Quote from: Solar on July 27, 2014, 07:31:59 AM
I'll tell you this once, cut the bull shit of moving the goal posts and creating straw men!

Here's a hint: when you accuse someone of making a logical fallacy, you need to be a little more specific than quoting several lines of text, consisting of several different contentions, and vaguely throwing out "goal posts and creating straw men!"

That's why it's so difficult to reason with the likes of you: I was careful to do a line by line, point by point reply of your argument.  That way, I have something to say, and even if I'm completely wrong we can continue a substantive discussion because I've made it clear where I stand and what I think of where you stand.

In contrast, 90% of our correspondence involves you just responding to 20 lines of text with a completely substance-less, vague rebuttal like the one you just gave.  You would be laughed out of my high school debate team.  They would have dropped their open walk in policy and instituted try outs just to make sure someone like you never slipped through the cracks again.


This is literally what anybody interested in any kind of debate does on instinct.

Quote from: LiberalIntellectual on February 12, 2014, 08:32:12 AM
Of course not.  What I'm saying is that we cannot apply the Bill of Rights to 21st century issues (like internet piracy) and expect the writings of the Founders to be useful, because times have changed.

Of course you can apply the b of r. Piracy was wrong 200 years ago and is wrong today. Does it really matter if theft takes place on the internet or on the high seas? It would be like saying the 10 commandments do not apply today because they were written thousands of years ago. Yes, times have changed, but wrong is still wrong.

Quote from: s3779m on July 28, 2014, 04:04:24 PM
Of course you can apply the b of r. Piracy was wrong 200 years ago and is wrong today. Does it really matter if theft takes place on the internet or on the high seas? It would be like saying the 10 commandments do not apply today because they were written thousands of years ago. Yes, times have changed, but wrong is still wrong.

Good response. Just another lib attempt to circumvent the Constitution.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:48:57 AM
It most certainly is what it means.  If you agree with specific arguments from specific founding fathers at specific times in their lives, perhaps you could just defend the points on their actual merit without trying to name drop famous dead old men.  And even if you do not personally fall for this fallacy, your conservative politicians certainly do.  Again and again.  All the fucking time.

Original intent means what was behind, what was the historical context of the time in which a law was written. It means to take into account what it was the politicians at the time were trying to address and accomplish.

However lets suppose for a moment you are correct and it is an argument from authority.

So what. The Constitution was and is, the highest law of the land. One would be hard pressed to find much more authority than that.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 01:57:52 PM
Here's a hint: when you accuse someone of making a logical fallacy, you need to be a little more specific than quoting several lines of text, consisting of several different contentions, and vaguely throwing out "goal posts and creating straw men!"

That's why it's so difficult to reason with the likes of you: I was careful to do a line by line, point by point reply of your argument.  That way, I have something to say, and even if I'm completely wrong we can continue a substantive discussion because I've made it clear where I stand and what I think of where you stand.

In contrast, 90% of our correspondence involves you just responding to 20 lines of text with a completely substance-less, vague rebuttal like the one you just gave.  You would be laughed out of my high school debate team.  They would have dropped their open walk in policy and instituted try outs just to make sure someone like you never slipped through the cracks again.


This is literally what anybody interested in any kind of debate does on instinct.

Are you so thick that what I sad completely went over your head?
One more chance, read what I said and take it as the Gospel, I won't warn your trollish ass again.

Quote from: daidalos on July 28, 2014, 04:50:06 PM
  Original intent means what was behind, what was the historical context of the time in which a law was written. It means to take into account what it was the politicians at the time were trying to address and accomplish.

However lets suppose for a moment you are correct and it is an argument from authority.

So what. The Constitution was and is, the highest law of the land. One would be hard pressed to find much more authority than that.

The Constitution is an authority, but it is not an infallible authority; it can be challenged, and it can be amended.  That was one of the whole points behind its adoption!  Original intentionalists focus more on the intents of their preferred founder than what interpretation would be most logical and effective in a modern society; that is pretty much the caricature of blind dogma.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
...it's a blatant argument from authority.  The Constitution was not a final will and testament - the nation exists for current and future generations...

I agree with caution

liberals that make this point will often use the fact that the constitution is not perfect to argue for ignoring it or magically "reinterpreting" it. Then the words "interstate commerce" are "reinterpreted" to mean "all commerce." and the words "general welfare" are interpreted to mean "whatever the hell congress wants at the moment"

The constitution is not perfect - that's why there is a method for changing it (note: that method does not involve 9 wise men in bath robes with little wood hammers). If you want to change the constitution, speak your voice, gather support, lobby and make the change the right way - otherwise you are a tyrant.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 05:05:40 PM
...it's a blatant argument from authority.  The Constitution was not a final will and testament - the nation exists for current and future generations, not to honor the wishes of our framers.  They even recognized this themselves, hence why they included an amendment process.

Very informative post underlining our responsibility to think like the framers of the constitution.  I use the term framers because the founding documents encircle a set of principles as much as they specify them.  And that is not by design in its most important aspects.

What you say about the contentious aspects and conflicts between various factions and their key representatives speaks to the competition for inclusion and exclusion of concept in the framing documents.  We really do not know, as a people, who was fighting to keep what out.  That of course would defeat the goal of the obsufucation we have reason to know was happening.

Perhaps the best indicators are to look at the most serious threats to the 1787 principles, try to understand how they could exist, then consider that the causes are due to the omissions, deficiencies or exclusions that are there.

Quote from: ChristopherABrown on October 26, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
Very informative post underlining our responsibility to think like the framers of the constitution.  I use the term framers because the founding documents encircle a set of principles as much as they specify them.  And that is not by design in its most important aspects.

What you say about the contentious aspects and conflicts between various factions and their key representatives speaks to the competition for inclusion and exclusion of concept in the framing documents.  We really do not know, as a people, who was fighting to keep what out.  That of course would defeat the goal of the obsufucation we have reason to know was happening.

Perhaps the best indicators are to look at the most serious threats to the 1787 principles, try to understand how they could exist, then consider that the causes are due to the omissions, deficiencies or exclusions that are there.

You are posting to someone who can not reply.