Into the Night
ContributorPart of what it does, yes.
The purpose of any constitution is to declare, create, and organize a government; and endow
Moral relativism
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
Contributor
The purpose of any constitution is to declare, create, and organize a government; and endow
Into the Night
Contributor
The Bill of Rights does not grant any right, Hugo.
The Bill of Rights does not grant any right, Hugo.
Yakuda
Verified User
Its not about changing anyone's morals. We've already seen the danger, slavery. There were people that thought is was ok to keep another human being as a slave. It was legal. Did that make slavery a moral good? If everyones morals are just their morals then their is no legitimate reason to to ever say anyones morals are wrong and again if its just consensus that dictates morals thats even more dangerous
Confusing law with morals is also unwise. Its not illegal to cheat in your spouse but violating a vow says something is profoundly wrong in a person.
Slave owners morals didnt make slavery moral. AGAIN a chicken is a chicken no matter what the hell you call it. No slave owner who had no moral trepidations about keeping slaves never would have wanted to be a slave themselves which tells us all we need to know.
Yes Hume as playing game and quickly abandoned the conversation.
Into the Night
Contributor
The first uniting document was not the Constitution of the United States. It was the Confederation of America.
It didn't work out so well, so the Confederation was dissolved and the Constitution of the United States was created instead.
Yakuda
Verified User
It doesnt need to mention a constitution.
The D of I establishes why the founders had the audacity to question the monarchy which dictated life for them and their ancestors for ages. They put a lot on the line and fought a war to separate themselves from that monarchy. Jefferson wrote,
"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..."
Of course they needed a government so the result ultimately was the constitution.
Yakuda
Verified User
There was no blueprint for what the founders were doing.
English law.
Into the Night
Contributor
You are trying to declare your morals as 'absolute'. There is no such thing as an 'absolute moral', just as there is no such thing as an 'absolute reality'.
...according to your morals.
...because to them is was moral to do so.
Depends on who you ask.
That is exactly what they are.
This is also true.
Morals are not a consensus. Your set of morals are unique to you, and to you alone. My set of morals is unique to me, and to me alone. Hugo seems to be mostly amoral. He shifts with the context.
Morals are dangerous. Such conflict of morals has been the cause of every war.
Law is not a moral.
Depends on who you ask.
To some, it is perfectly moral to share their spouse with another.
It is not moral to you or me, but to some, it is. Such people are often called 'swingers'.
Slavery is not sentient. It has no morals.
To a slave owner, it was perfectly moral to own slaves. Many of his neighbors thought nothing of it. It was moral to them as well.
To you, it is not moral to own slaves. Those are YOUR morals. I happen to agree. Those are MY morals.
They are NOT the morals of slave owners or of their neighbors when slavery was legal.
Slavery still exists in the United States (illegally). My morals and your morals don't shift here. We both still consider the practice of slavery to be against our morals.
But to those slave owners, it is still moral, even if the practice is illegal.
A chicken is a bird. It is not a moral. False equivalence fallacy.
Irrelevance fallacy. Association fallacy.
To a slave owner, he bought and paid for those slaves. To him, that is completely moral. To him, they are his property.
Hugo is trapped. He is not playing a game. He is just trapped.
I think he knows this, which is why he isn't participating at this point.
You have asked him some specific questions. He chose to evade all of them. He never answered any of them.
...according to your morals.
...because to them is was moral to do so.
Depends on who you ask.
That is exactly what they are.
This is also true.
Into the Night
Contributor
True. They had some guide though. The Magna Carter, the logic that stems from independence and what it means, and the inspiration from The Creator (as they referred to God).
And what a great nation was founded! A republic, with limited government, owned by the people that live in it, and defended voluntarily by the same. A place for capitalism to thrive and grow, and all the blessings of liberty.
I take great pride in that flag, and in the great nation it represents, and the wonderful people all across this nation it represents.
The perverted Democrats trying to destroy the country? They are loud and obnoxious, but they are really vastly outnumbered by decent hard working folks that love this nation as much as I do.
rue. They had some guide though. The Magna Carter, the logic that stems from independence and what it means, and the inspiration from The Creator (as they referred to God).
Into the Night
Contributor
The United States is not the kingdom of Britain, Hugo.
The United States is not the kingdom of Britain, Hugo.
Into the Night
Contributor
Yet you said it did.
Nothing like declaring war on your own king!...and getting away with it!
That they did. Britain and the Regulars had to learn the hard way (twice!) that remote enforcement is not as easy as it sounds! Our Patriots kicked 'em out TWICE.
And so it remains true to this day.
Wrong.
The first document uniting the colonies was the Confederation of America, not the Constitution of the United States. The Declaration of America does not mention any constitution or confederation.
It only declares each of the colonies as independent states (nations).
These states first united under the Confederation of America, in a similar fashion to confederations among various indian tribes.
Nothing like declaring war on your own king!...and getting away with it!
That they did. Britain and the Regulars had to learn the hard way (twice!) that remote enforcement is not as easy as it sounds! Our Patriots kicked 'em out TWICE.
And so it remains true to this day.
Wrong.
ROFL
You don't discuss, you don't debate. You paste idiocy then run when pressed to defend it.
Immanuel Kant is the father of Rationalism. No one ever said he was a utilitarian. You were attempting, in your usual clumsy and ignorant fashion, to build a straw man fallacy.
Now you will spew profanities and storm off, as you always do.
Ask the denizens of North Long Beach. Don't worry, they won't be white. Make sure to demand that Snoop dog is gay and non-binary, as an ice breaker.
And?
First off, the Constitution was ratified in 1789, after it cleared the New Hampshire signing in 1788. Regardless, I never said the BoR provides or confers rights.
I merely stated the fact that the BoR was "baked in" on the Constitution from the start. A guarantee of a BoR was a prerequisite to Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and New Hampshire agreeing to the Union.