The right winger doth protest too much, methinks

[countryboy]

Why does it always seem like those who reference the constitution in their arguments seem to be the ones who have the least understanding of that document and it's meaning? It's almost like they don't know how to form a rational argument that stands on it's own so they try to jump right to a legal document and depend upon an equivocating definition of terms to justify their position. I've noticed this heavily in people like Ted Cruz who constantly refers to himself as a "strict constitutional conservative" yet apparently has no understanding of how the constitution actually protects a woman's right to privacy. I hear it in gun enthusiasts who want to jump right to the 2nd amendment, but yet cannot really explain why "nuclear arms" shouldn't be included in the "right to bear arms." I hear it in ultra Christians who want to point to religious freedom to justify discrimination. They struggle to justify why baking a cake is actually hurting them, or why gays deserve this treatment. Another example I saw today was this thread claiming that both parties primary processes are unconstitutional despite there being nothing whatsoever in the constitution outlining anything about how primaries are supposed to work.

Is it just me, or do you not tend to hear this crap from liberals and other more intelligent types? They tend to focus on whether it actually makes rational sense to let people own assault weapons rather than what a 200 year old document states. They tend to focus on whether it's right or wrong to allow gays to marry and to ban discrimination rather than whether the law technically states it or not. Laws after all should be derived off of what makes rational sense, not the other way around. You can't make an irrational idea rational by pointing to a law regardless of what the law says. It just seems to me that those who have run out of good justifications for their positions tend to be the first to jump to legal statutes hoping that if they can convince people that the law says what they think it does it won't matter if what they are advocating is ridiculous or not.

Yes, it's just you. And your leftist comrades, of course.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I see, so why does the right want to increase government control over a woman's body? Why does it want the government to set limitations on who can and cannot marry? Why does it want to increase the size of the military? Is the military part of the government? These are all instances of the left wanting less government and the right wanting more. It seems that neither party is interested in less government or more government, but in fact different government for doing different things.

Not all of us on the right do. If you look at the left they are interested in restricting speech and are downright hostile to religion. They are constantly looking for ways to attack the 2nd and the right to privacy and legal search and seizure goes out the window if given the right incentive (John Doe investigations in Wisconsin). Both sides have rights they actively try to trample.

False, the purpose of the constitution is to state the specifications of each branch of government. It contains some limitations in the Bill of Rights, but the right seems to want to ignore those far more often than the left does. It is the right who is constantly trying to pass state laws on abortion and banning gay marriage which are almost immediately struck down by judges who seem to understand the bill of rights far better than they are.

The purpose of the constitution is to state the role of government and to limit it to those enumerated functions. You state you understand the constitution but you see the Bill of Rights as "some limitations" rather than a recognition of rights to be protected. I don't much get into the abortion argument, but at some point, the life that is starting needs some measure of protection---we are still trying to figure out the when. Gay marriage is a recognized right, no one is trying to pass anything limiting it anymore, this is a dead argument.

This isn't about liking the constitution or not liking it. I would say that I generally like the constitution and the Bill of Rights just fine. Largely because I actually understand what they mean and what they were designed to accomplish. However in arguments I rarely attempt to cite specific parts of the constitution as my justification for an action. I will correct those who cite it incorrectly, but generally I'm more interested in a higher level of debate.

Which is inferring that your moral judgment or moral code is better than someone else's and should be imposed on them from what I'm reading.

Yet they were smart enough to create one anyway recognizing it as necessary to keep the various states from going rogue and causing frequent internal struggles that could not be settled in any manor but with violence.

Being independent bodies would not entail them going rogue. The constitution is meant to be a compact between the states and the Fed. The Fed has largely ignored this fact for over a century. It could use some reminders with an re-invigoration of the 10th.

Conservatives believe what they want to believe about the constitution even when actual legal scholars agree that is says no such thing. They cite the constitution because they don't have a rational basis for their opinion so they're hoping they can just convince you that the constitution agrees with them when in reality it does not.

And liberals ignore it when it does just as frequently. Rationalization and rational tend to only be a little ways apart.

All evidence to the contrary.

Ditto.

 

[countryboy]

I'm not referring to the constitution. I said "don't you think I SHOULD have a right to know." You notice the difference here? I'm discussing what is actually morally right and wrong not what is written in a document some where. You seem to want to jump to the document. You seem to think that because you cannot find it written in the document that makes it not something that should be in the document. I'm talking about what should be in the document whether it's technically there or not. This is precisely my point. People like yourself seem to lack the ability to reason. To think for yourself and try to determine what is actually right and wrong vs what is legal and illegal. As a result you rely on a hundreds of year old piece of paper to tell you what is right and wrong even when the meaning of that papers is highly questionable.


And how exactly would I find out?

Should the owner be required to tell me? Do I have to read every yelp review of ever store I enter before I enter it? Is it just word of mouth? Can I require stores run by bigots to put a sticker in the window of their shop to help me identify who is and is not a bigot?

Furthermore if you are a baker and someone comes in ordering a wedding cake how do you know if the cake is for a gay wedding or not? Is that onus also on the baker to determine whether they are making a cake for someone they would want to make a cake for?

Would it not be simpler to just set up some basic regulations to insure that all businesses are treating their workers and customers ethically so that customers can easily shop with confidence knowing that they are not supporting unethical behavior?

Wait, you admonish others who don't "understand" the Constitution nearly as well as you. And then, a couple of posts later, you effectively wad said document up, go for two points in the wastebasket.....and miss. :roll:

 

[Henrin]

Yes, they can decide what occupation they want to pursue but not who's money is not good enough to take. Our money is good for ALL debts public and private. it says so right on the bill.

That's crap. If someone wants to become a baker and make baked goods for a living they have the right to decide who they will serve.

 

[MrWonka]

Something you're doubling down on here.

Nope, that's you again as always.

No, it isn't enumerated. If anything it would be a DERIVED right.

That's precisely what I said. It can be rationally inferred from a specifically enumerated right.

You should also know the SCOTUS has no constitutional grant of power to derive rights.

Sure it does. In the same way that the constitution says you have the right to free speech and freedom of religion, but it doesn't say what you're free to say or what religions you're free to worship. It is just assumed that all speech is covered, and all religions are covered. Yet clearly there is some speech and certain religions beliefs that have been blocked and the court up held them. In the same token the constitution says you have a right against unwarranted search. It doesn't specifically state that a woman's body is considered something that cannot be searched, but that is assumed.

Apparently you haven't read word one of the Federalist Papers or the founder's thoughts after the Constitution was written. Did you know that every single founder still alive at the time of the Madison v Marbury decision, including the one who physically wrote the majority of the Constitution, said clearly the court does not have the power it's taken unto itself?

HAHAHA!!! Perfect! You're pointing to a court decision that resulted from someone trying to use the law to get away with something that was clearly unethical. Furthermore your attempts to point to Federalist Papers and Legal Decisions to make your point just further prove what I'm trying to get at. People like yourself can't think rationally. You therefore attempt to point to previous writings and documents of someone else as if their authority trumps what is truly right and wrong.

The constitution, the federalist papers, legal precedents.... these are all good documents that we should review when making decisions about modern problems, but operating under the assumption that they are flawless in every regard would be absolutely foolish. They are based on problems of the time, and while being written in an attempt to cover more broad cases predicting the future is impossible. Therefore relying on them as your only justification for a position is ridiculous and speaks to the irrationality of your position.

The founders were very specific about what they thought the words they wrote meant. Conferring a privacy right was nowhere in that meaning. They had no problem with the government searching mail for instance. That's how they caught Benedict Arnold, read his mail, without a warrant.

First, a piece of mail for example is a document that you are trusting into the hands of someone else. By allowing it into the hands of another person you are understanding that there is a realistic probability that someone else might read it. In fact you are intending that it be read by someone else. The right against search and seizure however was meant to protect against personal things considered property of the owner. The fact that they might not have considered a woman's body to be her property at the time they wrote that is a problem with their view of women not a problem with the law itself.

the founders meant for the government to be subservient to the people. That the people hold the power and be able to end the government if it overreached. That they be armed.

Given that the government has possession of nuclear weapons and predator drones would it not be necessary for the average person to have the right to own these arms as well in order to end the government if it overreached?

There were no nuclear weapons when the constitution was written.

There were no assault riffles as well. Can we ban them along with nuclear weapons?

 

[MrWonka]

That's crap. If someone wants to become a baker and make baked goods for a living they have the right to decide who they will serve.

Not based on criteria which were endowed by our creator. We believe that all men are created equal in the eyes of our creator so treating people unequally based on the way they were created would be to go against the primary Axiom that America was founded upon. It therefore seem silly to not have a law against it.

 

[Henrin]

Not based on criteria which were endowed by our creator. We believe that all men are created equal in the eyes of our creator so treating people unequally based on the way they were created would be to go against the primary Axiom that America was founded upon. It therefore seem silly to not have a law against it.

You do realize you're speaking towards a philosophy that has nothing to do with this law, right?

 

[MrWonka]

Wait, you admonish others who don't "understand" the Constitution nearly as well as you.

No, I admonish those who rely on the Constitution to defend their positions, and point out how infrequently the constitution seems to match with their beliefs on top of it. It's to the point where you can almost treat the constitution like Godwin's law. The first person to reference it is usually the one losing the debate.

 

[MrWonka]

You do realize you're speaking towards a philosophy that has nothing to do with this law, right?

That's precisely my point. There is a difference between what makes rational sense, and what the law states.

The statement:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Is what is known as an axiom. That's what the words "self-evident" means. It is a statement of common belief that forms the initial premise of a rational argument. A conclusion properly derived from an Axiom should be undeniable. All laws in this country should be derived for the purposes of upholding this Axiom. If any do not then you must consider the law flawed, or you must reject the Axiom.

It seems like those of higher intelligence tend to focus on making sure the laws are properly derived from this Axiom where those of low intelligence insist on relying upon laws already derived under the assumption that they are flawless.

 

[Henrin]

That's precisely my point. There is a difference between what makes rational sense, and what the law states.

The statement:



Is what is known as an axiom. That's what the words "self-evident" means. It is a statement of common belief that forms the initial premise of a rational argument. A conclusion properly derived from an Axiom should be undeniable. All laws in this country should be derived for the purposes of upholding this Axiom. If any do not then you must consider the law flawed, or you must reject the Axiom.

It seems like those of higher intelligence tend to focus on making sure the laws are properly derived from this Axiom where those of low intelligence insist on relying upon laws already derived under the assumption that they are flawless.

You do realize that axiom speaks towards natural rights, right? The right to labor and property are natural rights. I mean for godsakes man, all he did was change property/estate into Pursuit of Happiness, which would still mean that property and labor are rights. It was however ****ing brainless of him to change the word property into pursuit of happiness.

 

[Ntharotep]

I can solve this issue pretty easily.
If you are Liberal then Conservative = Evil.
If you are Conservative then Liberal = Evil.

/thread

 

[fmw]

I see, so why does the right want to increase government control over a woman's body? Why does it want the government to set limitations on who can and cannot marry? Why does it want to increase the size of the military? Is the military part of the government? These are all instances of the left wanting less government and the right wanting more. It seems that neither party is interested in less government or more government, but in fact different government for doing different things.


False, the purpose of the constitution is to state the specifications of each branch of government. It contains some limitations in the Bill of Rights, but the right seems to want to ignore those far more often than the left does. It is the right who is constantly trying to pass state laws on abortion and banning gay marriage which are almost immediately struck down by judges who seem to understand the bill of rights far better than they are.


This isn't about liking the constitution or not liking it. I would say that I generally like the constitution and the Bill of Rights just fine. Largely because I actually understand what they mean and what they were designed to accomplish. However in arguments I rarely attempt to cite specific parts of the constitution as my justification for an action. I will correct those who cite it incorrectly, but generally I'm more interested in a higher level of debate.


Yet they were smart enough to create one anyway recognizing it as necessary to keep the various states from going rogue and causing frequent internal struggles that could not be settled in any manor but with violence.


Conservatives believe what they want to believe about the constitution even when actual legal scholars agree that is says no such thing. They cite the constitution because they don't have a rational basis for their opinion so they're hoping they can just convince you that the constitution agrees with them when in reality it does not.



All evidence to the contrary.

I think you are confusing conservatives with republicans. My comments were not partisan. But they were accurate.

 

[MrWonka]

Not all of us on the right do. If you look at the left they are interested in restricting speech and are downright hostile to religion.

False. On the left we simply understand what concepts like free speech and free religion actually men. Free speech does not mean there are zero consequences to speech simply that those consequences cannot come from the government. Free religion does not mean the freedom to impose religion on others it means the freedom to worship on your own.

Gay marriage is a recognized right, no one is trying to pass anything limiting it anymore, this is a dead argument.

HAHAHA!! Tell that to the two front runners for the republican nomination.

Which is inferring that your moral judgment or moral code is better than someone else's and should be imposed on them from what I'm reading.

Not everyone elses. Just those who lack the ability to think rationally and rely on ancient laws to support their nonsensical positions. Rational thought can allow people to come to agreeable conclusions. Laws are used to force conclusions on those even when they disagree. There are times when that must be done, but it would be best to avoid it if we don't need to.

Being independent bodies would not entail them going rogue. The constitution is meant to be a compact between the states and the Fed. The Fed has largely ignored this fact for over a century. It could use some reminders with an re-invigoration of the 10th.

If you've actually read the Federalist papers which I have unlike so many people who seem to cite them all the time you'd know that the Federalists felt a strong federal government was necessary in order to prevent smaller radical factions from gaining control over smaller states. You are correct in that this is a pact, however it's not one that has been ignored by the Fed, it has been ignored by the various factions that are trying to gain control over states and turn them into radical monstrosities. They don't want to admit that they are radical and that their ideas are contradictory to the very founding principles of the nation.

 

[clownboy]

If you've actually read the Federalist papers which I have unlike so many people who seem to cite them all the time you'd know that the Federalists felt a strong federal government was necessary in order to prevent smaller radical factions from gaining control over smaller states. You are correct in that this is a pact, however it's not one that has been ignored by the Fed, it has been ignored by the various factions that are trying to gain control over states and turn them into radical monstrosities. They don't want to admit that they are radical and that their ideas are contradictory to the very founding principles of the nation.

Everything you've posted thus far demonstrates that you have never read the Federalist Papers. NONE of those involved in their writing argued for a strong federal government. You can counter this by telling us which FP and quoting from it. I really want to see you try to name the founder who wrote advocating for a strong central government.

The truth is you didn't know what Madison v Marbury was about, you haven't read or understood the Federalist Papers and it's doubtful you even know what they are or who penned them. Let's see how quickly you can google to catch up.:mrgreen:

 

[CycloneWanderer]

How am I supposed to know how a particular business treated the last customer?

If I heard a random person on the street ask this question I would assume they were a hermit who lived in the middle of nowhere, "off the grid," and with no interaction with the outside world. I'm assuming that since you are interacting on an internet message board that you have enough intelligence, or at least personal experience, to realize how magnificently dumb that question is.

 

[countryboy]

No, I admonish those who rely on the Constitution to defend their positions, and point out how infrequently the constitution seems to match with their beliefs on top of it. It's to the point where you can almost treat the constitution like Godwin's law. The first person to reference it is usually the one losing the debate.

Delusion is not a good thing.

 

[MrWonka]

If I heard a random person on the street ask this question I would assume they were a hermit who lived in the middle of nowhere, "off the grid," and with no interaction with the outside world. I'm assuming that since you are interacting on an internet message board that you have enough intelligence, or at least personal experience, to realize how magnificently dumb that question is.

Then why don't you give an answer to the question?

 

[Thrilla]

Why does it always seem like those who reference the constitution in their arguments seem to be the ones who have the least understanding of that document and it's meaning? It's almost like they don't know how to form a rational argument that stands on it's own so they try to jump right to a legal document and depend upon an equivocating definition of terms to justify their position. I've noticed this heavily in people like Ted Cruz who constantly refers to himself as a "strict constitutional conservative" yet apparently has no understanding of how the constitution actually protects a woman's right to privacy. I hear it in gun enthusiasts who want to jump right to the 2nd amendment, but yet cannot really explain why "nuclear arms" shouldn't be included in the "right to bear arms." I hear it in ultra Christians who want to point to religious freedom to justify discrimination. They struggle to justify why baking a cake is actually hurting them, or why gays deserve this treatment. Another example I saw today was this thread claiming that both parties primary processes are unconstitutional despite there being nothing whatsoever in the constitution outlining anything about how primaries are supposed to work.

Is it just me, or do you not tend to hear this crap from liberals and other more intelligent types? They tend to focus on whether it actually makes rational sense to let people own assault weapons rather than what a 200 year old document states. They tend to focus on whether it's right or wrong to allow gays to marry and to ban discrimination rather than whether the law technically states it or not. Laws after all should be derived off of what makes rational sense, not the other way around. You can't make an irrational idea rational by pointing to a law regardless of what the law says. It just seems to me that those who have run out of good justifications for their positions tend to be the first to jump to legal statutes hoping that if they can convince people that the law says what they think it does it won't matter if what they are advocating is ridiculous or not.

I think when a person is trying to make an argument about his political opponents screwing up the Constitution, that person shouldn't butcher the document himself.

anyways, congratulations on exposing your own hypocrisy...well done indeed.

 

[Thrilla]

Well said!!!! eace

you're supposed to be smarter than this..... allegedly.

what he said was ****ing dumb.. it was contradictory, and hypocritical.

 

[VanceMack]

From the OP...what it looks to me like what you REALLY object to is that there is this pesky 'Constitution' that protects everyones rights...and not just the ones YOU think are right.

And yeah...that DOES happen pretty often.

 

[clownboy]

Then why don't you give an answer to the question?

I thought so. Still can't back up your lie about knowing the Federalist Papers. They take a fair amount of time to read and understand, not something you can lie about and then google to CYA.

 

[VanceMack]

I think when a person is trying to make an argument about his political opponents screwing up the Constitution, that person shouldn't butcher the document himself.

anyways, congratulations on exposing your own hypocrisy...well done indeed.

Whew! So its not just me that saw that....

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Then why don't you give an answer to the question?

Because you have the internet. You can look up hundreds of thousands of reviews of hundreds of thousands of businesses. If an employee or a business does something truly offensive to a customer, people share that story and it gets out. It's not too difficult to find out if a business has been rude or disrespectful to its customers. There are whole websites and apps dedicated to just such a thing. If you actually care whether or not the businesses whose services you purchase do certain things or act certain ways towards particular groups of customers, you are free to research if they've had any incidents reported. You can then decide whether or not to take your business elsewhere. If enough customers see reports of enough incidents that they disagree with, the business will fail naturally.

 

[haymarket]

you're supposed to be smarter than this..... allegedly.

what he said was ****ing dumb.. it was contradictory, and hypocritical.

how so?

 

[rocket88]

Why does it always seem like those who reference the constitution in their arguments seem to be the ones who have the least understanding of that document and it's meaning? It's almost like they don't know how to form a rational argument that stands on it's own so they try to jump right to a legal document and depend upon an equivocating definition of terms to justify their position. I've noticed this heavily in people like Ted Cruz who constantly refers to himself as a "strict constitutional conservative" yet apparently has no understanding of how the constitution actually protects a woman's right to privacy. I hear it in gun enthusiasts who want to jump right to the 2nd amendment, but yet cannot really explain why "nuclear arms" shouldn't be included in the "right to bear arms." I hear it in ultra Christians who want to point to religious freedom to justify discrimination. They struggle to justify why baking a cake is actually hurting them, or why gays deserve this treatment. Another example I saw today was this thread claiming that both parties primary processes are unconstitutional despite there being nothing whatsoever in the constitution outlining anything about how primaries are supposed to work.

Is it just me, or do you not tend to hear this crap from liberals and other more intelligent types? They tend to focus on whether it actually makes rational sense to let people own assault weapons rather than what a 200 year old document states. They tend to focus on whether it's right or wrong to allow gays to marry and to ban discrimination rather than whether the law technically states it or not. Laws after all should be derived off of what makes rational sense, not the other way around. You can't make an irrational idea rational by pointing to a law regardless of what the law says. It just seems to me that those who have run out of good justifications for their positions tend to be the first to jump to legal statutes hoping that if they can convince people that the law says what they think it does it won't matter if what they are advocating is ridiculous or not.

opcorn2: