Samuel Adams Beer Commercial Removes Mention of God from Declaration of Independence

[N/A]

Why haven't you guys realized that LAGC and Sam Adams beer company is much more intelligent than Thomas Jefferson and Benjamen Franklin, and therefore deserve to modify our Declaration of Independence to better suit there own philosophical approach to governance?

The only thing I noticed this morning is that the little marxist, and now our proficent Jooooo hater -- .40 -- seem to like placing the 5 star award next to threads they start as if they are somehow worthy of any rating other than FAIL.

[slamfire51]

If this is true, then according to evolution and survival of the fittest, the strongest get to decide the rights of those beneath the strongest. This means the rights change with the changing of the strongest. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights come from our Creator and as such do not change. They give allowance for having not identified all rights, but the rights they have identified they were pretty sure about.

Here is an essay I wrote a little over a month ago that may be applicable here.

Is there a Cliff Note for that read??

[slamfire51]

Why haven't you guys realized that LAGC and Sam Adams beer company is much more intelligent than Thomas Jefferson and Benjamen Franklin, and therefore deserve to modify our Declaration of Independence to better suit there own philosophical approach to governance?

I thought that was our er...your POS POTUS.
I don't claim him as being anything worthy of our respect.

[LAGC]

Evidence shows that whichever way we look, galaxies are receeding from us, and the farther away they are the faster they are receeding. No one has stated that anywhere we look is there galaxies approaching us...that must make our Galaxy the center of the universe. Kind of a coincidence, don't you think? There are other theories to explain the red shift than just saying they are recceding from us.

That's because the universe is expanding, dumdum. Think of it like a balloon you blow up. Put a little blue dot on one side, then some other dots around the rest. Then once you start inflating the balloon, all the dots move further and further away from each other. That doesn't mean we are at the center, just that we are on one side and the other dots are on other sides, and the whole thing is expanding from the middle so we're moving further and further away from every other dot, relatively speaking.

Oh, there are plenty of theories: multiverses, infinite energy sources, parallel dimensions, etc. -- just no real way of testing them (...yet, anyway.)

Ah, kinda like the "Intelligent Creation" theory? Yet, you dismiss it because there is no way to test it...yet you would give credence that any of these others could be plausible....whatever those others might be.

The difference is, all the scientific theories can be proven wrong if certain observations don't hold true. So we can get closer to the truth through product of elimination.

But how can you disprove "Intelligent Creation?" All that amounts to is just throwing your hands up, giving up, and saying "God must have done it!"

[LAGC]

The only thing I noticed this morning is that the little marxist, and now our proficent Jooooo hater -- .40 -- seem to like placing the 5 star award next to threads they start as if they are somehow worthy of any rating other than FAIL.

I have noticed that many of my threads keep getting 5-starred. It's not me doing it though. I'm not that vain.

I must have a secret admirer somewhere.

[raxar]

I must have a secret admirer somewhere.

probably state prison.

[N/A]

That's because the universe is expanding, dumdum??
Best watch your manners, or you'll someday find out that PTSD is a real bitch also.

Think of it like a balloon you blow up. Put a little blue dot on one side, then some other dots around the rest. Then once you start inflating the balloon, all the dots move further and further away from each other. That doesn't mean we are at the center, just that we are on one side and the other dots are on other sides, and the whole thing is expanding from the middle so we're moving further and further away from every other dot, relatively speaking.
That would be fine if this were a 2 deminsional universe....but obviously we aren't. You need to read up on some other theories...such as the "Big bang" wasn't so much an explosion from one point, but that the universe was it's present size and "somehow" the matter coalesced all across the universe. If so, that plays hell as to why there is a redshift, don't it.



The difference is, all the scientific theories can be proven wrong if certain observations don't hold true. So we can get closer to the truth through product of elimination.

But how can you disprove "Intelligent Creation?" All that amounts to is just throwing your hands up, giving up, and saying "God must have done it!"

You discount certain observations that would lead to an intelligent creator, such as miracles, spirits of the Grandfathers, et cetera. So, if we disprove science by process of elimination in defining miracles, spirits on the other side, et cetera, then we can throw up our hands and say something else but science exists?

I have to sign off and leave town to go back to work. You're on your own....continue to fail in your own humble fashion.

[ltorlo64]

Is there a Cliff Note for that read??

I will try.

Rights are something you need to maintain life and liberty that does not take away from someone else's life and liberty. Every right comes with responsibility and if you do not practice the responsibility you lose your rights. Responsibilities do not necessarily relate to a right, for example the responsibility to feed your family, but if you abdicate your responsibility you will give up your rights.

The whole thing explains this much better, but that is the basic idea.

[recon]

All this over a beer commercial? Who cares! Wow!

[ltorlo64]

In the context of evolution, cooperation itself is a trait of "survival of the fittest." Human population thrives and prospers when we work together and look out for each other. It's one of the traits that sets us apart from most of the rest of the animal kingdom and has allowed our global population to explode to over 7 billion in a very short period of time. Just the fact that we are able to run a global system of commerce where just a small minority of the population (with the help of technology) can produce food to feed billions of mouths while most of the rest of us don't have to worry about such basic survival needs, allows the non-food-producers to do other productive things with our time to help advance society.

Indeed, our greatest strength, our strongest muscle that makes us the most fit species on the planet, is the one located in between our ears.

Obviously you have not read or learned much about history. Until the United States came around rights were granted to the subjects by the rulers. Rome, Greece, England, Germany, USSR, China, Japan. You name the country, the rulers, those in power granted and removed rights as they saw fit. Our country attributed our rights to something other than what the rulers wanted to grant and wrote them down in an official document so that we would not forget and so that our government would be constrained by our rights. Of course, since these rights as delineated in the BORs keep us free, those who would want to subjugate us try to take them away, as we are seeing now in our country.

[NAPOTS]

Hey i've boycotted Budweiser over their support of gay marriage, I'll add Sam Adams to the ban list.

[Oswald Bastable]

In the context of evolution, cooperation itself is a trait of "survival of the fittest." Human population thrives and prospers when we work together and look out for each other. It's one of the traits that sets us apart from most of the rest of the animal kingdom and has allowed our global population to explode to over 7 billion in a very short period of time. Just the fact that we are able to run a global system of commerce where just a small minority of the population (with the help of technology) can produce food to feed billions of mouths while most of the rest of us don't have to worry about such basic survival needs, allows the non-food-producers to do other productive things with our time to help advance society.

Indeed, our greatest strength, our strongest muscle that makes us the most fit species on the planet, is the one located in between our ears.

Mother nature does not guarantee cooperative efforts, in fact, nothing guarantees cooperative efforts other than man's decision to cooperate. And if another group chooses not to cooperate, we're back to 'survival of the fittest'.

Mother nature only guarantees the strongest will survive to propagate their seed.

So I ask again, who would even potentially be in a position to grant "unalienable" rights?

[Kadmos]

Mother nature does not guarantee cooperative efforts, in fact, nothing guarantees cooperative efforts other than man's decision to cooperate. And if another group chooses not to cooperate, we're back to 'survival of the fittest'.

God doesn't even guarantee that.

Mother nature only guarantees the strongest will survive to propagate their seed.

Not the "strongest", the "fittest". It's a huge difference.

So I ask again, who would even potentially be in a position to grant "unalienable" rights?

Sam Adams actually wrote on this in "The Rights of the Colonists" in 1772

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

He does later go on to say given by "god and nature", but it's clear he was speaking of a law of nature.


Personally, I'm with Burke on this topic, that is to say it's all complete and utter nonsense. There are no "natural rights" no "unalienable" or "inalienable" rights.

The "rights" we have are the ones we can wrest from whatever power might be attempting to step upon us.

It's ridiculous to argue that god gave everyone a right to liberty, but put slavery up as an accepted practice in the Bible.

The sheer number of times people have been utterly, completely denied anything claimed to be "natural rights" throughout history shows them to be nothing more than wishful thinking.


What Jefferson did was propaganda, by asserting the "rights" of the colonists, he had to counter the argument of "the divine right of kings", the only reasonable counterargument had to claim that every man had rights that were contrary to the king but still handed down from god.

The elephant in the room of course being that Jefferson was a slave owner, just to drive home the hypocrisy of that nonsense.

[stinker]

Hey i've boycotted Budweiser over their support of gay marriage, I'll add Sam Adams to the ban list.

It's not even all that great of a beer to be honest IMO.
You won't really miss it all that much.

[Oswald Bastable]

God doesn't even guarantee that.



Not the "strongest", the "fittest". It's a huge difference.



Sam Adams actually wrote on this in "The Rights of the Colonists" in 1772




He does later go on to say given by "god and nature", but it's clear he was speaking of a law of nature.


Personally, I'm with Burke on this topic, that is to say it's all complete and utter nonsense. There are no "natural rights" no "unalienable" or "inalienable" rights.

The "rights" we have are the ones we can wrest from whatever power might be attempting to step upon us.

It's ridiculous to argue that god gave everyone a right to liberty, but put slavery up as an accepted practice in the Bible.

The sheer number of times people have been utterly, completely denied anything claimed to be "natural rights" throughout history shows them to be nothing more than wishful thinking.


What Jefferson did was propaganda, by asserting the "rights" of the colonists, he had to counter the argument of "the divine right of kings", the only reasonable counterargument had to claim that every man had rights that were contrary to the king but still handed down from god.

The elephant in the room of course being that Jefferson was a slave owner, just to drive home the hypocrisy of that nonsense.

Strongest/fittest...semantics...

Then you admit, Hitler was right...the future belongs to he who kills everyone not like him?

[Kadmos]

Strongest/fittest...semantics...

Ehhh, I'd best not, I'd end up with a 2 page aside

Then you admit, Hitler was right...the future belongs to he who kills everyone not like him?

Absolutely not, in fact the opposite is much more likely true. Getting rid of all except those like you is more likely to end with inbred children hardly able to survive.

But moreover if that is the desired path, then you must kill ALL others with which you could breed, otherwise they will shortly outpace you out of sight and eventually destroy you. Either by culture, technology, or sheer numbers.

The most stable countries (empires?) are the ones that not just accept diversity, but encourage it. Not just do you end up with a better gene-pool, but you end up with better technology, a more diverse and stable economy, more trading partners, all the increases of competitive drive, and diversity of thought.

The key to "survival of the fittest" is adaptation...any time a society tries to fix a rigid point in time, fixed cultural norms, and the weeding out of divergence there is barely a doubt it will ultimately fail