DescentBB

Instead of being gracious and admitting that you fucked up will, you decided to throw a tantrum. like a child.

well done.

/thread.

Ferno, where did I ★■◆● up?

LoL. Classic posts by Will. They all go something like this:

1. Get caught in a jam.
2. Bombard opponent with wall of nonsensical text that resembles religious apologetics
3. Throw in favorite philosophical sounding words like "premise" and "assertion" to try and sound intelligent.
4. Be sure to mention an "agenda" and refer to "pimps" and "handlers."
5. Romantically cite the Founding Fathers.
6. And when all else fails, ask someone to disprove your subjective, postmodern reality.

* INB4 Will points out "moron" is my favorite word to use on this board.

Spidey wrote:Yea, because everyone knows the government is the source of our rights.

well, the mutual agreement of the people, which at the root, IS the government.

Vision feel free to explain where I'm 'in a jam'.
All you have done is try to derail the discussion by claiming something ridiculous.

The authors of the Bill of Rights created that document based on a premise.
That premise is that they say we have certain fundamental rights that are from a higher authority than man/government.

I referenced their position, their belief of that higher authority when describing what they were creating at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights.

It doesn't make any sense for you to suggest that source of authority that I was talking about came from Document A, instead of Document B!
I was telling you what they believed before either document was written.
They were writing the foundation of our government based on a belief they already held.

They weren't wizards writing a spell that conjures the higher authority into existence...
That belief had to exist PRIOR TO their decision to document it! They claimed its existence in the Declaration and they staked out examples of it at work in the Bill of Rights. And they didn't spontaneously conceive of the principle as they wrote it down.

So obviously this 'higher source' I spoke of didn't come from the words they were writing on the paper at the time....either paper.
This silly notion that what I was talking about comes from the Declaration instead of the Bill of Rights is just your mistake and a stupid non-sensical one.

And beyond that, even if that somehow applied that would be a ridiculous and trivial point for you to try to dodge behind in the context of the discussion.

So please show me where I have said something untrue, or misrepresented the facts, etc. or continue your childish game.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yea, because everyone knows the government is the source of our rights.

well, the mutual agreement of the people, which at the root, IS the government.

Wrong, a person is born with their rights, government can only take them away or protect them. Government can be the source of privileges…not rights.

You really do have a problem with this "source" thing.

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno, where did I ★■◆● up?

ahahahahaha oh man this is just too funny.

Now that I've stopped laughing, Vision laid it out pretty clearly.

Spidey wrote:Wrong, a person is born with their rights, government can only take them away or protect them. Government can be the source of privileges…not rights.

You really do have a problem with this "source" thing.

Ever hear of Miranda Rights?

Sure…

The right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself…a natural right.

The right to an attorney…self defense…again a natural right.

When the police read you your Miranda rights, the law is protecting them…not granting them.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yea, because everyone knows the government is the source of our rights.

well, the mutual agreement of the people, which at the root, IS the government.

Wrong, a person is born with their rights, government can only take them away or protect them. Government can be the source of privileges…not rights.

You really do have a problem with this "source" thing.

tell that to about 90% of the planet. Assuming that people have rights is an inherently liberal ideal, but far from proven fact.

Spidey wrote:Sure…

The right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself…a natural right.

the very concept of crime, hence incrimination, is a human construct.

The right to an attorney…self defense…again a natural right.

likewise, the construct of legal systems and attorneys.

When the police read you your Miranda rights, the law is protecting them…not granting them.

only because society collectively agrees that the citizenry has such rights. The concept of 'natural rights' or 'God-given rights' is a bogus human concept which sounds hifalutin, but in reality reflects human mores.

When someone states that we have rights, slick, it's not a matter of assumption. Rights are perceived as logical results of certain relationships. Perhaps some people fail to perceive them, and others will even ignore their existence to suit their own purposes, but human rights are/were perceived, not invented. "God-given" is a recognition of God as the creator.

Ferno wrote:Ever hear of Miranda Rights?

No

callmeslick wrote: The concept of 'natural rights' or 'God-given rights' is a bogus human concept which sounds hifalutin, but in reality reflects human mores.

Tell that to the founding fathers.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote: The concept of 'natural rights' or 'God-given rights' is a bogus human concept which sounds hifalutin, but in reality reflects human mores.

Tell that to the founding fathers.

they knew it, I'm quite sure. They needed a hook to hang the Declaration upon, and chose that one. THEY, note(humans) chose it. There is little enough proof of any God, and the idea that humans are born with some rights that the rest of the animal Kingdom does not have is laughable.

The whole “human construct” is a bogus argument…as everything we are talking about here are “human constructs”.

Who said anything about the rest of the animal kingdom not having rights, once again you have to put words in somebody else’s mouth to make a point.

In my concept of “god given” you get you rights from just being alive and having certain needs and desires, some people need to assign rights to a god, but it’s not really necessary.

And it is quite laughable when you state you know what the fathers knew...lol

when you claim 'God-Given' or 'natural' rights, you have, by implication, taken them from the realm of human choice. They are not out of that realm, and thus, yes, it is a privilege deemed a 'right' by one's society, and thus, of or from the government that society puts into place. We, as a nation, chose to adopt the Constitution, and the key writer felt that the whole document(and hence the social contract and 'rights' it implies) should be revisited every generation. As for my comment about what the founders felt, there is a bit of writing extant from the thinking leading up to the wording of the Declaration of Independance which seems to indicate that they chose the words about inalienable rights to differentiate from the status quo in the British Empire.

Spidey wrote:Sure…

The right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself…a natural right.

The right to an attorney…self defense…again a natural right.

When the police read you your Miranda rights, the law is protecting them…not granting them.

no no no no no no no.

Those are not natural rights. They were won in a court battle [384 U.S. 436 (1966)], and granted to you by the government, aka the state. Before that, The police (an extension of the state) could do anything they wanted and you could not do a thing about it.

You always have to exercise your rights.

And the court battle that was won was to stop police from stomping on rights you already had.

As it's been stated before, what we know as "rights" is a human concept.

And the court battle that was won was to stop police from stomping on rights you already had.

Not quite. It was to compel police to read you your rights before an interrogation.

see fifth amendment.

You're splitting hairs, Ferno. What is the point of compelling the police to read you your rights?

There's no splitting hairs involved. it's an actual legal definition.

If you had researched the casefile I posted, you would know what the point was, thorne.

Called it! HAHAHA.


1. Get caught in a jam.

Will Robinson wrote:This silly notion that what I was talking about comes from the Declaration instead of the Bill of Rights is just your mistake and a stupid non-sensical one.

Proof: He is clearly conflating the 1st amendment of the Bill of Rights with the Declaration of Independence and even using the word "inalienable" [sic], which is not part of the Bill of Rights. The Declaration of Independence, by way of the creator, gives us the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." He not only conflates them, but later says they are inseparable. Well, if you ignore that they are documents with entirely different purposes, sure, but remixing them together this way is beyond sloppy.

Will Robinson wrote:Basically vision jumped in wanting to find fault in my comments only he based it on a flawed understanding of law and the freedom of speech that is protected by the 1st amendment...The 'right to speak' is inalienable...it came from our creator before the law and supercedes it in almost any case.

2. Bombard opponent with wall of nonsensical text that resembles religious apologetics. Check. See above.

3. Throw in favorite philosophical sounding words like "premise"...

Will Robinson wrote:The authors of the Bill of Rights created that document based on a premise. That premise is that they say we have certain fundamental rights that are from a higher authority than man/government.

4. Romantically cite the Founding Fathers.

Will Robinson wrote:I referenced their position, their belief of that higher authority when describing what they were creating at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights.

It's all romanticism. People always talk about the Founding Fathers as this homogenous group when in fact some were atheists, many were deists (which might as well be atheism), some of them were assholes, and quite a few hated each other. They believed many things. Our legal documents from that day are only what they agreed on, somewhat.

5. And when all else fails, ask someone to disprove your subjective, postmodern reality.

Will Robinson wrote:So please show me where I have said something untrue, or misrepresented the facts...

5/6! Well Done!

Among these are...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Among these....means....there are more...

Spidey wrote:Among these....means....there are more...

Well, the creator also gave us the right to own slaves and oppress women, and actually published those rules in a text predating the Declaration of Independence. You can fill in all sorts of blanks in that phrase. Take your pick.

Yup, except that creator is not the one being credited in the Declaration of Independence.

The fathers are referring to a "natural god" not the god of the Bible. (supernatural)

Ferno wrote:There's no splitting hairs involved. it's an actual legal definition.

If you had researched the casefile I posted, you would know what the point was, thorne.

You're acting like the purpose of compelling officers to read people their rights is some kind of great mystery, or needs to be stated using very specific, special words... the concept is rather obvious... Are there stupid pills involved here? You corrected Spidey even though his stated purpose for the law was correct. You were splitting hairs.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You're acting like the purpose of compelling officers to read people their rights is some kind of great mystery, or needs to be stated using very specific, special words... the concept is rather obvious... Are there stupid pills involved here?

It actually does require a very certain, very specific sequence of sentences spoken. Pay close attention.

"In a 5–4 majority, the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them."

So would you say that the purpose of this law was arguably more for the purpose of guaranteeing the admissibility of your interactions with the police in court than to prevent officers from strong-arming people in their custody (it obviously does this also)?

I cannot believe this point is still being debated. Hell, calling them your 'Miranda Rights' acknowledges that the court had to sort out exactly what rights you do and don't have. Nothing so bold as to be declared inherent in the Constitution for years before that ruling. Move on, nothing to see.

vision I can't believe for a minute that you are that stupid to still be missing the obvious. It must be that you are tragically committed to cling to this nonsense out of desperation.

So I will highlight your foolishness because you deserve to have to squirm around in the light like a cockroach caught in the middle of the room when the switch is thrown.

The premise that the founders believed we had rights from a higher authority, that belonged to us before the government they were designing.... as in: it was yet to be formed.... is catalogued in years of correspondence between them...and in speeches they gave at conventions where they were working out agreements between the states. It is in history lessons across the country in schools everywhere. Or at least it was, admittedly I haven't been in an American History or PoliSci classroom for many years.

I cited THAT circumstance and that was the SOURCE I referred to. Anyone who reads this thread will be able to see that.
As they will also see that your silly distraction tactic is both weak and moot.

It would be silly to think otherwise. It makes no sense in the historical chronology of the creation of the documents and it makes no sense in the context of the comments I made that I thought the SOURCE of the right comes from a document...either document...any document....that was yet to be written when the concept had to already be in play!
I simply suggested 'they mention it'...that 'you don't have to believe me, or in god, you can find evidence of it in their works'.

And then, on top of all that, even once you made the stupid mistake of thinking I pointed to the Bill of Rights 'but should have pointed to the Declaration', you are completely illogical and juvenile to get hung up on which particular example of proof of their belief in those fundamental rights I should have cited.
Where the proof of their belief can be found is irrelevant to the point I made, that being, the belief was one they held!
Regardless of what reference point I may have caused you to mistakenly focus on to find proof they held that belief ...it is proof of their belief.

And because they weren't time travelers, they must have conceived of that premise of this higher authority before they wrote years worth of letters discussing it and then they documented it in the Declaration and gave examples of it at work in the Bill of Rights.

You can call me a moron all you want. It has no effect being called a moron by a person who is so obviously wrong...so terribly unable to grasp simple reality. Or, equally ineffective, by someone who is so blatantly dishonest. So regardless of which is your problem it is only your problem.
But I do enjoy pointing it out so I'll smile and say You are welcome, you've just been owned by someone you think is a moron .

Will, I didn't bother to read that last wall of text because I've never heard you say anything of value. You are an imbecile.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So would you say that the purpose of this law was arguably more for the purpose of guaranteeing the admissibility of your interactions with the police in court than to prevent officers from strong-arming people in their custody (it obviously does this also)?

The purpose of the law was to prevent the police from using self-incrimination as a means to a conviction.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Sergeant Thorne sticks his tongue out at Ferno from behind callmeslick

Oh that's real mature. Hiding behind someone else won't save you from me.

vision wrote:Will, I didn't bother to read that last wall of text because I've never heard you say anything of value. You are an imbecile.

Right....well, that's ok vision, other people will read it...
yea, that whole great big "wall of text". It might take them a minute but they will get through it.

And I totally understand, I know you have trouble with words. Hell you describe the simple word "premise" as philosophical sounding! Wow! I guess you are a little awestruck, but try to not be intimidated, you'll probably learn at some point.

And please forgive me but I just have to ask, are you going to be in trouble with the police for calling me "imbecile" and "moron"? Or is there a law written somewhere that says you get to say that? Lol!

Will:

I just read the entire text of the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of independence thoroughly and neither document contains anything about their personal belief. Now that that's out of the way, the fact remains you did indeed conflate the Bill of Rights with the Declaration of Independence.

citizens of this country will have certain rights that are above the law.

Declaration of Independence.




The only thing you were correct on is the fact that no one person can call anothers' 'insult' to be an abridgement of their Rights.

Ferno, the Declaration and Bill of Rights are composed primarily of their beliefs.

The founders sacrificed blood, title and family to implement their beliefs into the creation of what we have as a system of government.
They wrote reams of letters and speeches going into great detail laying out their passionate belief in what they were creating. The process went on for years....museums and libraries full of the evidence that I am correct and you are wrong.

It is ridiculous to suggest those two documents don't contain the beliefs of the authors.

On the other point I didn't confuse two documents as the "source" of that authority. That is a ridiculous conclusion that vision jumped to. To me both documents as well as others are all the same in the context of proof of what they believed.

The Bill of Rights was in the discussion already and I paraphrased a line from the Declaration to describe what the founders believed (what better way to illustrate what they believed than to use their own words)
But visions desperate need to find a flaw in my commentary led him to grasp at an irrelevant point born of his own mistake. A misunderstanding of what "source" I was pointing to. And it is a moot point even if he was correct!

Take his silly assertion for true and walk it through...
If the proof that I was supposedly suggesting lives in one piece of paper but actually it lives in the other does that alleged 'mistake' alter the point I was making one little bit?!? No, it wouldn't. He took off on a tangent that is a non sequitur relative to the point!

It doesn't even make any sense that I would suggest they were drawing their authority from the paper they documented their beliefs upon. The paper was/is just paper and ink.
The content is from their minds....their belief in the higher authority. And that is a well documented premise.

Millions of Americans were taught this in school. The concept is celebrated in all sorts of ways. It is the basis for hundreds of court cases, etc. etc.

And now you want us all to believe it never happened so some guy on the Internet can dodge a point in a stupid debate?

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno, the Declaration and Bill of Rights are composed primarily of their beliefs

No.

Both were created to give Men the freedom from a tyrannical ruler. They both were a debated and reasoned out solution to a big problem. An idea borne out of reason and observation is a little different than a belief in a dogmatic God.

This 'silly point' you speak of, isn't. you took one piece of documentation and conjoined it to another. no one's going to let you squirm out of it.


Now before you flip your ★■◆● (again), the accepted construct is the founding fathers were Good Christians, yes?

well, that's not true.

Let's start with the phrase "Nature's God". What is "Nature's God" anyways? In this context, it's a 'god' that operates through natural, observable and explicable laws. So it's approached via observation and experience. Descended from ancient greek tradition, where the philosophers then passed on the idea of Nature's God to their pupils; who challenged the idea of a traditional God. It's an idea from Deism.

Washington, a practicing vestryman and Jefferson, a person who appreciated the value and richness of Christian tradition and other beliefs also contributed to the idea of "Nature's God", and as such concluded that morality should be based on reason and not dogma. Ethan Allen believed that all planets had extraterrestrial life, and also contributed to the notion of "Nature's God".

So no, it's not strictly a "Christian God" like you think it is. It's actually a combination of a great many ideas into one.

Spidey wrote:Yup, except that creator is not the one being credited in the Declaration of Independence. The fathers are referring to a "natural god" not the god of the Bible. (supernatural)

Checkmate Christians?

Ferno, when I say 'their beliefs' I don't say 'God'.
The particular belief I was pointing to was the premise that we have fundamental rights that superceeds mans law. I only said that a couple times or more... it seems like you might have grasped that.

I initially pointed out their mention of a higher authority that everyone was familiar with..I borrowed from their better known catch phrases...BUT ...I also stated that you don't have to believe in God to understand the founders were citing a higher authority than the authority they were going to bestow upon the government they were forming. And certainly higher than the Declaration or the Bill of Rights (the latter document one that wasn't even written yet...) which were simply a documentation of their beliefs in place...at work....

It was that premise that I was focusing on, that I was introducing into the conversation, not 'God'.
Vision just jerked his knee at that because he wanted desperately to find something that could derail the train. He was looking for a 'Godwins' rule to blow up the conversation. He's a child and was butthurt. (And I say that about him with full protection from prosecution thanks to the 1st amendment.)

The Declaration may have given the nod to "God" but the founders were extremely careful to avoid giving any one religion or sect of a religion the upper hand by incorporating one or the others dogma into the framework that establishes our liberties.
It doesn't mean they were secularists, far from it they were more likely to be religious men then than our leaders are now. They were simply ensuring government didn't have its control hooks in the authority of the people's religious faith or show any favor to a particular sect.
They were in the process of rebelling against a Crown who's tyranical tactics included establishing the 'Church of England' for it's own purposes. They had good reason to design a wall between government and religion.

You could avoid further misunderstanding if you would read some of the thousands of pages that illustrate these concepts that I reference. Search: "religion, James Madison, sects, factions and federalist papers" that will likely turn up enough relevant documents that you will understand. You can read their own words and eliminate your need to refuse understanding based on your dislike of the messenger.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yup, except that creator is not the one being credited in the Declaration of Independence. The fathers are referring to a "natural god" not the god of the Bible. (supernatural)

Checkmate Christians?

Nah, you just “conflated” your gods…that’s all.

Will Robinson wrote:It was that premise that I was focusing on, that I was introducing into the conversation, not 'God'.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

The Declaration may have given the nod to "God" but the founders were extremely careful to avoid giving any one religion or sect of a religion the upper hand by incorporating one or the others dogma into the framework that establishes our liberties.
It doesn't mean they were secularists, far from it they were more likely to be religious men then than our leaders are now. They were simply ensuring government didn't have its control hooks in the authority of the people's religious faith or show any favor to a particular sect.
They were in the process of rebelling against a Crown who's tyranical tactics included establishing the 'Church of England' for it's own purposes. They had good reason to design a wall between government and religion.

You could avoid further misunderstanding if you would read some of the thousands of pages that illustrate these concepts that I reference. Search: "religion, James Madison, sects, factions and federalist papers" that will likely turn up enough relevant documents that you will understand. You can read their own words and eliminate your need to refuse understanding based on your dislike of the messenger.

again, you're thinking they were religious when they weren't. Spidey gets it.

Now tell me. Were the founding fathers involved in making the Bill of rights?