Didn't you hear? Cherry-picking those who don't have to sacrifice is just part of "crisis morality." But don't worry; there will be other pandemics; maybe in the next one you and I will be among the favored few who aren't compelled to be be "moral" because they are selling the right goods, are...
I'll agree to the Cracker-Jack-Box morality you've presented if you can show in Jesus's teachings or parables (since you're invoking his doctrine) where he advocates that we compel our brother to be his other brother's keeper. A good place to begin your search would be Luke 18:8.
Setting aside the question of whether or not it's moral to treat people like animals by denying them basic human rights (it isn't moral, in case anyone was wondering) and appealing strictly to logic (or even charity), it makes no sense—as in ZERO (nor is it charitable—as in AT ALL)—to subject...
I don't think we should hold our breath for any great lesson-learning on the part of those who wield authority. It was clear from the beginning that they were only interested in control. Why would they choose a different interest next time? I ask sincerely.
I agree. They're still hired by those people, though. Hence, the position I took.
In the US, the people can stop them anytime they want. With each election cycle, though, they show that they don't want to stop them. The question is, "Why don't they want to stop them?" Or maybe the question...
Expecting government to respond appropriately to capital crimes doesn't make one "vengeful" and/or "bloodthirsty." How about we not make blind personal judgments and character evaluations here?
To the point, I do still make the claim, on the authority of common sense, that the US foundation...
I don't know how to directly address your assertions about US capital punishment. It seems to me that you're addressing a totally different reality that what actually exists here.
To the other point, while I don't believe that capital punishment necessarily must consist of the taking of the...
The Declaration handily accounts for capital punishment; it's just not spelled out as succinctly as it is in the Constitution (5th Amendment).
I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly, with balance of the post there. There seem to be contradictory statements made.
Thank you. So an unalienable right is a right that 1) may not be taken away—at all, under any circumstances—by someone not the right holder, and 2) may not be surrendered—at all, under any circumstances—by the right holder. Is that correct?
I still don't know what definition of "unalienable" you're using as the basis for these statements and conclusions. You've detailed a bit what you understand is not an unalienable right, but that leaves some holes I can't fill without making assumptions.
What, then, does "unalienable" mean in...
For clarity, the term in the Declaration is "unalienable," and yes I know what it means. It means that the only lawful way that certain right may be taken from the right-holder is by the consent of the right-holder.
I've already cited it in the Declaration, but the law can be found in the Constitution in:
the 5th Amendment: "No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
the 14th Amendment: "[No State shall...] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...
To what standard did Lincoln appeal to challenge slavery?
Actually, I'll just save us all some time. Here is President Lincoln in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857:
"Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad...
You are correct that the Declaration gave no one any rights. It asserted the voice of the People that, as human beings:
they had certain rights independent of the institution of government,
that those rights do not vanish because governments are instituted and
that government's purpose is to...
And what does the Constitution say is the cap of the price a citizen must pay (or the citizenry as a whole) to promote the general welfare (whatever that is, and whatever that means)?
Yes, I have read it. Those are the overall objectives of the People in their formation of the Union. But without the Declaration informing the Constitution of the purpose of government in the first place, the rights asserted in the Declaration may be subordinated to every one of those...