Where do moral laws come from?

[ding]

Alright. So, rather than my suggestion that only laws protecting rights should be allowed, you might say that only those that violate rights should be prohibited. But don't all laws infringe on rights? I guess it depends on how narrowly you interpret 'natural rights'.

The problem with "natural" rights is they can be whatever you want them to be. In nature it's survival of the fittest. Laws to protect the less fit. No right is absolute, like crying fire in a theater. Our rights stop where the others' begins.

Actually they can't. I have already explained this to you.

 

[ding]

Never. Your way of thinking is more aligned with the founding fathers of communism while mine is more aligned with the founding fathers of freedom.

Ding. Your fries are done. You shifted the discussion because you can't support your statements. Yes, most founders were religious and I am not. But that doesn't move your stupid theory anywhere, it just proves how bankrupt it is.

To be fair I only needed one word to answer your question and I do believe it is relevant information. I can't think of any better authority on this subject than those who birthed freedom and liberty. They believed that morality and virtue were indispensable pillars of support for liberty and freedom and without them liberty and freedom will not endure. The founding fathers of communism also understood this but from the other side of the table. They knew that lack of virtue and morality was necessary for their programs. So yeah, it is kind of relevant to this discussion.

Our founding fathers did not need to be religious to understand that there are natural laws. It isn't a theory it is reality. Anyone with half a brain can see that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Maybe that's why they are called natural laws. Surely you can relate to cause and effect, right? Surely you believe that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

Like I said, you're trying to change the discussion. As a non religious person I don't believe in religious morality. It doesn't mean I disagree either, murder, stealing, etc. Many had slaves and it was perfectly legal ...oops, there goes your natural law theory.

Not quite, but do you even realize that you just tried to trash our founding fathers just to save face? You are quite the conservative patriot, aren't you?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Abolishing the slave trade did nothing to end the practice of slavery. In 1860 we still had four million slaves, we just bred them here.
We did not need to import slaves from Africa. Homegrown slaves were easier to control

Yes, it did not end slavery, but only because in the 1820's the Democrats took control and expanded slavery.

 

[rightwinger]

No that was god throwing a hissy fit because he didn't get his way.

Taking it out on innocent children

How do you know?

The Bible tells me so

I see. The Bible tells you that God threw a hissy fit? Really? You must have a Marxist edition, lol.

Hissy fit is just a tactful way of saying that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh

You don't believe in God. So don't you think it is silly for you to believe that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh? C'mon man. Use your brain.

I hold your God to the same standard I would hold anyone else to

If someone was angry with you and murdered your children to punish you, would you think it was OK because God did it?

God needs to lead by example....murdering innocent children is not a good example

 

[Iceweasel]

Alright. So, rather than my suggestion that only laws protecting rights should be allowed, you might say that only those that violate rights should be prohibited. But don't all laws infringe on rights? I guess it depends on how narrowly you interpret 'natural rights'.

The problem with "natural" rights is they can be whatever you want them to be. In nature it's survival of the fittest. Laws to protect the less fit. No right is absolute, like crying fire in a theater. Our rights stop where the others' begins.

Actually they can't. I have already explained this to you.

Your explanation is bullshit. I already explained that to you. More arrogance won't help.

 

[rightwinger]

Ding. Your fries are done. You shifted the discussion because you can't support your statements. Yes, most founders were religious and I am not. But that doesn't move your stupid theory anywhere, it just proves how bankrupt it is.

To be fair I only needed one word to answer your question and I do believe it is relevant information. I can't think of any better authority on this subject than those who birthed freedom and liberty. They believed that morality and virtue were indispensable pillars of support for liberty and freedom and without them liberty and freedom will not endure. The founding fathers of communism also understood this but from the other side of the table. They knew that lack of virtue and morality was necessary for their programs. So yeah, it is kind of relevant to this discussion.

Our founding fathers did not need to be religious to understand that there are natural laws. It isn't a theory it is reality. Anyone with half a brain can see that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Maybe that's why they are called natural laws. Surely you can relate to cause and effect, right? Surely you believe that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

Like I said, you're trying to change the discussion. As a non religious person I don't believe in religious morality. It doesn't mean I disagree either, murder, stealing, etc. Many had slaves and it was perfectly legal ...oops, there goes your natural law theory.

Not quite, but do you even realize that you just tried to trash our founding fathers just to save face? You are quite the conservative patriot, aren't you?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Abolishing the slave trade did nothing to end the practice of slavery. In 1860 we still had four million slaves, we just bred them here.
We did not need to import slaves from Africa. Homegrown slaves were easier to control

Yes, it did not end slavery, but only because in the 1820's the Democrats took control and expanded slavery.

Complete partisan silliness

Slavery expanded because the market for cotton boomed. Blame the Capitalists who made a fortune exploiting free labor and insisted on war to keep their profits high

 

[Iceweasel]

I made my point clear. Only fools use wikipedia as a source. Your argument was that morality existed before man and now you're into American history to somehow buttress the theory. I offered no argument against history, you're stupidly trying to make the case to salvage your steamy pile of shit.

Many debates occurred in drafting the Constitution, odd if they were guided by this natural law. They apparently heard different voices and what was moral then isn't moral now. None of that can help you.

It was a stupid theory and only looks worse the harder you try.

I'm only into American history because some idiot disparaged the Founding Fathers and needed to be set straight.

I know it is a difficult concept to grasp. Usually it is liberals who struggle to understand this concept. They believe that all behaviors lead to equal results. But for people who think, they know that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. They know that certain behaviors (i.e. successful behaviors) lead to better outcomes and other behaviors (i.e. failed behaviors) lead to worse outcomes. So much so that it is for good reason that thinking people say that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

It's the voices in your head. I didn't disparage the founders, you can't see what you don't want to see. Your problem, not mine. You aren't setting things straight by adding to your steamy pile.

I said nothing about equal outcomes, you've been yammering on about it as if it had some kind of meaning. I said you're stuck in a circular logic loop. You think morality existed before man because higher morals can be achieved and somehow we can all agree on what those higher standards are. That makes no sense.

I asked what the legal age of consent should be based on this higher moral standard and you can't give me a number. That means the higher moral standard exists only in your mind.

Those moral laws which you say don't exist are those successful behaviors which naturally lead to successful outcomes. You may not think you disparaged the Founding Fathers, but you did.

Liar. You think so because you can't think. If one doesn't agree with you you smear them. What kind of dishonest petty god do you worship? Laws on morality do exist but they are man made. The founders were men and they hashed it out. If they got their morality from before time post the evidence instead of insulting people that fail to agree.

Liar? Don't be silly. Everyone who is honest and objective knows that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. The only people who don't know this are the idiots who need to blame others for their failures. Why don't they know it? Because they are not honest with themselves. They can't be objective because it hurts too much.

I didn't smear you, you smeared yourself. It is a little late to be appealing to the Founding Fathers after you trashed them for owning slaves, don't you think?

Why are you bringing God into this? You don't believe in God. Are you wanting God to smite me just because I have presented you with your incongruities?

You stupid lying asshole. You can't even fake having an IQ. Many did own slaves, it's fact, not a trashing. Nor am I the one bringing god into it, you little maggot.

 

[ding]

To be fair I only needed one word to answer your question and I do believe it is relevant information. I can't think of any better authority on this subject than those who birthed freedom and liberty. They believed that morality and virtue were indispensable pillars of support for liberty and freedom and without them liberty and freedom will not endure. The founding fathers of communism also understood this but from the other side of the table. They knew that lack of virtue and morality was necessary for their programs. So yeah, it is kind of relevant to this discussion.

Our founding fathers did not need to be religious to understand that there are natural laws. It isn't a theory it is reality. Anyone with half a brain can see that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Maybe that's why they are called natural laws. Surely you can relate to cause and effect, right? Surely you believe that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

Like I said, you're trying to change the discussion. As a non religious person I don't believe in religious morality. It doesn't mean I disagree either, murder, stealing, etc. Many had slaves and it was perfectly legal ...oops, there goes your natural law theory.

Not quite, but do you even realize that you just tried to trash our founding fathers just to save face? You are quite the conservative patriot, aren't you?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Abolishing the slave trade did nothing to end the practice of slavery. In 1860 we still had four million slaves, we just bred them here.
We did not need to import slaves from Africa. Homegrown slaves were easier to control

Yes, it did not end slavery, but only because in the 1820's the Democrats took control and expanded slavery.

Complete partisan silliness

Slavery expanded because the market for cotton boomed. Blame the Capitalists who made a fortune exploiting free labor and insisted on war to keep their profits high

Slavery expanded because Democrats in the North and South expanded it through legislation.

 

[ding]

How do you know?

The Bible tells me so

I see. The Bible tells you that God threw a hissy fit? Really? You must have a Marxist edition, lol.

Hissy fit is just a tactful way of saying that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh

You don't believe in God. So don't you think it is silly for you to believe that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh? C'mon man. Use your brain.

I hold your God to the same standard I would hold anyone else to

If someone was angry with you and murdered your children to punish you, would you think it was OK because God did it?

God needs to lead by example....murdering innocent children is not a good example

What part of you don't believe in God did you not understand?

 

[ding]

Alright. So, rather than my suggestion that only laws protecting rights should be allowed, you might say that only those that violate rights should be prohibited. But don't all laws infringe on rights? I guess it depends on how narrowly you interpret 'natural rights'.

The problem with "natural" rights is they can be whatever you want them to be. In nature it's survival of the fittest. Laws to protect the less fit. No right is absolute, like crying fire in a theater. Our rights stop where the others' begins.

Actually they can't. I have already explained this to you.

Your explanation is bullshit. I already explained that to you. More arrogance won't help.

You mean like how you believe that successful behaviors don't lead to success and failed behaviors don't to failure?

 

[ding]

I'm only into American history because some idiot disparaged the Founding Fathers and needed to be set straight.

I know it is a difficult concept to grasp. Usually it is liberals who struggle to understand this concept. They believe that all behaviors lead to equal results. But for people who think, they know that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. They know that certain behaviors (i.e. successful behaviors) lead to better outcomes and other behaviors (i.e. failed behaviors) lead to worse outcomes. So much so that it is for good reason that thinking people say that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure.

It's the voices in your head. I didn't disparage the founders, you can't see what you don't want to see. Your problem, not mine. You aren't setting things straight by adding to your steamy pile.

I said nothing about equal outcomes, you've been yammering on about it as if it had some kind of meaning. I said you're stuck in a circular logic loop. You think morality existed before man because higher morals can be achieved and somehow we can all agree on what those higher standards are. That makes no sense.

I asked what the legal age of consent should be based on this higher moral standard and you can't give me a number. That means the higher moral standard exists only in your mind.

Those moral laws which you say don't exist are those successful behaviors which naturally lead to successful outcomes. You may not think you disparaged the Founding Fathers, but you did.

Liar. You think so because you can't think. If one doesn't agree with you you smear them. What kind of dishonest petty god do you worship? Laws on morality do exist but they are man made. The founders were men and they hashed it out. If they got their morality from before time post the evidence instead of insulting people that fail to agree.

Liar? Don't be silly. Everyone who is honest and objective knows that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. The only people who don't know this are the idiots who need to blame others for their failures. Why don't they know it? Because they are not honest with themselves. They can't be objective because it hurts too much.

I didn't smear you, you smeared yourself. It is a little late to be appealing to the Founding Fathers after you trashed them for owning slaves, don't you think?

Why are you bringing God into this? You don't believe in God. Are you wanting God to smite me just because I have presented you with your incongruities?

You stupid lying asshole. You can't even fake having an IQ. Many did own slaves, it's fact, not a trashing. Nor am I the one bringing god into it, you little maggot.

Getting upset won't change the facts, brother. It's all in black and white.

 

[rightwinger]

The Bible tells me so

I see. The Bible tells you that God threw a hissy fit? Really? You must have a Marxist edition, lol.

Hissy fit is just a tactful way of saying that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh

You don't believe in God. So don't you think it is silly for you to believe that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh? C'mon man. Use your brain.

I hold your God to the same standard I would hold anyone else to

If someone was angry with you and murdered your children to punish you, would you think it was OK because God did it?

God needs to lead by example....murdering innocent children is not a good example

What part of you don't believe in God did you not understand?

Its your thread....you are the one making the inference that moral values come from God

I am merely pointing out that those moral values may not be that admirable

 

[ding]

I see. The Bible tells you that God threw a hissy fit? Really? You must have a Marxist edition, lol.

Hissy fit is just a tactful way of saying that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh

You don't believe in God. So don't you think it is silly for you to believe that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh? C'mon man. Use your brain.

I hold your God to the same standard I would hold anyone else to

If someone was angry with you and murdered your children to punish you, would you think it was OK because God did it?

God needs to lead by example....murdering innocent children is not a good example

What part of you don't believe in God did you not understand?

Its your thread....you are the one making the inference that moral values come from God

I am merely pointing out that those moral values may not be that admirable

I have not gotten within 100 miles of God. You are making arguments that you don't believe. Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes?

 

[rightwinger]

Hissy fit is just a tactful way of saying that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh

You don't believe in God. So don't you think it is silly for you to believe that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh? C'mon man. Use your brain.

I hold your God to the same standard I would hold anyone else to

If someone was angry with you and murdered your children to punish you, would you think it was OK because God did it?

God needs to lead by example....murdering innocent children is not a good example

What part of you don't believe in God did you not understand?

Its your thread....you are the one making the inference that moral values come from God

I am merely pointing out that those moral values may not be that admirable

I have not gotten within 100 miles of God. You are making arguments that you don't believe.

I am refuting your claim

You claimed moral values came from God and existed for millions of years before man

Those moral values include killing babies as a way of retaliation

 

[ding]

You don't believe in God. So don't you think it is silly for you to believe that God was a fucking asshole for murdering innocent children as a way to get back at a Pharaoh? C'mon man. Use your brain.

I hold your God to the same standard I would hold anyone else to

If someone was angry with you and murdered your children to punish you, would you think it was OK because God did it?

God needs to lead by example....murdering innocent children is not a good example

What part of you don't believe in God did you not understand?

Its your thread....you are the one making the inference that moral values come from God

I am merely pointing out that those moral values may not be that admirable

I have not gotten within 100 miles of God. You are making arguments that you don't believe.

I am refuting your claim

You claimed moral values came from God and existed for millions of years before man

Those moral values include killing babies as a way of retaliation

So you are refuting my claim with something you don't believe in and you think that is logical?

 

[Boss]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

So are all morals suitable justification for laws? If not, what criteria distinguishes those that are from those that aren't?

No, I think we'd have a great big mess if we tried establishing everyone's morals as laws because our morals often conflict. That's the whole point of contention I am having with the OP, who claims we have this "universal moral truth" we're all evolving toward.

Agreed.

I think the distinguishing criteria should be "will of the people" whenever that is possible. Since I am a Federalist, preferably at the State and local level. As long as there isn't an infringement on a natural right, communities should be constitutionally allowed to set their own moral boundaries in law.

Alright. So, rather than my suggestion that only laws protecting rights should be allowed, you might say that only those that violate rights should be prohibited. But don't all laws infringe on rights? I guess it depends on how narrowly you interpret 'natural rights'.

Well, natural rights are explained in the Bill of Rights. Basically, it's life, liberty and property. The interpretation problems are over what "infringes" as opposed to "affecting." An affectation is not automatically an infringement. In other words, you have free speech but you can't use it to endanger the public safety or overthrow the government. You have liberty but you can't use it to run around naked in the park. You can own property but it can be taxed. So, even natural rights can be affected, it doesn't mean they are infringed.

Take something like gay marriage or abortion. These are not "natural rights" but they are interpreted as such under the guise of liberty. This can be prohibited by law at the state level and not infringe on natural rights. It can also be allowed by law at the state level and not infringe on natural rights. All this, not withstanding court decisions which I believe are often incorrect.

 

[ding]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

So are all morals suitable justification for laws? If not, what criteria distinguishes those that are from those that aren't?

No, I think we'd have a great big mess if we tried establishing everyone's morals as laws because our morals often conflict. That's the whole point of contention I am having with the OP, who claims we have this "universal moral truth" we're all evolving toward.

Agreed.

I think the distinguishing criteria should be "will of the people" whenever that is possible. Since I am a Federalist, preferably at the State and local level. As long as there isn't an infringement on a natural right, communities should be constitutionally allowed to set their own moral boundaries in law.

Alright. So, rather than my suggestion that only laws protecting rights should be allowed, you might say that only those that violate rights should be prohibited. But don't all laws infringe on rights? I guess it depends on how narrowly you interpret 'natural rights'.

Well, natural rights are explained in the Bill of Rights. Basically, it's life, liberty and property. The interpretation problems are over what "infringes" as opposed to "affecting." An affectation is not automatically an infringement. In other words, you have free speech but you can't use it to endanger the public safety or overthrow the government. You have liberty but you can't use it to run around naked in the park. You can own property but it can be taxed. So, even natural rights can be affected, it doesn't mean they are infringed.

Take something like gay marriage or abortion. These are not "natural rights" but they are interpreted as such under the guise of liberty. This can be prohibited by law at the state level and not infringe on natural rights. It can also be allowed by law at the state level and not infringe on natural rights. All this, not withstanding court decisions which I believe are often incorrect.

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia

 

[Iceweasel]

Alright. So, rather than my suggestion that only laws protecting rights should be allowed, you might say that only those that violate rights should be prohibited. But don't all laws infringe on rights? I guess it depends on how narrowly you interpret 'natural rights'.

The problem with "natural" rights is they can be whatever you want them to be. In nature it's survival of the fittest. Laws to protect the less fit. No right is absolute, like crying fire in a theater. Our rights stop where the others' begins.

Actually they can't. I have already explained this to you.

Your explanation is bullshit. I already explained that to you. More arrogance won't help.

You mean like how you believe that successful behaviors don't lead to success and failed behaviors don't to failure?

You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's the voices in your head. I didn't disparage the founders, you can't see what you don't want to see. Your problem, not mine. You aren't setting things straight by adding to your steamy pile.

I said nothing about equal outcomes, you've been yammering on about it as if it had some kind of meaning. I said you're stuck in a circular logic loop. You think morality existed before man because higher morals can be achieved and somehow we can all agree on what those higher standards are. That makes no sense.

I asked what the legal age of consent should be based on this higher moral standard and you can't give me a number. That means the higher moral standard exists only in your mind.

Those moral laws which you say don't exist are those successful behaviors which naturally lead to successful outcomes. You may not think you disparaged the Founding Fathers, but you did.

Liar. You think so because you can't think. If one doesn't agree with you you smear them. What kind of dishonest petty god do you worship? Laws on morality do exist but they are man made. The founders were men and they hashed it out. If they got their morality from before time post the evidence instead of insulting people that fail to agree.

Liar? Don't be silly. Everyone who is honest and objective knows that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. The only people who don't know this are the idiots who need to blame others for their failures. Why don't they know it? Because they are not honest with themselves. They can't be objective because it hurts too much.

I didn't smear you, you smeared yourself. It is a little late to be appealing to the Founding Fathers after you trashed them for owning slaves, don't you think?

Why are you bringing God into this? You don't believe in God. Are you wanting God to smite me just because I have presented you with your incongruities?

You stupid lying asshole. You can't even fake having an IQ. Many did own slaves, it's fact, not a trashing. Nor am I the one bringing god into it, you little maggot.

Getting upset won't change the facts, brother. It's all in black and white.

Calling you a little maggot is me hitting the bullseye. You are highly dishonest and off the charts arrogant. Your god is a petty scumbag.

 

[Iceweasel]

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia

Wikipedia?

snicker

 

[ding]

Those moral laws which you say don't exist are those successful behaviors which naturally lead to successful outcomes. You may not think you disparaged the Founding Fathers, but you did.

Liar. You think so because you can't think. If one doesn't agree with you you smear them. What kind of dishonest petty god do you worship? Laws on morality do exist but they are man made. The founders were men and they hashed it out. If they got their morality from before time post the evidence instead of insulting people that fail to agree.

Liar? Don't be silly. Everyone who is honest and objective knows that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. The only people who don't know this are the idiots who need to blame others for their failures. Why don't they know it? Because they are not honest with themselves. They can't be objective because it hurts too much.

I didn't smear you, you smeared yourself. It is a little late to be appealing to the Founding Fathers after you trashed them for owning slaves, don't you think?

Why are you bringing God into this? You don't believe in God. Are you wanting God to smite me just because I have presented you with your incongruities?

You stupid lying asshole. You can't even fake having an IQ. Many did own slaves, it's fact, not a trashing. Nor am I the one bringing god into it, you little maggot.

Getting upset won't change the facts, brother. It's all in black and white.

Calling you a little maggot is me hitting the bullseye. You are highly dishonest and off the charts arrogant. Your god is a petty scumbag.

I hope you don't mind if I see it the other way around.