The debate "Americans need to stop worshipping their founding fathers. they werent all that" was started by
August 5, 2016, 10:21 pm.
12 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thereal posted 9 arguments, MathDebating01 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
NotoriousBishop posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 7 arguments, historybuff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Marvelgirl2002, jack_tim_45, thereal, MathDebating01, iyah21, hunadi and 6 visitors agree.
NotoriousBishop, Nemiroff, hallobishes, SwaggerPoptart, moneybagboyz, historybuff, blakelovesjesus, Bman192837465, Zuhayr, sabrina, neveralone and 5 visitors disagree.
Noone is talking about funding Internet here troll. Internet is the primary access to information and Internet companies are increasingly buying media and news companies. alex, you are a moron and/or a troll. you don't even know what the we are talking about.
free doesn't always mean cost less. it means freedom. free speech doesn't mean everyone get paid to talk idiot.
if I decide to lay on my coach all day playing video games, why should the goverment fund me?
you claim Internet is a need.
if one doesn't work for these "needs" why give it to them?
Fascism and socialism has always promised good deeds. However the actual development of these promises never extend beyond will.
that sentence speaks volumes about the kind of terrible things you believe. "providing people with things they need is actually bad"
I don't think I could come up with a better example of how rediculous Republican thinking has become.
yes, that's socialism.
providing people with things they need is actually bad.
the Founding fathers knew this, created the most successful goverment and greatest country ever not providing people with needs. Society can't function if people don't work. if people have all their needs then why work?
when I say "people" I mean people able to work.
yes, because providing people with the services they need without gouging them is socialism.... my god you're hopeless.
So you want to replace private power with public power. Show me an altruistic politician.
"is that way liberals* are the ones fighting for free Internet"
*you misspelled socialist. :)
is that way liberals are the ones fighting for free Internet while conservatives are fighting to allow Internet companies be Internet dictators? conservatives have long stopped fighting for freedom. they are fighting to turn this country into an oligarchy and betray the people of this nation. your leaders are traitors while the majority of the conservative were sheep.
you finally broke free but your masses are so uneducated you believe the most bombastic moron who claims "only he can save you" while constantly putting his foot in his mouth and continuing to screw you with the same old economic agenda.
But once more, it was an international principle.
I fear you may misinterpret this, but the only reason blacks have rights is because they are people. Nobody gave it to them, but an overall wrong idea by society kept them from it. The constitution in our eyes protect them.
You miss my point. Ask someone back then if blacks were people, they would say no. The constitution protects people. We now believe blacks are people. That is the difference: the spirit of the constitution is that to protect people.
principles like slavery? that was a principle of the US at the time the Constitution was written. principles change over time. they have to. by holding onto the past with such rediculous fervor they are only holding the country back.
Im not denying the fifth article. I know its there and appreciate its value.
You misunderstand conservatism. We believe that the ideas of the framers should continue. 1st amendment applies to not just speech and writing, but the radio and the internet and tv despite those being newer inventions. Liberals want to recreate it, conservatives want to maintain the founding principles.
society continue to evolve. and if alot of conservatives in America get their way the Constitution never will. it will remain stagnant and get more and more outdated.
Slavery was a part of international culture. Women can vote too. At the time, it wasnt a part of international tradition; it wasnt even an issue. But would you think in our modern world women would not be allowed to vote after having escaped the kitchen so to speak. I argue they should, and consequently the constitution affirms that. Women were more housekeepers, not active members of society like now.
many of them also believed in things like slavery. the world has changed a great deal since then. changes are necessary.
Our country is what our founders made; our traditions are their own. We can change the Constitution, and they allowed for it. But those changes should be in the light of what they believed. And also explain the domino effect across Europe after our revolution.
Would you prefer being the minority of a democracy?
were the representative bodies of England popularly elected? how about the higher house of lords, how much of them were elected?
England was a half way democracy nothing near what the founders created. the power of the people was massively limited in england.
nemiroff you silly boy, have you never heard of england? you know, your REAL founding fathers? well yeah, they were a working democracy which stands time. it actually became a democracy over a century before america even existed, before your precious founding fathers were ever born. dude read a history book. Like not a made up one, a real one lmao.
however they didn't trust the common people to make their own decisions and made the electoral college
obviously the fathers were human and their documents NEED to be updated. that we can agree on. but to say their contributions were not amazing is to ignore reality.
the founders were the first to make a working democracy that handled both size and time.... ever
the only functional democracies prefathers were tiny city states.
that is and marvelous achievement that NOONE before them can claim. and the idea of democracy was many thousands of years old and no one could get it right.
and obviously praising the founders and thinking the document is perfect arent the smae thing but here im clearly talking about those who worship them to such a degree that they think it would be a sin to change the holy writings of their founding fathers in the constitution.
political science wouldnt be behind without "the fathers" lmao. what did they do that was new? congress? no, they copied that from england. president? no they copied that from prime minister in england. senators and representatives? no, they copied that from lords and commons ministers in england. not having a monarch is minor because the monarch in england wasnt more powerful than the politicians at that time anyway and also the colonies seperated from a king so it would be politucal and actual suicide to set up another one in the US. Giving people liberties that the state cant infringe on? nope, the english did that first too with the magna carta. nothing they did was new. get real.
when someone worships the founding fathers based on incorrect beliefs, correcting them by accurately quoting what the fathers actually said is a very valid argument.
praising the founding fathers and believing the constitution is the perfect document to this day is not the same thing.
newton was a great man, that doesn't mean his theories were the epitome of greatness, they can and have been improved but it is likely that without newton Einstein would not have made his theories. he would still also be a genius, but he may have wrote newton's laws had newton not already established them. science would have been a few steps behind without newton just like political science would be behind without the fathers.
there is always room for improvement. nothing any man has done is perfect, that includes the works of newton, Einstein and the founding fathers.
its so annoying when people use arguements like "oh but our founding fathers said this, our founding fathers said that" like stfu. these founding fathers you speak of died over 200 years ago. they didnt think ******s would be using the ammendments against their own people.
notorious bishop its nothing like saying mlk shouldnt be praised because there are other people who did stuff like that on a larger scale. did martin luther die promoting unequal civil rights or did he die promoting equality? he was shot dead because people couldnt take what he said. yet his protests were peaceful. his voice and what he said was more powerful than the violence these BLM pricks commit everyday. Washington committed more bad acts than good. The lives he murdered to whitify america outweigh the little good he did to free the oppressed white people who had to pay taxes. The point im trying to make here is that yes, a lot of people were racist in the olden days and the founding fathers are just a few of them but none of those people are praised as much or worshipped by americans like the founding fathers are. i mean that other guy literally said they were the smartest people you could get to set up a government!
again we aren't saying they didn't accomplish noteworthy things. but some Americans treat them as if they are the smartest men in the world. they refuse to discuss amending the Constitution because they've built a cult of personality around them.
That's like saying people shouldn't be applauding for MLK Cuz their was people in a bigger scale who helped break down barriers, like Gandhi
it is not hard to do what they did. america is a land of diverse land scapes full of resources. its not hard to make it developed. if you want to look at countries which are developed and whose leaders were geniuses, look at mjddle eastern countries like saudi arabia, qatar, kuwait and UAE. these countries are in the middle of the desert where nothing grows, yet today they are economic and architectural marvels
We have certain ways to add amendments to the constitution where we can change to fit the times. That is the purpose of the document. I think change should not go without certain debate among opinions. Don't you think?
and what do you mean it doesnt happen everyday? leaders have been building working govts and nations out of broken land for centuries. germany after world war 2 was destroyed but today it is the biggest economy in the EU. russia after the fall of the USSR was in shambles and economic meltdown but today it is a nuclear and military superpower. france during and after the french revolution was in shambles. today it is a superpower. rome after the collapse of the roman empire was im shambles. today italy is a developed power, etc etc. need i say more?
of course they deserve SOME applause but calling them the smartest people you can put together is an example of the unrealistic, silly view some americans have about them. america was not the first republic. america was not the first country to give rights and america was not the first country to be a democracy and have a parliament. they simply copied their natives, the English and changed some things to seem different, e.g. changing the spelling and calling parliament congress.
who are the canadian forefathers?
they certainly deserve to be recognized for their accomplishments. but Americans see them as some kind of geniuses that can never be wrong. the idea of altering the Constitution is an non starter to alot of Americans.
your Constitution is centuries old. alot if things have changed. the founding fathers were reasonably smart men who did a reasonably good job founding a country. but the documents they created should not be used as tools to prevent change.
They were arguably the smartest people you can put together to form a government, and they constructed one based on individuals liberties, rights, a democratic republic. These colonist seperated from Britain, fought them, and created a working delegated government out of one in shambles. That does not happen everyday and they deserve some appluase.
washington died owning slaves and was kicked out of the british military. he ordered a genocide on native americans and lead many unsuccessful battles. the point is he wasnt special. he was more unsuccessful than most other leaders of powerful countries in history so people need to stop worshipping him and the other founding fathers, quoting everything they said about not banning guns etc as if they were scripture from god.