Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by gugi

Or more likely they thought that these small details are so important that should be left up to the 'government of the people' to set up and more importantly change as they want.

I don't think they were so arrogant as to think that their 18th century ideas would be appropriate or wanted by the people living in the 19th, 20th, 21st, and so on centuries. Apparently they got even some of the 'big picture' wrong (third paragraph of section 2 in article 1 cited above).

Therefore you think it appropriate to reject ideas merely because of age, and regardless of merit. "Thou shalt not steal" predates the 18th century by a few years, at least. Are the principles of the Ten Commandments unwanted and inappropriate because they have descended from a long ago age? You may disagree with them, but I'm not buying the logical fallacy that just because an idea is old, it must be obsolete.

Why not list the 18th century ideas you disagree with and argue based on merit, or lack thereof.

I am taking bets on who will have the last word .. ... a very important thing to some ........ I guess it is the Vince Lombardi philosophy ........ i.e. 'winning is everything' .......... PM for details .......

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I am taking bets on who will have the last word .. ... a very important thing to some ........ I guess it is the Vince Lombardi philosophy ........ i.e. 'winning is everything' .......... PM for details .......

Yes another basic problem we have ignored. There is no compromise, there is only win or lose. As time goes on this only gets worse.

Originally Posted by honedright

Why not list the 18th century ideas you disagree with and argue based on merit, or lack thereof.

One of them would be the right to property when that property happens to be other human beings. Abuse and exploitation of others has long historical precedent, but our modern society has largely moved away from it.

Originally Posted by honedright

Therefore you think it appropriate to reject ideas merely because of age, and regardless of merit. "Thou shalt not steal" predates the 18th century by a few years, at least. Are the principles of the Ten Commandments unwanted and inappropriate because they have descended from a long ago age? You may disagree with them, but I'm not buying the logical fallacy that just because an idea is old, it must be obsolete.

When you put words in my mouth and proceed to reject them, I'm done. Obviously you can have a very spirited discussion between you and yourself alone, so I'd just leave you to it even if you chose to use me as a prop.

...............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

I didn't even have to watch. I know this by heart. My favorite line that nobody ever gets.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

...............

Know where you're going with that, I'm also thinking more along these lines as well....

Originally Posted by gugi

One of them would be the right to property when that property happens to be other human beings. Abuse and exploitation of others has long historical precedent, but our modern society has largely moved away from it.

An example would be nice. Otherwise your statement here could mean anything. Who's claiming a right to property? And what property? What other human beings are you referring to? Abuse and exploitation does have a long historical precedent, but what evidence can you provide that modern society has moved away from it. How are you defining "Abuse"? "Exploitation"? "Modern society"? What do you mean by "Moved away from it"?

Originally Posted by gugi

When you put words in my mouth and proceed to reject them, I'm done. Obviously you can have a very spirited discussion between you and yourself alone, so I'd just leave you to it even if you chose to use me as a prop.

Putting words in your mouth? Or calling you out for making a false argument? And then you make another false argument, appeal to pity. Yes, maybe we are done, since you seem unwilling to have an honest discussion.

Originally Posted by honedright

An example would be nice. Otherwise your statement here could mean anything. Who's claiming a right to property? And what property? What other human beings are you referring to?

Really? I thought I pointed it - it's written in the original US Constitution, and it was discussed at length at the adoption, as I do not doubt you are well aware. Here it is verbatim with emphasis:

which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

And the lengths to which for example a big-name founding fathers went to defend his right to use his slaves even in the states where it was illegal with the argument that he's there only for the job - those are also well documented.

Originally Posted by honedright

Abuse and exploitation does have a long historical precedent, but what evidence can you provide that modern society has moved away from it. How are you defining "Abuse"? "Exploitation"? "Modern society"? What do you mean by "Moved away from it"?

Well the above mentioned text was repealed after a bloody war in which the side that won happened to be on the progressive (read it as advancing, i.e. moving forward, hate to say it but it seems I have to) side of history. It's still illegal to own people, it is also illegal to rape them (it wasn't if they were your property, slaves or wife), it is illegal to kill them. Reading of the laws pertaining to slaves is very illuminating about 'abuse' and 'exploitation'.

Originally Posted by honedright

Putting words in your mouth? Or calling you out for making a false argument? And then you make another false argument, appeal to pity. Yes, maybe we are done, since you seem unwilling to have an honest discussion.

Nope just I didn't think I have to chew your food either, and you don't strike me as a person who would defend slavery, or say pedophilia (another well established ancient practice, which is fallen out of fashion), so I don't understand what is the argument you are making here?
Instead of looking up at the paragraph I explicitly pointed you to you stated that I am rejecting "ideas merely because of age, and regardless of merit" which I didn't do at all. That is indeed putting words in my mouth.

..........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfk-JTdQ_0I