logic -- Adilbrand Noblesword's Hall of Warriors

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:02:55 06/26/04 Sat
Author: mt. healthy mountaineer
Subject: logic
In reply to: mvd 's message, "Re: I think he says a lot..." on 18:07:55 06/24/04 Thu

The eventual logical ending point of your original statement is a world dominated by one person or a limited oligarchy since theirs are the only rights that one need respect. (I see these things this way because I am a government teacher - you may have had a totally different meaning, but that is the only way I see your statement). It is the logic of the great totalitarian regimes that the USA spent the better part of 50 years fighting.

The logic of your statement is that of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in his often cited opinion in the Dred Scott case. Taney declared that a Negro could not be entitled to rights as a U.S. citizen. In fact, Taney wrote, Negroes had "no rights which any white man was bound to respect." Why not? Because no white man need to be bound by morality where a Black man was concerned. He had no power so he had no rights.

Your sentiment reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm - "Some animals are more equal than others."

Morality has to be involved - otherwise the rights of those who are unable to defend themselves are tossed aside because, to be honest, other people's rights are a pain in the butt. Two things, in my mind, make sure that those rights are protected:

#A) a sense of fair play, of morality, if you will.

#B) the certain knowledge that if everyone's rights are not protected than no one's rights are guaranteed.

Your sentiment puts the whole world on a legal "Jim Crow" footing in which most of us have no rights since those above us have no need to restrain themselves.

Now, as to my not addressing the subject at hand -

#1) I did. If you truly believe the original sentiment, then don't complain if someone higher than you on the pecking order gives you a hard time - you have no one to appeal to since some of us are more equal than others. Your right to complain is a legal right - it is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States to ensure that all people - not just the rich and the powerful have a voice, something that you seem to think is not worth keeping around. (your quote: I have no idea what you are talking about... I can complain all I want. It is not a right or a privelege. It is a complaint. Nothing more or less...)

A refresher:

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Without a legal protection, your right to complain would not be a right at all (unless you were rich and/or powerful).

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how precious this right is - and how few people throughout the history of the world have had it? It was a revolutionary concept when the English conceived it and it was even more so when the Founding Fathers put it into action.

Please, travel to Mexico and make a complaint about the police there. Or to China. Or to Saudi Arabia. Or to Turkey. They have enshrined your sentiment and put it into practice.

#2) Every poster on this forum picks and chooses things to respond to - everyone - Abba's Son, me, Adilbrand and even (gasp!) MVD. Don't believe me? Take a look back at some of the long, drawn-out discussions about pollution and the invasion of Iraq.

#3) the morality with the police situation comes into play in the United States in the following manner - the police get in trouble because it is illegal for them to abuse the citizenry of this country. The morality is built into the law to control those who do not have the morality themselves. Why? See point B above.

#4) I really did not want to spend 20 minutes of my time in an argument about your proto-totalitarian ramblings.

#5) I do so love being told to make my arguments but also to keep my thoughts to myself.(MVD: "So, any conflict you see is purely in your own mind and would do better to stay there.")

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Logic -- mvd, 09:01:53 06/26/04 Sat
- question... -- mt. healthy mountaineer, 11:05:39 06/28/04 Mon
  - Both -- mvd, 13:39:09 06/28/04 Mon