[pyro-manic]

Ahh. I didn't watch that...

[aldo_14]

Am I the only one whose first thought was of the almighty soupdragon?

[Getter Robo G]

Um... No.

Please tell me that's a Brittish kid show..

I hate Nazi's normally, but for some strange reason I would let the Soup Nazi live (Just give me the damn soup!).

I don't know if Raa used the analogy correctly (I only saw the episode once)..

I think Ice T  was absolutely correct when he coined the lyric, "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say!"

[pyro-manic]

That there is the Soup Dragon from The Clangers, one of the best kid's programmes ever made. Good thought, aldo.

[aldo_14]

Kids programmes?

Kids programmes?

I'll have you know it was a documentary!

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Getter Robo G

I don't know if Raa used the analogy correctly (I only saw the episode once)..
 

The soup nazi would only sell soup if you followed the implied rules of his business. As soon as you did anything[/b] that he didn't like, he took the soup back from you, gave you back your money, and banned you from his store.

[Clave]

Originally posted by Kazan
good! then he can stay out of america!

Gladly, especially after the last time I was there...



Anyway, what right do you have to freedom?

[Grey Wolf]

Well, if you believe the Declaration of Independence, all mankind has an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, listed in ascending order. Not enough people do in the current age, though

[Clave]

So..

You can do anything you want? just because you live in America?

That piece of paper/parchment has no relevance to me in any way whatsoever.

It is a typical conceit to speak for 'all mankind' when you are just one country, so I ask again, what gives you the right to freedom?  

An accident of birth?

Did you earn it?

Did you buy it?

I am curious...

[Grey Wolf]

Of course it doesn't mean you can do anything you want. It is, however, stating an Enlightenment-inspired position that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This has the obvious connotation that you do not have the right to infringe on others right to enjoy these same rights.

[pyro-manic]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Kids programmes?

Kids programmes?

I'll have you know it was a documentary!

That thread is ****ing awesome. For more than one reason...

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Clave
So..

You can do anything you want? just because you live in America?

That piece of paper/parchment has no relevance to me in any way whatsoever.

It is a typical conceit to speak for 'all mankind' when you are just one country, so I ask again, what gives you the right to freedom?  

*sigh* If you would actually READ what you're arguing about, you'd see that the document refers to ALL MANKIND. Not Americans. You would also see that the rights in question are "self evident" and endowed in mankind, meaning they stand alone without need for being deserved or earned.

You're free not to buy into it, but dude, at least KNOW what you're complaining about.

[Clave]

That's exactly my point.  America created a document for 'all mankind' to live by - And while the sentiment is good, it is also the highest form of arrogance...

[Grey Wolf]

You think it's unique for a group of people to do that? Also, it's not a document for all mankind to live by; the relevant section is a statement of what they feel to be undeniable fact.

[Descenterace]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Of course it doesn't mean you can do anything you want. It is, however, stating an Enlightenment-inspired position that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This has the obvious connotation that you do not have the right to infringe on others right to enjoy these same rights.

What about the situation where two people's happiness is mutually exclusive? Or when someone's liberty has to be curtailed to protected someone else's liberties?

And here, kids, we see the difference between 'morals' and 'ethics'.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Clave
That's exactly my point.  America created a document for 'all mankind' to live by - And while the sentiment is good, it is also the highest form of arrogance...

America's founding fathers were simply proponents of ideas that had already been put forward. If you want to call someone "arrogant", you should start with John Locke, who believed that life, liberty, and property are not privileges bestowed upon people by their governments, but natural rights that all people possess simply by virtue of their humanity. It's a theory of political philosophy, so of course it applies to all people. I don't see why it's arrogant for a document to imply that the principles implemented here can be applied anywhere. Don't get me wrong; I don't support America actively forcing itself on other nations, but the Declaration of Independence doesn't say that either. It says, just as Locke did, that when a government deprives its people of their natural rights, that government is no longer entitled to the people's obedience.

[karajorma]

It's not being forced on the rest of the world. It's how they believe humans should be treated and a declaration of how they will treat the rest of the world (not how they will force the rest of the world to treat themselves).

Nothing wrong or arrogant about that. It's like saying "I'm going to be nice to people"

Only wish the recent administrations had paid more attention to it.

[aldo_14]

well, bear in mind recent administrations seemingly won't even ratify the likes of anti-land mine conventions or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.......

[Grey Wolf]

It's actually against the intentions of the United States founders' that it be imperialist.

From Washington's Farewell Address:
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by aldo_14
well, bear in mind recent administrations seemingly won't even ratify the likes of anti-land mine conventions or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.......

Since when do children have "rights"? Little buggers are lucky to have a place to live and something to eat.