The right winger doth protest too much, methinks

[MrWonka]

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.

 

[Henrin]

If someone doesn't want to bake a cake what right does anyone else have to force them to do so?

 

[MrWonka]

If someone doesn't want to bake a cake what right does anyone else have to force them to do so?

First, let me just say I'm not particularly interested in debating any of these examples in this particular thread. I'm more interested in the general notion.

Second, if you insist. I would say none, but if you're going to make money off of the public don't you think the public should have some say into the ethics for which you should be running your business?

 

[Henrin]

None, but if you're going to make money off of the public don't you think the public should have some say into the ethics for which you should be running your business?

:roll: They are making a living by trading their goods to consumers. Nothing about this deals with this body called the public.

 

[MrWonka]

:roll: They are making a living by trading their goods to consumers. Nothing about this deals with this body called the public.

Sure it does. Consumers are members of the public. Don't you think I should have a right to know if I'm trading with someone who treats other human beings like second class citizens before I do business with them?

 

[Henrin]

Sure it does. Consumers are members of the public. Don't you think I should have a right to no if I'm trading with someone who treats other human beings like second class citizens before I do business with them?

You already have the right to say no by not doing business at the establishment. They are also doing business with individual people, not this thing called the public.

 

[MrWonka]

You already have the right to say no by not doing business at the establishment.

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


Furthermore do you think that is what is morally right and wrong can be accurately determined by popularity? Do you think bigotry should used as a marketing tool just because there are more bigots in an area than not?

 

[clownboy]

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.

Your rant, the position it takes, is highly hypocritical. You complain that others rely upon arguments that are not enumerated in the Constitution and then use as an example "a woman's right to privacy" - something not at all enumerated by the Constitution. And then you immediately proceed to attack the 2cd which IS enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[clownboy]

Sure it does. Consumers are members of the public. Don't you think I should have a right to know if I'm trading with someone who treats other human beings like second class citizens before I do business with them?

No, you have no "right to know" (yet another plank you rely upon that's not enumerated in the Constitution). If you want to know that, the onus is on YOU to find out.

 

[celticwar17]

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?

Hmmm do they? Do you have the most understanding of the 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.

Do you not find a Constitution important? It seems you are suggesting, that only having a good argument(in your eyes) is enough to trump a Constitutions authority.

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 don't know a constitutional conservative must agree to all of the past Supreme courts interpretations of the constitution. I think they must recognize the legal consequences of such a ruling, but not interpretation themselves.

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."

Can they not? I've heard many that have. If you look at the language it essentially justifies a citizen can carry what a military soldier can carry. A soldier is not allowed to carry or possess a nuclear firearm.

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.

I am not a Christian, I think people should have the freedom to be dicks if they want to be. I don't think you have the moral justification to force anyone to do anything. If people want to be openly Anti-gay in their business, let them be and just boycott them.... it won't be good for business. I don't think sexual orientation is a protected class in the constitution. If you want it to change, cool, make a amendment.

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.

It's just you, Liberals try to make wild interpretations of the Constitution and law just as much as anyone.
And if you have a good argument and can convince a lot of people of your argument, make an amendment to that 200 year old document. Do you not understand how important that process is? The idea of limited government? Your impatience will be the end of this country... Can you imagine what our country would be like if you could violate the constitution just because you and some others think you have "good justifications" for your position?

 

[Tigerace117]

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.

You realize there's no actual "right to privacy" in the constitution, at least if your referring to the right that was cited in Roe vs Wade.

Nuclear arms don't count for the simple reason that no civilian owns one anyway, and that nukes aren't at all the same thing as,say, a hunting rifle.

Liberals are no better---they have their own topics where they aren't 100 percent "rational". People are people.

 

[MrWonka]

You complain that others rely upon arguments that are not enumerated in the Constitution

No, actually I'm not. I'm pointing out those who try and jump to the constitution to try and justify their positions often seem to do so because their position makes no rational sense.

and then use as an example "a woman's right to privacy" - something not at all enumerated by the Constitution.

Yes, it is actually. That's why the supreme court ruled that way. You have a right against unreasonable search as granted by the constitution. This is something that would be required in order to enforce an early term abortion ban. You don't need the constitution to understand why that makes absolutely no sense, yet once again you try and jump to the text of the constitution without apparently understanding it.

And then you immediately proceed to attack the 2cd which IS enumerated in the Constitution.

Enumerated yes, but not well understood by those who most frequently attempt to use it as the rational basis for their insane ideas. Case in point the fact that even the most ardent NRA member must admit that allowing the average American to purchase Nuclear Weapons would be bat **** insane, yet they cannot justify why without sounding exactly like someone trying to ban other types of assault weapons.

 

[WCH]

liberals and other more intelligent types..

LMAO

Pride cometh before a fall.

 

[MrWonka]

No, you have no "right to know" (yet another plank you rely upon that's not enumerated in the Constitution).

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.

If you want to know that, the onus is on YOU to find out.

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?

 

[haymarket]

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.

Well said!!!! eace

 

[MrWonka]

You realize there's no actual "right to privacy" in the constitution, at least if your referring to the right that was cited in Roe vs Wade.

While the right is not specifically enumerated it can be reasonably inferred from things that are. Eg. A right against unreasonable searches. That is where Roe Vs Wade comes from they didn't just pull it out of the sky.

Nuclear arms don't count for the simple reason that no civilian owns one anyway,

I see, and if I managed to build one? Should I be allowed to keep it? If nobody currently owned an AR-15 would that mean it was also not protected by the second amendment? If the second amendment doesn't count for weapons that nobody owns anyway then why does it apply to weapons that didn't exist when the 2nd amendment was written? Nobody owned most modern guns at that point anyway right?

and that nukes aren't at all the same thing as,say, a hunting rifle.

Liberals generally aren't trying to ban hunting riffles. They are trying to put restrictions on what they consider to be assault weapons used primarily for murdering large numbers of people, yet when they do it is the 2nd amendment that gets cited by NRA types. How many people should a weapon be able to kill in less than a minute before we can legally ban it? Where is that enumerated in the constitution?

Liberals are no better---they have their own topics where they aren't 100 percent "rational". People are people.

Even in those situations I rarely see them trying to use the constitution to win their argument when they run out of rational justifications for it.

 

[fmw]

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.

The answer is pretty simple. In general the right wants less government and left wants more. Since the purpose of the constitution is to limit the power government, it makes sense that the left wouldn't like it. The founders were smart enough to understand the negative impact that a large central government has on society. Conservatives believe the same thing and therefore applaud the constitution. It isn't any more complicated than that. As a conservative myself, I don't care about the words in a 200 year old document. But I do care about keeping as much freedom and as little government as possible so I support the constitution as the only thing we have to slow down government growth.

 

[clownboy]

No, actually I'm not. I'm pointing out those who try and jump to the constitution to try and justify their positions often seem to do so because their position makes no rational sense.

Something you're doubling down on here.

Yes, it is actually. That's why the supreme court ruled that way. You have a right against unreasonable search as granted by the constitution. This is something that would be required in order to enforce an early term abortion ban. You don't need the constitution to understand why that makes absolutely no sense, yet once again you try and jump to the text of the constitution without apparently understanding it.

No, it isn't enumerated. If anything it would be a DERIVED right. I thought you claim to have some special insight into what is written in the Constitution. You should know this. You should also know the SCOTUS has no constitutional grant of power to derive rights. 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?

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.

Enumerated yes, but not well understood by those who most frequently attempt to use it as the rational basis for their insane ideas. Case in point the fact that even the most ardent NRA member must admit that allowing the average American to purchase Nuclear Weapons would be bat **** insane, yet they cannot justify why without sounding exactly like someone trying to ban other types of assault weapons.

Maybe not well understood by you. The fact is 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. There were no nuclear weapons when the constitution was written.

 

[MrWonka]

The answer is pretty simple. In general the right wants less government and left wants more.

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.

Since the purpose of the constitution is to limit the power government,

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.

it makes sense that the left wouldn't like it.

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.

The founders were smart enough to understand the negative impact that a large central government has on society.

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 the same thing and therefore applaud the constitution.

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.

It isn't any more complicated than that. As a conservative myself, I don't care about the words in a 200 year old document. But I do care about keeping as much freedom and as little government as possible

All evidence to the contrary.

 

[iguanaman]

If someone doesn't want to bake a cake what right does anyone else have to force them to do so?

I you don't want to bake don't become a baker. If you don't want to take people s money for baking don't open a bake shop. It is as simple as that.

 

[Henrin]

I you don't want to bake don't become a baker. If you don't want to take people s money for baking don't open a bake shop. It is as simple as that.

Did any of these bakers say they didn't want to bake or take peoples money in exchange for baked goods? No, what they said is that they didn't want to make a certain baked good for a certain consumer.

 

[iguanaman]

Did any of these bakers say they didn't want to bake or take peoples money in exchange for baked goods? No, what they said is that they didn't want to make a certain baked good for a certain consumer.

Yes they said they did not want to take certain peoples money for baking a cake. A public business is not a social club where you may pick and choose your members. When will you learn that?

 

[Paleocon]

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.

Right-liberals and left-liberals both have different sets of monomanias. As a general rule, right-liberals lean positivist while left-liberals lean postmodernist when it comes to textual interpretation.

For example, when it comes to the constitution, right-liberals are likely to latch on to express phrases in the constitution (e.g. no infringement of right to bear arms), while left-liberals are likely to latch on to lofty ideas (right to murder one's child) that are interpreted into the document after the fact and ex nihilo.

 

[Henrin]

Yes they said they did not want to take certain peoples money for baking a cake. A business is not a social club. When will you learn that?

When will you learn that people have a right to decide who they provide their labor and property?

 

[iguanaman]

When will you learn that people have a right to decide who they provide their labor and property?

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.