DeSantis claims our rights come from God not government. Is that correct?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Do our rights come from God or man as part of the elected government?


  • Total voters
    48

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,829
9,060
136
I mean if our government can overrule god that’s not a strong statement in favor of god.

But no government can overrule God. I always understood that part of the Declaration of Independence to be plainly stating to KG3 that his divine rule over the colonies was BS--everyone is born free, and free to choose a different government if the yoke of tyranny becomes too great a burden.

Of course, that only applied to Anglo-Saxons at the time.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,352
3,154
136
Whens it going to come out he diddled some of his students from back when he was a teacher or he drops trow every so often 300 miles from home in some gay mexican bar?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,697
10,113
136
DeFascist has put forth a bill that would require bloggers who write about him will have to register with the state, Apparently it will only apply to bloggers who reside in the state of Florida. Give it some time and writing some innocuous statement just like this one will earn you a visit from the Gestapo and you may never be seen again. I missed the part in the US Constitution that necessitates registering to exercise their 1st amendment rights. The possible good news is that DeFascist will earn the disdain of most US voters and never sniff the Presidency.

It is quite clear that the first amendment is dead in Florida. This is exactly why Disney should've stood up for themselves and sued over their first amendment rights getting trampled.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,352
3,154
136
It is quite clear that the first amendment is dead in Florida. This is exactly why Disney should've stood up for themselves and sued over their first amendment rights getting trampled.
I'm not sure that would be wise. That move was what the last guy did. They brought their original ceo from last time, bob whatever. I consider disney will have something in plan to destroy Desantis in a year or two as he plans on running for president. His failure at that will result in him being voted out because he couldn't pull out the stops. Disney's decision struck me as strange because they're very litigious. What's the best fuck you to Desantis? Suing him and Florida or tanking his presidential ambitions and releasing an onslaught of material via third party that destroys his governship?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,697
10,113
136
I'm not sure that would be wise. That move was what the last guy did. They brought their original ceo from last time, bob whatever. I consider disney will have something in plan to destroy Desantis in a year or two as he plans on running for president. His failure at that will result in him being voted out because he couldn't pull out the stops. Disney's decision struck me as strange because they're very litigious. What's the best fuck you to Desantis? Suing him and Florida or tanking his presidential ambitions and releasing an onslaught of material via third party that destroys his governship?
Why not both? I think Disney thinks the courts are likely too rigged to win.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,512
7,751
136
I get your distinction, but in the end it's the votes he gets that matter.

The distinction does matter as time goes on and will have consequences down the road. Especially if DeSantis runs for POTUS and we get a "sane" governor. DeSantis is pursuing his agenda for autocratic power with a stereotypically fascist methodology of trying to engender fear and anger by scapegoating a relatively powerless minority by accusing them of undermining cultural mores and such. These things are generating yawns and eyerolls from the populace of FLA and they generally see what he's doing from a pure power grab standpoint.

With the Disney issue...The key question, of course, is “how much leverage does this actually give Florida over operations at Disney?” Or alternately, “what harm does it do Disney, such that they may feel more inclined to go along with what DeSantis woke mob wants?” The answer I’ve seen so far as a resident is “not much if at all, but it sure looks good in the press,”

Plus, many residents are worried their taxes will go up because of this. Now ...Florida needs to repair the roads and all that (services provided by the state) on their own dime. DeSantis adding a new financial burden to the state in order to score cheap political points is not going over very well with some who voted for him, although this is still up in the air, and we really don't know the financials. DeSantis was going to get rid of the special improvement district altogether, and that would have transferred the debt to the surrounding counties. Instead, the district still exists , was renamed and is now run by a board of DeSantis appointees.

IMO though, I never thought that “Disney government" should have been allowed. They changed the borders so that the residents of Celebration couldn’t ruin things for Disney which in imo, just made it worse. And if that special district had been dissolved for any almost reason other than to punish Disney for expressing disagreement with DeSantis about diversity and gays, I would have been fine with it if the financial burden would have been absorbed by the state. But here I am, in support of thinking that Disney shouldn’t have lost the special treatment for this reason. In this case, the larger issue of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people outweighs the issue of Disney having an unfair political position in their small part of Florida. And I see this in the people's views here.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,099
136
Disney has a claim under 42 USC 1983, which addresses the government retaliating for exercising First Amendment rights. DeSantis has publicly admitted that this is why he did it, so it's open and shut. If they do not pursue legal action, I can only assume it's for tactical reasons.

And they just filed an action under 42 USC 1983. The only wonder is they hadn't done it already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi
Nov 29, 2006
15,613
4,066
136
First he would have to prove their is a god. Then he can debate if he gave us any rights, or if man being as smart as we are just came up with them on our own. Answer is obvious.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,377
48,635
136
First he would have to prove their is a god. Then he can debate if he gave us any rights, or if man being as smart as we are just came up with them on our own. Answer is obvious.
If god does grant them he clearly does nothing to enforce them so it's irrelevant anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,377
48,635
136
And they just filed an action under 42 USC 1983. The only wonder is they hadn't done it already.
My guess is they already had their play in mind where they kneecapped the oversight board so the initial action by DeSantis didn't really do anything. Looks like they were hoping to give DeSantis an out where he could leave it at that but when he didn't they felt they had no choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lanyap and Pohemi

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,705
8,217
136
My guess is they already had their play in mind where they kneecapped the oversight board so the initial action by DeSantis didn't really do anything. Looks like they were hoping to give DeSantis an out where he could leave it at that but when he didn't they felt they had no choice.

And in the case (no pun intended) that DeSantis didn't cave and doubled down, they knew it would give them more ammo based on his public statements etc.. And boy did it ever. The suit is full of those references.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,099
136
My guess is they already had their play in mind where they kneecapped the oversight board so the initial action by DeSantis didn't really do anything. Looks like they were hoping to give DeSantis an out where he could leave it at that but when he didn't they felt they had no choice.

Yes that's probably correct. This is as clear a case of the state retaliating for exercizing 1A rights I've ever heard about. DeSantis has admitted it multiple times, even in his own book.

Disney is seeking injunctive relief to stop the retaliatory actions. Let's hope we don't get another judge like that one in TX who issued the abortion pill ruling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

kt

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2000
6,015
1,321
136
Yes that's probably correct. This is as clear a case of the state retaliating for exercizing 1A rights I've ever heard about. DeSantis has admitted it multiple times, even in his own book.

Disney is seeking injunctive relief to stop the retaliatory actions. Let's hope we don't get another judge like that one in TX who issued the abortion pill ruling.
Well, there's always judge Aileen Cannon. Isn't she from Florida? Maybe she'll insert herself into this case too. Or maybe she's a Trump loyalist and try to bury DeSantis even further.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,099
136
Well, there's always judge Aileen Cannon. Isn't she from Florida? Maybe she'll insert herself into this case too. Or maybe she's a Trump loyalist and try to bury DeSantis even further.

Yeah I was thinking about her too, but had forgotten the name.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,377
48,635
136
Yes that's probably correct. This is as clear a case of the state retaliating for exercizing 1A rights I've ever heard about. DeSantis has admitted it multiple times, even in his own book.

Disney is seeking injunctive relief to stop the retaliatory actions. Let's hope we don't get another judge like that one in TX who issued the abortion pill ruling.
It is deeply depressing to me that our courts have devolved to this state as this should be a slam dunk case that's not even close. Then again, the abortion pill ruling shouldn't have been close and here we are.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pohemi

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,957
2,562
136
Yes that's probably correct. This is as clear a case of the state retaliating for exercizing 1A rights I've ever heard about. DeSantis has admitted it multiple times, even in his own book.

Disney is seeking injunctive relief to stop the retaliatory actions. Let's hope we don't get another judge like that one in TX who issued the abortion pill ruling.
I thought I saw somewhere late last night, that an Obama appointee is going to be the judge. I don't remember where I came across that.. I was reading a lot of sh... stuff.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
6,984
7,406
136
Don't know what happened to this Thread, but rights don't come from either "God" (lotta wiggle room there for the anointed to interpret god's will on this front) or from Government (Which by definition restricts freedoms).

Rights are inherent and self evident: every human is born infinitely free and is inhibited by how they are nurtured and the nature of their environment. As adults, we each and every one of us chooses our level of inhibition through the democratic process or in other cases inaction against undemocratic processes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,377
48,635
136
Don't know what happened to this Thread, but rights don't come from either "God" (lotta wiggle room there for the anointed to interpret god's will on this front) or from Government (Which by definition restricts freedoms).

Rights are inherent and self evident: every human is born infinitely free and is inhibited by how they are nurtured and the nature of their environment. As adults, we each and every one of us chooses our level of inhibition through the democratic process or in other cases inaction against undemocratic processes.
Rights are not inherent - they only come from human action in some capacity, and that is usually government.

Rights are a purely human invention and we should treat them that way. We create them and it is our responsibility to protect them.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,546
6,145
126
Rights are not inherent - they only come from human action in some capacity, and that is usually government.

Rights are a purely human invention and we should treat them that way. We create them and it is our responsibility to protect them.
This is a logic that is forced on you, in my opinion, by a limited understanding of self. It is the natural product of dualistic thinking, I am and I am separate from everything else. I am bound (defined) by the past. You have settled for methodologies that are quite satisfactory for a life undisturbed by an all consuming need to answer emotionally troubling existential questions. You are content.

Berift on any sense of a need for self questioning, who you really are, you are content with the sense of self your ego provides. There is no God, no God conscious state, no mystical revelations, all that is just a product of human fears and needs, an escape from the harsh, but in your case quite comfortable, reality. You are the center the judge, the determiner of what is ethical and what is not. It all flows directly out of logical facts, no God, no inalienable rights.

But that is just such a limited way to look at it. Scientists have determined that even monkeys have a sense of fair play. it's not like primates are hard wired to manifest cohesive social traits. Just as humans are hard wired for language, with basic gramatical rules that apply regardless of language, the search for justice and fairness is built right into our genes. We didn't really invent a fucking thing. We aquired our sense of inalienable rights in the process of survival as a social ape.

We were born with instinctual moral capacity onto which the forces of imaginative thinking can be twisted into anything. And this is why, if you want to be moral you have to know who you really are, because who you really are was the potential you as a moral creature were born to express. Morality is unlearning attachment to ego identifications.

Your belief that we create what is moral is dangerous thinking because fear and imagination creates monsterous things. To be moral is to seek truth and to reject everything else. Of course, my opinion, again.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,377
48,635
136
This is a logic that is forced on you, in my opinion, by a limited understanding of self. It is the natural product of dualistic thinking, I am and I am separate from everything else. I am bound (defined) by the past. You have settled for methodologies that are quite satisfactory for a life undisturbed by an all consuming need to answer emotionally troubling existential questions. You are content.

Berift on any sense of a need for self questioning, who you really are, you are content with the sense of self your ego provides. There is no God, no God conscious state, no mystical revelations, all that is just a product of human fears and needs, an escape from the harsh, but in your case quite comfortable, reality. You are the center the judge, the determiner of what is ethical and what is not. It all flows directly out of logical facts, no God, no inalienable rights.

But that is just such a limited way to look at it. Scientists have determined that even monkeys have a sense of fair play. it's not like primates are hard wired to manifest cohesive social traits. Just as humans are hard wired for language, with basic gramatical rules that apply regardless of language, the search for justice and fairness is built right into our genes. We didn't really invent a fucking thing. We aquired our sense of inalienable rights in the process of survival as a social ape.

We were born with instinctual moral capacity onto which the forces of imaginative thinking can be twisted into anything. And this is why, if you want to be moral you have to know who you really are, because who you really are was the potential you as a moral creature were born to express. Morality is unlearning attachment to ego identifications.

Your belief that we create what is moral is dangerous thinking because fear and imagination creates monsterous things. To be moral is to seek truth and to reject everything else. Of course, my opinion, again.
I didn’t say anything about morality. If you think you have a right to life granted to you by something other than people if you’re being eaten by a bear or drowning in the ocean be sure to let nature know it’s violating your rights.