- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I don't think you're being dishonest but you're also not acknowledging the founders view. There's a whole bunch of baggage that goes along with this as well. Perception is that liberals / Democrats see the Constitution as a framework that was valid at one time but is no longer valid - therefore it's view is outdated and must be changed. Conservatives primarily believe the Constitution was valid then and is even MORE valid now and no changes must be made unless it's hugenormous - which would require a new amendment. You can guess which side I come down on - easy to do. However, this is one of those arguments that won't really change much as you both have diametrically opposite views (I'm guessing). Then again, Conservatives acknowledging liberals change of the Constitution is akin to eating one's own vomit --- ie. repulsive as hell, so I doubt you'll be getting any acknowledgement of your point of view either.
No, it's not dishonest. In fact, I'd like to see more of it as we tend to get in a rut with how we view issues and policies. If at least we could look at it from a different point of view or a different context and at least acknowledge it (not agree necessarily), I think we'd be better off. I don't mind it at all.This is really about the assumptions and practices around arguing an issue and not the issue itself to me. What I wanted to know is if simply using a different context, even if it is one that people do not like, should be considered dishonest.
No, it's not dishonest. In fact, I'd like to see more of it as we tend to get in a rut with how we view issues and policies. If at least we could look at it from a different point of view or a different context and at least acknowledge it (not agree necessarily), I think we'd be better off. I don't mind it at all.
i really, really love your avatar.
Ok. Little curiosity here. I think I have been called dishonest by a few people here because, as far as I can tell, I tend to change the context of the argument and argue from a context I think is more accurate in thinking about a particular topic. Ultimately, I think if something is argued in the wrong context, than the conclusions will also likely be flawed.
I guess perhaps others don't see it that way. So, heres the question, is changing context something that should be considered dishonest?
I will submit this post for analysis. As far as I can tell, American is arguing from a context he considers legitimate while I am arguing from another. From my point of view, I see his as rigid and inflexible while he sees mine as dishonest.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...owner-rights-nationwide-6.html#post1058827476
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?