[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 62 KB, 976x850, 1612750567484.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
17651378 No.17651378 [Reply] [Original]

>we hold these truths to be self-evident
>they're not self-evident

>> No.17651393

Which is why they say
>we hold
Because that's their opinion YOU IMBECILE

>> No.17651419

>their opinion
>self-evident truth
America failed right then and there.

>> No.17651638

Pretty much

>> No.17651654


no other way, or i'll fucking stomp you

>> No.17651668

it's not their opinion, it's their objective judgement.

>> No.17651672

Pursuit of happiness you imbecile
Also not the liberty to leave the union :^)

>> No.17651683

>Also not the liberty to leave the union :^)
unironically based

>> No.17651695

ya, i know what it is. and the ability of a state to secede has nothing to do with a person's individual liberty

>> No.17651698

>it is my opinion that this is true
You imbecile

>> No.17651710

It failed long before. America failed back in Athens.

>> No.17651713

>the ability of a state to secede has nothing to do with a person's individual liberty
Are you insane? If you're not allowed to opt out of a union that infringes on personal liberty the nonability to opt out is an infringement on personal liberty.

>> No.17651716

>they're not self-evident
thats the point OP
it is an incredibly feat no continental ever could overcome.
Longest lasting democracy due to those words alone
>inb4 "not a real democracy reeeeee"

>> No.17651720
File: 111 KB, 1200x1200, 1575467272985.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.17651731

It's not really their "opinion." It's their holding. It is a decision and they are proclaiming it.

>> No.17651753

That's not how a self-evident truth works. They should've said, we are establishing a state on the presumption that...
But then it wouldn't have that reddit oomph.

>> No.17651756

You're missing 1 degree.
We hold this to be selfevident
This is selfevident but that it is selfevident is their opinion

>> No.17651773

what isn't self evident about wanting life and liberty? the "pursuit of happiness" isn't as clear, but you can assume a living creature won't live for the pursuit of suffering, at least

>> No.17651786

for you

>> No.17651796

>We hold these truths to be self-evident:
>That there is no god but God
>And that Mohamat is his prophet

>> No.17651842
File: 143 KB, 1024x576, Custom Image 11022021224103.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.17651844


They held them to be self-evident because the very act of revolting presupposes their existence. Natural rights liberals believed that the exclusivity of will within the individual was in effect the proof of equality and liberty and all that. Someone could be formally enslaved through law and whatnot, but a slave (or political subject, as Locke analogized the absolute sovereignty of the monarch to the enslavement of his subjects) could not literally be the property of another because they always maintained their will. They weren’t an inanimate tool infused with the will of another, they were always themselves. Their “inalienable right” to liberty was expressed through their capacity to revolt against the wishes of the master, demonstrating the master never truly had authority over them as an agent but only imposed authority on them. It can’t be taken away because somebody cannot inhabit your body like a puppet.

They declared those principles because they were justifying their revolt by simply saying in order for self-consciously free agents to abdicate authority to a sovereign the sovereign had to serve them by respecting their liberty, because that is why they abdicated their authority to the sovereign, to protect their liberty from the violence of lawlessness. They were asserting that their observance of the authority of the sovereign was a choice they made, and that on that basis the rational purpose of such a choice would be to protect their interests. They claimed he wasn’t protecting their interests, so they were expressing their liberty by declaring his authority over them void. He was free to attack them of course, but this was all just rhetorical and philosophical shit to say, within the framework of 18th century liberal concepts of government and such, that they were within their rights to tell the king to fuck off and may God judge their decision to do so.

>> No.17651922

It's obviously a cynical text, because they owned slaves well past writing it.
>The Founding Father cries out in pain as he strikes you

>> No.17651945

i like to wrap arugala and cream cheese in a slice of deli turkey with olive oil and sometimes something more like a vinaigrette or garlic powder or pepper, but usually just turkey cream cheese and arugula {sometimes iceberg}

>> No.17652946

Which one of you commie chinks want me to break you’re fuckin jaw? There’s a reason we’re number one and it’s cuz we left all you slack jaw FAGGOTS behind!

>> No.17653023

t. Brit Anglo

>> No.17653184

fkin kek

>> No.17653243

>you must be 18 to post here
>they're not 18

>> No.17653252

>but you can assume a living creature won't live for the pursuit of suffering, at least

Not according to dat nigga Buddha.

>> No.17653274

Its all abstractions.

>> No.17653343

The idea of "rights " is fundamentally nonsensical. The weak suffer what they must. That is all.

>> No.17653591

The states exist to represent the people at a more fundamental way than the federal government

>> No.17653621

That we are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights is not self evident

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.