Insofar as what follows looks a little bit like a coherent set of arguments, I’ll give it a shot.
Incorrect. The Constitution and attached amendments are the legitimate basis of the United States. The DoI is an important historical document but is not the wellspring of law and civil rights in the U.S.
Tyrants aside, the moderators of this board are under no legal obligation to recognize your right to “peaceful pursuits”.
I demand full rights as a citizen of a liberal democracy, regardless of what my ancestors may have suffered.
I want my fellow citizens of a liberal democracy to have full rights regardless of the actions of my ancestors.
If I may dare make a guess on tomndebb’s behalf, I don’t think he sees the two as inextricably linked. I’m not sure anyone other than you does. I’m pretty sure, also, that he doesn’t know precisely what you mean by “peaceful pursuit” since you’ve never (as far as I know) answered any request to define the term in any usable fashion, preferring instead to heap on more rhetoric.
Personally, I’d be disinclined to answer someone who uses made-up terminology, fails to offer definitions and then accuses me of lacking understanding, but I bet he’s used to it.
Liberty is a word that multiple meanings. In the specific sense, it is the opposite of imprisonment – as in life, liberty, etc. However, in the broad or “full” or spiritual sense, liberty includes the equal right of (peaceful) pursuit of happiness. You may assume that I generally use the word liberty to signify the spirit of liberty.
I agree that the rights I am asking are already ours; but maintain they are still denied. I would also agree that (the tyranny still found in the unenlightened interpretation of) the U.S. Constitution in no way shape or form compensates either the descendants of slaves or patriots.
It is my understanding that minorities are the majority in prison. I would suggest that this is simply the result of today’s tyrants that deny certain otherwise peaceful pursuits by their own prejudice. Because they do not understand or accept the spirit of liberty, they still deny it to US.
I would still consider as a minimum, (full) liberty as just reparation for past injustice. Would you not agree with that as a start?
This all comes down to what you mean by “full liberty”. What changes are you proposing to our current laws and policies, and what would be the effect on the day-to-day lives of black people?
I will assume that your definition of full rights is “all the rights a liberal democracy allows” and not as I have just defined them.
Peaceful: (1) undisturbed by strife Pursuit: (3) an activity
A peaceful pursuit is any activity that does not create strife.
I call any law that denies or prohibits peaceful pursuit “tyranny”.
Others call it “justice” and find the fault my words.
It is my understanding that minorities are the majority in prison. I would suggest that this is simply the result of today’s tyrants that deny certain otherwise peaceful pursuits by their own prejudice.
Families might have their loved ones home and working instead of in jail for sin of vice.
r~defs
crime: denial or threat to peace(ful pursuit)
sin: alleged affront to god (a.k.a. morality)
You need to do more than “suggest”, you need to offer proof. Otherwise, I’m just going to say that I “suggest” you are wrong. Where does that leave us?
I would consider a patriot offering service to defend the liberty of others as the most peaceful quest of all. Yet some find this quest for peace as threat.
Throughout most of history, people have been forced into slavery for the payment of debts or as the result of being captured as prisoners of war. In most (not all) of those situations, the slave had a finite period after which he or she would be freed (debt repayment) or the slave could win emancipation through service. In chattel slavery, the slave is mere property with no rights and no legal protections. If you review the Torah commands regarding slaves, you will note that they are provided some protections under the law, both from their masters and from others in the populace.
While chattel slavery had occurred, from time to time, in other parts of the world, the 16th century innovation was that an industry was created, the sole purpose of which was to enslave people and place them in chattel slavery. (Earlier, there was a thriving industry among the Southern Europeans enslaving the slavic peoples, but they were not placed into chattel slavery, maintaining some rights and privileges as persons.)
The other aspect, in regards to Africa, was that slavery not only removed population, it provided the impetus to destroy existing infrastructure. In the 14th and early 15th century, the African kingdoms of Mali and Songhay were the equal of many European nations in military srtrength, mathematics and architecture,arts and letters, bureaucratic organization, and other markers of civilization. When Europeans decided to establish a slave trade, they actively undermined those countries in an attempt to secure better slave trading rights. Thus, the locations in Africa which might have provided a basis for modernization were deliberately destroyed, leaving the continent open to raw colonialism in the 19th century. Whereas Eastern Asian countries were often conquered or controlled by Europeans, leaving their social institutions intact to provide a base on which to enter the 20th and 21st centuries, African nations were simply chopped up and re-assembled according to the whims of Europeans without regard to the societies that had existed, previously, creating a chaotic situation in which ethnic rivalries and conflicts more closely resembled Europe in the 9th century.
Sorry. What do you think would happen if we well-regulated the vices that are now prohibited. (Well regulated means tuned to minimize strife in r~def.)
BTW Would someone please quote the passage in the constitution that authorizes the prohibition of peaceful pursuit.
Jefferson, this isn’t the Pit, and I therefore can’t place the sort of frustrated emphasis I’d like on the following – but, please, I beg of you, itemize.
Polygamy?
Homosexuality?
Recreational drug use?
Exemption from the draft?
Physician-assisted suicide?
All of these? None of them? Some but not others? What do you have in mind?
Specify. We’re actually willing to have a great debate about this, but we honestly don’t know what your position is.
“Proof beyond reasonable doubt” is a principle used in criminal law to define the quality of evidence required for a conviction. It has no history in philosophical discussion. You are attempting to use it, here, simply to deny that your arguments are based on your own personal beliefs that lack an actual underpinning.
I am not going to waste much more time going in circles with you on your odd personal wishes. I will point out that, based on your arguments (such as they are) in this thread, you appear to wish to deny any reparations to any victims of slavery.
Consider:
It is your contention that some vague and never fully explained “liberty” is the absolute right of all persons in the U.S.
You seem to assert that both those who were enslaved and those who were never enslaved would be made whole by the extension of this ill-defined “liberty.”
Since the extension of this ill-defined “liberty” would make no material difference to the lives of persons who had either been harmed or helped by the enslavement of previous generations, the only “reparation” you are offering to people who have suffered is the right to toke up (or engage in some similar passtime) with people who have not suffered. That does not meet the minimum standards for matching a definition of “reparation.”
Peaceful: (1) undisturbed by strife Pursuit: (3) an activity
A peaceful pursuit is any activity that does not create strife.
I call any law that denies or prohibits peaceful pursuit “tyranny”.
Others call it “justice” and find the fault my words.
It is my understanding that minorities are the majority in prison. I would suggest that this is simply the result of today’s tyrants that deny certain otherwise peaceful pursuits by their own prejudice (jim crow laws).