_Vols in NC...get out and vote!!! Need your help. MAY 8

#401
#401
PKT_VOL said:
Well, I guess i should start out by illuminating the fact that Locke never meant for his writings to be viewed as a philosophical work/system. He was merely writing a political proposal in hopes of persuading the general public to support his friends in the legislature that were very anti-James II. In fact, Locke, at the time of writing the Second Treatise was in political exile in France (from James II). Locke's work was suppose to help bring about a revolution against King James II. The Glorious Revolution finally happened in 1688. That is some background.

The part about the difference between "the state of nature" and a legal government (social contract) are pretty straight forward.

I think the part you quoted was more along the lines of saying that everyone must consent for the social contract to take affect. He was more or less rejected the divine intervention which was heavy at the time due to Filmer.

There are some real discrepancies between Locke's First Treatise, his Second Treatise, and his Essay on Human Understanding.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more with this final statement. This is why it is difficult for individuals to reconcile his views and give primacy to certain views over others. Whether or not Locke meant for his Treatises to be taken as philosophy is pretty much a non-issue. Historians of philosophy routinely look into personal correspondence, diary entries, poems, works of prose, etc. to try to reconcile and/or interpret the general philosophical viewpoints of the philosophers they are studying. The fact is, these works were published and they were referred to, whether Locke intended them or not, by the Founders of the US Government; and, these founders had to decide which parts they would give primacy to and which they would reject.

I give primacy to his state of nature sections; however, I do so cautiously because there is nothing definitive which states that his refutation of those rights, once under society, is not meant as philosophy.
 
#402
#402
therealUT said:
I could not agree more with this final statement. This is why it is difficult for individuals to reconcile his views and give primacy to certain views over others. Whether or not Locke meant for his Treatises to be taken as philosophy is pretty much a non-issue. Historians of philosophy routinely look into personal correspondence, diary entries, poems, works of prose, etc. to try to reconcile and/or interpret the general philosophical viewpoints of the philosophers they are studying. The fact is, these works were published and they were referred to, whether Locke intended them or not, by the Founders of the US Government; and, these founders had to decide which parts they would give primacy to and which they would reject.

I give primacy to his state of nature sections; however, I do so cautiously because there is nothing definitive which states that his refutation of those rights, once under society, is not meant as philosophy.
Click to expand...

Yeah. His works were meant as persuasive essays not philosophical work. I just read his stuff (like most philosophy) fairly liberally.
 
#406
#406
The victory is only made sour for marcusvols by the fact we now all hate him and wish he'd go away. Good job, brah! No one likes you and now tax paying Americans have less freedom. Pathetic and shameful.
 
#413
#413
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p07rqho0tco[/youtube]

I'm beginning to question my Christian beliefs based upon this. Good job, North Carolina! I'm not gay, but this just makes me want to be an atheist, because mainstream Christians are hateful bigots.....
 
#414
#414
PoochPunt3rdDown said:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p07rqho0tco[/youtube]

I'm beginning to question my Christian beliefs based upon this. Good job, North Carolina! I'm not gay, but this just makes me want to be an atheist, because mainstream Christians are hateful bigots.....
Click to expand...

Lets not go full blanket statement, there are plenty of us who know this vote is dreadful.
 
#415
#415
If your religion is weak enough that you need constitutional amendments to help protect it then something is wrong.
 
#420
#420
For me, it comes down to personal belief. God said being gay is a sin. He said we are never going to experience things we can't overcome. No one is born gay, no matter how sure they may be. God made us and made marriage to be a sacred union between a man and woman. I don't think it's something I should force people to believe, but to see the country start leaning toward gay marriages is sickening. I know i'll be shot down, but it's my belief told in the bible.
 
#421
#421
So much for our founding fathers.

John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[2] Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.
Click to expand...
Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#423
#423
BigPapaCat said:
For me, it comes down to personal belief. God said being gay is a sin. He said we are never going to experience things we can't overcome. No one is born gay, no matter how sure they may be. God made us and made marriage to be a sacred union between a man and woman. I don't think it's something I should force people to believe, but to see the country start leaning toward gay marriages is sickening. I know i'll be shot down, but it's my belief told in the bible.
Click to expand...

you would still be entitled to your opinion if gay marriage was legal. but when you start oppressing others with that opinion that's when it's wrong. Not everyone believes in God.
 
#424
#424
BigPapaCat said:
For me, it comes down to personal belief. God said being gay is a sin. He said we are never going to experience things we can't overcome. No one is born gay, no matter how sure they may be. God made us and made marriage to be a sacred union between a man and woman. I don't think it's something I should force people to believe, but to see the country start leaning toward gay marriages is sickening. I know i'll be shot down, but it's my belief told in the bible.
Click to expand...

Keep it personal and not try to force morality via the government.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top