6 replies to this topic

[Hasan]

DUST:

Huh? You talk confusingly, and do not seem to excel at making clear points.

The encyclical you quoted, first of all, should be read in historical context. If you would have done that, you may have realized it was written in response to specific things that were happening at that time. Language and the meaning of that language does not always mean the same thing today, as it did back then. So, you cannot simply pull a few sentences from it and then twist it to your own discretion.

The encyclical basically says that we do not have the "right" to be wrong. Like you said, errors have no rights. So, getting back to what father actually said, rights are "given by the creator", obviously, the creator cannot be wrong--cannot error.


So.... yeah, I don't get what you're trying to say. Maybe you should quite while I'm ahead.

An analytical statement is one where the predicate is contained in the subject.

When you said:

The encyclical reads "personal rights" (ie- created by man).

The i.e. would imply that you are saying that 'personal rights are created by man' is an analytical statement. The the predicate of 'created by man' is contained logically in the subject of 'personal rights.' Take the statement 'All bachelors are unmarried.' The predicate of 'unmarried' is contained logically in the subject of 'bachelors' since to be a bachelor is to be unmarried.


I am saying that this does not seem to be the case since the subject of 'personal right' does not logically contain in it the predicate of that right being man made. I don't believe that personal rights come from God. But, logically speaking, there is no inherent reason that they couldn't.

[Groo the Wanderer]

yer still not making sense. also yer setting up straw men by asserting what dust was implying. why not let dusts words stand and if you fail to comprehend their meaning, ask him for clarification instead of saying what you think he means

[Luigi]

"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; 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. 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."

Jefferson, that great liberal, understood the rights to be from God; that government has a lesser role - to secure the rights in a particular geography-time-culture; and that government has the authority to secure the rights because it derives its power to govern from the consent (I might paraphrase it as "from the consensus" of the people.

It's a hierarchical structure - God gives rights, the people could regulate/enact those rights except there are so many of them that it makes the governing pretty unwieldy, so they choose representatives to do the governing for them.


Personally, I think we're currently in the phase that Jefferson describes as "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed," but personally I'm rapidly approaching the "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" phase.

[Hasan]

yer still not making sense. also yer setting up straw men by asserting what dust was implying. why not let dusts words stand and if you fail to comprehend their meaning, ask him for clarification instead of saying what you think he means

What about what I said doesn't make sense?

[Groo the Wanderer]

From another founding father:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

John Adams
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

[Hasan]

From another founding father:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

John Adams
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

Thanks for sharing. I don't see what even relevance it has to my question or the discussion in general.

[Groo the Wanderer]

*sigh*