"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created Equal...

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created Equal, endowed [with] certain inalienable rights - that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Does Sup Forums agree with this statement?

Other urls found in this thread:

psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>hurble gurble muh UBI and single payer health care

Considering he meant white mankind, yes.

This is a tough one for me, I honestly wish I knew what he was thinking when he wrote this, because even within the "white" Western world this statement doesn't align itself with reality, and his other writings indicate as much.

You're quoting the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Even in the case of it were law, there laws only applied to white males that owned land.

rights are just words on a paper

yes.
we need to understand there is no equality in nature.
he was referring to how the law views men.

>that all men are created Equal,

prove it

> that all men are created Equal
True when you consider that he correctly identified niggers as subhuman.

Men back then meant white landowners so yes I agree

Yes, every human is equal in the fact they have the right to all of those three. Trying to redefine what they mean is dangerous territory.

Yes

He says he holds these Truths to be self evident, or in other terms he says he's not gonna prove it.

Mental gymnastics the Sup Forums thread.

All men means all men.

Personal lifes or quotes don't change the document.

I'm sorry, I know this creates a rift in your intellect that must be fixed by you banging your head against the keyboard for hours to no end, but it's the truth.

>We hold these truths to be self evident
founders were clearly retarded

Then why did he have slaves that didn't have "liberty"? Or do you agree with the other poster that blacks were subhuman?

>all men are created Equal
Are they? Are you equal to me? Maybe I am stronger maybe you are.

Probably not smarter though

Let's assume that is true. That means we are not equal.

>People think Jefferson was pro-slavery

"In a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!"

This is why the West will die. You have people like Dawkins who probably has a high IQ, but he's a fucking pussy, and all his intellect won't count for shit when Mohammad gets to him.

For all their great intelligence and accomplishments, the West is not very wise at all.

Hes saying that all have inalienable rights, equally as a part of the creation of a human being. He is not saying we are necessarily equal in any specific respect.

Interesting, do you have a source for this?

Btw, I am pro-slavery. I believe God ordained it, and that the West went against God when they abolished it.

If you had never "freed the slaves", you'd have much more respect from them and other groups today.

It's from his Notes on the State of Virginia

I get you, but is this really true still? Does man REALLY have a "right" to any of those things?

Nature recognizes none of these things, and neither do men. The only time such "rights" exist is when they are maintained until a brutal and mighty arm with dominion.

Thanks! I will look into that.

No.

It's a right to your life, to your liberty and to PURSUE happiness.

It's not insinuating equal outcomes or that everyone has the same talents, what it's saying is that you have a right to pursue happiness regardless of your equality or inequality of ability with others.

"Mankind does not strive for happiness, only the Englishman does that."

>We know better than the founding fathers
>Our racism it's justified
>We are making their will by not respecting the same document that gives our country

This it's why america it's in the shitter, you forgot what your country stood for, you became germany 2.0, the not so good version.

Yes

Kek.

That a right is transgressed doesn't imply that it doesn't exist. Men obviously do recognize the rights, at least sometimes, given that a man authored the statement in question and that civil societies have existed at all.

Yes but only men. Women aren't men.

Must be creating a rift in his head, too, considering the writer of the document owned other "men" as slaves.

Unless you're a revisionist idiot who can only see history through his own self-serving lens, you'll have to accept the fact that non-whites were not included in the definition of "human" by the founders of the world's most successful country.

Cry about it.

>This it's why america it's in the shitter
I thought it was because white americans had become 54%. Good bait anyway.

Of course not. Humans are not equal, this is empirically true.

...

This

Is that the crazy Chinese lady who threw paint on the Lincoln Memorial?

My SCV camp jokingly offered to pay her legal fees.

Where do these rights come from? God? Which God?

Under scrutiny, and after the "progress"/(((progress))) that liberalism, including the Classical Liberalism of the Founders themselves, brought, the idea that these rights are self-evident doesn't seem to cut it.

An argument can be made that this is because our consciences are seared, but this just means the West needs to die and be reborn.

The argument isn't whether or not Jefferson was pro-slavery, but whether or not he considered blacks human/equal to whites. They're two different questions.

Even if that were the argument, everything you said is negated by the fact that Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves. It's not even within the realm of dispute.

People were born equal, but they must prove themselves to be equal.

Back whe the declaration of independence was written, a huge portion of the country was still native land, of course you don't know this cause it's not part of racist indoctrination 101.

Parse the quote, bro. He says that slavery infringes the god-given liberties of the slaves. He clearly considered that they shared the same inalienable rights.

>the founding fathers weren't racists
>they just bought and sold thousands of Africans as property and explicitly barred non-white immigrants from entering the country by their own decree
Lmfao. Talk about delusion.

I got that myself from his quote too. I have not seen anything so far from the Founders that they considered other races subhuman, just that they could not mix without problems.

I'm an atheist, so I personally believe that natural rights comport with human nature, but it doesn't really matter where you think they come from. They still seem pretty self evident to me, and for all the overheated rhetoric of the left I would say that the majority of Americans still believe in negative/natural rights.

Not really, all humans are not created equal, nor have I found any evidence that we are all imbued with inalienable rights. Were they truly inalienable then it would be impossible to strip people of them, this is self-evidently not true.

I believe that Life, and Liberty are Pursuit of Happiness are good things to uphold at all costs because they result in beneficial outcomes. The same for bearing arms, private property, and voluntary interaction.

Infringements on these produce harmful and non-beneficial outcomes, authoritarianism, theft, coerced interaction, etc lead to the death of civilizations. I uphold them because I know they aren't inalienable and if I don't advocate for them and oppose people who would violate them then they will be infringed upon and taken from people by all kinds of authoritarian scumbags.

Just not enough to stop trading them as property, though, right?

niggers aren't men.

He means equal in the sense that all men are born with the equal rights

It's nice to see thoughts and grammmar commingling in a single and sincere way like your comment. It is so hard to find on Reddit these days.

Clearly not. But he still believed that to be the case, and the words he wrote would be used generations later to end the institution.

"All men created equal" was just a piece of French liberalism. The slave owning founding fathers did not believe it but they had to say it because they were in the middle of a desperate war.
They don't blame much on British parliament because there was a minority block against the war in the parliament. They did not want to spoil that...

Sorry to disappoint but the real founding document is the Constitution, not this propaganda document.
The real purpose of the US is in the preamble of the constitution, "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

In value yes. In ability no.

>native land
no such thing

Of course only a facsist wouldn't.

Masons and Commies push this, but really their systems have two classes: The rulers and their minions, and the ruled. We live in the stage reality. They exploit and lie to everyone from the backstage. The 'pursuit of happiness' is a weasel phrase also. It doesn't mean anything. Liberty isn't freedom either.

Equality under the law, not nature.

>that all men are created Equal,
Completely wrong. Some people are inherently better than others.
> endowed [with] certain inalienable rights - that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
You are entitled only to what you can keep. If the government kicks in your door and tell you to stop speaking what you think and you don't have enough resources to beat the government, you doesn't deserve this right.
Even life itself isn't a inalienable right. In nature, you live only if you can destroy your competitors and predators

Dude, I used to believe like you until I saw the behaviors of tribal people's etc. Have you ever read the accounts of what the whites saw the aboriginals doing when they arrived?

Our notions of right and wrong, EVEN with things like murder, are NOT universal.

Here is an example:

psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/

...

Not slavs or south european though.
Probably not even catholics

Yes but you must define what a man is. In this context man is white.

I don't post on Reddit. This place is funner.

Yes.

I've considered this angle. It's very possible. It takes a lot away from the mythos of the Founders though, to think of them as pragmatists like this.

I don't buy it. There are certain moral boundaries that the vast majority of people of all races and cultures shudder to see crossed. If there weren't, the concepts of "insane" and "inhuman" wouldn't mean anything when applied to men.

They made the document to reflect what they wished America to be, not what it was.

See pic.

Again, regardless of how they had to play by their society rules, the document was written to create a bette country, that's why it served as moral guidance to this day, while slavery and racism it's frowned upon.

>God? Which God?
Well, the founders all followed various branches of Christianity, so probably that one.

Please read the link my friend.

Humanity is a lot darker that the light that has been shining on the Western world.

No.
But I agree with their spirit.
They were anglo nationalists, and they didn't like monarchy.
Monarchy has objective benifits, and hereditary monarchy ensures that the king will preserve his country so that his lineage will have something to inherit, but they're actually not magically better than anyone else.
They didn't even know if they would be able to assimilate the other teutonic peoples living within the colonies, which is why the 1790 NATURALIZATION act was just that and not an immigration act. Only Northwestern Europeans who are culturally Anglo are true americans, and I'm saying this as someone with Italian and Polish blood.

There are even tribes in the Amazon that everyone commits suicide in their early 20s by choice. No one sees it as a negative, and no one is fearful of it.

Etc.

tl;dr

Give Isaiah Berlin's "Two Kinds of Liberty" a read if you get a chance though. Good talking with you. I'm off to bed.

>play by their society rules
It wasn't "society's rules." There was no immigration law in the United States prior to that bill, if the founders wanted non-whites to enter, all they had to do was wait. Instead, they chose to go out of their way to deny them citizenship.

Also, I don't know why you think this Indian shit is relevant. Those territories were not part of the United States and Indians were not American citizens.

The Indian shit it's plenty of relevant cause those were the equal mens they were talking about, the way american law was designed included treaty law as one of the 5 fundamental types of law in America, they wanted to uphold those treaties and unite with the tribes to make one country.

>Men

= human

They knew that back then...

Yes. Non-whites aren't men, they're animals.

Revisionist retards.