RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights”

RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/10/2008 10:42:45 PM)
Totally as an aside Thomas Paine sort of got a little whacky at the end ,didn't he...Bita really ya think....smart and sweet now I got to buy a parka

cpK69 -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/10/2008 11:52:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble I'll assume since you didn't debate my point, that you agree that given the perspective at the time, the issue of Native American Indians is, in fact, a non-issue in regard to the Declaration. Yes, thanks to your explanation, I agree. quote: You hold differing opinions. That's okay .. but I truly don't believe you can understand 'why' they thought as they thought and held those opinions until you put on their powdered wigs and try to see it from their perspective. smiles about the powdered wigs You’re right, even with the wig it would be difficult. quote: If your concepts are hard to put into words, perhaps it's because as I suggested. You are using the 2008 definition of 'rights' under the luxury of hindsight to try to understand what was written from the authors perspective. I meant in general, but am sure my futuristic perspective did not help my case. quote: You are calling their use of the word 'rights' faulty. My goal was to discuss the concept as it stands in today’s society, but as I said, I fell (perhaps jumped is a better word) off track. The only reason I brought the document up is because it seemed to me that people still hold those words, or a variation thereof, as truth that would work for today, because of it. I can accept that the choice of words used, were best for the times and situation, according to their purpose. If you wouldn't mind translating one more thing for me; Philosophy's post... quote: ....skewing the discussion a bit there, with that definition. Let's try another one. Rights are the essential liberties that no other person, organisation or government have any authority to take away from you. Using the word 'entitled' is too narrow (and arguably incorrect) a definition. If no one has any authority to take something away, how is that not the same as entitled to? Is it because it is refering to liberties, which must be earned? Thank you for your help.

cpK69 -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 12:18:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold cpK....I think you're trying much too hard to make your point, Thank you for the corrective criticism. It was obvious to me I was doing something wrong, but without feed back, it is difficult for me to say what. quote: but I think you raise some fascinating questions. Thanks, afraid I probably did not do the topic justice though. [:(]

cpK69 -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 12:23:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TieNTeas According to the book Happy for No Reason by Marci Shimoff, pg 29 she states "Back in Jefferson's day ... the common usage of the word 'pursue' was not 'to chase after'. In 1776, to pursue something meant to practice that activity, to do it regularly, to make a habit of it." Very interesting. Thank you for sharing that information. [:)]

BitaTruble -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 12:28:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 If you wouldn't mind translating one more thing for me; Philosophy's post... quote: ....skewing the discussion a bit there, with that definition. Let's try another one. Rights are the essential liberties that no other person, organisation or government have any authority to take away from you. Using the word 'entitled' is too narrow (and arguably incorrect) a definition. If no one has any authority to take something away, how is that not the same as entitled to? Is it because it is refering to liberties, which must be earned? Thank you for your help. Hmm.. I don't really feel comfortable speaking for another, but I'm willing to give it my best guess. Fair enough? I agree with Philosophy: the term 'entitled' is probably too narrow in that it doesn't address the responsibility in protecting those rights nor the consequence to the individual of losing a given right through their own illicit action or behavior. Entitlement would mean that you really could do what you like when you like without consequence. King George thought he had such an entitlement. Some crazy ass American's thought different and .. well, the rest, as they say .. is history. [:D] If I have misinterpreted the meaning of Philo's post .. I'll make sure to request an appropriate punishment from Himself for my transgression later. [sm=sm.gif] edited to spank an errant pronoun!

slvemike4u -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 12:33:55 AM)
Continuing my BitAtruble love fest,I will go on record saying she did fine speaking for another....just saying it worked for me

cpK69 -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 1:07:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Hmm.. I don't really feel comfortable speaking for another, but I'm willing to give it my best guess. Fair enough? Yes, very. [:)] quote: I agree with Philosophy: the term 'entitled' is probably too narrow in that it doesn't address the responsibility in protecting those rights nor the consequence to the individual of losing a given right through their own illicit action or behavior. This is along the lines of what I thought he might have meant. I like the way he worded it. Glad you were here to help. [:)]

Politesub53 -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 1:10:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 "People without money or weapons have little chance to overthrow a well armed dictator." If the Minutemen in "The Colonies" could do it anyone can.[:D] Popeye dont get me started on how the French helped you out. Sacred Blue !! Next you will be suggesting i walk there [;)]

slvemike4u -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 1:20:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Are you suggesting we couldn't have done it without the French...I don't mean to sound ungrateful(kittinSol might be listening)but i have the feeling Washington could of prevailed without French assistance.His refusal to fight a set- piece battle the adoption of his "war of posts"strategy...yeah we wold have kicked England's ass .Just would have taken longer Popeye dont get me started on how the French helped you out. Sacred Blue !! Next you will be suggesting i walk there [;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 1:33:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Are you suggesting we couldn't have done it without the French...I don't mean to sound ungrateful(kittinSol might be listening)but i have the feeling Washington could of prevailed without French assistance.His refusal to fight a set- piece battle the adoption of his "war of posts"strategy...yeah we wold have kicked England's ass .Just would have taken longer Popeye dont get me started on how the French helped you out. Sacred Blue !! Next you will be suggesting i walk there [;)] The Independence War was Britain's Vietnam, very little support at home, no strategy and no idea what to do with the fucking place should it have won. The French were a deciding factor. The N. American war was a side show in a greater war which Churchill called the first world war between the British, French and Spanish empires. The French might not have been so significant in most of the war apart from Chesapeake and York Town but it stopped Britain concentrating on the war in the colonies and using its best forces and leaders in that war. Britain won, France retired hurt and Spain was defeated never to rise again. The Indepence War has only the significance in hindsight with the US groewing into a superpower. If it wasn't for that fact it would be no more important than the independence of S Africa or Nigeria. I do notice that now Indiantially is potentially growing into a superpower, its history is becoming more significant. Oh, people don't have rights or they only have rights if they have the power to defend them and since an inalienable right should not need defending, no we don't have rights. If you still think people have rights, ask the Iraqis, out of the frying pan into the fire and all for international politics.

Politesub53 -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 1:40:28 AM)
Mike, yes i am suggesting exactly that. I am not trying to take anything away from the bravery of the Patriots here either. The influence France had was enormous, right from the initial supply of weapons and finances, through to the use of troops and naval power. I forget which battle, maybe Yorktown, their were more French troops taking part than Colonialists. I also doubt the outcome would have been the same without the French Naval blockade, which effectively cut Cornwallis off. The fact is France had their own agenda, which was to tie up British forces and naval power, as we fought around the globe. The irony of all this was the fall of the French Empire, the revoloution in France was largely a part of France being bankrupted by the war in the USA. Even more ironic was the renaming of French fries to freedom fries, given the connections. This all returns to my original reply to Popeye, without outside help, oppressed peoples normally dont have the military might to overthrow their dictators, King George included.

slvemike4u -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 1:58:56 AM)
You are mistaken about Yorktown on a number of points .there were about 5,000 French troops at Yorktown ,There were far more as you referred to them Colonialists(BTW by that point they weren't colonialists they were Continental soldiers)The French fleet was probably more instrumental than the land forces...but if Yorktown hadn't taken place old King George was good and truly fucked anyway.,why do you think Cornwallis was at Yorktown anyway ,bottled up all nice and pretty inviting the siege that eventually happened.By than any hope of subjugating the FORMER colonies was lost...Yes french money was paramount far more than any actual armies sent to assist us.But English Money was also important and it was running out along with the will on the part of the English army to attempt excursions out from under the protection of the British Fleet .Tell You what think Vietnam and you have an idea of how popular the attempt to hold onto the FORMER colonies was at this point...No we could have done it with out the French just would have taken longer and we wouldn't have named an aircraft carrier Yorktown...

Politesub53 -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 2:27:32 AM)
Mike, According to Wiki ( Yes, sorry ) There were 10,800 French and 8,500 Americans. Granted other web sites may give different figures. Maybe you are right and you would have prevailed in the end, you are also right in that French assistance was crucial in the beginings and provided the impetus. Agreed both Britain and France were struggling for finances, which makes one wonder how they ever paid for the Napoleonic wars.

slvemike4u -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 9:08:22 AM)
If Wiki had those numbers I will not argue them.However I still don't see Yorktown has the critical hour,more like the straw that broke the camels back...After Saratoga there really wasn't much chance the English could prevail,best they could hope for is holding on to some portion of the FORMER colonies ,they were not capable of subjugating the countryside...no offence cousin...just the distance and everything ,and at this point it wasn't real popular at home .I believe it was referred to as King George's war in Parliament .Actually once Washington had lost the battle of Long Island and fled Manhatten...he realised he couldn't afford a set-piece battle with the King's troops and adopted a strategy he referred to as a war of posts,which sought to deny the King's army any opportunity to destroy the fledgeling Continental Army...this strategy was more influential to the eventuall outcome than either Saratoga or Yorktown,...Yes French help was welcome and to a degree responsible for the end when it came .Without French help the end still would have come ,though a few years later

meatcleaver -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 9:20:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Mike, According to Wiki ( Yes, sorry ) There were 10,800 French and 8,500 Americans. Granted other web sites may give different figures. Maybe you are right and you would have prevailed in the end, you are also right in that French assistance was crucial in the beginings and provided the impetus. Agreed both Britain and France were struggling for finances, which makes one wonder how they ever paid for the Napoleonic wars. War with the French and Spanish empires had an enormous significance, it put the colonial war well down the list of priorities for Britain. The colonies was just one minor battle field in the imperial wars for Britain where it was the only one for the patriots. The French were instrumental for the patriots because without French assistance and without the Britain being at war with France, they could have concentrated on the war in the colonies. The other significant factor was, there was very little support in Britain for the war, which was as much a civil war as an independence war. Brother fought against brother, father against son.

slvemike4u -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 10:55:48 AM)
Meatcleaver no argument at all with what Your saying about England being stretched...Still don't see anyway they were holding on to the colonies with or with out French aid.There lucky we let them keep Canada...rather smart of the new Republic to resist the call to come to French aid a couple of years later though...we made it up to them with the AEF under Pershing after all..better late than never I suppose

Politesub53 -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 10:57:24 AM)
Mike, firstly no offence taken, your replies to me have been nothing but polite. You are right to say we couldnt hold the Country side, but for the most part the British Empire never did that, it was mostly based on trade and paying off local tribal leaders. I did actually state in post 73 that French assistance was more critical at the start of the war.

philosophy -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 12:08:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Using the word 'entitled' is too narrow (and arguably incorrect) a definition. Please... how so? ..i hate to get a bit semantic, but its the only way to answer your question. The problem arises with the words 'entitled'. In modern usuage this has two, very different, applications. We can speak of being entitled to a pension once we reach a certain age after having paid into an appropriate fund. No-one would argue that to claim such a pension is immoral in any way. However the word 'entitlement' has achieved a different meaning, it refers to an unethical approach to the social contract......the very opposite of the sentiment referred to by JFK when he spoke of 'ask not what your country can do for you....etc'. So, to use the word entitled around the issue of rights can be problematic. i hope that clears up my thinking for you on this subject........it is a subject utterly worthy of discussion, a subject that every generation has to redefine for itself. What is a right? How are they achieved/defended/abused? For myself, as i hope those who have been here a while know, i am all for the idea of an ethical/moral code that allows us and others to judge our actions. Rights, for me, can be seen as those liberties protected by such a code. There is nothing unethical or quixotic about standing on such rights in my opinion. They are merely a product of enlightened self-interest.

slvemike4u -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 12:17:09 PM)
Hey politesub no problem ...we have for the most part forgiven you guys for Mad King George's Tyranny...no problem at all except for that one little colonialist remark which in the spirit of better relations with our English "cousins' I hereby forgive...Mike

cpK69 -> RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” (6/11/2008 1:11:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ..i hate to get a bit semantic, Oh, don't say that; it is exactly what I need. I'm really not just messing with people when I say, or indicate I don't understand what they mean I apreciate your taking the time to explain; thank you. quote: 'ask not what your country can do for you....etc' Gotta tell ya; that one confuses me too. [;)] lol quote: We can speak of being entitled to a pension once we reach a certain age after having paid into an appropriate fund. No-one would argue that to claim such a pension is immoral in any way. However the word 'entitlement' has achieved a different meaning, it refers to an unethical approach to the social contract. Very true. My thoughts were partially about the later definition, while attempting to point out, that what we have, regardless of what they should be, are not entitlements, and therefore have to be protected. I hope that made since. (I think I might be having problems with a breech aproach to posting [8\|]) quote: What is a right? This was going to be my next question. [:D] The ones that followed are also excelent questions. quote: For myself, as i hope those who have been here a while know, i am all for the idea of an ethical/moral code that allows us and others to judge our actions. Rights, for me, can be seen as those liberties protected by such a code. There is nothing unethical or quixotic about standing on such rights in my opinion. They are merely a product of enlightened self-interest. Very nicely put; your input was very helpful. Thank you again Thanks to everyone who responded. The brief history lesson was interesting, as well.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875