Replies

Sort of like the terms "Male" and "Female." Till we have a legal definition, we will never know exactly what those words mean. :)

That actually reinforces my point. We do have biological and medical definitions. XX and XY. (There are some genetic abnormalities, but they're almost all still male- or female-specific.) BUT, there aren't, in many places, any legal definitions. And now we have people trying to swap 'genders', guys sneaking into female restrooms, people changing BCs, getting chopoffmydickotomies.

We don't have any legal definitions because it was never thought necessary to define "natural law" concepts such as gender. They are self-evident.

And that reinforces MY point. :)

And there isn't a legal male/female definition, and now there's a decent bit of confusion with that stuff. Should we need a legal definition for such obvious terms? No. Do we? Looking at society, we're starting to.

That would be a case of treating the symptom and not the disease. The disease is a society moving against natural law as opposed to one moving in harmony with it. This is a good point for me to interject this video. I'm trying to get people to see it because I think it's message is profound.

On a side note, male and female are not quite as vague and debatable as NBC though :p

Not yet, but like "Natural Citizen" they eventually will be, because people will have interjected nonsense in the interim.

We don't have any legal definitions because it was never thought necessary to define "natural law" concepts such as gender. They are self-evident.

And that reinforces MY point. :)

Correct, they are self-evident and there is no ambiguity there. As much as crazy people try to change that. But NBC doesn't have the same fact-based history as 'male'. There is no universal definition for NBC that stretches across time and civilizations.

The question is "Which version of natural law did the founders apply in creating the United State? "

But that undermines the point of natural law. If there's multiple variations of it, then it's not really natural law, is it? There may be a variety of thought regarding natural law, but if natural law is the overarching bedrock, then there can't be multiple versions of it.

Something caused them to change the word to "citizen." Perhaps if we trace the usage of the word "citizen", we can trace their meaning behind it? We already know where the word "Subject" comes from, and the founders chose not to go that direction.

Obviously the founders wouldn't have used the term subject, as that word is loaded with the idea of someone owing fealty / being above another. I don't know their thought process, but there really aren't really that many other words to describe the people of a country. The lack of common usage of 'citizen' could mean that they either used that word specifically on purpose, with reference to the connotations it held, or it could have been simply a desire to not use the term 'subjects'. Resident, inhabitant, denizen? All of those are temporary and location-based. Civilian is a bit more country-specific, but is more nuanced towards civvie-military than as a general descriptor for citizens. National might be a bit more apt, but the founders didn't make a nation, they created a bunch of separate, independent states that together decided to form a nation. I can't think of too many other words that could fit, aside from citizen.

The disease is a society moving against natural law as opposed to one moving in harmony with it. This is a good point for me to interject this video. I'm trying to get people to see it because I think it's message is profound.

Interesting video, lots of random link too. I've seen other videos/posts similar to that and they definitely make some good points!