U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-19-2011, 04:33 AM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,858,410 times
Reputation: 654

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstborn888 View Post
We've been over this ground before, no?

It was determined by a majority of the FOUNDERS to include in the constitution certain inalienable rights which are not up for vote. Can we agree on that?
Yes, we've been over this ground before...in one way or another...like most other subjects on this forum.

Do a search under my name for "Founding Fathers"...and you'll see what I think of those guys. You'll be surprised...well, maybe not.

Yes, we DO have certain inalienable rights...I agree.
How does a full poll of the people compromise "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to a greater degree than the system we have now? We still vote...just not a full poll of all the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-19-2011, 04:38 AM
 
Location: Texas
4,346 posts, read 5,565,954 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Yes, we've been over this ground before...in one way or another...like most other subjects on this forum.

Do a search under my name for "Founding Fathers"...and you'll see what I think of those guys. You'll be surprised...well, maybe not.

Yes, we DO have certain inalienable rights...I agree.
How does a full poll of the people compromise "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" to a greater degree than the system we have now? We still vote...just not a full poll of all the people.
Our system now protects minorities from the majority. "By the people" does NOT mean "By the majority of the people". I don't know how else to explain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:20 AM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,858,410 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstborn888 View Post
Our system now protects minorities from the majority. "By the people" does NOT mean "By the majority of the people". I don't know how else to explain.
I know what you are saying. You don't need to explain it further.

And, respectfully...How many more times do I have to say, "I think it should be changed from what it is", for YOU to understand ME? Unless you have a problem with me having an opinion on what *I* believe is a "more fair overall" system.
It is my OPINION. What "they meant" is not considered in MY opinion.

It's not an issue to me of "protecting" any group from another. My system would satisfy the will of the most people...I see that as "most fair".

So, AGAIN...How is a vote by ALL "less fair" OVERALL, than the system we have now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:31 AM
 
Location: Florida
18,290 posts, read 18,533,242 times
Reputation: 20965
If most fair is what you think best.....even if it means having the lunatics running the asylum...what can we say except thankfully, that's not the way it is.
And, as this is getting way out of the realm of the Christianity forum, I'm out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Texas
4,346 posts, read 5,565,954 times
Reputation: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
I know what you are saying. You don't need to explain it further.

And, respectfully...How many more times do I have to say, "I think it should be changed from what it is", for YOU to understand ME? Unless you have a problem with me having an opinion on what *I* believe is a "more fair overall" system.
It is my OPINION. What "they meant" is not considered in MY opinion.

It's not an issue to me of "protecting" any group from another. My system would satisfy the will of the most people...I see that as "most fair".

So, AGAIN...How is a vote by ALL "less fair" OVERALL, than the system we have now?
Fair:
1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

Your proposed system is anything but fair. It would allow any minority who fell into disfavor with the majority to be voted out of the country or stripped of rights or whatever. THIS IS ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

A government by ALL the people and for ALL the people - not just the for the majority. Under your plan any group who could ultimately outbreed the others could control everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:41 AM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,858,410 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
If most fair is what you think best.....even if it means having the lunatics running the asylum...what can we say except thankfully, that's not the way it is.
And, as this is getting way out of the realm of the Christianity forum, I'm out.
Nice to know what you think of your fellow citizens.

And, it figures, you never answered the question: How is it "less fair overall" then the current system?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Florida
18,290 posts, read 18,533,242 times
Reputation: 20965
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Nice to know what you think of your fellow citizens.

And, it figures, you never answered the question: How is it "less fair overall" then the current system?
Answered quite well by firstborn (and said I was done

How about starting a thread on this in either P&C or Great Debates?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:23 AM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,858,410 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstborn888 View Post
Fair:
1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

Your proposed system is anything but fair. It would allow any minority who fell into disfavor with the majority to be voted out of the country or stripped of rights or whatever. THIS IS ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

A government by ALL the people and for ALL the people - not just the for the majority. Under your plan any group who could ultimately outbreed the others could control everything.
Oh com'on firstborn...I never said we should put stuff like exiling groups of people, or stripping of rights, up for a vote. Where are you getting THAT from?!

I'm talking about EVERYBODY voting on all the budgets and issues and matters we vote on now. We don't put forth bills to banish citizens from the country now...why would you think I would sanction doing that just because we held a popular vote instead of polling reps?
If you are going to debate the issue...be reasonable...don't make it like I'm trying to set people up to be persecuted.
Why wouldn't we be able to trust the overall citizenry...that we trusted to vote to elect their Reps...to vote with the same honesty and fairness as the Reps they voted into office?

Why couldn't they vote on the issue of that cross...with the same fairness of mind as the Justices did?

Tell ya what...betcha we wouldn't have spent the last 9 years at war with my system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 06:43 AM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,858,410 times
Reputation: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Answered quite well by firstborn (and said I was done

How about starting a thread on this in either P&C or Great Debates?
Answered...but not "well".

MOF it was rife with the same unfairness that it was claimed the citizens would act with if all were given the opportunity to participate in all the votes.

So I guess now I understand where you two get your concept/assessment of the citizens of this country as "unfair/lunatics"---You are working off your own frame of self-reference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2011, 09:53 AM
 
6,039 posts, read 9,209,887 times
Reputation: 3933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilene Wright View Post
If you don't believe in a higher being that created us, are you telling me you believe in the big bang theory? Come on, there's even less evidence for that.
In fact, there is quite a bit more evidence for the big bang than there is for a "poof goddunnit" creation. Faith by definition is believing in something for which there is NO EVIDENCE. People don't normally do that for anything but religion, so why is religion given an automatic pass in relation to proof? Insane at best...

Also, why don't you come on into the 21st century with the rest of us? There are more theories out there than just the big bang, or your inconceivable and completely unsubstantiated magic-poofing god. Expand your mind, learn a little something now and again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top