Who knew that Col Alan West was a Vol alum?

[82_VOL_83]

Reading comprehension is not your forte.

This is strictly political philosophy. Nothing personal. Since you seem to be struggling with political philosophy, let me articulate this conundrum for you in a way you can understand.

John Locke, Thomas Hobbs, and Thomas Paine posited that humans had fundamental inalienable rights which could not be infringed upon under any circumstance. The argument went something like this.

1) We are life. We have an innate interest to stay alive. Thus, life should not be extinguished.

2) Humans want to be free. They ought to be free as long as that freedom does not infringe upon the most basic inalienable being #1.

3) Land ought to be under control of a man who puts his labor into it so long as it does not violate the more fundamental inalienable rights of #1 and #2.

As you can see, the whole argument is built upon the original premise and #1 fundamental inalienable right being the right to one's own life. The other two "inalienable rights" are built off the first. Add in Hobbs, who inspired Locke, was big proponent of innate human behavior. The founding premise, in which all three original inalienable rights diverge, is based on a innate human reaction; the will to survive. Thus, the inalienable rights is based on the human essence. Take it one step further, they believed in a metaphysical creator of life. Thus, inalienable rights can be traced back to "God."

Now to my divergence from Locke, Hobbs, and Paine. First, I do not believe in the metaphysical entity (Judo-Christian God). Thus, any "inalienable rights" cannot possibly be derived from God. Secondly, when you are born, that is all that happens. You do not suddenly have rights bestowed upon you in a naturally innate manner. You are just a human being alive on a watery blue planet in a vast universe. However, this does not mean that I don't believe people within our socitey ought to have certain inalienable rights. But "ought" is the key word. It is a monumental difference. I guess people outside of philosophy don't readily pick up on that difference. The "ought" in my support of Locke, Hobbs, and Paine make inalienable rights artificial in nature. They are derived from from human intuition, not naturally innate. For instance, my "inalienable rights" upon my birth were bestowed or grandfathered upon be by parents' generation via their social contact. Now that I am of legal age, I have entered into the current social contract.

First of all the fact that you actually responded indicates your comprehension level is far below mine. Second, I don't give a rat's ass about philosophy. After reading your pompous explanation above I maintain that you actually believe in nothing (ergo your watery blue planet statement). I have found in my short time on this earth that if you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing. Our forefathers were willing to take a stand and founded our basic principals on the Judeo-Christian God. It is people such as yourself that are willing to take that long slide into complete secularism that allow people such as those at the DNC who clearly voted to take God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their platform to exist and actual run/ruin this country. The only reason that they revised their platform after removing God and Jerusalem (which was directed by Barry by the way because Jerusalem was felt to be a bargaining point with the PLO) was because it was politically judicious that they do so (i.e. the wording on the teleprompter telling the moderator what the vote was going to be before he took it). You are no better than the academics that Barry has surrounded himself with now. I had thought that I was having a discussion with someone that actually had formed their own opine about our political situation and it turns out that you are no more than a talking head repeating the same liberal ideas you have been fed in school. If I wanted to read and interpret a text book, then I would read a text book.

 

[82_VOL_83]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgbBP9Em00A[/youtube]

I got to corch and had to stop. If this is what the best academic university in the country turns out, we are indeed in trouble.

 

[82_VOL_83]

No, I do not. Inalienable rights are a figment of our imagination.

We hold them most dear to us in the western world and are very appreciative of Locke, Hobbs, and Paine for developing that doctrine which has served as the foundation of western political thought for the past couple centuries.

However, the do not truly exist. We are not born into this world with any "inalienable" rights. Any rights that are bestowed upon us at birth are artificial in nature.

The question is not whether it is historically accurate that our founding fathers believed in a metaphysical entity (Judo-Christian God) who bestowed "inalienable rights" upon us via our founding documents, but whether such a notion is a correct and logically valid.

I don't dispute that our forefathers believed in God-given "inalienable rights". I dispute our "inalienable rights" being God-given and naturally innate.

Why are you arguing about inalienable rights when you don't even believe in them?

 

[Danl]

Why are you arguing about inalienable rights when you don't even believe in them?

Why are you so mad about his POV?

 

[Obsessed]

I got to corch and had to stop. If this is what the best academic university in the country turns out, we are indeed in trouble.

Omg. Please tell me this was a joke.

That's just straight up embarrassing as a US citizen.

 

[YorkVol]

No, I do not. Inalienable rights are a figment of our imagination.

We hold them most dear to us in the western world and are very appreciative of Locke, Hobbs, and Paine for developing that doctrine which has served as the foundation of western political thought for the past couple centuries.

However, the do not truly exist. We are not born into this world with any "inalienable" rights. Any rights that are bestowed upon us at birth are artificial in nature.

Do you not have the right to believe what you want to believe about the existence or non-existence of a deity? How could anyone possibly take away your thoughts?

 

[Lexvol]

Correct. But the claim is that a metaphysical entity (Judo-Christian God) gave me tangible, inalienable rights. Shouldn't I have some interaction with this entity if he gives me such a thing post birth?

The broader point of my post was that regardless of whether you believe in inalienable rights, the thought of such inalienable rights coming from a metaphysical entity (Judo-Christian God) is just silly.

How about we just revert to natural law?

 

[BearCat204]

I didn't realize that my rights came from a God that I do not believe in. I learn something new everyday.

It is amazing this same God gives American citizens these rights upon birth yet denies these same rights to his other beloved creations all over the world.

Ironic isn't it?

Its kinduv the same principle that makes it hard for me to believe in Santa

 

[lawgator1]

Whether you call them inalienable rights, rights flowing from natural law, or God-given, is irrelevant to the alarming part of this thread.

Alan West is everything that is wrong with the view that our rights come from OUR God, and that other people have less rights than we do because THEIR God is different. Or their system of government is different, or whatever the source is for other people, he views them as somehow less worthy, or less legitimate, than our own.

This is not to say that people don;t give them up to some degree should they offend that rubric of norms we impose as humanity. Terrorists lose rights. But Alan West took it upon himself to make a judgment that he was not entitled to make, and he did so out of his own sense of right and wrong, the other side's inalienable rights be damned.

His arrogance on the subject should be universally condemned by those who claim to believe in inalienable rights, God-given or otherwise. Alan West is not someone I would hold up with pride as representing my alma mater.

 

[YorkVol]

Whether you call them inalienable rights, rights flowing from natural law, or God-given, is irrelevant to the alarming part of this thread.

Alan West is everything that is wrong with the view that our rights come from OUR God, and that other people have less rights than we do because THEIR God is different. Or their system of government is different, or whatever the source is for other people, he views them as somehow less worthy, or less legitimate, than our own.

This is not to say that people don;t give them up to some degree should they offend that rubric of norms we impose as humanity. Terrorists lose rights. But Alan West took it upon himself to make a judgment that he was not entitled to make, and he did so out of his own sense of right and wrong, the other side's inalienable rights be damned.

His arrogance on the subject should be universally condemned by those who claim to believe in inalienable rights, God-given or otherwise. Alan West is not someone I would hold up with pride as representing my alma mater.

Do you have any substantive evidence to back any of this up? Where did he ever say that anyone who holds a different religious belief doesn't have the same rights as he does?

Alan West made a decision in the heat of battle that turned out to be a gross error of judgement. That action was to fire a single shot from a pistol in a safe direction in an effort to intimidate a man who he thought had information about future hostile actions against his own men. It was a bad idea, it cost him what was to that point a stellar career.

Now it is interesting that the voters in Florida, a state with an exceptional percentage of military retirees and veterans, decided to elect him to represent them anyway. Perhaps it is because they recognize that good men do make mistakes and that his intention of trying to save the lives of his men was the most honorable of intentions even if his actions were flawed. But, bottom line is he didn't murder anyone and he didn't try to cover anything up. He took responsibility for his actions, accepted the consequences and moved on. Wouldn't this be the type of person we would hope would be working at our highest levels of government?

I simply can't stand how people who haven't served, haven't led men in combat, haven't been responsible for the health, safety and survival of 500 men and women, can quickly pass judgement on someone as if they have any clue about anything.

Go do something for someone other than yourself or a paycheck and then come back and let us know what you think.

And, if I'm not clear about this, I am proud to have LTC(R) Alan West as a former classmate, UTK Alumnus, and brother in arms.

 

[lawgator1]

Do you have any substantive evidence to back any of this up? Where did he ever say that anyone who holds a different religious belief doesn't have the same rights as he does?

Alan West made a decision in the heat of battle that turned out to be a gross error of judgement. That action was to fire a single shot from a pistol in a safe direction in an effort to intimidate a man who he thought had information about future hostile actions against his own men. It was a bad idea, it cost him what was to that point a stellar career.

Now it is interesting that the voters in Florida, a state with an exceptional percentage of military retirees and veterans, decided to elect him to represent them anyway. Perhaps it is because they recognize that good men do make mistakes and that his intention of trying to save the lives of his men was the most honorable of intentions even if his actions were flawed. But, bottom line is he didn't murder anyone and he didn't try to cover anything up. He took responsibility for his actions, accepted the consequences and moved on. Wouldn't this be the type of person we would hope would be working at our highest levels of government?

I simply can't stand how people who haven't served, haven't led men in combat, haven't been responsible for the health, safety and survival of 500 men and women, can quickly pass judgement on someone as if they have any clue about anything.

Go do something for someone other than yourself or a paycheck and then come back and let us know what you think.

And, if I'm not clear about this, I am proud to have LTC(R) Alan West as a former classmate, UTK Alumnus, and brother in arms.

Are you freaking serious? You need proof that Alan West holds Muslims in contempt and values their "inalienable rights" less than those of Americans? If so, you have obviously just ignored is repeated, nonsensical, foaming at the mouth rants on the subject.

And don't you dare get sanctimonious with me about who served and who didn't. That is wholly beside the point, you know it is beside the point, and you do dishonor to those who have served, honorably, by championing a loon like Alan West. You only make it worse when you try to cloak your own position in having served, as though one needs that experience to understand the issue at hand.

 

[utvolpj]

“[A]s I was driving up here today, I saw that bumper sticker that absolutely incenses me. It’s not the Obama bumper sticker. But it’s the bumper sticker that says, ‘Co-exist.’ And it has all the little religious symbols on it. And the reason why I get upset, and every time I see one of those bumper stickers, I look at the person inside that is driving. Because that person represents something that would give away our country. Would give away who we are, our rights and freedoms and liberties because they are afraid to stand up and confront that which is the antithesis, anathema of who we are. The liberties that we want to enjoy.”

– “We already have a 5th column that is already infiltrating into our colleges, into our universities, into our high schools, into our religious aspect, our cultural aspect, our financial, our political systems in this country. And that enemy represents something called Islam and Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, it is not a religion. It has not been a religion since 622 AD, and we need to have individuals that stand up and say that.”
– “George Bush got snookered into going into some mosque, taking his shoes off, and then saying that Islam was a religion of peace.”
​

yeah sounds like a guy I want in a leadership position

 

[lawgator1]

yeah sounds like a guy I want in a leadership position

Or (same sarcastic tone) being considered as having any authority to describe or discuss "inalienable rights."

 

[YorkVol]

Sigh, this is the problem we face. If you have a strong opinion and communicate it you are a crazy man who should be run out of the country. Consequently we get leaders who either hide the true feelings (Obama) or change their opinions every time the wind changes (Romney). We will never fix this problem. I'll go back to my sanctimonious little hole and leave this stupidity to the rest of you who are clearly smarter and more capable of screwing this up even more. Good day.

 

[utvolpj]

Sigh, this is the problem we face. If you have a strong opinion and communicate it you are a crazy man who should be run out of the country. Consequently we get leaders who either hide the true feelings (Obama) or change their opinions every time the wind changes (Romney). We will never fix this problem. I'll go back to my sanctimonious little hole and leave this stupidity to the rest of you who are clearly smarter and more capable of screwing this up even more. Good day.

I don't mind strong opinions. What I mind are opinions from those leaders that clearly goes against what they're sworn to uphold. His statements make me question if he really understands this country

 

[lawgator1]

Sigh, this is the problem we face. If you have a strong opinion and communicate it you are a crazy man who should be run out of the country. Consequently we get leaders who either hide the true feelings (Obama) or change their opinions every time the wind changes (Romney). We will never fix this problem. I'll go back to my sanctimonious little hole and leave this stupidity to the rest of you who are clearly smarter and more capable of screwing this up even more. Good day.

1) Say something outrageouesly dumb. (Islam is a violent religion and all Muslims hate all Americans).

2) Claim that you, and only those who believe like you, are correct. No matter what the facts might be.

3) When questioned, or when the facts are pointed out to you, mock those who abide by facts and reason, and once again cite to your nonexistent moral authority and leave the discussion.

4) Throw one more insult at them as you walk out the door, about how it is they who are screwing up the debate.

I use you and AW interchangeably here, obviously, but you get the point.

 

[PKT_VOL]

First of all the fact that you actually responded indicates your comprehension level is far below mine. Second, I don't give a rat's ass about philosophy.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and clarify what my post was truly getting at. I guess that was lost on you.

Your second point is obvious. You have no clue about what my post was about or the philosophical arguments of Locke, Hobbs, and Paine which laid the foundation of our country (politically). Secondly, philosophy teaches you to think critically. I guess you wouldn't have any interest in that.

After reading your pompous explanation above I maintain that you actually believe in nothing (ergo your watery blue planet statement). I have found in my short time on this earth that if you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing.

How do you get that I believe in nothing? Please explain.

I explicietly said that people ought to have "inalienable rights outlined by Locke, Hobbs, and Paine. I just don't believe those rights originate from God or that they are naturally innate.

What was wrong with my watery planet statement? Was it wrong? If so, feel free to correct me.

Our forefathers were willing to take a stand and founded our basic principals on the Judeo-Christian God.

What principals are we talking about? I am not sure I follow. Actually, I think I know where you are going, but I'll refrain from commenting until you officially lead us down that road.

It is people such as yourself that are willing to take that long slide into complete secularism that allow people such as those at the DNC who clearly voted to take God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel out of their platform to exist and actual run/ruin this country. The only reason that they revised their platform after removing God and Jerusalem (which was directed by Barry by the way because Jerusalem was felt to be a bargaining point with the PLO) was because it was politically judicious that they do so (i.e. the wording on the teleprompter telling the moderator what the vote was going to be before he took it).

What is wrong with secularism?

Why must a political platform have the word "God" in it? Do you believe God's feeling will be hurt if his proper name is not included in a political platform of a secular nation? There is a time and place for religion. There is a time and place for politics. Why must they be entangled?

Jerusalem is a political issue. Completely separate than the issue of "God" not being in the platform.

You are no better than the academics that Barry has surrounded himself with now. I had thought that I was having a discussion with someone that actually had formed their own opine about our political situation and it turns out that you are no more than a talking head repeating the same liberal ideas you have been fed in school. If I wanted to read and interpret a text book, then I would read a text book.

1) I am not liberal. That is very clear on these boards.

2) What liberal talking points am I repeating?

3) What makes you think I do not opine with my own original thoughts?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Why are you arguing about inalienable rights when you don't even believe in them?

I do not believe in "inalienable rights" that originate from God or that are naturally innate to all humans. Locke, Hobbs, and Paine disagree. They believe our "inalienable rights" are both naturally innate and originate from the Judo-Christian God. I believe our "inalienable rights" are nothing more than artificial rights conjured by human intuition.

However, I believe based upon my own intuition (which was heavily influence by Locke) that humans ought to have "inalienable rights."

 

[lawgator1]

I do not believe in "inalienable rights" that originate from God or that are naturally innate to all humans. Locke, Hobbs, and Paine disagree. They believe our "inalienable rights" are both naturally innate and originate from the Judo-Christian God. I believe our "inalienable rights" are nothing more than artificial rights conjured by human intuition.

However, I believe based upon my own intuition (which was heavily influence by Locke) that humans ought to have "inalienable rights."

Assuming your paradigm is correct, what is your view on Alan West's ....position ... on the rights of others. And what is your view of his authority to even have a position?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Do you not have the right to believe what you want to believe about the existence or non-existence of a deity? How could anyone possibly take away your thoughts?

Tricky question. I guess I would have to know what you mean by "take away your thoughts".

There are many different way of approaching this. Let's assume for the sake of the question, that we believe in the duality of consciousness verse idealism or materialism. I believe from your posts you are a duelist. Thus, under that platform, nobody can physically take from you what is not physical (being your consciousness). However, we are talking about beliefs. Beliefs entail experience. One can certainly shape the experiences of another. So in that way, one can certainly "take away your thoughts" I was to interrupt that phrase correctly.

Take this example. You can look at the difference between a Catholic and a Mormon. If both are born at the same time, same hospital, but just at different beds, the only thing that is different is who they go home with. Eighteen years later, the Catholic will believe fervently that Catholicism is the true way and denounce Mormonism as nuts. Likewise, the Mormon will proclaim Mormonism as the only way to eternal bliss and say that the Catholic has gone awry.

Now, if the Catholic and Mormon had been switched at birth and given to different families, they would each say the exact opposite eighteen years later. Thus, one can essentially "take away the thoughts" of another by forcibly controlling and shaping the experiences of another.

 

[PKT_VOL]

How about we just revert to natural law?

Natural law or the state of nature?

If so, which perspective; Locke or Hobbs?

 

[lawgator1]

Tricky question. I guess I would have to know what you mean by "take away your thoughts"

Ergo the problem with Mr. West. His announced view is that Muslims view the world incorrectly and that, therefore, he has the moral authority to deprive them of their inalienable rights.

Classic ends justify the means failure of logic. And there is no hope whatsoever that will ever see it that way.

 

[gsvol]

Delusions of grandeur come to mind. Martyr complex, as well.

You describe Barack Hussein Obama to a T!

 

[PKT_VOL]

Assuming your paradigm is correct, what is your view on Alan West's ....position ... on the rights of others. And what is your view of his authority to even have a position?

I am not sure about all of West's positions so I'll just respond assuming the following post of yours represents his views accurately.

Alan West is everything that is wrong with the view that our rights come from OUR God, and that other people have less rights than we do because THEIR God is different. Or their system of government is different, or whatever the source is for other people, he views them as somehow less worthy, or less legitimate, than our own.

This is not to say that people don;t give them up to some degree should they offend that rubric of norms we impose as humanity. Terrorists lose rights. But Alan West took it upon himself to make a judgment that he was not entitled to make, and he did so out of his own sense of right and wrong, the other side's inalienable rights be damned.

His arrogance on the subject should be universally condemned by those who claim to believe in inalienable rights, God-given or otherwise. Alan West is not someone I would hold up with pride as representing my alma mater.

It has always amazed me how Americans love to roll out the "inalienable rights" from God argument when their God is suppose to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Thus, every human ought to have such "inalienable rights"; not just exclusive to Americans. Yet, some Americans think those who do not believe in their God are not subject to those rights. Others believe we ought to force our God given rights on the rest of humanity.

Like I stated before in the thread, I do not believe in "inalienable rights" that originate from God or that are naturally innate to all humans. Although I personally believe in inalienable rights derived by own intuition, I do not believe that every person has to have such rights. They ought to have them in my opinion, but I believe they are free to reject such rights. It might sound odd, but I think there are plenty of people around the world who would gladly reject those rights. I believe they ought to have the ability to do so. They should not be forced to have rights that they do not want. Islam actually falls under this. There are many in the Muslim world that would reality give up their "inalienable rights" as we see them to live in a utopia Muslim society (in hopes of reaching heaven). Historically, people have been willing to trade their life, freedom, and property for a variety of reasons. If they do so willingly, or by force via their social contract, it is a valid transaction in my eyes.

Moving on to his "authority", no sovereign person ought to have the authority to reject another's rights without the consent of the other sovereign person (this includes a social contract). However, like I stated above, there are plenty of people out there that will reality reject their "inalienable rights" as well envision them.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Ergo the problem with Mr. West. His announced view is that Muslims view the world incorrectly and that, therefore, he has the moral authority to deprive them of their inalienable rights.

Yep.

Classic ends justify the means failure of logic. And there is no hope whatsoever that will ever see it that way.

I am not sure that logic applies here. I am an utilitarian so I tend to follow the ends justify the means logic. I don't see where that applies here.