Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

History lesson: declaration of independence

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 12:51:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I hear so many people quote the declaration of independence as if it was the constitution. Those same people, don't even understand the meaning behind the text.

First let's look at the preamble

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

In other words, we are declaring our separation from the empire,and we are telling the king why we decided to separate. That is the whole purpose of the Declaration of Independence.

Now let's look at the body;

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.--

self-evident means Not needing to be demonstrated or explained.
unalienable means Unable to be taken away or given.
pursuit of Happiness this refers to the right of owning, and obtaining property. Jefferson's "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness came directly from john Locke's trinity, "Life, liberty, and property". In Jefferson's day, everyone knew what he meant.

As a side note, the US Bill of Rights states that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
122 years later the constitution was amended to exclude income taxes.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The role of Government is to protect, life, liberty and property, because the government derives it's authority from the community as a whole.

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If the government takes away the life, liberty, or property of the people without due process, than the people have a right to alter, or abolish the government, and institute a new government, in which hey see fit, to protect their life, liberty, and property.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

The right of the people to change their government, should not be exercised lightly, without justification, and caution. Through out history when governments, they are usually replaced by something worse.

and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

people are more likely to do what they are told, than to risk changing what needs to be changed. This has been shown in Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet union, Iraq, and just about any dictatorship or oligarchy you can think of.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When the government continues, time, and time again, to undermine the rights of the people; than it is the people's Duty, to change their government, to one that can better Guard their rights.

--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This is the reason why we declared ourselves independent from the British Empire.

After this, Jefferson listed a long list of grievances, including the murder of civilians by soldiers, closing our ports, depriving people of trials, burning towns, ravaging the coast, and appointing officers without the consent of the legislature.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 1:47:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 12:51:01 PM, DanT wrote:
I hear so many people quote the declaration of independence as if it was the constitution. Those same people, don't even understand the meaning behind the text.

First let's look at the preamble

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

In other words, we are declaring our separation from the empire,and we are telling the king why we decided to separate. That is the whole purpose of the Declaration of Independence.

Now let's look at the body;

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.--

self-evident means Not needing to be demonstrated or explained.
unalienable means Unable to be taken away or given.
pursuit of Happiness this refers to the right of owning, and obtaining property. Jefferson's "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness came directly from john Locke's trinity, "Life, liberty, and property". In Jefferson's day, everyone knew what he meant.

As a side note, the US Bill of Rights states that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
122 years later the constitution was amended to exclude income taxes.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The role of Government is to protect, life, liberty and property, because the government derives it's authority from the community as a whole.

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If the government takes away the life, liberty, or property of the people without due process, than the people have a right to alter, or abolish the government, and institute a new government, in which hey see fit, to protect their life, liberty, and property.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

The right of the people to change their government, should not be exercised lightly, without justification, and caution. Through out history when governments, they are usually replaced by something worse.

and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

people are more likely to do what they are told, than to risk changing what needs to be changed. This has been shown in Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet union, Iraq, and just about any dictatorship or oligarchy you can think of.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When the government continues, time, and time again, to undermine the rights of the people; than it is the people's Duty, to change their government, to one that can better Guard their rights.

--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This is the reason why we declared ourselves independent from the British Empire.

After this, Jefferson listed a long list of grievances, including the murder of civilians by soldiers, closing our ports, depriving people of trials, burning towns, ravaging the coast, and appointing officers without the consent of the legislature.

My My and here I thought there was something about the consent of the governed, and the creator and that it went to the principles which the constitution was to protect. No taxation without the consent of the governed. Now, just what does consent mean? optional, perhaps....can't imagine why that isn't law.

Your explanation conspicuously leaves out a definition of creator, and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment. Nice effort though. So glad your here Dan, how else could we have known how wrong we all have been. Thank you for your research and, obviously, highly thought of opinions on the insights of the Enlightenment as they pertain to the British Empire. I look forward to your information on how Locke was plagiarized, or did you forget?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 3:00:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 1:47:23 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/11/2011 12:51:01 PM, DanT wrote:
I hear so many people quote the declaration of independence as if it was the constitution. Those same people, don't even understand the meaning behind the text.

First let's look at the preamble

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

In other words, we are declaring our separation from the empire,and we are telling the king why we decided to separate. That is the whole purpose of the Declaration of Independence.

Now let's look at the body;

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.--

self-evident means Not needing to be demonstrated or explained.
unalienable means Unable to be taken away or given.
pursuit of Happiness this refers to the right of owning, and obtaining property. Jefferson's "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness came directly from john Locke's trinity, "Life, liberty, and property". In Jefferson's day, everyone knew what he meant.

As a side note, the US Bill of Rights states that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
122 years later the constitution was amended to exclude income taxes.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The role of Government is to protect, life, liberty and property, because the government derives it's authority from the community as a whole.

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If the government takes away the life, liberty, or property of the people without due process, than the people have a right to alter, or abolish the government, and institute a new government, in which hey see fit, to protect their life, liberty, and property.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

The right of the people to change their government, should not be exercised lightly, without justification, and caution. Through out history when governments, they are usually replaced by something worse.

and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

people are more likely to do what they are told, than to risk changing what needs to be changed. This has been shown in Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet union, Iraq, and just about any dictatorship or oligarchy you can think of.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

When the government continues, time, and time again, to undermine the rights of the people; than it is the people's Duty, to change their government, to one that can better Guard their rights.

--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This is the reason why we declared ourselves independent from the British Empire.

After this, Jefferson listed a long list of grievances, including the murder of civilians by soldiers, closing our ports, depriving people of trials, burning towns, ravaging the coast, and appointing officers without the consent of the legislature.

My My and here I thought there was something about the consent of the governed, and the creator and that it went to the principles which the constitution was to protect. No taxation without the consent of the governed. Now, just what does consent mean? optional, perhaps....can't imagine why that isn't law.

Your explanation conspicuously leaves out a definition of creator,
Creator has it's definition in it's name. It's self-explanatory
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
which one; self-evident or unalienable?

unalienable (adjective) unable to be taken away from or given away
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
self-evident (adjective) not needing to be demonstrated or explained
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Nice effort though. So glad your here Dan, how else could we have known how wrong we all have been. Thank you for your research and, obviously, highly thought of opinions on the insights of the Enlightenment as they pertain to the British Empire. I look forward to your information on how Locke was plagiarized, or did you forget?

Didn't say he was plagiarized, I said that Jefferson shared the ideals of Locke.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 3:05:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
logicrules, do you ever read what you are commentating on?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 5:18:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
r,
Creator has it's definition in it's name. It's self-explanatory
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
which one; self-evident or unalienable?

unalienable (adjective) unable to be taken away from or given away
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
self-evident (adjective) not needing to be demonstrated or explained
http://oxforddictionaries.com...


Nice effort though. So glad your here Dan, how else could we have known how wrong we all have been. Thank you for your research and, obviously, highly thought of opinions on the insights of the Enlightenment as they pertain to the British Empire. I look forward to your information on how Locke was plagiarized, or did you forget?

Didn't say he was plagiarized, I said that Jefferson shared the ideals of Locke.

We hold these truths to be self evident....till Dan decides to fix it. The creator is dead to the enlightened, self evident man. Which is cool, but does that mean, since he/she is dead, he/she isn't watching over Us. Diest (as a reference) I know you didn't say it was plagiarized, that's why I did. maybe next time I will just type "it" and u can fill in the rest.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 5:28:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 5:18:01 PM, logicrules wrote:
r,
Creator has it's definition in it's name. It's self-explanatory
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
which one; self-evident or unalienable?

unalienable (adjective) unable to be taken away from or given away
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
self-evident (adjective) not needing to be demonstrated or explained
http://oxforddictionaries.com...


Nice effort though. So glad your here Dan, how else could we have known how wrong we all have been. Thank you for your research and, obviously, highly thought of opinions on the insights of the Enlightenment as they pertain to the British Empire. I look forward to your information on how Locke was plagiarized, or did you forget?

Didn't say he was plagiarized, I said that Jefferson shared the ideals of Locke.

We hold these truths to be self evident....till Dan decides to fix it.

WTF are you talking about? Read what I wrote, you illiterate troll. I'm getting really sick of you commenting without reading.

The creator is dead to the enlightened, self evident man. Which is cool, but does that mean, since he/she is dead, he/she isn't watching over Us. Diest (as a reference) I know you didn't say it was plagiarized, that's why I did. maybe next time I will just type "it" and u can fill in the rest.

WTF are you going on about?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 6:34:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 5:28:58 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/11/2011 5:18:01 PM, logicrules wrote:
r,
Creator has it's definition in it's name. It's self-explanatory
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
which one; self-evident or unalienable?

unalienable (adjective) unable to be taken away from or given away
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
self-evident (adjective) not needing to be demonstrated or explained
http://oxforddictionaries.com...


Nice effort though. So glad your here Dan, how else could we have known how wrong we all have been. Thank you for your research and, obviously, highly thought of opinions on the insights of the Enlightenment as they pertain to the British Empire. I look forward to your information on how Locke was plagiarized, or did you forget?

Didn't say he was plagiarized, I said that Jefferson shared the ideals of Locke.

We hold these truths to be self evident....till Dan decides to fix it.

WTF are you talking about? Read what I wrote, you illiterate troll. I'm getting really sick of you commenting without reading.

The creator is dead to the enlightened, self evident man. Which is cool, but does that mean, since he/she is dead, he/she isn't watching over Us. Diest (as a reference) I know you didn't say it was plagiarized, that's why I did. maybe next time I will just type "it" and u can fill in the rest.

WTF are you going on about?

Read it...if you do not know look up enlightenment, dieist, Creator in that context and Johnson's dictionary. No educated man of the enlightenment believed in a Living God (Creator).
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 9:35:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/11/2011 6:34:15 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/11/2011 5:28:58 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/11/2011 5:18:01 PM, logicrules wrote:
r,
Creator has it's definition in it's name. It's self-explanatory
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
which one; self-evident or unalienable?

unalienable (adjective) unable to be taken away from or given away
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
self-evident (adjective) not needing to be demonstrated or explained
http://oxforddictionaries.com...


Nice effort though. So glad your here Dan, how else could we have known how wrong we all have been. Thank you for your research and, obviously, highly thought of opinions on the insights of the Enlightenment as they pertain to the British Empire. I look forward to your information on how Locke was plagiarized, or did you forget?

Didn't say he was plagiarized, I said that Jefferson shared the ideals of Locke.

We hold these truths to be self evident....till Dan decides to fix it.

WTF are you talking about? Read what I wrote, you illiterate troll. I'm getting really sick of you commenting without reading.

The creator is dead to the enlightened, self evident man. Which is cool, but does that mean, since he/she is dead, he/she isn't watching over Us. Diest (as a reference) I know you didn't say it was plagiarized, that's why I did. maybe next time I will just type "it" and u can fill in the rest.

WTF are you going on about?

Read it...if you do not know look up enlightenment, dieist, Creator in that context and Johnson's dictionary. No educated man of the enlightenment believed in a Living God (Creator).

Do you now what a deist is?

A deist believes in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Deists believe that God works through fixed laws of nature; that is, that events occur without supernatural intervention. Deists believe that god created they natural laws in order to work as a short of domino effect, for carrying out his grand design.

Jefferson wrote a book called "The life and morals of Jesus of Nazareth", in which was the new testament with the miracles removed.

If you think I added the part about the creator, you need to read the document for yourself. You are a very ignorant individual. I pity you.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 2:07:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Logicruled, I still don't see how your comment reflected the thread.

At 12/11/2011 1:47:23 PM, logicrules .

My My and here I thought there was something about the consent of the governed, and the creator and that it went to the principles which the constitution was to protect.

Were did I claim it wasn't?

No taxation without the consent of the governed. Now, just what does consent mean? optional, perhaps....can't imagine why that isn't law.

You made a huge leap from powers to taxes. The government derives it's power from the people. In other words, the government is only legitimate if the citizens accept it as legit.

If you are referring to income taxes, the first income taxes didn't appear untill the civil war, when the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. It wasn't untill 1913 that it became constitutional via a amendment.

Your explanation conspicuously leaves out a definition of creator,
Why would creator need to be defined, unless one is mentally retarded. Are you retarded? If so I will be more than happy to explain the definition to you.
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
Like what? You still haven't answered that one.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 5:45:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 2:07:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Logicruled, I still don't see how your comment reflected the thread.

At 12/11/2011 1:47:23 PM, logicrules .

My My and here I thought there was something about the consent of the governed, and the creator and that it went to the principles which the constitution was to protect.

Were did I claim it wasn't?

No taxation without the consent of the governed. Now, just what does consent mean? optional, perhaps....can't imagine why that isn't law.

You made a huge leap from powers to taxes. The government derives it's power from the people. In other words, the government is only legitimate if the citizens accept it as legit.

If you are referring to income taxes, the first income taxes didn't appear untill the civil war, when the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. It wasn't untill 1913 that it became constitutional via a amendment.

Your explanation conspicuously leaves out a definition of creator,
Why would creator need to be defined, unless one is mentally retarded. Are you retarded? If so I will be more than happy to explain the definition to you.
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
Like what? You still haven't answered that one.

this will be taken the wrong way. I know you do not understand. It is clear from your post that your thought processes and methodologies are of the type that is exclusionary. That is, the interdisciplinary approach does not seem to be your first choice. Any definition of terms must be from the DICTIONARY used by the readers at the time the document was written, if said definitions are to be accurate. If a thing is self evident, your commenting on it indicated you disagree that it is self evident.

The things of which I write are based on a liberal education and include management style and basic personality traits exemplified in your post. There is nothing negative in it, per se, unless it is down to reading which is a possibility. In short, all of the information surrounding the Enlightenment is relevant to the founding of the US. Your post indicates there might not be a complete or even a basic understanding of that era. It is difficult for someone in the Post Modern era to understand the thought of the Enlightenment. There is a very real reason Life, Liberty and Property was changed. The question remains, was Locke Right?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 12:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 5:45:10 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/12/2011 2:07:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Logicruled, I still don't see how your comment reflected the thread.

At 12/11/2011 1:47:23 PM, logicrules .

My My and here I thought there was something about the consent of the governed, and the creator and that it went to the principles which the constitution was to protect.

Were did I claim it wasn't?

No taxation without the consent of the governed. Now, just what does consent mean? optional, perhaps....can't imagine why that isn't law.

You made a huge leap from powers to taxes. The government derives it's power from the people. In other words, the government is only legitimate if the citizens accept it as legit.

If you are referring to income taxes, the first income taxes didn't appear untill the civil war, when the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. It wasn't untill 1913 that it became constitutional via a amendment.

Your explanation conspicuously leaves out a definition of creator,
Why would creator need to be defined, unless one is mentally retarded. Are you retarded? If so I will be more than happy to explain the definition to you.
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
Like what? You still haven't answered that one.


this will be taken the wrong way. I know you do not understand. It is clear from your post that your thought processes and methodologies are of the type that is exclusionary. That is, the interdisciplinary approach does not seem to be your first choice.

You need a new name, because you are illogical.

Any definition of terms must be from the DICTIONARY used by the readers at the time the document was written, if said definitions are to be accurate.

According to A dictionary of the English language By Samuel Johnson, John Walker

Self-Evident means obvious.
unalienable means that which cannot be alienated or granted.

Neither of these definitions are any different from the ones I used.

http://books.google.com...

If a thing is self evident, your commenting on it indicated you disagree that it is self evident.

A.) Self evident means Obvious, and requiring no proof. In other words, it is obvious that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
B.) I didn't comment on it, I attempted to explain the definition, to illiterates like you.
C.) I didn't provide proof that we have these unalienable rights, I simply explained what self-evident, and unalienable means.

The things of which I write are based on a liberal education and include management style and basic personality traits exemplified in your post. There is nothing negative in it, per se, unless it is down to reading which is a possibility. In short, all of the information surrounding the Enlightenment is relevant to the founding of the US. Your post indicates there might not be a complete or even a basic understanding of that era.

You need to either go back to school, or read what I wrote. I understand the era perfectly fine.

It is difficult for someone in the Post Modern era to understand the thought of the Enlightenment. There is a very real reason Life, Liberty and Property was changed. The question remains, was Locke Right?

Locke's trinity is in the Bill of Rights. I am more capable of understanding the founders, than you. You are obviously living in your own little world, void of any rational, logic.

I would like to know if you even read my original post? You have not answered that question, not matter how many times I ask it. Did you just skim through it, or did you actually read it?

There is a reason you only won 33.33% of your debates; you are living in your own little word, and your commentary does not match the subject.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 1:37:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 12:57:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/12/2011 5:45:10 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/12/2011 2:07:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Logicruled, I still don't see how your comment reflected the thread.

At 12/11/2011 1:47:23 PM, logicrules .

My My and here I thought there was something about the consent of the governed, and the creator and that it went to the principles which the constitution was to protect.

Were did I claim it wasn't?

No taxation without the consent of the governed. Now, just what does consent mean? optional, perhaps....can't imagine why that isn't law.

You made a huge leap from powers to taxes. The government derives it's power from the people. In other words, the government is only legitimate if the citizens accept it as legit.

If you are referring to income taxes, the first income taxes didn't appear untill the civil war, when the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. It wasn't untill 1913 that it became constitutional via a amendment.

Your explanation conspicuously leaves out a definition of creator,
Why would creator need to be defined, unless one is mentally retarded. Are you retarded? If so I will be more than happy to explain the definition to you.
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
Like what? You still haven't answered that one.


this will be taken the wrong way. I know you do not understand. It is clear from your post that your thought processes and methodologies are of the type that is exclusionary. That is, the interdisciplinary approach does not seem to be your first choice.

You need a new name, because you are illogical.

Any definition of terms must be from the DICTIONARY used by the readers at the time the document was written, if said definitions are to be accurate.

According to A dictionary of the English language By Samuel Johnson, John Walker

Self-Evident means obvious.
unalienable means that which cannot be alienated or granted.

Neither of these definitions are any different from the ones I used.

http://books.google.com...

If a thing is self evident, your commenting on it indicated you disagree that it is self evident.

A.) Self evident means Obvious, and requiring no proof. In other words, it is obvious that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
B.) I didn't comment on it, I attempted to explain the definition, to illiterates like you.
C.) I didn't provide proof that we have these unalienable rights, I simply explained what self-evident, and unalienable means.


The things of which I write are based on a liberal education and include management style and basic personality traits exemplified in your post. There is nothing negative in it, per se, unless it is down to reading which is a possibility. In short, all of the information surrounding the Enlightenment is relevant to the founding of the US. Your post indicates there might not be a complete or even a basic understanding of that era.

You need to either go back to school, or read what I wrote. I understand the era perfectly fine.

It is difficult for someone in the Post Modern era to understand the thought of the Enlightenment. There is a very real reason Life, Liberty and Property was changed. The question remains, was Locke Right?

Locke's trinity is in the Bill of Rights. I am more capable of understanding the founders, than you. You are obviously living in your own little world, void of any rational, logic.


I would like to know if you even read my original post? You have not answered that question, not matter how many times I ask it. Did you just skim through it, or did you actually read it?


There is a reason you only won 33.33% of your debates; you are living in your own little word, and your commentary does not match the subject.

LOL thanks I shall give that due consideration. Educated voters is often advocated here. I'll take 33% here, i got 97% wins in court...wonder what that indicates?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 4:09:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 1:18:49 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Somebody remind me what the point is?

The point is, that allot of people quote the declaration of independence as if it was the constitution. Those same people, don't understand that that the declaration of Independence is not a charter, it was simply that the we were declaring ourselves independent from the British Empire, and informing the Empire, why we decided to separate. These same people also don't understand what they are quoting; the declaration of independence says that government is instituted among men for the purpose of protecting life, liberty, owning property, and acquiring property.

One example of such ignorance would be when the Democrats in power compared the healthcare bill to the declaration of independence's clause of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; when in reality the healthcare bill is anti-liberty, anti-property, and a perversion of government, beyond the role of government.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2011 4:11:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/12/2011 1:37:46 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/12/2011 12:57:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/12/2011 5:45:10 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/12/2011 2:07:09 AM, DanT wrote:
Logicruled, I still don't see how your comment reflected the thread.

At 12/11/2011 1:47:23 PM, logicrules .

My My and here I thought there was something about the consent of the governed, and the creator and that it went to the principles which the constitution was to protect.

Were did I claim it wasn't?

No taxation without the consent of the governed. Now, just what does consent mean? optional, perhaps....can't imagine why that isn't law.

You made a huge leap from powers to taxes. The government derives it's power from the people. In other words, the government is only legitimate if the citizens accept it as legit.

If you are referring to income taxes, the first income taxes didn't appear untill the civil war, when the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. It wasn't untill 1913 that it became constitutional via a amendment.

Your explanation conspicuously leaves out a definition of creator,
Why would creator need to be defined, unless one is mentally retarded. Are you retarded? If so I will be more than happy to explain the definition to you.
and used definitions unfamiliar to 18th century men of the enlightenment.
Like what? You still haven't answered that one.


this will be taken the wrong way. I know you do not understand. It is clear from your post that your thought processes and methodologies are of the type that is exclusionary. That is, the interdisciplinary approach does not seem to be your first choice.

You need a new name, because you are illogical.

Any definition of terms must be from the DICTIONARY used by the readers at the time the document was written, if said definitions are to be accurate.

According to A dictionary of the English language By Samuel Johnson, John Walker

Self-Evident means obvious.
unalienable means that which cannot be alienated or granted.

Neither of these definitions are any different from the ones I used.

http://books.google.com...

If a thing is self evident, your commenting on it indicated you disagree that it is self evident.

A.) Self evident means Obvious, and requiring no proof. In other words, it is obvious that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
B.) I didn't comment on it, I attempted to explain the definition, to illiterates like you.
C.) I didn't provide proof that we have these unalienable rights, I simply explained what self-evident, and unalienable means.


The things of which I write are based on a liberal education and include management style and basic personality traits exemplified in your post. There is nothing negative in it, per se, unless it is down to reading which is a possibility. In short, all of the information surrounding the Enlightenment is relevant to the founding of the US. Your post indicates there might not be a complete or even a basic understanding of that era.

You need to either go back to school, or read what I wrote. I understand the era perfectly fine.

It is difficult for someone in the Post Modern era to understand the thought of the Enlightenment. There is a very real reason Life, Liberty and Property was changed. The question remains, was Locke Right?

Locke's trinity is in the Bill of Rights. I am more capable of understanding the founders, than you. You are obviously living in your own little world, void of any rational, logic.


I would like to know if you even read my original post? You have not answered that question, not matter how many times I ask it. Did you just skim through it, or did you actually read it?


There is a reason you only won 33.33% of your debates; you are living in your own little word, and your commentary does not match the subject.

LOL thanks I shall give that due consideration. Educated voters is often advocated here. I'll take 33% here, i got 97% wins in court...wonder what that indicates?

A stupid jury.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle