>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

Rome wasn't built in a day.

to our views today? yes.
to their views in the 18th century, no.

>>1498934
>hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

>all men are created equal

I don't think that the definition has changed in a while

>>1498939
>slaves
>men

Who would ever think that a bunch of diest Freemasons in the pockets of Jewish bankers rebelling against their divinely appointed king in order to destroy Christianity and move toward a Satanic one world government would be hypocrites?

>>1498952
>divinely appointed king

>>1498922
Slaves aren't men

>>1498939
we got to our views today because of what they did then. in 1776 you would be seen as absolutely mad for even thinking that a black man and white man were of the same caliber. what they were fighting for then was equal rights for white, landowning men.
the definition of what a "man" is in the eyes of the general public, and the ones who hold power has changed. everything has to start somewhere.
>see "rome wasnt built in a day"

>>1498955
You're right. Having an aristocracy and monarchy was obviously too worldly. It's much better now that our rulers are determined by being born into international Jewish finance dynasties.

>>1498976
>implying that both aren't worldly as fuck

>>1498952
>divinely appointed king
I think you need to read Locke

File: mlady.jpg (96KB, 550x636px)

96KB, 550x636px

>>1498922
Seriously who wrote this crap? What kind of fedora did it?

File: jail.jpg (125KB, 680x452px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 680x452px

>>1498963

>unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS

nor are death row criminals, it seems

>>1498939
You're attaching your own connotation to those words that the authors didn't believe. That phrase comes from 18th century understanding of natural law, aka all men are created equally wild in nature and that all governments are social constructs. Not that all men actually equal.

The rest of the phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" comes from John Locke's argument that people should be able to defend "Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions". The reason that the founding fathers used these phrased was to argue for a natural right for the american subjects of England to defy their government after it has stopped protecting their promised rights.

It's only because later generations have reinterpreted those words to mean something different.

>>1499003
social contracts* not constructs.

>>1498922
No, most people just can't into historical context.

>>1499020
/thread

>>1499003
well, than could that mean that some men are inherently above others?

wasn't one of the main concerns of the Founding Fathers the fact that they didn't see their king and aristocracy as divinely appointed because all men are equal under Nature's law?

>>1499039
The Declaration shouldn't really be read as the founders' ethical world view but as "reasons we should be allowed to leave the King". Because they obviously had no legal right to do so, they had to fall back on some god ordained natural right to declare independence. You can contrast this with the various southern states' later ordinances of secession from the union which was entirely made up of legal arguments.

>>1499039
Think about "created equally" this way: if one half of a pair of twins is brilliant and works his ass off and becomes a doctor with a hot wife and then goes into politics while the other is a Dillard who drops out of high school and ends up working a menial job to feed his pot habit until dying at age 40 from a combination of being fat and liver disease, are those brothers "equals" in the eyes of any sane individual just because they sprang from the same womb at the same time?

>>1499039
>well, than could that mean that some men are inherently above others?

I think most people of the 18th century including the founding fathers would agree with that statement. I think you'd enjoy listening to this.

https://secure-hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/3/3/3/3337757a4ac9193a/Lockes_Subjectivist_Philosophy_of_Revolution.mp3?c_id=12297227&expiration=1470188034&hwt=85dcd71a1812811411d82681de589d41

>>1499136
Yeah, pretty much. Enfranchisement was a mistake.

>>1499123
So they shouldn't have equal representation because of their different lives?
The laws of nature and God apply equally to either of them

Shitty analogy

Also, note that you're comparing a slave to a couch potato. Careful there

>>1499144
better frasing here

>>1499039
http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race

File: 1434434684505.png (68KB, 271x288px)

68KB, 271x288px

>>1498976
holy shit, you're serious aren't you?
ahahAHHAhaHAHhAHhahHAHHAHah