Would it be out of line...

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 54
Topic's author
#31
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sentient beings are equal, that they are endowed by their fellow sentient beings with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Is this any better?
Far better than the actual documents wording but any static statement will become less acceptable over time by virtue of our evolving moral awareness. 
#32
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Whether someone values a base emotional cue, or a complex reasoning of function,
Intellectual (explainable) "motives" are merely post-hoc (posteriori) rationalizations of subconscious directives (e-motion).

#33
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Context, I mean, one of the problems of dogma, and the written word.
Well stated.

Topic's author
#34
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
Yes for example I would like to change the wording to sentient beings for example but if we can agree to the standard then I'm not sure what context changes "all sentient creatures are equal" to "all sentient creatures are equal except for those humans who happen to have been born too far away across arbitrary borders".
#35
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes for example I would like to change the wording to sentient beings for example but if we can agree to the standard then I'm not sure what context changes "all sentient creatures are equal" to "all sentient creatures are equal except for those humans who happen to have been born too far away across arbitrary borders".
There's underlaying context I'd argue, as there are in most blanket statements.
All sentiment creatures, are clear enough not the same/equal in all faucets of reality.
It's just a phrasing meant to argue in the 'direction of equal treatment as being right.
'I think.

There's still going to be qualities about different people, that result in different treatment.
#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
"all sentient creatures are equal except for those humans who happen to have been born too far away across arbitrary borders".
Wow.
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
All sentiment creatures, are clear enough not the same/equal in all faucets of reality.
What do you believe qualifies as a "sentient creature" or "sentient being"?
#38
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm just talking about humans in this case.
Saying that humans situations/natures are different than one another,
And are thus treated differently.

All sentiment creatures, are clear enough not the same/equal in all faucets of reality.
What do you believe qualifies as a "sentient creature" or "sentient being"?

I'm not sure, off the top of my head.
#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
There's still going to be qualities about different people, that result in different treatment.
Certainly INDIVIDUALS are FREE to discriminate (NOT A "DIRTY WORD").

You can't invite EVERYONE ON THE PLANET into your home (obviously).

The "EQUALITY" doctrine should apply strictly to government services and businesses licensed by the government (except perhaps "private-clubs" with appropriate restrictions) AND ESPECIALLY TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.
#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
I'm just talking about humans in this case.
Ok, that's good.

It gets pretty muddy when you start trying to qualify General-AI, dolphins, and or bonobos.
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sentient beings (within our custody and or jurisdiction) are to be treated as equals regarding the application of the law and regarding access to public services including licensed businesses that are opened to the public (except for perhaps "private-clubs"), that they are endowed by their fellow sentient beings (specifically the collective will of the citizens of this great land) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty (specifically from direct or indirect coercion) and the pursuit of Happiness."

Please assist.
#42
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Laws apply to people differently, based upon who they are.
And certain positions of office, discriminate based upon requirements.

People with breathing conditions and Covid19.
Certain mental disabilities prevent people from assuming governmental positions, I assume.

The "EQUALITY" doctrine should apply strictly to government services and businesses licensed by the government (except perhaps "private-clubs" with appropriate restrictions) AND ESPECIALLY TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.
I don't disagree with you, I'm returning my argument back to the case I'm making.
That people are different, and there is reason for their being treated differently.
With more or less valid reasons.
#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Laws apply to people differently, based upon who they are.
Please explain.

And certain positions of office, discriminate based upon requirements.
Some public offices require a candidate be of a certain age, but beyond that, they only require "electability".

For example, many individuals elected to "coroner" don't even have a high-school diploma.
#44
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Laws apply to people differently, based upon who they are.
Please explain.

"The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution says that if the President becomes unable to do their job, the Vice President becomes the President." - Wikipedia

Natural-born-citizen clause

If a person is seen as corrupt, people are often going to vote against him, rather than have him elected.

Numerous reasons.

All I'm saying, is that a blanket statement such as all humans are equal, is a rule of thumb, of direction.

#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
That people are different, and there is reason for their being treated differently.
I agree that INDIVIDUALS must be FREE to DISCRIMINATE.

However, "the law" and other government services and licensed businesses that serve the public must NOT DISCRIMINATE.
#46
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't really understand why.
Humans are different, by substance and action.
Thus different laws for different humans.

edit
Perhaps I should use the word 'applies instead.
Or perhaps  that humans apply to different laws, based upon what they are.
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
...unable to do their job...
This qualification is frighteningly ambiguous.

Natural-born-citizen clause
This rather bizarre stipulation only applies to the President and Vice-President (and strangely not to the other officials in the line of succession).

This stipulation seems to be in direct conflict with the principle of equality (from the Declaration of Independence).

At the very least, it should apply equally to (EITHER) all public offices (OR) NONE.

If a person is seen as corrupt, people are often going to vote against him, rather than have him elected.
INDIVIDUALS (voters) must be FREE to DISCRIMINATE.

All I'm saying, is that a blanket statement such as all humans are equal, is a rule of thumb, of direction.
Would you prefer, "equal under the law"?  Or do perhaps have another qualifier in mind?

#48
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
All I'm saying, is that a blanket statement such as all humans are equal, is a rule of thumb, of direction.
Would you prefer, "equal under the law"?  Or do perhaps have another qualifier in mind?

Just saying equal, is fine with , me.
Some words, it's not a bother if contradictions or logical fallacies are found.\
Some words are 'guidelines.
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Humans are different, by substance and action.
I believe everyone on earth agrees with this statement.

Thus different laws for different humans.
Are you trying to highlight the fact that laws (and regulations) regarding "food safety" (for example) don't apply to carpenters?
#50
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Thus different laws for different humans.
Are you trying to highlight the fact that laws (and regulations) regarding "food safety" (for example) don't apply to carpenters?

I suppose.
Or why certain people might not be accepted as immigrants into the USA.
'Even if some people make an argument about exact phrasings such as 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all sentient beings are equal, that they are endowed by their fellow sentient beings with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Context still exists.
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Some words, it's not a bother if contradictions or logical fallacies are found.
I strongly agree.

Generally.

We live in a sea of (emotionally meaningful, poetic) QUALIA.

However, any FUNCTIONAL CODE OF LAWS MUST BE LOGICALLY-COHERENT, EXPLICIT, UNAMBIGUOUS AND BASED ON QUANTIFIABLE DATA.
#52
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
However, any FUNCTIONAL CODE OF LAWS MUST BE LOGICALLY-COHERENT, EXPLICIT, UNAMBIGUOUS AND BASED ON QUANTIFIABLE DATA.
That sounds like too many laws.
#53
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
Or why certain people might not be accepted as immigrants into the USA.
Here's "the problem".

I'm NOT advocating for any specific policy.

I'm simply asking for QUANTIFIABLE 100% ENFORCEMENT.

For example, I was watching one of those "reality" "border patrol" television shows at some point.

The border guards said that no visitor could enter the country if they had been incarcerated anywhere on the planet for more than 12 months.

Up-to 12 months in jail or prison or a North Korean/Libyan gulag or whatever was fine (apparently).

Many of the people on the show were rejected (denied entry) because of this rule.

However, there was a guy who claimed to be the boxing trainer and cousin of a famous boxer who was scheduled to headline at a multi-million-dollar event and claimed he must be allowed to enter the country or the event would be canceled and his boxer would refuse to enter the ring.

The border patrol goons were able to verify the details of the EVENT, but they were NOT able to verify that the individual in question was in any way a "cousin" of the headliner (probably immaterial anyway).  Furthermore they were also NOT able to verify that this individual in question was a boxing trainer (employment verification is required for all visitors).  AND furthermore, they WERE able to verify that the individual in question had spent 13 months in jail (several years prior).

They made a "judgement call" and decided to allow this person to enter the country with a visitors pass (WTF).

AND so it seems, the RICH and their flunkies get "special treatment" (I mean, think of all the people who would lose money if the event was canceled).
#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Lemming
However, any FUNCTIONAL CODE OF LAWS MUST BE LOGICALLY-COHERENT, EXPLICIT, UNAMBIGUOUS AND BASED ON QUANTIFIABLE DATA.
That sounds like too many laws.
Ideally, this requirement would result in far fewer laws.

The modern legal and regulatory code is riddled with contradictions.

Simply identifying and removing contradictory laws and regulations would result in far fewer laws and regulations.