Hey folks, am I off my rocker here?

[cameron]

Wow I am ever starting to feel out of place. I still intend to make my case then let lor and all have at me. Some what busy but will make my case ASAP, please be kind.

[jaber1]

I know it is a Sunday, but I gave up listening to pulpit pounders and blathering banshees years ago and have zero intention of resurrecting that bad habit.

Is there some reason for your consummate inability to remain on topic? Just wondering because that's twice now you have lost your way in the wilderness.

I accept that you tendered your opinion as to the scope of the word 'man' in the DOI preamble, but you still fail to respect the request made by the topic poster, namely:

"If you would be so kind to provide some type of evidence and corroboration to substantiate your claim. Or come clean and indicate it is just what you personally 'feel'."

I ask once again - where is your evidence or corroboration for your position? A simple question, but clearly a very difficult answer for you to provide.


>As to the grammar lesson - standard philosophical discourse.

Perhaps in what passes for philosophy in America - most of the world would unlikely find much need to seek philosophy in pronouns. Personally, all I sense is standard Lorspi BS.

>And the Declaration of Independence is using the political philosophy discourse mode in its opening. Again - those writers were MORE than capable of expressing themselves - and they used the broadest terminology - mankind in the Platonic "essence" meaning.

I agree 100% with the sentence underlined - here are some examples that show clearly their capability to use the word 'mankind' when they chose to. Clearly they chose not to in the DOI.

Read them carefully because you may find some substance that is unchanged to this day - in respect of America, and at least one of its outposts, at least.

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." - Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." - Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." - Thomas Jefferson to Carey

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." John Adams

"I am for ex[c]luding legal hereditary distinctions from the U.S. as long as possible. So are you. I only say that Mankind have [sic] not yet discovered any remedy against irresistable Corruption in Elections to Offices of great Power and Profit, but making them hereditary." John Adams to Jefferson

"But while We smile, Mankind have reason to say to Us, as the froggs said to the Boys, What is Sport to you is Wounds and death to Us." John Adams to Jefferson

"Torrey a Poet, an Enthusiast, a superstitious Bigot, once very gravely asked my Brother Cranch, "whether it would not be better for Mankind, if Children were always begotten from religious motives only"? Would not religion, in this sad case, have as little efficacy in encouraging procreation, as it has now in discouraging it? I should apprehend a decrease of population even in our Country where it increases so rapidly." John Adams to Jefferson

In the same missive between Adams and Jefferson we also find the use of the word 'man' in both its ethereal and singular form - but it fell to the great Ben Franklin to illustrate the difference:

"In 1775 Franklin made a morning Visit, at Mrs. Yards to Sam. Adams and John. He was unusually loquacious. "Man, a rational Creature"! said Franklin. "Come, Let Us suppose a rational Man. Strip him of all his Appetites, especially of his hunger and thirst." John Adams to Jefferson

While I am certain that you know it off by heart, I post the site so that other readers may also enjoy:
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s62.html

Now, notwithstanding the above, here is the minimum source for the type of supporting citation that I would expect from someone as knowledgeable as yourself:

www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/mankind.html

Unfortunately, they do not appear to have a similar page of quotations for the word "man".

>As to blacks participating in the fight against the British - try doing a little more reading next time. Every American school child reads of Crispus Attacus. There were Freedmen who fought against the British. Not a lot to be sure. But the denial of the part American blacks played in our history is more typical of the KKK revisionist history. Or - and the CP.

While I did say that I did not recall having seen or heard of black contingents in the Continental Army or militia - not that there were none - and thankfully not being a product of the American "idyukayshun" system, I do - in a sense - stand "corrected".

>My family history is quite basic to the argument because indeed it my Goddamn legacy - not yours. How's that? Clear enough? Your folks did squat. Mine built the US. From scratch. Cherokee, English Catholics, German settlers - and later marriages pretty much covers the entire ethnic spectrum. Entire. Catholics and Jews were excluded in many instances - which is why the the language of the Declaration is important. It spoke of mankind. AND IT BLOODY WELL MEANT MANKIND. [CITATIONS PLEASE] It did not say - except for black female slaves. It did not embrace the Church of England. It did not point out that Catholics were not really who they had in mind when speaking of Mankind. The word "Christian" is NO WHERE mentioned in that document.

Strange - I don't recall anyone venturing that it did.

Ok, the next block is where you present your high school Pulpit 201 oral exam. While I did wade through the diatribe consider it ignored as being totally off-topic.

This was a document addressed to a higher vision - and the US started out with a goal it has yet to attain. It has never ceased to strive for that goal - and has lead the world in the pursuit of these very lofty goals.

Europe gave the world World War One and World War Two. And the Holocaust. And the GULAG.

It seems the only point in trying to rewrite the Declaration of Independence, is to some how find an excuse for why Europe's contribution to the world after it - was the massive slaughter of the Napoleonic Wars, which had followed the slaughter of the Reign of Terror which resulted from the French Revolution. The Communist Manifesto led directly to Katryn Forest Massacre and Kolyma.

All too human men wrote this magnificent Declaration. They saw beyond their petty lives and gave the world a vision unmatched to this day. Men whose live were hard - because live in the colonies was hard. You seem unable to understand that even wealthy landowners in the colonies had to work for a living - unlike the ruling classes in Great Britain.

The Declaration was NOT PR - and that is a typical sour grapes remark from a European. One day when someone over there actually has a thought that doesn't result in the massacre of men, women and children whose bodies are then tossed in a mass grave - well then maybe you'll understand.

Both sites I linked detailed the issues confronting the Founding Fathers when deciding their course of action in the 1770s. Monday Morning Quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. At the time, however, hard choices had to be made that would decide the eventual fate not only of this nascent country, but of the men and their families who put their name to paper. They chose wisely. The weaknesses you - and every other second rate scholar who needs to publish or perish - detail were dealt with under the eventual Constitution that was drawn up. A record unsurpassed to this day by any other country.

Private letters - and misgivings - really go to the heart of the matter: these men - and in the exclusively masculine - created a document whose like had never been seen and whose equal has yet to be written. They set aside misgivings to create a statement that transcended material concerns and addressed the longs and rights of all mankind - no matter gender, race, economic status or social class.

The fact that the only way second rate scholars can approach this lofty document is to attempt to project the personal worries of its authors onto it, bespeaks not only of the strength of the Declaration of Independence, but of its philosophical purity as well.

One day others may come close to achieving such a universal statement of the worth of mankind. In the meantime, the wannabes are reduced to picking their nits and presenting them to the world as something of value.

Like the primates in a zoo.

[cameron]

I've been mulling this one over, and over in my mind for some time now. I don't want anyone to think I have caved to peer pressure because that is not the case, but I think they were referring to mankind.

This was written by a Canadian in reference to something else, but sums up how I have always felt about the United States.

As William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, insisted at the height of the American Revolution, the Americans were not traitors to England; rather, they revealed England’s betrayal of herself. It was the Americans who demanded the continuance in fact, and refused the relegation to the theoretical, of the fundamental principles of liberty and parliamentary democracy that Britain had so painfully brought into the world. For the Americans, liberty was not a buzz word or a punch line. It was not something that they would see diluted or bought off with creature comforts or temporary personal advantages. It was the core, the fundamental, the irreducible basis of how they intended to live their lives and to structure their government and their society. Give me liberty or give me death, they said – and they meant it. They say it, and mean it, to this day.

At first without pondering the question to deeply it seemed to me that they were not referring to mankind in the Declaration of Independence. The history of liberty is one of ever widening circles starting with the Magna Carta. So for me the idea that they were not referring to mankind did not, and would not seem to be a stain on their honor.

This is what has caused me to rethink my position.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


They are not saying that all men are equal in fact. For it is evident that in fact all men are not equal. Some are smarter than others, some are stronger than others, some are born into wealth. There are all sorts of ways to demonstrate that men are not in fact equal. What they are saying is, before god all men (mankind) are equal. So to sum up I do believe it is possible for them to believe all men (mankind) are equal before god, without at the same time believing in universal suffrage.

[jaber1]

OK, I will now refute my own argument and give the citation that I was expecting.

Here is the image:


The Declaration itself clearly delineates between 'mankind', 'men' and 'Men' in the space of three sentences.

In the sentence under discussion the word 'men' [lowercase 'm'] is intended to mean 'mankind' in its widest philosophical sense.
This intention is reinforced in the very next sentence where they talk about 'Governments' of 'Men' [uppercase 'M'], i.e. mere mortals.

"--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..."

If some people would stay on topic they may observe such simple things.

[cameron]

[jaber1]

Hey Cam. I intended to acknowledge your post as the best yet for reasoning but got caught up with the image processing and linking.

I was also tempted to use your 'head banging' gif after my last jab but forgot which post you used it in. Will you post it again here so I can grab the URL. Thanks.

GJ

[cameron]

Do you mean this one?



How did you get that image of the Declaration of Independence and do the red circles?

[jaber1]

That's the one. Thanks.

I searched for images of the DOI;
grabbed one and cut the section I needed;
added the rings and saved;
uploaded into photobucket;
pasted the 'img' code into the post.

The thing that took the longest time was registering in photobucket.

[cameron]

Grandpa J just curious, do your travels ever bring you to the New York city long island area?

[cameron]

Ok someone tell me what is going on. I know there were more posts in this thread.

[101ABN]

I haven't deleted any.

Someone may have deleted their own.

I thought there were more here also.

[cameron]

101 I did not delete any of my posts and one of them is missing. This is the second time this has happened to one of my posts to jaber. How is that possible without you?

[GJ]

Cam, I see nothing missing here. My response to your NYC question and your coffee reply to that are on the General \ Happy Birthday GJ thread.

I've posted nought since I revealed my shadow - which seems to have moved on as Guest on this board the last few times I checked EXCEPT that my FW is still bombarded every time I come here. 40 probes in 10 minutes just from this visit! I'm backtracking them now.

GJ

[cameron]

GJ said:

Cam, I see nothing missing here. My response to your NYC question and your coffee reply to that are on the General \ Happy Birthday GJ thread.

I've posted nought since I revealed my shadow - which seems to have moved on as Guest on this board the last few times I checked EXCEPT that my FW is still bombarded every time I come here. 40 probes in 10 minutes just from this visit! I'm backtracking them now.

GJ

Oh OK GJ, maybe it's just me. Still I am fairly certain that some of my posts have gone missing here. It could just be me though, I am at times an absent minded fool. Thinking I've replied when in fact all I've done is formulate a reply in my mind, without actually posting it.

[talkswithbeagles]

I have long believed that many people try to make more out of the Declaration than its authors intended, and this thread is living proof of that. It's been a long time since I went to school, but the way I remember it, it went something like this:

The Declaration was an attempt to morally justify the Rebellion. Its second paragraph is taken almost word for word from the writings of John Locke, who was trying to justify a rebellion which had been going on in England at the time (circa: 17th Century). It was a refutation of the "Divine Right" theory which had previously dominated English political philosophy. Divine Right said that the king was the king because God put him on the throne. Therefore, to rebell against the king was to rebell against the will of God.

The Decalaration says "all men are created equal", but it doesn't say that they are equal today. The reason that they are not equal today is that "governments are instituted among men". It is, therefore, our rights which come from God, while the governments which restrict the excercise of these rights are the invention of human beings. Since governments are constructed by people, they can morally be de-constructed by people. In other words, the inequalities among men are caused by the men themselves, not by God; so when we rebell against the government, we are only rebelling against each other, not against God.

In this context, it is irrelevent whether the authors of the Declaration meant "males" or "mankind" when they said "men". The main point they were trying to make was that it is no sin against God to over throw your government. Be that as it may, given the historical context of the times, they probably meant "males". In those days, women were thought to experience their rights through their fathers or husbands, much like the rights of children today are held in trust by their parents. Therefore, if you enslaved a man, you also enslaved the women and children in his care. Conversely, if you liberated a man, his dependents were liberated along with him.