Nuremburg Principles for Others--But Not for Us?

[Truth Warrior]

Nuremburg Principles for Others--But Not for Us?

The point of the Nuremburg principles promulgated after World War II was first, to make all German citizens accountable for Hitler's crimes against humanity. These principles were codified to create international laws governing citizens' rights and responsibilities to overthrow any regime that violates these new standards. Though the US had a leading role in promulgating the Nuremburg principles, our courts are loath to recognize their authority.

Witness what has happened recently. Three Dominican nuns with Baltimore connections--Ardeth Platte, Jackie Hudson and Carol Gilbert--believing (rightly, in our view) that the US' minuteman missiles, as first strike weapons, represent a potential crime against humanity, fulfilled what they viewed as their moral and civic obligation under the Nuremburg principles when they hammered a missile silo in Colorado on Oct. 6, and painted crosses on it with their own blood. When it came time for their trial, however, their lawyers were not permitted by the judge to use these principles in their defense. Their trial in Denver ended April 7, and they were found guilty of various federal crimes. Very likely they will be sentenced to prison.

To its shame, The Sun published an editorial cartoon by Mark Lane on April 9 that was supposed to poke fun at the military by having three nuns pictured with rulers, having rapped a general's knuckles. But the text with the trivializing image was worse: it referred to the nuns as "unpatriotic."

Is it "unpatriotic" to heed the clear exhortation of the Nuremburg principles? Is it "unpatriotic" to attempt to call attention to the potential for our nation to commit great wrongs--indeed, crimes against humanity--by deploying offensive weapons of mass destruction? If the action of these nuns was "unpatriotic," and if the Nuremburg principles are not seen by our nation's courts as a defense for actions of civil disobedience (not as an 'excuse,' but as a defense--there's a big difference), then we are past ready for the alarm bells to be going off.


http://baltimorechronicle.com/editorial_apr03.html (http://baltimorechronicle.com/editorial_apr03.html)

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

TW, always interesting reads, I appreciate your contributions here !

[Truth Warrior]

TW, always interesting reads, I appreciate your contributions here ! Thanks! You're very kind. I have some more to post on this subject. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

TW, always interesting reads, I appreciate your contributions here !

+999 :) Thanx, TW.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Nuremburg Principles for Others--But Not for Us?

The point of the Nuremburg principles promulgated after World War II was first, to make all German citizens accountable for Hitler's crimes against humanity. These principles were codified to create international laws governing citizens' rights and responsibilities to overthrow any regime that violates these new standards. Though the US had a leading role in promulgating the Nuremburg principles, our courts are loath to recognize their authority.

Witness what has happened recently. Three Dominican nuns with Baltimore connections--Ardeth Platte, Jackie Hudson and Carol Gilbert--believing (rightly, in our view) that the US' minuteman missiles, as first strike weapons, represent a potential crime against humanity, fulfilled what they viewed as their moral and civic obligation under the Nuremburg principles when they hammered a missile silo in Colorado on Oct. 6, and painted crosses on it with their own blood. When it came time for their trial, however, their lawyers were not permitted by the judge to use these principles in their defense. Their trial in Denver ended April 7, and they were found guilty of various federal crimes. Very likely they will be sentenced to prison.

To its shame, The Sun published an editorial cartoon by Mark Lane on April 9 that was supposed to poke fun at the military by having three nuns pictured with rulers, having rapped a general's knuckles. But the text with the trivializing image was worse: it referred to the nuns as "unpatriotic."

Is it "unpatriotic" to heed the clear exhortation of the Nuremburg principles? Is it "unpatriotic" to attempt to call attention to the potential for our nation to commit great wrongs--indeed, crimes against humanity--by deploying offensive weapons of mass destruction? If the action of these nuns was "unpatriotic," and if the Nuremburg principles are not seen by our nation's courts as a defense for actions of civil disobedience (not as an 'excuse,' but as a defense--there's a big difference), then we are past ready for the alarm bells to be going off.


http://baltimorechronicle.com/editorial_apr03.html (http://baltimorechronicle.com/editorial_apr03.html)

For his livelihood to prosper, a pimp simply needs to exploit his power over other weaker and disadvantaged individuals.
For her livelihood to prosper, a tresspassing prostitutue needs to walk out of darkness in faith.

[Truth Warrior]

For his livelihood to prosper, a pimp simply needs to exploit his power over other weaker and disadvantaged individuals.
For her livelihood to proper, a tresspassing prostitutue needs to walk out of darkness in faith. Are pimps and prostitutes now merely your new OCD obsessions du jour? :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Are pimps and prostitutes now merely your new OCD obsessions du jour? :D

Yes, a return to tyranny is simply returning to the world's oldest profession of pimping and whoring. It is as close as our family. Not too long ago, the eldest child by birthright joined the ranks of the ruling monarchy while the second eldest served the pope and the Vatican. The rest of the children were trespassers as they had to partake in the illegal business of surviving on land 100% owned by the king and the pope.
Before that, daughters were considered as part of the father's livestock and in many instances sold as such.
What does Mexico have going for it? Strong families. Why? Because when people are subjected to tyranny, the only sanctuary for them to flee to is back to their families.
It certainly wasn't my intentions of offend your European sense of good taste. Excuse me, your Lordship. Indeed, noboby European likes to dirty their lips talking about the filthy whores on the street and the brutal pimps who victimize them.
But we are Americans. Americans are tough and know a thing or two about being pimped.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, a return to tyranny is simply returning to the world's oldest profession of pimping and whoring. It is as close as our family. Not too long ago, the eldest child by birthright joined the ranks of the ruling monarchy while the second eldest served the pope and the Vatican. The rest of the children were trespassers as they had to partake in the illegal business of surviving on land 100% owned by the king and the pope.
Before that, daughters were considered as part of the father's livestock and in many instances sold as such.
What does Mexico have going for it? Strong families. Why? Because when people are subjected to tyranny, the only sanctuary for them to flee to is back to their families.
It certainly wasn't my intentions of offend your European sense of good taste. Excuse me, your Lordship. Indeed, noboby European likes to dirty their lips talking about the filthy whores on the street and the brutal pimps who victimize them.
But we are Americans. Americans are tough and know a thing or two about being pimped.

King and Pope??? Aren't those European? How about those Greeks and existentialists, etc. AGAIN? :rolleyes: :D

[demolama]

its the black and white mentality... we're the good guys... they were the bad guys. We are trying to do good... they were doing bad.

Except Germans also thought they were doing good in the world... until it got out of hand.

[Truth Warrior]

WWII, merely a squabble for power and control among brother socialists.<IMHO> :mad:


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/goering-quote.jpg

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

King and Pope??? Aren't those European? How about those Greeks and existentialists, etc. AGAIN? :rolleyes: :D

In the ranking of royalty, an emporer supercedes the authority of a king. When the old Roman Empire became the new Holy Roman Empire, the pope took up the position of its new emperor.
Greece is part of Europe.
The existentialists believed that mankind should be central in purpose. Our Founding-Fathers took this a step further by believing it self-evidently truth that the contentment of mankind is unalienably a natural right buried indelibly in the soul of every human-being.

[Truth Warrior]

In the ranking of royalty, an emporer supercedes the authority of a king. When the old Roman Empire became the new Holy Roman Empire, the pope took up the position of its new emperor.
Greece is part of Europe.
The existentialists believed that mankind should be central in purpose. Our Founding-Fathers took this a step further by believing it self-evidently truth that the contentment of mankind is unalienably a natural right buried indelibly in the soul of every human-being. Roman empire??? So why do you talk about the Europeans so much, while also FALSELY accusing others of being Europeans? :p :rolleyes:

Does the term "cognitive dissonance" have ANY meaning for you, at all? :rolleyes:

[Munier1]

These are some good points. The only problem I would have is with the use of Nuremberg as an effective instrument for establishing morality. At the end of the day, the most important principle to come from Nuremberg was "victor's justice." For that to be applied to today's United States, somebody would have to be victorious over us, which has not happened yet. In general, these attempts at justice in the international arena tend to fail. World justice, including the justice for crimes against humanity, seems like a sham most of the time.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

its the black and white mentality... we're the good guys... they were the bad guys. We are trying to do good... they were doing bad.

Except Germans also thought they were doing good in the world... until it got out of hand.

We should value the truth most while valuing what we do as a result of that truth less. This truth becomes our Civil-Purpose while what we do as a result of it becomes menial legal precedents. The burden of our Founding-Fathers was to keep the focus of government as secondary in importance to that primary purpose of contentment.
As a secularized American Puritan myself, I always feel guilty when singing of the Lord for the sake of enjoyment. But the people shouldn't desire being in power. To the contrary, authority should serve the people for the purpose of enhancing their enjoyment.

[Truth Warrior]

These are some good points. The only problem I would have is with the use of Nuremberg as an effective instrument for establishing morality. At the end of the day, the most important principle to come from Nuremberg was "victor's justice." For that to be applied to today's United States, somebody would have to be victorious over us, which has not happened yet. In general, these attempts at justice in the international arena tend to fail. World justice, including the justice for crimes against humanity, seems like a sham most of the time. I'd say the most important principle is the individual's PERSONAL accountibility for actions of supporting the state, AND their PERSONAL responsibility for it's overthrow. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

We should value the truth most while valuing what we do as a result of that truth less. This truth becomes our Civil-Purpose while what we do as a result of it becomes menial legal precedents. The burden of our Founding-Fathers was to keep the focus of government as secondary in importance to that primary purpose of contentment.
As a secularized American Puritan myself, I always feel guilty when singing of the Lord for the sake of enjoyment. But the people shouldn't desire being in power. To the contrary, authority should serve the people for the purpose of enhancing their enjoyment. You sound like a Utilitarian. :p Let the sacrifices of the discontented be continued. :rolleyes:

[paulim]

In the ranking of royalty, an emporer supercedes the authority of a king. When the old Roman Empire became the new Holy Roman Empire, the pope took up the position of its new emperor.

Thats not correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor

The pope was not emperor of the HRE. The emperor and the pope were often enemies.
An interesting example for that was the "Walk to Canossa".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk_to_Canossa

[Truth Warrior]

The Principles

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime) under international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law) is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_State) or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
See also: Nuremberg Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense) and Superior Orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Orders) For Pre-Nuremberg history of "I was just following orders", see Superior Orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Orders).

Principle V

Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_peace): (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression) or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). (b) War Crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes): Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_labor) or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war) or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. (c) Crimes against humanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity): Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles#The_Principles

[Munier1]

Yes, I would HOPE the principles espoused by the Nuremberg prosecutors are the important ones. Unfortunately, I'm a little skeptical of these international group therapy, circle jerk kind of things. This is also where the ICC proponents get their motivation. I think world justice can be a slippery slope to world governance.

I've read at least a few opinions that say the Nuremberg Tribunal was a bit of a kangaroo court. Nobody's ever satisfied with war crimes adjudication.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, I would HOPE the principles espoused by the Nuremberg prosecutors are the important ones. Unfortunately, I'm a little skeptical of these international group therapy, circle jerk kind of things. This is also where the ICC proponents get their motivation. I think world justice can be a slippery slope to world governance.

I've read at least a few opinions that say the Nuremberg Tribunal was a bit of a kangaroo court. Nobody's ever satisfied with war crimes adjudication.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Just look at all of the wars SINCE 1945. :rolleyes:

Thanks! :)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Thats not correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor

The pope was not emperor of the HRE. The emperor and the pope were often enemies.
An interesting example for that was the "Walk to Canossa".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk_to_Canossa

Let me elaborate. After the fall of the old Roman Empire, the Pope evolved to take the place of the emperor.

[Truth Warrior]

Let me elaborate. After the fall of the old Roman Empire, the Pope evolved to take the place of the emperor. I'm gonna change your initials to EUW. :D

[Xenophage]

Let me elaborate. After the fall of the old Roman Empire, the Pope evolved to take the place of the emperor.

The Holy Roman Empire had little to do with the Roman Empire. In fact, NOTHING aside from the name. The Roman Empire's legacy continued on in Byzantine.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Roman empire??? So why do you talk about the Europeans so much, while also FALSELY accusing others of being Europeans? :p :rolleyes:

Does the term "cognitive dissonance" have ANY meaning for you, at all? :rolleyes:

The early "world" of Greece existed on three continents. The modern Greece of today is part of Europe.
The secular culture for a lot of us is European. Compared to our American culture, which has been narrowed to self-evident truths and developed unalienably to form, this European culture is quite primitive as are all the other minor cultures for that matter.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Holy Roman Empire had little to do with the Roman Empire. In fact, NOTHING aside from the name. The Roman Empire's legacy continued on in Byzantine.

"The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire". -Voltaire. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

The early "world" of Greece existed on three continents. The modern Greece of today is part of Europe.
The secular culture for a lot of us is European. Compared to our American culture, which has been narrowed to self-evident truths and developed unalienably to form, this European culture is quite primitive as are all the other minor cultures for that matter. Well just back up to BEFORE Alexander. :rolleyes: Sheesh! :p

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You sound like a Utilitarian. :p Let the sacrifices of the discontented be continued. :rolleyes:

As an American transcendentalist, I find the European business of political manipulation unimportant.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Well just back up to BEFORE Alexander. :rolleyes: Sheesh! :p

The early "world" of Greece existed on three continents before the time of Alexander. It existed in Europe, Asia and Africa.

[Truth Warrior]

As an American transcendentalist, I find the European business of political manipulation unimportant.

Sure ya do. :D http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Utilitarianism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Utilitarianism) :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The Holy Roman Empire had little to do with the Roman Empire. In fact, NOTHING aside from the name. The Roman Empire's legacy continued on in Byzantine.

Yes. But the figurehead of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire still resided in Rome as the Pope. The many kings of Europe no longer had an Emperor ruling over them like in other "world's." That designation was taken up by the Pope.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sure ya do. :D http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Utilitarianism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Utilitarianism) :rolleyes:

Your reading comprehension is poor. If you equate that which is self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right as any policy which brings contentment to the greatest amount of the people, then you don't understand what it means to be an American.
The purpose of authority is to make us all happy. Any idea that it isn't possible for authority to make us all happy is an expression of tyranny. Indeed, this goal of contentment isn't possible in a material sense. If it isn't practical for authority to make us all happy in a material sense, then it needs to make us all happy in a sense that isn't material.
That idea ushered in American Transcendentalism.

[Truth Warrior]

Your reading comprehension is poor. If you equate that which is self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right as any policy which brings contentment to the greatest amount of the people, then you don't understand what it means to be an American.
The purpose of authority is to make us all happy. Any idea that it isn't possible for authority to make us all happy is an expression of tyranny. Indeed, this goal of contentment isn't possible in a material sense. If it isn't practical for authority to make us all happy in a material sense, then it needs to make us all happy in a sense that isn't material.
That idea ushered in American Transcendentalism. Compared to you, I'm SUPER.<IMHO> :D

"the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons."

:rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Compared to you, I'm SUPER.<IMHO> :D

"the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons."

:rolleyes:

Yes, I understood. That whole idea is quite European and quite foreign to my nature as an American.
Look, it is so easy to put the quests for equality and liberty ahead of contentment. The reason for authority, though, is to put contentment ahead of the secondary prerequisites of equality and liberty with these needed for contentment.
Perhaps you should meditate on this matter.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, I understood. That whole idea is quite European and quite foreign to my nature as an American.
Look, it is so easy to put the quests for equality and liberty ahead of contentment. The reason for authority, though, is to put contentment ahead of the secondary prerequisites of equality and liberty with these needed for contentment.
Perhaps you should meditate on this matter. Are you positive that you are parsing, slicing and dicing that quite finely enough? :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, I understood. That whole idea is quite European and quite foreign to my nature as an American.
Look, it is so easy to put the quests for equality and liberty ahead of contentment. The reason for authority, though, is to put contentment ahead of the secondary prerequisites of equality and liberty with these needed for contentment.
Perhaps you should meditate on this matter.

That depends on who gets put wear the "authority figure" costume. Contentment does not necessarily flow from the presence of a watch keeper(especially if he is brutal to the flock that he "watches"). It flows from individuals having the freedom to deal with one another civilly. Only sheep need shepherding. ;)

[Xenophage]

Your reading comprehension is poor. If you equate that which is self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right as any policy which brings contentment to the greatest amount of the people, then you don't understand what it means to be an American.
The purpose of authority is to make us all happy. Any idea that it isn't possible for authority to make us all happy is an expression of tyranny. Indeed, this goal of contentment isn't possible in a material sense. If it isn't practical for authority to make us all happy in a material sense, then it needs to make us all happy in a sense that isn't material.
That idea ushered in American Transcendentalism.

'Scuse me, but I don't agree. "The greatest good for the greatest number," sounds greatly great and everything, but if this is an ethical standard then where are you coming from? In other words, what premise is this based on? I believe in calling the fewest number of things as possible "self-evident." Why not "The greatest good for the greatest people?" That seems more fair to me. Great people deserve great things, but assholes don't! If a society is mostly assholes, then I say mostly fuck the society.

Anyway, I don't really want to get involved in ANOTHER argument about what is or isn't an axiom.

Where is your moral standard coming from? Why is "The greatest good for the greatest number" a moral value? There are only two possibilities that I can fathom:

Firstly, that you are viewing things through the eyes of The State. The grand purpose of the State is the fulfillment of the moral standard you have detailed. This is a logical error, because ethics apply only to individuals with the ability to make choices, and The State is not a unique entity capable of making choices, holding values, or reasoning. The State is just an imaginary grouping of several individuals - and perhaps a tool for those individuals involved.

The second possibility is that you believe living in a society where the greatest good for the greatest number will directly benefit YOU as an individual, not only by providing the best chance you will be safe and well-fed, but also that your other values (like, maybe scientific progress or a flourishing of the arts) are fulfilled. This one makes sense to me, but it really just turns "The greatest good for the greatest number" into a MEANS to an end, not the end itself. The end itself? Your personal happiness.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Are you positive that you are parsing, slicing and dicing that quite finely enough? :D

I am not an expert. I am an American. Perhaps all you experts in here need to go back to Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and your noble Indian reservations?

[Truth Warrior]

I am not an expert. I am an American. Perhaps all you experts in here need to go back to Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and your noble Indian reservations?

Thank you EUW. :D BTW, once AGAIN, my ancestors have probably been here longer that yours. :p :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

'Scuse me, but I don't agree. "The greatest good for the greatest number," sounds greatly great and everything, but if this is an ethical standard then where are you coming from? In other words, what premise is this based on? I believe in calling the fewest number of things as possible "self-evident." Why not "The greatest good for the greatest people?" That seems more fair to me. Great people deserve great things, but assholes don't! If a society is mostly assholes, then I say mostly fuck the society.

Anyway, I don't really want to get involved in ANOTHER argument about what is or isn't an axiom.

Where is your moral standard coming from? Why is "The greatest good for the greatest number" a moral value? There are only two possibilities that I can fathom:

Firstly, that you are viewing things through the eyes of The State. The grand purpose of the State is the fulfillment of the moral standard you have detailed. This is a logical error, because ethics apply only to individuals with the ability to make choices, and The State is not a unique entity capable of making choices, holding values, or reasoning. The State is just an imaginary grouping of several individuals - and perhaps a tool for those individuals involved.

The second possibility is that you believe living in a society where the greatest good for the greatest number will directly benefit YOU as an individual, not only by providing the best chance you will be safe and well-fed, but also that your other values (like, maybe scientific progress or a flourishing of the arts) are fulfilled. This one makes sense to me, but it really just turns "The greatest good for the greatest number" into a MEANS to an end, not the end itself. The end itself? Your personal happiness.

Our Founding-Fathers did not use Aristotilian logic to create our government but natural-law. Natural law existed outright as unchallengeable. No question about it. Zilch. No opposing theories whatsoever. Any legal-precedence challenging this Civil-Purpose of the people comes directly from the mouth of the enemy.

Period.

However, our Founding-Fathers did use the inductive reasoning of Socrates when explaining why the king was not acting as a king but as a tyrant.

Why?

Because any human soul not understanding the self-evident truths and the unalienable natural rights was deemed by our Founding-Fathers not to be a king or queen ordained with God's sovereign power.

Our Founding-Fathers also used Plato's best-principled statements to formalize terms to that of a finished work in the official documents of The Declaration of Independence and of The U.S. Constitution.

Although Aristotle was considered the rationalist, he never finished any works.

He also was not accepted during the time of our Founding-Fathers because of the beating Galileo had received prior by natural philosophers (Catholic scientists).

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Thank you EUW. :D BTW, once AGAIN, my ancestors have probably been here longer that yours. :p :rolleyes:

I have no pedigree culture to fall back on or one that I can celebrate. I have no reservation to go back and live on. So, I am a true American.

As a true American, I do celebrate my culture for five minutes every year while eating peanut-butter crackers and drinking a glass of pure, refreshing water.

[Truth Warrior]

I have no pedigree culture to fall back on or one that I can celebrate. I have no reservation to go back and live on. So, I am a true American. Parse, slice, dice, spin and puree. :p Happy and contented with your Jeremy Bentham philosophy. :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That depends on who gets put wear the "authority figure" costume. Contentment does not necessarily flow from the presence of a watch keeper(especially if he is brutal to the flock that he "watches"). It flows from individuals having the freedom to deal with one another civilly. Only sheep need shepherding. ;)

If a soul doesn't know that which is self-evidently true and that which is unalienably a natural-right, then he or she shouldn't be deemed a king or queen ordained with God's sovereign authority. In fact, any tyranical ignorance towards the human prerequisite need for liberty, property and equality justifies the people in their divorcing themselves out from under such cruelty so that they can then remarry themselves to that of a more perfect government.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Parse, slice, dice, spin and puree. :p Happy and contented with your Jeremy Bentham philosophy. :rolleyes:

More like narrowing down to what is American by weeding out a lot of useless European, African, Asian and Native American nonsense.

[Truth Warrior]

More like narrowing down to what is American by weeding out a lot of useless European, African, Asian and Native American nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Utilitarianism)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham#Utilitarianism)

You speak in complex legaluese because you have allowed law-makers to usurp your Civil-Purpose with that of legal-precedents. Yet, legally speaking, any interpretation of a legal marriage to that of a new government will always depend on it being juxtaposed with the legal divorce from that of the old tyranny.
So, legal-precedence today rules over what was once your Civil-Purpose.

[Truth Warrior]

You speak in complex legaluese because you have allowed law-makers to usurp your Civil-Purpose with that of legal-precedents. Yet, legally speaking, any interpretation of a legal marriage to that of a new government will always depend on it being juxtaposed with the legal divorce from that of the old tyranny.
So, legal-precedence today rules over what was once your Civil-Purpose. I have no "Civil-Purpose" ( so called ). :p That is STILL merely YOUR "undefined" and MADE UP bogus phrase, among others, as far as I can tell. :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I have no "Civil-Purpose" ( so called ). :p That is STILL merely YOUR "undefined" and MADE UP bogus phrase, among others, as far as I can tell. :rolleyes:

A self-evident truth and an unalienable natural-right reduces indelibly to become the very conscience of every human soul. So, that which is our Civil-Purpose needs no definition.

[Truth Warrior]

A self-evident truth and an unalienable natural-right reduces indelibly to become the very conscience of every human soul. So, that which is our Civil-Purpose needs no definition. I VERY seriously DOUBT that you've surveyed "the conscience of every human soul", nor defined "Civil-Purpose", BTW. Nor is "self-evident" NOR "unalienable natural-right" ANYWHERE to be found in the US CONstitution. :rolleyes:

It's ONLY the D of I and Jefferson ( the author ) was NOT a Federalist.

So WHICH founding fathers are you continually talking about?

[Xenophage]

Our Founding-Fathers did not use Aristotilian logic to create our government but natural-law. Natural law existed outright as unchallengeable. No question about it. Zilch. No opposing theories whatsoever. Any legal-precedence challenging this Civil-Purpose of the people comes directly from the mouth of the enemy.

Period.

However, our Founding-Fathers did use the inductive reasoning of Socrates when explaining why the king was not acting as a king but as a tyrant.

Why?

Because any human soul not understanding the self-evident truths and the unalienable natural rights was deemed by our Founding-Fathers not to be a king or queen ordained with God's sovereign power.

Our Founding-Fathers also used Plato's best-principled statements to formalize terms to that of a finished work in the official documents of The Declaration of Independence and of The U.S. Constitution.

Although Aristotle was considered the rationalist, he never finished any works.

He also was not accepted during the time of our Founding-Fathers because of the beating Galileo had received prior by natural philosophers (Catholic scientists).

This is just silly, and profoundly ignorant. The entire Renaissance was essentially spurred on by a rediscovery of Aristotle's writings from copies and translations that were brought back from the middle east. He never completed any works? What does that mean? Aristotle was very prolific. Most of what we have been able to salvage is incomplete because most of his writings were destroyed or lost over the centuries, but there is ample evidence to conclude that Aristotle was in wide circulation with completed works for hundreds of years after his death.

The idea of "natural rights" was not founded on some arbitrary whim by some dude that just said "OK! Rights exist." The idea is related back to "natural philosophy" which meant, at the time: the effort to discover objective, undeniable truth about the Universe through the use of reason. Rationalism was at its height in the 18th century.

Galileo's persecution was widely criticized even by members of the Catholic church by the time of the American revolution. The writings of Thomas Aquinas helped a great deal to eliminate religious persecution against scientists, and people of the late 19th century viewed earlier practices by the Catholic Church as barbaric, especially in America where most people were not members of the Church and despised it considerably. Remember learning about Plymouth Rock and the Pilgrims in 1st grade? Yeah. Catholicism wasn't too popular 'round there.

Anyway, Aristotle was held in such high esteem by 19th century philosophers that he was commonly referred to simply as "The Master."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This is just silly, and profoundly ignorant. The entire Renaissance was essentially spurred on by a rediscovery of Aristotle's writings from copies and translations that were brought back from the middle east. He never completed any works? What does that mean? Aristotle was very prolific. Most of what we have been able to salvage is incomplete because most of his writings were destroyed or lost over the centuries, but there is ample evidence to conclude that Aristotle was in wide circulation with completed works for hundreds of years after his death.

You have to understand how this as a paradox. Plato was a scientist in that he was a mathematician. Aristotle was a scientist in the sense that he was a rationalist who didn't believe math had that much to do with science.
On top of this, science wasn't even called science. Consider that Aristotle didn't create science to create science outright but to find a methodology to eventually prove that plants and animals have souls. Long before science was thought of as being science it was a branch of the Catholic church called "natural philosophy." And A natural philosopher had to be a member of the clergy (Example Darwin).
In his dialogues, Plato started out highlighting Socrates rational method of inductive reasoning while he eventually developed his own rational method called "The Theory of the Forms." He used this truth engine to narrow down raw data into quality "best principled" statements.
Think of a book. The title of the book is the "first principled" statement of what is within the book. The chapters themselves are informal when compared to the first principled title of the book while being formal in importance when compared to the more informal paragraphs. Ditto the sentences when compared to the paragraphs, each phrase when compared to each sentence, each word when compared to each phrase, and each letter when compared to each word.
Plato's philosophy was later used by Christian scholars to write the modern bible because Jesus conveyed His new message not in written form (that was against the law) but in the oral tradition.
Examples of how terms were finished to form are "The Son of God" where the "s" and the "g" are written in the higher case and The Son of man where the "s" is shown in the higher case and the "m" is still shown in the lower. Another example of how the bible is finished to a formal work is how the term "human spirit" is written in the lower case of "h" and "s," compared to how the Holy Spirit is written in the higher case of "H," and "S."


The idea of "natural rights" was not founded on some arbitrary whim by some dude that just said "OK! Rights exist." The idea is related back to "natural philosophy" which meant, at the time: the effort to discover objective, undeniable truth about the Universe through the use of reason. Rationalism was at its height in the 18th century.

But Descartes did not use logic to explain rationally why we exist. He used Plato's theory of the forms to express the conclusion "Cogito, ergo sum" as a "best principled" statement. While Galileo and Descartes pondered what was wrong with the use of Aristotilian logic, Spinoza pondered what was wrong with the Aristotilian linguistical method of the "four causes." Spinoza argued against the necessity of his "final" cause which further initiated the weeding out of metaphysics from science.
A "Natural-Right" was not an idea. That would have been philosophically epistomological which did not exist in the reality of the social sciences during that time. There existed just the physical sciences which meant that a natural-right was far more determined than a civil right. Such rights narrowed like Dna on the physical level to become the very conscience of the human-soul. No doubt about it. Such a conclusion was self-evidently true to the degree that it was clearly unalienable to the soul of a rightful king or queen ordained with the sovereign authority of God.


Galileo's persecution was widely criticized even by members of the Catholic church by the time of the American revolution. The writings of Thomas Aquinas helped a great deal to eliminate religious persecution against scientists, and people of the late 19th century viewed earlier practices by the Catholic Church as barbaric, especially in America where most people were not members of the Church and despised it considerably. Remember learning about Plymouth Rock and the Pilgrims in 1st grade? Yeah. Catholicism wasn't too popular 'round there.

How could Thomas Aquinas have helped rid religious persecuation of scientists when he is the main person who incorporated Aristotilian philosophy into the foundation of the Catholic church? And the only scientists to live and work back in those days were natural philosophers who had to be employed as members of the clergy?


Anyway, Aristotle was held in such high esteem by 19th century philosophers that he was commonly referred to simply as "The Master."

Aristotle was held in high esteem by the Catholic church. His works (though not written to a finished form) were at one time considered as nearly on the same level as the old and new testaments to the extent that they were considered God's "natural laws."
An example of how such works were read by natural philosophers is how they argued that Aristotle was the one who actually invented the telescope. They made their argument by piecing together a lot of "verses" from Aristotle's works just as Christian philosopers (philosophers of the unnatural) pieced together works from the new and old testaments to substantiate an argument.

Aristotle: All men are mortal. This was deemed faulty.
Apostle Paul: For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This was deemed rational because the Apostle Paul was God's chosen vessel.
Founding Fathers: All men are created equal. This was deemed rational through the use of natural law.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I VERY seriously DOUBT that you've surveyed "the conscience of every human soul", nor defined "Civil-Purpose", BTW. Nor is "self-evident" NOR "unalienable natural-right" ANYWHERE to be found in the US CONstitution. :rolleyes:

It's ONLY the D of I and Jefferson ( the author ) was NOT a Federalist.

So WHICH founding fathers are you continually talking about?

Legally speaking, Civil-Purpose will never have any significance. This is why our Founding-Fathers created our government as civilians and not as part of the ruling Aristocracy.
Still, in any legality regarding a new marriage to a more perfect government, juxtaposing the legality regarding the divorce from the old tyranny becomes a necessity.
Our Civil-Purpose regarding who we are as Americans is expressed in The Declaration of Independence while the legal-precedents regarding what is necessary to implement this Civil-Purpose is expressed in The U.S. Constitution, a necessary evil albeit more perfect government.

[Truth Warrior]

Legally speaking, Civil-Purpose will never have any significance. This is why our Founding-Fathers created our government as civilians and not as part of the ruling Aristocracy.
Still, in any legality regarding a new marriage to a more perfect government, juxtaposing the legality regarding the divorce from the old tyranny becomes a necessity.
Our Civil-Purpose regarding who we are as Americans is expressed in The Declaration of Independence while the legal-precedents regarding what is necessary to implement this Civil-Purpose is expressed in The U.S. Constitution, a necessary evil albeit more perfect government.

Semantically either, so just drop it. The Brits were the ruling Aristocracy. DUH!!!

Yeah, I know the D of I. :rolleyes:

That doesn't seem to be the opinion of the Anti-Federalist founding fathers. Like the author of the D of I. :rolleyes:

So, ONCE AGAIN, WHICH FOUNDING FATHERS? :rolleyes: Name 'em.

[Xenophage]

Uncle Emanuel Watkins, if I was interested in a fictitious and obfuscatory tale about history mired in silly philosophy I would re-read the Bible.

Your definition of logic is, at best, profoundly confusing to a logical mind. Descartes did not use logic? The Apostle Paul was rational? Epistemology didn't exist in the 19th century?

Lay off the opium. Or maybe take it up. Something is fuzzy and out of focus in your brain.

[Mini-Me]

Uncle Emanuel Watkins, if I was interested in a fictitious and obfuscatory tale about history mired in silly philosophy I would re-read the Bible.

Your definition of logic is, at best, profoundly confusing to a logical mind. Descartes did not use logic? The Apostle Paul was rational? Epistemology didn't exist in the 19th century?

Lay off the opium. Or maybe take it up. Something is fuzzy and out of focus in your brain.

Honestly, I've long since given up on trying to translate his posts into rational speech. Sometimes I think even Aratus might be easier to understand...

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Semantically either, so just drop it. The Brits were the ruling Aristocracy. DUH!!!

Yeah, I know the D of I. :rolleyes:

That doesn't seem to be the opinion of the Anti-Federalist founding fathers. Like the author of the D of I. :rolleyes:

So, ONCE AGAIN, WHICH FOUNDING FATHERS? :rolleyes: Name 'em.

Sorry, but the vast majority of the rest of us really can't afford to pay you experts the wage you need to keep us all free and equal. As it stands now, we need three jobs to support your nonsense while most of us can't find one.

[Xenophage]

Sorry, but the vast majority of the rest of us really can't afford to pay you experts the wage you need to keep us all free and equal. As it stands now, we need three jobs to support your nonsense while most of us can't find one.

Do you ever make any sense? Like, have you tried it? Its kind of refreshing once in a while.

[Truth Warrior]

Sorry, but the vast majority of the rest of us really can't afford to pay you experts the wage you need to keep us all free and equal. As it stands now, we need three jobs to support your nonsense while most of us can't find one. I take that as a "NO CLUE!". :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Uncle Emanuel Watkins, if I was interested in a fictitious and obfuscatory tale about history mired in silly philosophy I would re-read the Bible.

Your definition of logic is, at best, profoundly confusing to a logical mind. Descartes did not use logic? The Apostle Paul was rational? Epistemology didn't exist in the 19th century?

Lay off the opium. Or maybe take it up. Something is fuzzy and out of focus in your brain.

"I think therefore I am" is not a logical conclusion. It is a "best principled" one. How did Descartes take on the logic of the master? He used a method created by the teacher who taught him -- Plato.
Galileo also used this tactful method when he questioned Aristotle's use of logic by writing it as a Platonic dialogue.

Salviati = a Socrates like character questioning as the expert.
Sagredo = a interested layman on the subject added to raise questions.
Simplicio = a naive, even ignorant character modeled after the classic sophist character.

The Apostle Paul was rational based upon him being a chosen vessel of God.

The Jews were rational because they were born Jewish. A Greek was rational because they learned to use dialectical truth engines to take raw data to convert it into high quality truths.

[Truth Warrior]

EUW strikes again! :D

[Xenophage]

"I think therefore I am" is not a logical conclusion. It is a "best principled" one. How did Descartes take on the logic of the master? He used a method created by the teacher who taught him -- Plato.
Galileo also used this tactful method when he questioned Aristotle's use of logic by writing it as a Platonic dialogue.

Salviati = a Socrates like character questioning as the expert.
Sagredo = a interested layman on the subject added to raise questions.
Simplicio = a naive, even ignorant character modeled after the classic sophist character.

The Apostle Paul was rational based upon him being a chosen vessel of God.

The Jews were rational because they were born Jewish. A Greek was rational because they learned to use dialectical truth engines to take raw data to convert it into high quality truths.

*facepalm*

You don't even know what logic is, and here you're trying to authoritatively debate me on its history. Maybe we can have a more productive conversation when you stop picking random google phrases with which to construct your sentences.

"The Jews were rational because they were born Jewish." I quite seriously almost snorted water through my nose laughing at this.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Honestly, I've long since given up on trying to translate his posts into rational speech. Sometimes I think even Aratus might be easier to understand...

The simplicity of weeding out unnecessary complexity can be just as complicated as learning something complex. American transcendentalism weeds out a lot of unnessary European culture.

[Xenophage]

The simplicity of weeding out unnecessary complexity can be just as complicated as learning something complex. American transcendentalism weeds out a lot of unnessary European culture.

The absurdity of saying something absurd can be just as profound as profoundly expounding upon expansion, historically speaking. Thomas Jefferson once argued that post-constructionist pre-determinism could lead to the establishment of banking cartels, and here we see his philosophical roots in the rational anarchy of pre-dystopian Europe. So, you're not really an American, are you?

*bows out*

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

*facepalm*

You don't even know what logic is, and here you're trying to authoritatively debate me on its history. Maybe we can have a more productive conversation when you stop picking random google phrases with which to construct your sentences.

"The Jews were rational because they were born Jewish." I quite seriously almost snorted water through my nose laughing at this.

You are an American based on trillions of reasons which are based on trillions of more legal precedents. Have fun.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The absurdity of saying something absurd can be just as profound as profoundly expounding upon expansion, historically speaking. Thomas Jefferson once argued that post-constructionist pre-determinism could lead to the establishment of banking cartels, and here we see his philosophical roots in the rational anarchy of pre-dystopian Europe. So, you're not really an American, are you?

*bows out*

Thomas Jefferson was aghast that the wheels of our new nation would so quickly come off running its newfound Civil-Purpose into tyranny.

[Truth Warrior]

Thomas Jefferson was aghast that the wheels of our new nation would so quickly come off running its newfound Civil-Purpose into tyranny. So TJ went out and illegally and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY bought Louisiana from Napoleon who didn't even own it. :rolleyes: The unfortunate Native Americans already living there were not even aware that Napoleon had sold them. :(

That'll show 'em all about the condition of the "wheels of our new nation". :D


"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

[idiom]

Yeah, we hate you for your freedom...

[Truth Warrior]

The simplicity of weeding out unnecessary complexity can be just as complicated as learning something complex. American transcendentalism weeds out a lot of unnessary European culture.

Yep, if you don't even have a clue about what the hell you're doing and are therefore doing it WRONG, complexity weeding can become a real bear. ;)

Yet they apparently strangely chose to keep the unnecessary European Utilitarian crap. :p :D

They should have SIMPLY "transcended" it.<IMHO> < LMAO! >