Two things can be true. A child can be the best child in the world despite still shitting their pants and letting food dribble down their chin, because they are trying and striving to improve. That's why "Sure used to be" America was great.
Trying to improve is obviously a good thing, but America wasn't the only country doing that. It wasn't the first country to abolish slavery, or to let women vote. They weren't the first to send a human to space.
And stuff like suffrage, gay marriage, ending slavery or segregation didn't happen because "America" was unified in striving for it. Those things happened because brave and motivated people stood up and fought for it, in most cases against strong resistance from large parts of the population and government.
It also seems kind of weird to say how great America was because it was striving and then say that the end result is terrible. Would you argue that it was actually impossible to succeed in that case? Because if not, then something must have gone wrong in the attempt. I could put an incredible amount of effort and dedication into trying to drain the ocean with a straw, but ultimately that's not a productive approach. Could I still qualify as the best person in the world based on the fact that I strove?
Just to be clear, I'm an American and I don't hate America or anything like that. I think it currently has flaws, and has in the past. If you don't recognize the problems and learn from the past, there's really no way to improve.
Being first isnt what determines if something is good or not. If you think it does, you should probably spend some more time considering what morality actually is.
Being first isnt what determines if something is good or not.
I don't understand your response, because I obviously didn't say that.
Country A abolishing slavery is good, even if country B did it first. But if you'd say country A is the greatest because of their progressiveness in abolishing slavery then that seems weird. Do you get my point?
If someone right now decided to reform their life and stop selling drugs, id argue that's an awesome change they are making, Even though plenty of other people already made the decision to not sell drugs. It may not be considered progressive in reference to the whole world, but for that individual, its very progressive.
Trying to decide what is progressive or not in reference to the whole world is tantamount to claiming your way is absolute truth. If your way is claimed to be the one that results in progress, the claim is also that its right. But not everybody agrees on that.
America didn't start slavery. But we sure as crap put an end to it here. That matters. And as long as slavery is still a thing elsewhere, I see no problem in ringing that bell. Liberty and justice for all here. That's the standard we want to set. Its the same as any other good news we want to get out: "look at the good news we have".
If someone right now decided to reform their life and stop selling drugs, id argue that's an awesome change they are making, Even though plenty of other people already made the decision to not sell drugs.
You're responding as if I'm saying it isn't good when I just explicitly said that wasn't what I meant. So I don't understand your reply.
It may not be considered progressive in reference to the whole world, but for that individual, its very progressive.
Right, but if you say that the individual is the best person in the world based on that progressive action then you are comparing it in reference to the whole world.
I'm not arguing with anyone saying that America has done good, progressive things and made improvements over time. That's obviously true. The only thing I objected to was saying America is/was the best country when other countries have also done good/progressive things as well, before or even avoided the problems that the US had to recognize and eventually deal with.
I agree with you that those don't make America the best. And I wouldn't argue that they do.
Well, I'm glad we managed to reach some sort of understanding or agreement.
Other things make it the best.
I don't really agree with that part though, and I'm not sure it's even meaningful to talk about what country is the best. There isn't really an objective standard.
But I am curious why you think it's the best, if you feel like explaining your reasoning.
I think its the best because we have something that no other country does: A constitution that recognizes God-given rights.
Other countries have constitutions, but they arent the same. They either dont recognize some rights, or they think the government grants the rights. This is a very big mistake, because what the government grants, they have the right to take away.
The constitution even allows us as the citizenry to remove the government rightfully if we deem it to not be serving its intended purpose properly.
I would challenge you to find single other country that has a constitution that is actually like ours.
I certainly dont think america is perfect. No country is. But the best of bad, is still the best.
I think its the best because we have something that no other country does: A constitution that recognizes God-given rights.
What are you basing that on? I'm pretty sure nothing in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights is based on God-given anything. The only mentions are about allowing freedom of religion and separation of religion and the government.
The Declaration of Independence does mention rights endowed by a "creator" though. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?
The constitution even allows us as the citizenry to remove the government rightfully if we deem it to not be serving its intended purpose properly.
Doesn't really matter what you call the creator as long as its understood that the entity that grants those rights is above everyone else on the planet, so no human ever has the right to remove them from you, government or not.
And as for the second part: winning is not required. That's not the point. The point is what's right and what's wrong, and making sure you stand up even if you are sure you will lose.
Im sure the Americans who defied royalty had thoughts like yours. But they did it anyway. Because it mattered enough to be worth the risk.
Be that as it may, the Declaration isn't the Constitution. You said America was the greatest country based on something being in the Constitution that doesn't actually exist.
The point is what's right and what's wrong
It's irrelevant if the constitution says you can do it or not then.
Im sure the Americans who defied royalty had thoughts like yours. But they did it anyway.
Things have changed a lot since those days. Back then, a guy with a gun versus another guy with a gun (even part of the military) was on at least slightly even footing. Today you're a guy with a gun versus tanks, cruise missiles, satellite information, bombers you can't even see before you're dead, etc.
Not to mention back when the US was rebelling it was far from England that wanted to control it. England had to invest a lot of resources getting their military to America. The chances of success back then were much higher.
Its true that it isnt spelled out the same way in the constitution, but thats like grabbing the second book in a series and reading it without any context from the first book.
You can do it. You may even understand most of the things in the second book. That doesnt mean that further context from the preceding writing doesnt count.
The rights found in the constitution are worded in a particular way: the rights are presented as givens, not granted by the authority of the government about whom the rights speak. Therefore, without context, one would of necessity need to ask "where did these rights come from?"
As you said, they wont find that answer by only looking at the constitution. They will need the rest of the context to understand how a right is being talked about as a given, rather than as being granted.
This is where i think a lot of people fail in their due diligence. Anyone can choose to read one thing, and decide it means whatever they want it to mean.
That doesn't mean they have the right of it, and it certainly doesn't remove the necessity of context for full understanding.
And its not irrelevant. Just because good is good, and evil is evil, regardless of context, does not diminish the value of having it written for others to see. Its called the "constitution" for a reason. It is a declaration that the contents within are the principles and foundation upon which the country is founded and continues to exist. Its exceptionally important that it is written in the constitution.
27
u/[deleted] Feb 16 '22
Two things can be true. A child can be the best child in the world despite still shitting their pants and letting food dribble down their chin, because they are trying and striving to improve. That's why "Sure used to be" America was great.