights as a metaphysical fact of human nature, the active retention of these rights as the highest moral virtue, and that the role of government was to protect these rights.

All governments use the word “right” to describe little favors that they grant, in an attempt to beguile their subjects, while they maneuver to gain, hold and increase power.

It is a very old equivocation to be sure and it lingers like a bad habit.

Like I said, if you don’t know the difference, the question is even more significant.

Dutchess_III's avatar

OK. Somebody tell me what “intrinsic” rights we have?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

As the declaration says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are…

wait for it…

wait…

ready or not…

… here it comes…

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

______________________

Now unless you decide this is wrong, and think instead you are born into slavery, and must be granted rights by a human master that owns you from birth… then you’re just gonna have to go with it… or tell me who granted your master the right to grant you rights.

If we are born into slavery, then certainly it cannot be The People who granted your master the right to grant rights… because a slave cannot grant rights to a master.

So believe what you will. It’s your natural right to do so.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Another self evident natural right that you have @Dutchess_III is to support or start your own animal rights group.

A government cannot grant you the right to do that. It can only stop you from doing that by taking rights away… while convincing you that you didn’t have the right in the first place.

A good government would protect your right to do that. But they cannot grant the right.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

People should understand, that women and black folks are born with the right to vote. The government did not grant them anything. The government just stopped preventing them from exercising their rights.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That is something someone, a human, made up made up @RealEyesRealizeRealLies. It’ s a human construct, not a natural biological one. It’s a concept not an inalienable “right.”

josie's avatar

@Dutchess_III

So what you are saying is that you, YOU, @Dutchess_III , have nothing at all that is really yours. Yours alone. Yours without a majority vote. Nothing. You are nothing.

Except for the YOU that is defined by your corruptible, capricious power mad government.
How does that define you? You certainly are better than the following, but that is exactly the principle that describes the relationship between a hooker and a pimp.

That is certainly not you. Is it?

So why accept the principle?

I thought you were better than that.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I have what the laws of our society, via a majority vote, say can be mine, all mine, under certain circumstances.

It’s about society, not government. Government is a creation. of our society.

I’m not saying the concept of rights is a bad one. I’m saying rights are not naturally inalienable and they aren’t biological and they weren’t granted by God. They were made up by our society.

josie's avatar

So if society says it is OK to kill a lot of Jews, then by your standard, it must be OK. Right?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Again… the truths are “self evident”. No one made them up. They are simply recognized. Not created.

The only thing created here is the idea that someone can grant you rights. What right do they have to do that?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Dutchess_III If you believe that someone grants your rights… Then by default, you also believe that people are not created equal, but somehow, someone is superior to you enough that you need permission, because you’re basically born into slavery.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

What right does someone have to claim ownership of you at birth?

Dutchess_III's avatar

People made that phrase up, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies. Humans decided they were “self evident.” They’re just saying they seem logical. It’s not magical and it’s not biological.

We, as a society, agreed on what constitutes a right. We as a society decided what was logical, what seemed “self evident.” We, as a society decided “Hey, you have the right to do A, B, C,” and we elected a government to enforce that.

I happen to agree with them.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Dutchess_III “They were made up by our society.”

Legal rights… yes!

Natural rights… nyit.

Saying that “people made that phrase up” is like saying 1+1=2 is made up. It’s not made up. It’s recognized as a fundamental principle of how reality is.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

And understand something… Legal Rights are primarily designed to ensure most people in society get to enjoy their Natural Rights.

Legal serves Natural. Anything less is unnatural and oppressive.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You have a Natural Right to speak your mind on this forum. A Legal Right is put in place to ensure that. Some countries don’t have Legal Rights to protect the Natural Right of free speech.

Blondesjon's avatar

I will agree that life and liberty are self evident.

Happiness, and the pursuit of it, is a subjective, personal choice.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You have the liberty to consider it subjective.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why would the “inalienable” right to “life and liberty” only apply to humans?

Blondesjon's avatar

What do animals consider liberty?

Maybe we should straighten out our own brand of bullshit before we tackle the animal kingdom?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

That’s a good question @Dutchess_III. You have the Natural Right to start an animal rights organization… or support an existing one.

Dutchess_III's avatar

That didn’t answer the question. Do natural, “God given” rights only apply to those animals who can philosophize about them and recognize them and write them down? That doesn’t make any sense.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

If, for the sake of the species, humans make a self evident declaration to a Right to Life, then rights of other species may be put into jeopardy for food and clothing. The law of evolution is indeed survival of the fittest.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Therefore the rights are not “natural” and they aren’t God given. If they were, then a leopard has just as much “right” to kill and eat humans. However, if it does, it will be hunted down and killed. Which means it doesn’t have the same “right to life” that God supposedly gave us.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Dutchess_III “Why would the “inalienable” right to “life and liberty” only apply to humans?”

Perhaps the ability to recognize and make declaration are qualifiers to benefitting from the right. Consider leopards have no ability to recognize and make declarations upon space travel. Thus they cannot benefit from their right to do so if they did.

@Dutchess_III ”...the rights are not “natural” and they aren’t God given.”

What do you mean by “not natural”. It is very natural for a species to do what it takes to survive. As to “God given”, the perspective depends upon which side of the fence you’re on. Could be God given, or nature given… i.e. natural right.

I actually prefer the nature approach. For I would not honor a God that created me, yet prevented my natural right to exist and thrive.

As well, I see no problem with a leopard exercising his rights to be a leopard. He has the right to survive, even at the expense of human life. No one can blame him for being a leopard. But likewise, no one can blame a human for attempting to prevent it by any means possible.

We kill humans that kill humans for the same reasons that we kill leopards for killing humans.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It is instinctive to live. It’s instinctive to want to be safe and comfortable (happy.) So we thought about it for a while and decided that, because these instincts are so strong, they much be a “right.” So we created a society that said it’s a right. Then we created a government to enforce those rights. We granted them to ourselves.

Our instincts to live are no more important than any other animal’s instincts, no more natural either.

Having rights is a concept based on animal instincts.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

No argument. Be it animal instincts, it’s still natural right.

But we’re admittedly diverting the real essence of the OP here. The issue at hand is whether governments grant rights, or if we’re born with them. I don’t see any way around the idea that we’re born with them. Otherwise, a government could not suppose to have any.

Dutchess_III's avatar

We’re born with instincts. Society determines the importance of those instincts, and calls them rights. Society elects a government to back those “rights” up. Government backs those rights up. When it gets too complicated, or government gets out of line, society backs the government down, eventually.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

In principle I agree. Yet rights are different than instincts in the sense that rights are instincts which can be recognized and declared. A leopard may not have is own rights simply upon the merit he cannot recognize and declare self evident instincts to others. Since he cannot do it for himself, then perhaps his rights are only those which can be declared for him. Consider that logic please before answering in passion. For if you believe that a government grants rights to humans, you should have no problem with accepting that humans grant rights to leopards.

But I take it that you now agree that humans have certain self evident endowed unalienable rights that, as you say, “government backs up”… rather than grants.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They’re inalienable only in that it’s virtually impossible to deny the instincts. They’re too deeply encoded in our DNA. From that context, the statement is pretty silly.

No, the government doesn’t “grant” the rights. The government backs up what society has determined our “rights” to be. Society codifies our “rights,” and we make laws governing those instinctive rights. Then society grants us those rights, and tells us what the punishment will be for denying those rights to other humans, even if the human whose rights are “trampled on” don’t even have the mental capacity of a leopard.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I may be backing off the instinct angle.

A leopard has no instinct for space travel. But does he have a right to it?

Humans on the other hand have been fascinated with the stars since the beginning of recorded history. Is that an instinct… or just a curiosity?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

As well, you’re still fixated on “what society has determined our “rights” to be”, rather than what society recognizes our rights to be. There is a huge difference.

I go back to the math problem. Was 1+1=2 determined to be right, or was is recognized to be right? Only one can be considered a self evident truth.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Consider the Laws of the Universe. Clearly these are human written laws which describe self evident truths. Truths which were recognized as truthful. Woe to the one who “determines” what the truth be. They call those folks Dictators.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Dictators are the only ones who believe they can grant rights… Like they’re better than everyone else.

Dutchess_III's avatar

We, as a society, grant us our own rights. We determine the truthfulness of those laws. Then we set up government to enforce them. That’s not a dictatorship.

Yes, space travel is a simple curiosity. Leopards get curious too. Watch a cat. They poke into places for no apparent reason. The only instinct involved may be that there might be something to eat in there, even if they aren’t hungry at the time. Or maybe this could be a safe place to live.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

If we determine the truthfulness, and grant our own, then you have no problem with one nation determining that slavery is right for them. Or that another nation can determine that women are sub human. To each their own?

Is there not a better way than determining? Isn’t recognizing and honoring what’s right in front of us (equality) good enough? I see determination as such a subjective and unreliable foundation to build a world view upon. It’s great for picking a color for your car, or an ice cream flavor. We can even argue about house decorations.

But what good is a subjective truth if not supported by an underlying objective truth?

Dutchess_III's avatar

The majority grants the rights that the majority of the people decide are right. And determining what is right is based on a collective emotion called “compassion.” We use our compassion to determine what we believe to be right, and then we call it “the truth.” And what we believe to be truthful can, and does change over time and over generations, hopefully for the better. What better way is there than that? It’s useful as is.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“The majority grants the rights that the majority of the people decide are right.”

That’s like saying “John grants the rights that John decides are right”. But actually, if you go here, John (Q Public) must first decide, then grant as he pleases. Very dangerous for John to decide on the rights for all, then grant them as he pleases. History is rife with good intentions gone bad this way. John can decide that homosexuality is a disease which must be eradicated. John can decide that women cannot vote, or that blacks are slaves.

1-Where is the “compassion” in these decisions?

2-When did an “emotion” become a stable foundation to make universal decisions upon?
______________

“We use our compassion to determine what we believe to be right, and then we call it “the truth.””

Six million Jews down the Trail of Tears later, what can be said of that “truth”? Was it an objective truth recognized as beneficial to all? Or was it a subjective truth determined beneficial to some, for a limited time?

How can a subjective truth founded upon compassion be universal?
______________

“what we believe to be truthful can, and does change over time and over generations, hopefully for the better.”

Is “hope” a reliable mechanism to make things better for all?
______________

“What better way is there than that?”

Recognition and acknowledgement of universal objective truth is much better than determination of subjective truth. At best, it takes the emotion out of the equation. At worst, it presents an objective standard to compare all subjective variants upon.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I don’t quite understand why you’re comparing society as a whole to an individual. Each person has their own opinions. Not all agree. However, when a majority holds the same opinion that is what gets written into the books. John Q can decide for himself that homosexuality is evil, women can’t vote, or that blacks should be slaves, but it’s not going to make one bit of difference because the majority doesn’t feel that way. So I don’t understand the argument.

What law can you find that doesn’t have compassion as it’s underlying cause? Compassion is what changes things. No it wasn’t compassionate to have slaves, and it was compassion for their plight that changed it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Because John Q Public is “society as a whole”. They (we) are seduced into making unethical judgements based upon the adhoc promises and fear mongering of elitists who gain their power by convincing John that rights are something to give and take at will… rather than endowed at birth to all.

I’ve already presented laws which were not based in compassion. Aside from slavery, women’s rights, as of thirty five years ago (or so) here in Missouri,it was legal to shoot a Mormon on sight. Shall we go into the rights of medical marijuana users? Or how about marijuana period… Where is the compassion in making marijuana illegal for anyone?

Compassion doesn’t hold the majority market on change. Greed and Deception have a much larger share. Emotions are unsuitable for making universal declarations upon. They have no foundation of their own beyond subjectivity.

We deserve an objective truth to base universal declarations upon. A truth every bit as stable as gravity or mathematics. That truth is available and present, if only people would recognize and acknowledge it as our founding fathers did.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Compassion is what changes the bad laws. That’s why it is no longer legal to shoot a Mormon. That is why slavery is now outlawed. That is why women and minorities can vote.

To use your argument, what ‘truth” was behind the concept that it was OK to shoot a Mormon?

“Greed and Deception have a much larger share.” And there are tons of laws trying to regulate greed and deception out of compassion for people who could lose everything due to the greed and deception of individuals.

Not everyone is compassionate. But not everyone is truthful, either.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

As to making laws, not changing them… which is the better method…

A- recognition and acknowledgment of universal truth endowed at birth?

or

B- subjective majority compassion held for a particular place and time?

Dutchess_III's avatar

There is no universal truth endowed at birth, not for humans or for any other animal. Anyone who says that there is is just quoting a man made concept.

When we are born, we automatically come under the protection, or become a victim, of the societal laws of whatever culture you happen to be born in. That is all.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“There is no universal truth endowed at birth, not for humans or for any other animal.”

Is that statement an objective universal truth, or just your subjective opinion?
___________

“When we are born, we automatically come under the protection, or become a victim, of the societal laws of whatever culture you happen to be born in.”

Wouldn’t happen if everyone acknowledge equality endowed from birth.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Take one hundred babies from every ethnicity. Provide them identical circumstances for upbringing. Will one ethnicity be any more or less equal than another?

If not, then please admit that “all men are created equal” as a self evident truth which can be applied universally… i.e. a universal truth.

Or please explain if you expect to find one race or gender more or less equal?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Wouldn’t happen if everyone showed compassion, either.

A truth can be proven. How can you prove that these “universal truths” you speak of are, actually, true?

I agree with the concept, the philosophy that all humans are created equal. I never said I didn’t. But it’s based on human compassion and our ability to philosophize, that’s all. If it was some sort of universal truth, it would apply to ALL living, sentient beings.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Read my previous response.

The way science works, is that a declaration is made… a hypothesis. It is tested, and repeated. It is considered true until someone demonstrates that it is not.

So the onus is on the one who claims all men are not created equal. I provided an experiment above. All that needs to happen is that one ethnicity consistently demonstrates themselves to be better than all the others.

See, e=mc2 is not considered universally true because it is proven. It’s considered universally true because no one can demonstrate to the contrary. Same for general relativity It’s not universally true because it is proven. It’s universally true until proven otherwise… as we are beginning to do at the quantum level.

Same for 1+1=2. It is an objective reality until proven otherwise.

No less criteria is deserved for the nature of humanity. It’s not philosophy. It’s not a concept created by compassionate men. Equality is a truth which can be repeatedly demonstrated with the scientific method, and is open to falsification for anyone who would care to prove otherwise. Therefor it is considered an objective universal truth until proven otherwise.

Unlike objective truth, subjective truth can always be proven otherwise. You say tomayto… I say tomahto.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

As well, does it not make sense that legitimate compassion would better stand on a foundation of recognizing universal objective truth? It cannot be universally legitimate otherwise.

Please understand that. Any passion, or emotion, is only as legitimate as the truth it stands upon. Truth is not founded upon emotions. But subjective emotions can be legitimized if founded upon objective truth.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Both the concept that all men are created equal and that all men are NOT created equal are philosophies, not truth. And both are based on emotion. The first is based on compassion. The second is based on feelings of superiority and disdain.

All men are created, period, is the only truth.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’ve supported my position with other examples from nature, and a testable hypothesis that you are free to falsify.

What grounds do you support your statement with?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, as someone just said, at the time the line “All men are created equal” was penned, it literally meant “Men.” Not all people. And it probably referred only to white men. If it had referred to all people, we wouldn’t have had to fight to end slavery, women wouldn’t have had to fight to get the vote or to be treated as equals. So much for “self evident “truths.”

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies But we’re admittedly diverting the real essence of the OP here. The issue at hand is whether governments grant rights, or if we’re born with them. I don’t see any way around the idea that we’re born with them. Otherwise, a government could not suppose to have any.
Rights, however they are derived, is more about fairness, or trying to achieve it, IMO. At times government want you to give up certain rights in part or all together under the idea that doing so will increase, preserve, or create safety for society or the individual from threats overseas or within. If the government can convince enough of society to give that right up, and doing so erodes, weakens, or nullifies other rights, how would one save the few rights they have if they allow enough rights before that to be taken because the populace believe they would be safer from terrorist, criminals, etc? Even if rights are something everyone has and it is the government that grant them the opportunity to use them, if the populace give more an more authority to the government not to allow them to use their rights, the government might stop allowing them to use any while telling them it is for their own good, because it will help them track and find the ”bad guys”.

(in general) The talk about self evident truth. is quite compelling. If the rights we have in the US are self evident, are they just self evident to those here in the US because it is in our Constitution? Does it apply to the rest of the world and if so why are they not using it? If another government came up with their own constitution with their own set of self evident rights, would that nullify those of the US and why not? Could both (Constitutions)be right even if they are written and stand for different things? If one is wrong and the other right, how or who determines that?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Dutchess_III
Recognizing a self evident truth, and implementing it are completely different things.

At the time, blacks and women were considered sub human, to a certain degree, as not as intelligent or capable. They do not qualify as a falsification of the hypothesis I presented above, because they did not enjoy the same circumstances of upbringing. Now that they can, they are considered equally human. Thus, do we not have a responsibility to acknowledge the same universal truths upon them?

The founding fathers didn’t implement an unfounded philosophy. Their position is rooted in a testable repeatable self evident truth that is recognized upon all those brought up with equal circumstances. They were victims of their time just as much as blacks and women. They may have failed to recognize what is human, but they succeeded in recognizing self evident truth for humanity.

@Hypocrisy_Central ”...how would one save the few rights they have if they allow enough rights before that to be taken…”

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mandate putting all extraordinary claims to the test. Thus far, the NSA has failed to provide any evidence to suggest wiretapping American citizens has lead to one foiled terrorist plot. If the claim does not match the evidence, then the claim should be considered falsified.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I do not agree that it is a “self evident truth.” That is the crux of my argument. We created the concept of Government, we created the concept of “rights.” We created all of that, then turned around and granted ourselves rights.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Your position requires that anyone born before or without a government does not have an endowed self evident right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No one has that “right,” no matter what government they’re born into , no more than a horse or a monkey or a lion does.

It is a good philosophy that they should be treated equally, though, IMO. It’s a good base to stand on to fight for the actual implementation of that concept, and to create laws upholding that philosophy.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Do you agree that 1+1=2 is a self evident truth?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

What is the foundation for your opinion that “they should be treated equally”?

How will you confront a slave owner with just your opinion?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Why do you believe 1+1=2 is self evident, but equal creation is not?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

1+1=2 is self evident because no one can prove otherwise.

Equal creation is self evident because no one can prove otherwise.

Other than your subjective opinion on the matter, what is the difference?

Dutchess_III's avatar

My foundation for my opinion that “they should be treated equally” is compassion.

Equal creation is an opinion an idea, a concept. 1+1=2 is a fact.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I could confront a slave owner, but he would disagree and that would be that. Until we turn Lincoln lose on his happy ass because the majority rules.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

What is your compassion founded upon?

You may keep claiming that equal creation is an opinion. That is your right. But your statement has no legitimacy until you support it by falsifying the hypothesis that equal creation is self evident.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Majority is perceived to rule in some nations. Not all.

Regardless if it rules or not, it does not, nor can it change objective self evident truth.

Majority can only support it, or deny it… but it cannot change it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

My compassion is founded on my up bringing, most likely.

Majority rules in THIS nation. So does the concept of equality.

Nevermind. You’re there.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’m already on that thread. I will not introduce extra noise into this conversation intentionally.

We’ve thought this out here long and deep. Another conversation would not consider where we’ve been here.
________________

So let’s proceed, digging it out slowly if you prefer.

What was your upbringing founded upon?

Or can we cut the chase and allow the tautology to go all the way back to a self evident truth from nature. I’ll dig it out slowly if you like… or you can predict where we’re going here.

Dutchess_III's avatar

My upbringing was founded upon what my parent’s philosophies were. Honesty, hard work and compassion were among the ideals they taught us.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Thus far, the NSA has failed to provide any evidence to suggest wiretapping American citizens has lead to one foiled terrorist plot. If the claim does not match the evidence, then the claim should be considered falsified.
That would be on the assumption that people would use pure logic to vet out the information, to hold it to the fire and see if it burns away. When they believe their personal safety, or that of their family or possessions are threatened they would hand over rights simply because they will think, ”If I don’t allow the feds to do wiretaps whenever, or however they want without having to ask anyone, terrorist will be able to attack in some way endangering me or my family. IF I allow them to do it then they would catch the evil doers and I will be safe.” It is a false sense of security that if all the camp counselors are fingerprinted and investigated, so long as they come up clean, no child will ever be felt-up in the bathroom or the hiking trail. Allowing unwarranted searches, or wiretaps have not proved to thwart anything yet, same as knowing someone has a clean record is no guarantee that next week they would do something to a young camper, but it feels more comforting emotionally.

Do you agree that 1+1=2 is a self evident truth?
That is something you can ONLY do one way and get a correct answer. How does one construct a constitution and have it correct? There is no way to do it where you have a visceral and tangible way to see if it is or isn’t correct.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Dutchess_III ”...my parent’s philosophies… hard work and compassion were among the ideals they taught…”

So we’re going to take the long road. Fine fine. Here we go.

What were your parents philosophies of hard work and compassion founded upon?

Let me guess, their upbringing?

What was their upbringing founded upon?

Let me guess, their grandparents philosophies of hard work and compassion?

So what were your grandparents philosophies founded upon?

Let me guess…

Blondesjon's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central . . . Wiretapping becomes a moot point when you understand that your phone has never been secure.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I provided you with a testable, repeatable, falsifiable hypothesis here.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies? You asked, “What was your upbringing founded upon?” I said my upbringing. Apparently that is not the “correct” answer. I’ll wait to hear what the correct answer is.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You didn’t say your upbringing was founded upon your upbringing. You said your upbringing was founded upon “my parent’s philosophies”.

So again, what were your parent’s philosophies founded upon?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Ok. So my upbringing was founded on my parent’s philosophies. Their philosophies were based on their up bringing, back and back to the dawn of time. Apparently that is not the right answer. I’m very curious as to what the “right” answer is.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I cannot tell you how to answer. But if I feel that I know an answer, then if you are willing, it is my responsibility to lead you to what I have found. I didn’t create it. I didn’t philosophize it into existence. I was lead to it myself by others who found it before me. It’s a discovery. Not an invention.

“Back to the dawn of time”… That would mean before government.

If this is true, then government is not required to grant rights.

The right to live had to come from somewhere. I’ve presented a testable, predictable, repeatable, and falsifiable hypothesis that suggest nature endows that right from birth with equality. Humans recognized that right and declared it as self evident. They did the same thing with 1+1. There is no difference. Neither were created by humans. Both were recognized and acknowledged for what they were.

If you continue to argue against this, please provide falsification to topple my hypothesis.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Having a philosophy has nothing to do with rights. Rights come about when a society agrees upon a previously conceived philosophy and want to see it enforced.

The “right to live” is embedded in our DNA. Self preservation is a fantastically strong instinct, just like sex (which we have more freaking laws about!) but it is present in all other animals as well. Nothing special about it, or us, and has nothing to do with government.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Dutchess_III “Having a philosophy has nothing to do with rights.”

That’s not what you said earlier.

You suggested rights are laws based mostly in compassion. And that your parents philosophies were one of compassion. Therefor rights are based in philosophies… as I read you.

@Dutchess_III “The “right to live” is embedded in our DNA.”

Then I take it we agree that right is from nature. If embedded in DNA, then that is truly self evident.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It’s not a right. It’s an instinct that humans codified into a “right.” Tigers have the same identical instinct. Does a tiger have a “right to life?” Does a cow?

I still stand by what I said, that rights are laws based mostly in compassion, compassion that has been codified into a philosophy. “Rights” are a man made construct, they are not “self evident.”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’m having a hard time following you @Dutchess_III

“The “right to live” is embedded in our DNA.”

“It’s not a right. It’s an instinct”

Dutchess_III's avatar

The concept of “the right to live” came about because of our extreme instinct TO live, at almost any cost. That’s what I’m saying. All other animals have the exact same instinct. Humans turned it into a law, a legal right. But only for us. Not for other animals. That’s what makes “Right to live” it a concept, not a “truth.” If it was a truth it would apply to every living thing, as all truths do.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Dutchess_III “Humans turned it into a law”

Do you remember above I said:

“Consider the Laws of the Universe. Clearly these are human written laws which describe self evident truths.”

What difference is there between universal truths of cosmos and universal truths of humanity?
________________

@Dutchess_III “But only for us. Not for other animals.”

Do you remember above I said:
“You have the Natural Right to start an animal rights organization… or support an existing one.”

also…

”...the ability to recognize and make declaration are qualifiers to benefitting from the right. Consider leopards have no ability to recognize and make declarations upon space travel. Thus they cannot benefit from their right to do so…”

…...

We’re going in circles now. You don’t have to accept my answers. Your right to reject my answers is self evident, endowed at birth by nature. But unless you have new arguments to present, let’s not go over this again after I’ve provided ample attention.

Though indeed you have an endowed self evident right to do so if you choose. No government was necessary to allow that. You may thank nature if you so choose to.

Dutchess_III's avatar

…the ability to recognize and make declaration are qualifiers to benefitting from the right.” Then they are not “natural.”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

What’s unnatural about recognition and declaration?

Communication is the most natural thing in existence. All life is dependent upon communication between DNA and RNA.

Dutchess_III's avatar

This is quite a coincidence. I’m watching the History Channel about Benjamen Franklin. They dealt some with his contribution to the Declaration of Independence, specifically with his editing of the original wording regarding “these truths are self evident.” The original wording smacked of religious influence. It was something along the lines of “It can’t be denied.” In other words, “It’s God. God says what we are saying is true so it can not be denied.” That went against their efforts to separate church and state. He scratched through the original and came up with our final draft of “self evident.”

Nothing is unnatural about recognition and declaration, but it’s an ability specific to humans. What I meant was, It isn’t ‘natural’ across the board, from a biological point of view. Other animals aren’t cable of doing that. Therefore it’s an intelligent philosophy, nothing more.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Is it an intelligent philosophy? What qualifies it as intelligent?

100 babies from every ethnicity to satisfy my experiment would make it a science.

Dutchess_III's avatar

What in the world does ethnicity have to do with anything? Without actually running such a ridiculous experiment I can say with 100% certainty that everyone of those babies would be….a human. What else is there to prove?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

We’re talking about the first endowed self evident truth… That all men are created equal.

That’s typically an ethnicity question first and foremost.

So yes, they would be human. But would they be equal? If so, then the experiment would support the hypothesis, which in turn would be a self evident truth from nature. This can be scientifically demonstrated. Thus, it is science.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It never struck me as an ethnicity question. If it was then it was the height of hypocrisy at the time.

Keep stretching @RealEyesRealizeRealLies! What criteria would you use to determine whether humans are all “equal?” What would cause them to be unequal?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I provided you with a testable, repeatable, falsifiable hypothesis here
All that can make your head spin. How does quantum physics lend credibility to anyone’s constitution? Would you need to stack many constitutions up against each other to see if similarities independently emerge? That would be the way some universal self evident criteria will be met?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

It’s not a stretch @Dutchess_III. Typically today, ethnicity is the first issue raised when discussing equality, even ahead of women’s equality.

Don’t get hung up on this being an idea only from the founding fathers. This goes far back to Plato and Aristotle and has been a consistent topic throughout history… as @josie reminded earlier.

The founding fathers were more concerned with declaring equality with the King. So what? The declaration holds true for any time and reason. You may use it to rebel from a nation, or to apply for college. You cannot hold a universal self evident truth to any one time, place, and purpose. It’s “universal”. It doesn’t matter who said it because it’s nothing invented. It was discovered to be a self evident universal truth.

@Dutchess_III “What criteria would you use to determine whether humans are all “equal?” What would cause them to be unequal?”

Exactly! There is no universal criteria. That’s why the truth is self evident.

Corporations would look for qualities different than scientific disciplines. And they would look for qualities different than athletics. And they would look for different qualities than the arts.

Run the experiment and determine if any one race is any better suited for any of the above disciplines. I propose you will find that we are all equally suited to every discipline. I propose one look at society and you should admit that equality is self evident and endowed from nature at birth.

@Hypocrisy_Central I don’t understand what you are saying. How does the experiment I suggest make your head spin? It’s pretty straightforward proposition. It has nothing to do with quantum physics. I don’t understand why you brought that up.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies How does the experiment I suggest make your head spin? It’s pretty straightforward proposition. It has nothing to do with quantum physics.
The link you provided went to a Wikipedia article with time bending, gravitational fiends, string theories, etc. I was just wondering how all of that science determined which constitution, or the tenets of such, was self evident? It is not like a constitution can only have one answer like 1+1=2.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The link I provided goes to an earlier post I made right here on this same thread. It details a simple experiment that could be run to answer the question of self evident birth endowed equality.

Try it again here.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central “It’s not a stretch @Dutchess_III. Typically today, ethnicity is the first issue raised when discussing equality, even ahead of women’s equality.” Yes, if the question was written today it would definitely encompass ethnicity. However, we were specifically discussing the era of the founding father’s time, 250 years ago. The founding father’s weren’t referring to ethnicity or even women.

I’m aware that it wasn’t a new concept, but again, we were discussing the founding fathers. Our constitution is also based on the Magna Carta which was written in 1215. ”...was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges.”

KaY_Jelly's avatar

If you go to Google maps, you’ll quickly find out that big brother is indeed watching you. They cover our faces and our licence plates to make us feel like we have a sense of privacy, but do you think the people who are in charge of that stuff actually adhere to those rules? Idk.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yeah, well, they ain’t doing such a great job. Our address on Google maps shows a boat in our drive way that we haven’t had for 6 years!

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Dutchess_III “we were discussing the founding fathers”

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “We’re talking about the first endowed self evident truth”

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “Don’t get hung up on this being an idea only from the founding fathers.”

Self evident truth transcends the founding fathers. That’s why it is a recognition and acknowledgement… not an invention.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I understand @RealEyesRealizeRealLies. But I thought we were talking about OUR government, not ancient governments. When talking about our government, yes, the founding fathers took an existing idea and attached their own meaning or importance to it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

”...I thought we were talking about OUR government…”

Why would you think that?

The only thing I said about “OUR government” was in my third post on this thread reminding @Imadethisupwithnoforethought that the human rights did not come from a president… Then I quoted the declaration… which doesn’t say anything at all about government.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And then referred to Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a separate confirmation that I was not speaking specifically about U.S. government.
________________

My comments revolved completely around self evident truths, and governments in general. My second post clearly demonstrates that.

“Governments do not, and can not give anyone more rights than what we are born with. Governments can only take rights away, or allow you to enjoy rights you were born with. But they do not give rights.”

It was nothing specific to U.S. government.
________________

That was after I said:
“Last I heard, all people were created equal. We are all born with rights. We’re born with equal rights. ”
________________

The next post I said:
It doesn’t matter who said those words… The words are true, regardless of what someone does to take your rights away.”
________________

I’ve consistently reminded you not to get hung up on the founding fathers of “OUR government”.

The only reason I did speak about “OUR government”, was because of our discussions about ethnicity and gender equality.

But really, you entered the conversation concerned about animal rights… which again has absolutely nothing to do with _“OUR government”.

Any discussions from me about “OUR government” were mere side issues to the real issue of nature endowed rights and self evident truths.

And in all honesty… _The OP doesn’t say anything at all about U.S. government. I don’t even know what country @Hypocrisy_Central lives in.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies And in all honesty… _The OP doesn’t say anything at all about U.S. government. I don’t even know what country @Hypocrisy_Central lives in.
I am in the USA, however, I was referring to any nation. Some nations in the past the citizens have lost their liberty all at once due to military action, other times the government chipped away at the rights until there were not enough left to stop the government b y the time the citizens realized what the government was doing.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Nothing you say need be questioned @Hypocrisy_Central. It has been a pleasure discussing this topic in such detail. A wonderful question and great example for non confrontational dialogue.

Thanks @Dutchess_III. What a blast hanging with you and your great insightful mind.

The final word belongs to someone other than myself.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther