Posted on 08/14/2003 2:56:23 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Here is another Franklin quote..
"So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for every thing one has a mind to do."
Franklin was referring (in his Autobiography) to an incident in which he decided eating fish was morally acceptable after remembering that fish eat one another. Franklin had been a vegetarian.
I understand his point, and Franklin would have been rigorous in "testing" his reasons from all sides, but for most people this idea would be disaster.
You still haven't explained where these rights come from.
Should I believe that I have rights because LiberationIT *says* I do?
If we have rights, they must originate somewhere, and you must be able to defend that source with some logic. If your say so is the source of my rights, then aren't my rights a bit precarious?
I will ask it a different way: what gives you the idea that you have any rights at all? How are you different from, say, a tree, or a deer in the woods? Or do those things have the same rights you do? If so, how? If not, why?
If we can go around declaring, "I have this right and I have that right," without any basis in logic, without any source or rational defense, as you have done here, then who is to say 'my right' is not valid? What if I *say* I have the right to...welfare?
When Hillary says we have a “right” to health care, she is wrong.
Why would that be wrong? Isn't she able to make a declaration of what rights are and expect us to believe it because she says it is so, just as you have done, without any explanation of where that right comes from?
One’s rights cannot impose obligations on others.
Why not?
I can't argue with that.
The Demonrats and leftpress did it ad nauseum with President Bush's 16-word sentence on uranium in the State of the Union speech. Didn't you find it disgusting what they did to that sentence, how they promoted it, cut the way they wanted it so that it made their argument, as though it had originally said something it was never intended to say?
Why would a Conservative like you do that?
While you and I can probably agree that our government sometimes does 'dumb' things, my discussion with you, and my quote of a fellow FReeper's words, were never intended to express my sentiments on government in general, but government education in particular.
Here is my full quote, in its original context, to set the record straight:
You ever heard of the KISS principle?
Don't answer that!
A distinguished fellow FReeper answered your question already. I'll quote him:
As Franklin predicted, the purpose of our dumbded down government schools is to produce citizens who simply don't know what they are missing. How can you resent the loss of liberty if you never knew you were intended to have it?
I believe in the principle of truth. I'm sure you've heard of it. I'll wager you would say you agree with it. (;
You said in your last post to me, and I'm quoting you ver batim: "I can't argue with that." I am forced to wonder if you could argue any point whatsoever. This is the future I fear all public school children are facing, and just what Benjamin Franklin was talking about.
Take your tin foil hat off for a minute!
Re: "Cutting sentences in half......." [notice I did not include your full quote? The seven little dots with a quote sign at the end is a dead give away the there was more to the quote]
I assumed you were intelligent enough to recall your full statement or look back at it.
I was portraying nothing.
The kiss principle [I'll spell it out for you ] KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID simply implied that your post [20 posted on 08/14/2003 7:13 AM EDT by .30Carbine]was long and convoluted.[ think you can find post #20 or do you need a road map?]
Listening to you bitch here about my "cutting sentences", and imagining a sinister reason is amusing.
Now do me a favor and buzz off!
The seven little dots with a quote sign at the end is a dead give away the there was more to the quote
Those "little dots" have a name: ellipsis. An ellipsis is three "dots" in a row. If used at the end of a sentence the three dots are followed by a fourth dot, known as a period.
As in, "The seven little dots with a quote sign at the end is a dead give away...."
It is a shame you weren't taught this in elementary school. Neither was I, because I also went to public school. I didn't learn about ellipses until college. I hope for better for SpookBrat's daughter.
Me too! Meek's post has whetted my apetite for Ben Frankin quotes!
Can you demonstrate how your assertion relates logically to the discussion of this Founder's quote?
Or are you relying on the ignorance of others to pass through this unrelated, unproven, slanderous accusation in order to defray the topic at hand and discredit one of America's Founding Father's?
Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine were deists and said so. Two or three minor figures were also deists. The rest were Christians. Heretical Christians often because some-- Jefferson and Franklin for instance--did not subscribe to the Nicene Creed, but Christians none the less.
The left has been on a crusade for some time to inculcate the idea into everyone's skull that America was not founded by Christians. That is why the "deist" label has been slapped on them.
During the period from the drafting and proposal of the federal Constitution in September, 1787, to its ratification in 1789 there was an intense debate on ratification. The principal arguments in favor of it were stated in the series written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay called the Federalist Papers, although they were not as widely read as numerous independent local speeches and articles. The arguments against ratification appeared in various forms, by various authors, most of whom used a pseudonym. Collectively, these writings have become known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.
Reading both sides of a long and heated debate on the forming of our government is very illuminating. That so much was written, so many speeches given, supports the notion that a shared belief was that we must be informed.
defray should read deflect
Father's should read Fathers.
My pleasure ! I thought this thread would be pretty well received. It turned out even better than I thought.Thank you ...
hehe ! Your comment reminds me of a history professor in college, which I will always remember. It went something like this:
While George Washington came to be known as the Father of this country, Benjamin Franklin in all his dallying with women, was the father of HALF of France ! ...
If this is for a government school, she should report the teacher to the NEA for trying to poison her with the words of an obvious religionist. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.