Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:41:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2446 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
For the record, I would state expressly that rights are social constructs
|
No No No. Not to our FF. Rights are given by God, or Nature’s God, or
however you want to characterize our Creator. This is key, because if
rights are granted by anything else, they are easily taken away.
|
Um, these rights are already very easy to take away. George W. Bush has, for
example, taken them away from a whole bunch of people, both as Governor and as
President, both here and abroad. Is Dubya so powerful that he can supplant the
Will of God? I’m quite sure that that’s not your meaning, but how do you
otherwise explain the ease with which divinely-endowed rights are usurped?
In any case, a socially-constructed right that can be taken away is not readily
distinguishable from a divinely-granted right that can be taken away (at least,
not without appealing to the hereafter, about which no one is qualified to
comment definitively (except to say “we don’t have objective access to that
information”)). If anyone disagrees, I would greatly enjoy reading an
explanation of how socially-constructed and divinely-endowed rights are
materially different.
This part of our debate sounds dangerously close to CS Lewis’ wacky notion of
“natural law” as it pertains to human morality (in “Mere Christianity,” for
example). Lewis was completely incorrect on this count, and similar claims that
rights are handed down by (insert divine source here) are similarly flawed.
| |
| |
and
should take into account the opinions and values of as many subsets of
society as possible, while granting absolute authority to none.
|
This sounds good, but how to implement? Seems to me to be a recipe of
stalemate and division.
|
But that’s the price of a disciplined democracy. And what is the alternative?
The current blueblood oligarchy that gets to act as it chooses without any
accountability?
| |
| |
| |
The will of the people must be honored.
|
|
|
| |
| |
Lynch mobs were organized according to the will of the people. Do you
assert that their will must therefore be honored?
|
I don’t condone cold-blooded murder, no matter how many call for it.
|
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere! You’re identifying that there must be limits
on the will of the people, and I agree. The difference, in this case, is where
we choose to apply those limits.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Sure, IRL, but I was speaking theoretically, as I believe were the FF. Merely because someone is able to oppress me and take away my rights doesn't justify it. (...) That is precisely why I claim they are divinely-endowed, so that no one has (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Thank you for that clarification. I meant that I choose lines that I believe are absolutely drawn out. My point was that I am not the only one who adheres to drawn lines. We all do. (...) Eh, when the perspective is from the Creator of the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
