Oh them crazy Men and Women in Black

Ever wonder why the Supreme Court of the United States comes up with so many whacked out decisions? Why they can narrowly decide 5-4 that the Second Amendment is a right belonging to individuals rather than to the government, while there is apparently no similar question about whether freedom of speech, assembly, etc are individual rights?

Well, you probably have to simply pay more attention to the conduct of the activist judges on the court. Sotomayor, of course, was considered acceptable despite publicly saying a Latino woman could obviously make better decisions than a white man - imagine Alito saying a white man could make better decisions than a black man, or a person raised in wealth could make better decisions than a person raised in poverty.

Well, here's another look into the mindset of another of the more prominent liberal activist judges on SCOTUS. Here's Ruth Bader Ginsburg, being interviewed on Egyptian TV just over a week ago, while going over to observe the "democracy" movement going on over there:



I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world... You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

Now there's nothing wrong with a Justice of the Supreme Court thinking the Constitution they have sworn to defend is old and outdated. Freedom of thought and expression, right? In fact, give her credit for openly expressing her lack of faith and respect for the Constitution she works under and swore to defend. Give her credit for honesty.

But it certainly explains why Justices like Bader Ginsburg work so hard to change US governance through activist decisions, rather than let The People decide where and when the Constitution should be amended through the proper process.

Is Bader Ginsburg really that poorly schooled in Constitutional law that she isn't aware that the English Bill of Rights - their primary constitutional document - predates the US Constitution by over a hundred years?

Why would she recommend the shiny new Canadian Constitution instead? Because it deliberately excludes the right to property, ensuring the state does not have any inconvenient constitutional issues to deal with when taking private property? Because it deliberately excludes the right of people to arms for their defense? Because it allows Supreme Court justices like her to "read in" and "read out" individual rights and government powers? Or perhaps because it contains a notwithstanding clause that allows individual rights to be eliminated for periods of up to five years at a time, based on a simple majority vote in Parliament?

The South African constitution is great because it set up government and judiciary and managed to squeeze in some basic human rights? Government first and then, oh yeah, people. Mustn't forget people. She's apparently comfy with the Secrecy Act just passed under the ANC to stifle freedom of speech and the press, an Act condemned by people like Mandala and Tutu as belonging back in the period of apartheid. Of course, the ruling ANC is communist/well to the left, so perhaps a socialist/government first justice finds that a comfortable fit to align herself with.

Thank God we have the Men and Women in Black to tell us what kind of government power and authority we SHOULD live under, particularly when the unwashed masses are making no particular effort to use the amending formula the Constitution provides to change it to what those justices know it should be.

One thing she didn't address: if old constitutional documents that have survived the tests of time and strife the US Constitution has aren't worth much due to their age... shouldn't old justices her age see themselves similarly and resign? Or is she different, apparently improving with age?

My gut feeling is that she feels this way because she feels she's exempt from any bad stuff that could result from what she's proposing, and that's because she's better than you and me.

She certainly didnt mind throwing her opinion out there...but you think in her position, it coulda been better timed and packaged...but maybe not...I dont know her. Especially when her specifics werent accurate.

But the brings up a good question, and your answer probably defines you left or right.

The question, that if a constitution was needed now...could one be drawn up, as well, as was done at the drawing time, of the current constitution?

One may think society has evolved since then.That, even though the constitution is a great piece of work...could todays resources possibly offer a better version...and what would that be?...because I don't think too many argue that it is absolutely perfect.

And one may think, that society has been de-evolving. That we are never gonna be as smart as the good old days. Though more educated, are blinded to the way things should be...incapable of coming up with the ideas that great thinkers of old shared with us.

Of course thats two ends of the spectrum.

So, if you think society's getting worse, you probably want to do things the old tried and tested way...and resist change.
If, you think society is getting better, you probably want to do things the new and improved way...and welcome change.

One does not have to completely reject the original idea to suggest it can be improved.

I look forward to hearing the great ideas of our time, It's a great time to be alive.

mucker wrote:

But the brings up a good question, and your answer probably defines you left or right.

The question, that if a constitution was needed now...could one be drawn up, as well, as was done at the drawing time, of the current constitution?

One may think society has evolved since then.That, even though the constitution is a great piece of work...could todays resources possibly offer a better version...and what would that be?...because I don't think too many argue that it is absolutely perfect.

That would be why the Constitution includes a means to amend it. And, you may have noticed, it has been amended many times in the past.

What probably defines you as left or right is whether you think it is appropriate to change government powers, the relationship between individuals and the state, etc through an amendment to the Constitution - or instead find acceptable activist judges and presidents who simply assume powers not given them by the Constitution. Conservatives believe that to change those relationships, you amend the Constitution. Leftists/statists/Marxists believe that whatever works is just fine, and if you can't get what you want with an Amendment, you simply go around the Constitution.

You may have noticed that statists and socialists/Marxists like Obama make absolutely no effort whatsoever to achieve what they desire through proposing constitutional amendments. Now why would that be? Possibly because they know any amendment proposing their statist/socialist values and changing the form of government would never receive the support of the American people?

Quote :

And one may think, that society has been de-evolving. That we are never gonna be as smart as the good old days. Though more educated, are blinded to the way things should be...incapable of coming up with the ideas that great thinkers of old shared with us.

So, you think you are better educated than the Framers were? Because you live in a more technical time? Could you build a rifle from scratch? A harrow? A wheel? Could you forge horseshoes and then shoe a plow horse? How well educated are you to survive - and thrive - if all the protections and benefits of technology disappeared today?

Those same Framers drew extensively on the philosophy and ideas of people such as Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, etc. Many had classical educations. So, you/we being more educated than they were, apparently, can you share with us the errors you find in those philosophies in how we should govern ourselves? Based on your superior education, of course. As an addendum to that, how many of our better educated people of today even know who Locke, Montesquieu, Burke are - much less have examined their writings?

The idea that if it's old, it's not good enough for modern times obviously isn't restricted to Bader Ginsberg.

Quote :

So, if you think society's getting worse, you probably want to do things the old tried and tested way...and resist change.
If, you think society is getting better, you probably want to do things the new and improved way...and welcome change.

It's amusing to see a baseline that holds that change must invariably be good.

It leaves unanswered the question that, if the "new and improved way" is indeed wonderful change, why it must be slipped through the back door through activist judges and Presidents who usurp powers never given them by the Constitution. Is the "more educated" population of today simply incapable of realizing what is good for them, and so rather than properly amending the Constitution, it is unfortunately necessary (perhaps even a duty) for activist judges and Marxist Presidents to go around the Constitution instead of properly suggesting an Amendment to bring about the new and improved change?

Quote :

I look forward to hearing the great ideas of our time, It's a great time to be alive.

Any time is a great time to be alive - I can't imagine anyone preferring the alternative.

What great thinkers and ideas of our time can you direct us to that are superior to the concepts of freedom and liberty as espoused by de Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Burke, Locke, Blackstone, etc? Karl Marx?

Given that we are apparently better educated than these people, it shouldn't be hard to identify and point out these great thinkers and great ideas of our time. Got some names? The title of some works?

It is easy to claim these superior great ideas and thinkers exist. It is something else again to come up with actual names and put forward their philosophy and defend it.

Jäger wrote:

mucker wrote:

But the brings up a good question, and your answer probably defines you left or right.

The question, that if a constitution was needed now...could one be drawn up, as well, as was done at the drawing time, of the current constitution?

One may think society has evolved since then.That, even though the constitution is a great piece of work...could todays resources possibly offer a better version...and what would that be?...because I don't think too many argue that it is absolutely perfect.

That would be why the Constitution includes a means to amend it. And, you may have noticed, it has been amended many times in the past.

What probably defines you as left or right is whether you think it is appropriate to change government powers, the relationship between individuals and the state, etc through an amendment to the Constitution - or instead find acceptable activist judges and presidents who simply assume powers not given them by the Constitution. Conservatives believe that to change those relationships, you amend the Constitution. Leftists/statists/Marxists believe that whatever works is just fine, and if you can't get what you want with an Amendment, you simply go around the Constitution.

You may have noticed that statists and socialists/Marxists like Obama make absolutely no effort whatsoever to achieve what they desire through proposing constitutional amendments. Now why would that be? Possibly because they know any amendment proposing their statist/socialist values and changing the form of government would never receive the support of the American people?

Quote :

And one may think, that society has been de-evolving. That we are never gonna be as smart as the good old days. Though more educated, are blinded to the way things should be...incapable of coming up with the ideas that great thinkers of old shared with us.

So, you think you are better educated than the Framers were? Because you live in a more technical time? Could you build a rifle from scratch? A harrow? A wheel? Could you forge horseshoes and then shoe a plow horse? How well educated are you to survive - and thrive - if all the protections and benefits of technology disappeared today?

Those same Framers drew extensively on the philosophy and ideas of people such as Locke, Montesquieu, Burke, etc. Many had classical educations. So, you/we being more educated than they were, apparently, can you share with us the errors you find in those philosophies in how we should govern ourselves? Based on your superior education, of course. As an addendum to that, how many of our better educated people of today even know who Locke, Montesquieu, Burke are - much less have examined their writings?

The idea that if it's old, it's not good enough for modern times obviously isn't restricted to Bader Ginsberg.

Quote :

So, if you think society's getting worse, you probably want to do things the old tried and tested way...and resist change.
If, you think society is getting better, you probably want to do things the new and improved way...and welcome change.

It's amusing to see a baseline that holds that change must invariably be good.

It leaves unanswered the question that, if the "new and improved way" is indeed wonderful change, why it must be slipped through the back door through activist judges and Presidents who usurp powers never given them by the Constitution. Is the "more educated" population of today simply incapable of realizing what is good for them, and so rather than properly amending the Constitution, it is unfortunately necessary (perhaps even a duty) for activist judges and Marxist Presidents to go around the Constitution instead of properly suggesting an Amendment to bring about the new and improved change?

Quote :

I look forward to hearing the great ideas of our time, It's a great time to be alive.

Any time is a great time to be alive - I can't imagine anyone preferring the alternative.

What great thinkers and ideas of our time can you direct us to that are superior to the concepts of freedom and liberty as espoused by de Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Burke, Locke, Blackstone, etc? Karl Marx?

Given that we are apparently better educated than these people, it shouldn't be hard to identify and point out these great thinkers and great ideas of our time. Got some names? The title of some works?

It is easy to claim these superior great ideas and thinkers exist. It is something else again to come up with actual names and put forward their philosophy and defend it.

Whoa, for starters I have never claimed to be smarter than anyone, in particular. Especially the "framers"...but now that you mentioned it...if zapped back to their time, I would have things to offer they could not conceive...including refining/smelting materials and machining wares...to say the least. No doubt some wilderness survival tips. That, in itself, doesn't make me smarter than them, nor a sure advantage. I just possess different knowledge, than was unavailable to them.

And the education available to me now, dwarfs what was available to the wealthiest, then. That has nothing to do with the intellect of the past...just their resources. Just because I don't take full advantage of modern resources, doesn't mean they don't exist.

To suggest a "framer" would excel, in today,s times.;..is only hypothetical...as would someone from our time excelling in theirs.

And when I speak of your constitution...that includes all...including the amendment criteria.

As a, hypothetical, new draft, would also include, amendment criteria...I'm sure.

If your system wasn't flawed, then these circumventions you claim by politicians, shouldn't be possible...for any party. Sure would be nice for a politician to be held accountable...if you suggest Obama is the very first worthy of accountability...then I suggest you don't understand the flaws in your system.

Just because your ideals have stalled, don't stop everyone else's attempt to better things. No one claims it to be a quick fix...just worthy of improving.

Maybe allot of things should stay the same...but no doubt, modern times dictate some change. Adapt to nature or parish...never mind the god stuff, the answers and questions we need, come from nature...our natural experiences provide that.

And to the great minds of today...I would suggest Einstein, Bruce Lee, and John Prine....though the choices could be endless...if you were looking for choices. I would be better suited to training in other areas, and advice accordingly.

It's like the turn the other cheek lesson...I feel I got more out of that than, most, christians, I've confronted and lived with. That's just the start of my criticism...do as I say, not do as I do, just doesnt cut it anymore...never has.

That goes for the USA as well as any of us.

I guess we have to wait and see how the latest, expansionist policies, of these times play out....maybe a socialist policy will follow....but till then its dog eat dog, fight for what's left. I would like to think the globe would be united in goals and effort someday...if not working towards that...you would be part of mankind's most modern problem...if you weren't onboard.

Nothing less than the control of the entire globe...and doing it well...should suffice.....just that some people see that as exclusive, rather than inclusive.

I don't have all the answers, nor has any one person...but we should all take part in improving things.

And I hope you look forward to things to come...rather than fighting over the scraps of the past and fearful of the future.

The future is coming, ready or not...when better happens, I will embrace it...not fear it. I will seek the truth, as we seem perfectly suited to do...letting nature take it's course, and observing.

Not change, for the sake of change...but change for the better.

Maybe she was smart enough to realize that simply spouting off that "the US Constitution should be the model to follow" to the EGYPTIANS would not only fall on deaf ears, but might actually foster a less than productive meeting from that moment on out until she left?

And suggesting an African nation look at another African nation's constitution makes perfect sense as well.

Based on where the USofA stands in the world today I see no reason to chest-thump and bark about how fucking awesome we are in every regard.

If a small, struggling beer maker is seeking advice on how to run their company, and they run across a Budweiser executive, would it lend credibility to the advice if the Budweiser exec. said perhaps they should follow the path that DogFish Head and Sam Adams has taken, or would it be better advice for the Bud exec. to simply say follow what we did?

It's Egypt. Think of the situation. Think of the audience. The country is on the path to perhaps choosing a muslim, sharia type governance. Do you really think "do what America did" is going to be productive advice?

Well said Motokid.

motokid wrote:

Maybe she was smart enough to realize that simply spouting off that "the US Constitution should be the model to follow" to the EGYPTIANS would not only fall on deaf ears, but might actually foster a less than productive meeting from that moment on out until she left?

Well, she wasn't smart enough to realize the US Constitution - which she swore to defend, incidentally - isn't the oldest Constitution still in force in the world. How's that for brainy?

Let's also note she wasn't there to provide advice, nor help, nor lend her God-like intellect. No, she was there on a self appointed trip to OBSERVE. The question was asked of her by a journalist, not by the Egyptian government or any other official. It's not like the future of Egyptian-US relationships hung in the balance as she sat there as a representative of the US government. You think a bunch of male Muslims from the Muslim Brotherhood - fundamentalists - went asking a white, Jewish, female American for advice?

Really? Seriously? Or did you need that scenario to justify your argument?

Of course, for those who love hating the US, the idea that somebody might actually propose that the US Constitution contains some pretty good stuff, is pretty repugnant, I suppose. Still, lots of people think it is one hell of a document that crosses racial and cultural boundaries - for those who value freedom and liberty, at least. After all, it's been plagiarized and used by about 160 countries all over the world so far.

What some people are apparently overlooking - no doubt the same ones who can't understand what the words "shall not be infringed" mean - is that she wasn't suggesting alternatives rather than just focusing solely on the US Constitution. No, she made a point of mentioning that THE ONE Constitution she wouldn't consider if she were writing a Constitution today, would be the US Constitution.

That's the point, and I can't imagine how anyone could miss that. She specifically removed just one constitution from what SHE would consider if writing a constitution today, and that was the US Constitution that she serves under and swore to serve and protect. Clear enough now?

Constitutions which allow the government of the day to remove basic human and civil rights with a simple majority vote? Oh, those come highly recommended. But the US Constitution? I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012

Quote :

And suggesting an African nation look at another African nation's constitution makes perfect sense as well.

Yes. Of course, the point is that she specifically said that the US Constitution - which she serves under and swore to defend - was one that should not be looked at. Even when versions of that constitution have been adopted by other African nations - and Asian nations, which Egypt is also a part of, incidentally.

Does that make perfect sense too?

You did notice that the US Constitution was the ONLY constitution that she said she would not consider if drafting a constitution today, right?

Which leaves me wondering what you and Bader Ginsberg find so horrible about the US Constitution.

Quote :

Based on where the USofA stands in the world today I see no reason to chest-thump and bark about how fucking awesome we are in every regard.

It's gotta suck to be somebody who hates the country they're a citizen of, and yet be unable or unwilling to leave. And perhaps even worse, too lazy/unwilling to run for government to do something to change whatever it is you hate so much.

How awesome is the US?

Awesome enough that there is ample room in the US for people who despise their own country to be that way and yet know they can live in perfect security, never worrying about a death squad showing up in the night, or being thrown in prison for voicing their opinion.

Awesome enough that it remains far and away the country of choice for would-be immigrants and refugees wanting a new life. They must know something that you and Mordicai don't know, or at least have failed to appreciate. Maybe you just need to get out more.

Awesome enough that thirteen million illegal immigrants have voted for living in the US with their feet.

Awesome enough that whenever there is a natural disaster in some other part of the world, even in countries with such a low esteem of the US, America is invariably the first country to show up to help, and usually with the most aid, while other countries dither or are no-shows.

America has low standing with Venezuela? With the Euro-trash dumping on it now, that have never been shy about taking American financial aid or having American soldiers die on their soil to give them back their freedom? With so many Canadians, whose economy depends on trade with America, who lived under the umbrella of American protection for so many years? Awe geeze, Americans should sure hang their heads in shame with their standing with people like that.

Quote :

It's Egypt. Think of the situation. Think of the audience. The country is on the path to perhaps choosing a muslim, sharia type governance. Do you really think "do what America did" is going to be productive advice?

Once again, the transitional Egyptian government wasn't asking for advice - a journalist asked her thoughts on what she would do if she were writing a constitution today. Egypt never invited her over there, and as Muslims they they sure as hell weren't asking an American - a Jewish American woman no less - to advise them on what path to take. So you're right - it's Muslim Egypt, and you should think of the situation and think of the audience... along with what she was doing there.

There are over 160 countries in the world with a constitution based on the US Constitution. Some of them are also African and Asian nations - some also predominantly Muslim - but she didn't mention any of those countries and their constitutions when giving her thoughts on what constitutions she would choose from today.

But apparently, she (and you) think "do what Canada did" (over here right next to America) - such as including a clause which allows the government to remove all civil rights with a simple majority vote - is good advice. Freedom, baby! Kind of reminds me of a few decades ago when I and other Canadians watched the government declared martial law and had armed troops and carriers patrolling the streets in the not too distant past. Hundreds of arrests at night - journalists, union activists, etc - and people held without charge or legal representation for months.

Yep, a constitution that allows the Canadian government to remove civil rights with a simple majority vote is just what the rest of the world should look to as an example. I'm not sure why living under that kind of constitution appeals to you and Bader Ginsberg, or why you think it suitable for any human being to live under that kind of threat of government power. But I find that absolutely abhorrent.

Judges being able to read in and read out individual rights and government powers over the citizenry - with no overview - is more good advice (I can certainly see why that particular power would appeal to Bader Ginsberg)?

If it's about "perhaps choosing a muslim" governance, why suggest South Africa which asks God - not Allah - to protect the people? Why South Africa which guarantees freedom of religion and secular government, when you want a fit with an Egypt poised on a theocratic constitution establishing Sharia law?

Did you miss that part? Think of the situation. Think of the audience.

If you think they're going to a theocratic government, why do you and Bader Ginsberg think it's appropriate that she specifically says don't even think about the US Constitution that I swore to serve and protect, which is based on a nation under a God/Creator, but secular constitutions such as Canada and South Africa are fine? Egypt also being part of Asia - and you wanting to think of the situation and the audience and all - how does that fit the situation? Why didn't she advise them to look to theocratic Islamic constitutions such as Afghanistan's Constitution of 1964?

But wait... you've never read any of those constitutions, have you?

The essence is, she handed out a backhanded slap to the United States and its Constitution. And that just naturally appeals to you.

I noticed the Muslim extremist don't tolerate any criticism of their ideology. As if it's some kind of perfection, above any criticism, especially from infidels...regardless of how slight it may seem to others....sounds just, freaking crazy, to me...but I'm also sure is seems true and righteous to the extremists.
What crazy place we live in...

mucker wrote:

Whoa, for starters I have never claimed to be smarter than anyone, in particular. Especially the "framers"

No. What you said was "Though more educated..."

We aren't "more educated"; we are at best "different educated". But if we restrict ourselves to the fields of study they applied while drafting the Constitution, how has the study of philosophy, how men should interact, how men should govern themselves surged ahead?

What great advances have been made in the study - or helpful correction - of what Locke wrote? Edmund Burke? Montesquieu?. How many these days can claim to have actually read what those men wrote - much less even know who they are?

The Founders, with few exceptions, were very well educated in the classical sense, and you would be hard pressed today to assemble a group of similarly prominent men who shared their education.

Quote :

...but now that you mentioned it...if zapped back to their time, I would have things to offer they could not conceive...including refining/smelting materials and machining wares...to say the least. No doubt some wilderness survival tips.

What you term "survival tips", they called "everyday life"... and unless you could build whatever you have in mind - from scratch, using raw material - I doubt you'd be showing them much of anything.

Quote :

I just possess different knowledge, than was unavailable to them.

Maybe you do, and (far more likely) maybe you just naively think you do.

Please do help illustrate your contention with the different knowledge you have, unavailable to the Founders, that supersedes the antiquated knowledge that they wove into the Constitution. I'd like to see it.

Quote :

And the education available to me now, dwarfs what was available to the wealthiest, then.

Really?

So who do you propose who you believe dwarfs Locke, Burke, etc? Marx? Alinsky? Given that their education is "dwarfed" today, what do you propose to improve on what Madison proposed?

How about general concepts included in the Constitution. Let's start with the principle of subsidiarity. How do you envision improving on that?

Perhaps more to the point, given that the education you have available to you apparently "dwarfs" that available to the Founders, do you even know what the principle of subsidiarity means without running off to have Wikopedia explain it first?

Quote :

If your system wasn't flawed, then these circumventions you claim by politicians, shouldn't be possible...for any party. Sure would be nice for a politician to be held accountable...if you suggest Obama is the very first worthy of accountability...then I suggest you don't understand the flaws in your system.

Burke's comments on that explain it quite nicely - and as your education dwarfs what they had available, I am certain you know what famous quote from Burke explains this.

And you're quite right. Obama stands with Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, and in fact has surpassed them in his utter contempt for the Constitution. But once again, Burke explains all quite nicely, don't you think?

Quote :

Just because your ideals have stalled, don't stop everyone else's attempt to better things. No one claims it to be a quick fix...just worthy of improving.

"Stalled" is fairly amusing.

But to get down to brass tacks, rather than vague comments about "better things", why don't you simply explain what your superior education leads you to believe should be made in the way of changes to the Constitution?

That's not too hard given the enormous body of knowledge wandering around today, is it? Particularly with the incredible changes in venues of communication? If you really do believe that "better things" are available in a new Constitution, just jump right in here and tell us how you would change the Constitution.

...

...

...

It's easy to say "we're way advanced; newer is better". It's quite another to support that with the words of a better Constitution.

Quote :

Maybe allot of things should stay the same...but no doubt, modern times dictate some change.

Fine. Quit being so shy. What change do you see is dictated?

Quote :

Adapt to nature or parish...never mind the god stuff, the answers and questions we need, come from nature...our natural experiences provide that.

You've made your hatred/antipathy towards religion clear enough. Nice of you to demand that others do the same. One can't help but notice that it is the atheists who are the intolerant ones.

Does "never mind the god stuff" also become mandatory for societies who desire a theocratic government? Like... Egypt for example?

Quote :

And to the great minds of today...I would suggest Einstein, Bruce Lee, and John Prine....though the choices could be endless...if you were looking for choices. I would be better suited to training in other areas, and advice accordingly.

Why didn't you also throw in Howdy Doody and Groucho Marx? Maybe Mao? And let's not forget Andrew Dyce Clay.

Seeing as how you suggested them, I assume you're well versed on whatever thoughts they had on how men should set up their governance. So please, do share Bruce Lee's vision of how to construct a country, a system of governance, and the relationship between individuals and the government. I've read his Tao of Jeet Kune Do, and I don't remember anything like that. But I obviously haven't read everything he ever wrote, so maybe I missed his thoughts on how men govern themselves.

How about Einstein - the man who openly expressed his contempt for war and armies, but was more than happy to be the central intellect in building the only two atomic bombs ever actually used on human beings? Now there's a man with a morality to stand in awe of - move over Madison!

Quote :

I feel I got more out of that than, most, christians, I've confronted and lived with.

Yes, confronting Christians essentially amounts to your current religion, doesn't it?

Quote :

I would like to think the globe would be united in goals and effort someday...if not working towards that...you would be part of mankind's most modern problem...if you weren't onboard.

Mankind's most modern problem is people like you who think we somehow or other meld the Pol Pots, Maos, and Castros of the world into some sort of harmonious balance with what people demand who believe in individual rights and freedoms. For you to assume that people who believe in individual rights and freedoms have to give that up to achieve a unity with people who believe that the welfare of The State supercedes those rights and freedoms is, at best, simply amusing. You are either free and with unalienable rights, or you are not. There is no in between, any more than somebody can be sorta pregnant.

Quote :

Nothing less than the control of the entire globe...and doing it well...should suffice.....just that some people see that as exclusive, rather than inclusive.

Yes. One World Government. Just what we need.

Quote :

I don't have all the answers, nor has any one person...but we should all take part in improving things.

And I hope you look forward to things to come...rather than fighting over the scraps of the past and fearful of the future.

When the pie in the sky visionaries like you can actually articulate a better Constitution, a better form of governance, then I might actually take you seriously. In the mean time, it is little more than pipe dreams, simply an extension of what one hears in the halls at a high school from children utterly removed from reality.

Quote :

The future is coming, ready or not...when better happens, I will embrace it...not fear it. I will seek the truth, as we seem perfectly suited to do...letting nature take it's course, and observing.

Not change, for the sake of change...but change for the better.

That sounds wonderfully noble. The reality is, when you can neither identify where the concepts laid out by the Constitution fall short, nor propose something better, you're simply an unwitting observer. Like the Occutrash who couldn't even articulate what they wanted last year, who couldn't grasp the concept of occupying a job.

Quote :

I noticed the Muslim extremist don't tolerate any criticism of their ideology.

And I've noticed how close to them you are. The only difference is they're intolerant of anyone who doesn't share their religion, while you're intolerant of all religion. Not a whole lot of difference...

Anyways, I really do look forward to reading what you will offer to improve the Constitution, or better yet, in outright replacement.

I don't believe I ever said "Though more educated"...I tried to word it the best of my ability...but guess, i fell short for some.

I believe the founders did the best they could with what they had. They just seem like that type to me. And probably did better, at the time, than anyone who visits this forum could do.
No dis to the forum.

When i get my global declaration ready, jag will be, my first critic...I hope...heh

Jag's right, I can be shy...but I also feel that trying to be polite, takes a certain amount of turning the other cheek...otherwise your not willing to see where it could go.

"Using No way, As way...Using No Limitation as Limitation"...Some may not see the wisdom in this...Though Jag has told me he's read it....Maybe jag know's someone who has summed up the idea better?...please enlighten..

mucker wrote:

I don't believe I ever said "Though more educated"

If you bother to read your own post, you'll see that you wrote exactly that. As the saying goes "you couldn't make this stuff up".

Quote :

"Using No way, As way...Using No Limitation as Limitation"...Some may not see the wisdom in this...Though Jag has told me he's read it....Maybe jag know's someone who has summed up the idea better?...please enlighten..

The fact that a particularly gifted martial artist wrote a book - more a journal, actually - about fighting doesn't mean that the work held the key to his success (instead of perhaps an almost obsessive training regime and starting out as a naturally gifted athlete, as an alternative explanation as just one example). It certainly doesn't mean that he is somehow gifted to know how men should set up their system of governance.

What, in JKD, do you find to be instructive in how men should set up various levels of governance to govern themselves? Please enlighten us.

It's easy to propose a laundry list of individuals who you claim could do just as good or even better. It is quite another to actually give examples of their writing, philosophy, etc that relates to the writing of a Constitution and which gives those claims some legitimacy.

And I'm still interested in where and how you find the Constitution falls short.

God help the republican party with morons like Jager spouting their radical bullshit.

jesuschrysler wrote:

God help the republican party with morons like Jager spouting their radical bullshit.

This is a very insightful critique of jager's post. Now what was your point?

Perhaps i am getting old & cranky, but dismissal, discredit, deflection, & distortion are getting real old. I know these are the left's primary tactics, & without them they have nothing really to say.. they never discuss issues, but only do the 'D' words.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with a straight up critique of anything said. If you find a flaw in logic, or an error in facts, great! Expose it & we'll all be the wiser for it. But leftist smear propaganda does not inform or educate. Is misinforms, & muddies issues with irrelevant side points & personal slurs.

There is no doubt about it. Jager is a tough debater. He pulls no punches, & will go after you if you get pissy. I'll let a lot of stuff slide.. i don't care. And this is not intended as a defense for jager.. he is quite capable of speaking for himself. This is just a pet peeve of mine. If you've got something to say, or a contrary point or perspective, say it. But personal attacks only reveal faulty logic. Your arguments are weak, so you make personal slurs.

Opinions are like assholes...everybody got one.
Jag definitely doesnt mind letting his opinion known to us.
I dont see that as a bad thing...rather, I enjoy a critic.
Though , I'm sure, all his virtual foes on this forum, wish he could SUM UP his critiques a little better....he does have something to add.
His massive replies and ramblings are just a reflection of what He believes...not what he believes in particular...but he would tell u better.
I have never got the impression that Jag is looking for a break, rather he volunteeers readily, with his opinion, whenever we have an opinion to talk about.

Just cause i'm always right and he's usually wrong, doesnt make him a bad person...

Feel the love?

mucker wrote:

Just cause i'm always right and he's usually wrong, doesnt make him a bad person...

mucker wrote:

Opinions are like assholes...everybody got one.
Jag definitely doesnt mind letting his opinion known to us.
I dont see that as a bad thing...rather, I enjoy a critic.
Though , I'm sure, all his virtual foes on this forum, wish he could SUM UP his critiques a little better....he does have something to add.
His massive replies and ramblings are just a reflection of what He believes...not what he believes in particular...but he would tell u better.
I have never got the impression that Jag is looking for a break, rather he volunteeers readily, with his opinion, whenever we have an opinion to talk about.

Just cause i'm always right and he's usually wrong, doesnt make him a bad person...

Feel the love?

Well said! Most of the time, you make an attempt to keep the discussion on the issues.. and your critiques are within the range of 'accepted debating parameters' as i seem to be making myself the setter of standards..

But even your little jab here seems mostly good natured, which i don't find offensive. I just get weary of the personal insults.. keep the debate on topic. Use pointed & severe terms in the subject. But don't turn it to personal slurs.. oh some innuendo is inevitable, but once personal insults start to fly, reason loses. It starts to become like watching a lame reality show where stupid people are bickering with each other over some insignificant thing.

But judging from the success of those kinds of reality shows, perhaps i am just in the minority, & most people, even here, would prefer the outbursts of name calling & streams of insults. If so, i'm sorry. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Carry on.

rydnseek wrote:

dismissal, discredit, deflection, & distortion are getting real old. I know these are the left's primary tactics, & without them they have nothing really to say.. they never discuss issues, but only do the 'D' words.

Those are not only the "left's" primary tactics, but the right's as well.

Both sides are guilty of what you suggest. Both pay the victim, and both use any tactic no matter what the level of ethical or respectable sewer they peer up from.


Both parties, Republican and Democrat, are stooping to any and all level of distaste.

It's NOT just one side rydnseek.

It's not just the "left".

If we were standing next to each other and I got stung by a bee you won't feel the sting like I do.
So if you lean more towards the right and people are slinging arrows in that direction you'll notice those arrows more than somebody who is not as closely tied to that position.

Conversely you won't feel the sting as much when the side you support is throwing those same arrows back across the wall.

It's perspective. You notice the insult more when it's leveled at you. It's not so insulting if it's fired at somebody else (and you happen to agree with it).

Bottom line is - the "left" is not doing anything different, or anything worse than the "right" is doing and has done before.
They both play the same game and write the same rules as they go along.

Neither the right or the left has a "moral high ground" to stand on.

It only might appear that way because of the side you tend to identify with, but the reality is both sides are guilty.

jesuschrysler wrote:

God help the republican party with morons like Jager spouting their radical bullshit.

Hmmm... and in your case, somewhere a village is missing it's idiot... call home before they send search parties.

Nah, forget it... why would they bother?

You have one thing in common with all your fellow travellers. Your intellectual abilities are limited to making pronouncements. Making a reasoned, logical defense of what you post is simply beyond your mental prowess.

So if what I posted really is "radical bullshit" as you claim, perhaps you can aid us in out attempts to comprehend your troubled mind by adding at least a sentence or two to explain what is either "radical" or "bullshit" in your view? Or am I unfairly asking too much of you? Wouldn't want to overtax those two brain cells you have smokin' away there.

It's radical to believe that there's a reason the constitution has an amending formula, and nowhere is their evidence that anyone at the Constitutional Convention, at any time, suggested courts should have the power to write in additional powers for government and diminished freedoms and liberties for individuals? Where is the evidence that courts were intended to be as they are today, outside of the checks and balances that apply to the Executive and Congress?

It's bullshit to question a supreme court justice who says she doesn't think the US Constitution is worth looking to these days - that constitution she swore an oath to uphold and defend, incidentally - but instead recommends a constitution that allows the government in power to remove ALL your civil rights by a simple majority vote? Rational folks like you are sitting there giving her the thumbs up and saying "Right on there, Ruth"!!!

Your ideal is that the Republican party should simply be another version of the Democrat party - so far to the left wandering in the wilderness that they aren't even on the same continent anymore. That way, you get what you really want: all powerful, big government, tax and spend presidents and Congress no matter which way elections go. I get that. And unfortunately, this country is closer to your ideal these days than people like you realize.

mucker wrote:

Opinions are like assholes...everybody got one.
Jag definitely doesnt mind letting his opinion known to us.
I dont see that as a bad thing...rather, I enjoy a critic.
Though , I'm sure, all his virtual foes on this forum, wish he could SUM UP his critiques a little better....he does have something to add.

Aside from the statist/socialist views you and Motorkid share, here is where you share a further point.

To varying degrees, you bitch that my responses are too long. Which leaves me wondering "Do these people have the attention span of small, spoiled children, or poor reading skills that I'm unfairly taxing?" Motokid happily provides us with "clickies" to articles he's presumably read that far exceed the length of the posts I've written. He can manage to stumble and flail his way through those articles he likes, approve of them enough to provide us with a "clicky" so we can also benefit from their magnificence... but my posts are too long for him?

Yeah, right, whatever....

Or perhaps you simply have a problem with somebody that doesn't just have an opinion like they have an jesuschrysler asshole, but also takes the time to make a reasoned defense of why they see it that way?

Or let's turn that around for a moment: why are people like you, Motokid, jesuschrysler, etc so unable to make the pronouncements you do accompanied by a logical defense of those points? If you're so "right", why is it so apparently impossible for you to provide a rational, logical defense of your pronouncements? Can't type fast enough? Don't have enough time? The rest of us wouldn't understand you anyways?

I'm sure you all have some excuse or other for your inability to provide a reasoned explanation for the pronouncements you make - why don't you trot it out and we'll see how it flies?

Quote :

His massive replies and ramblings are just a reflection of what He believes...not what he believes in particular...but he would tell u better.
I have never got the impression that Jag is looking for a break, rather he volunteeers readily, with his opinion, whenever we have an opinion to talk about.

Given the scintillating clarity of that first sentence, it's pretty obvious you're unqualified to offer any kind of opinion of what I believe or how I think. Clearly you have enough trouble just attempting orderly thought processes in your own mind, much less understanding others.

But yes, just because Motokid posts up new threads that appeal to his statist/socialist views on life, doesn't mean conservative constitutionalists aren't going to provide an opposing viewpoint.

Quote :

Just cause i'm always right and he's usually wrong, doesnt make him a bad person...

As I said, you're great at making pronouncements. Rational, logical defences of those pronouncements... not so much.

Which makes taking apart your pronouncements about as hard as clubbing baby seals.

Quote :

Feel the love?

I really don't give a ragged rat's ass whether you throw insults or not - although, my rule is that if you want to pull the old dog's tail, you better have a plan for the teeth end as well. I'd like to think that if we all ignored the insults, those throwing them would eventually quit. But I know better, and possibly, so do you. And so, if you want to sling insults, I'll sling them right back to ensure you get no free lunch.

What really annoys and bothers me, however, is that it is seldom that the insults coming from leftists and statists are accompanied by a rational argument defending their position. Why is that?

Part of that may be that these positions and opinions are so out to lunch that what you support really isn't logically supportable to begin with.

But in large part I think you have to be somewhat bereft of logic and reasoning to believe what you do as a statist/socialist in the first place. Related to this topic, I simply can't see what you can find to rationally approve of in a Supreme Court justice who says the American Constitution she serves is pretty much useless, but the Canadian Constitution that allows government to remove your civil rights with a simple majority vote is infinitely better. Admiration that she'll openly say what she thinks, perhaps (see: American Constitution, First Amendment, freedom of speech), but what else?

motokid wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

dismissal, discredit, deflection, & distortion are getting real old. I know these are the left's primary tactics, & without them they have nothing really to say.. they never discuss issues, but only do the 'D' words.

Those are not only the "left's" primary tactics, but the right's as well.
Both sides are guilty of what you suggest. Both pay the victim, and both use any tactic no matter what the level of ethical or respectable sewer they peer up from.
Both parties, Republican and Democrat, are stooping to any and all level of distaste.
It's NOT just one side rydnseek.
It's not just the "left".

Oh i think you are mistaken.. i know what you mean.. that both sides defend their positions & argue their sides, but the left is craftier in their tactics than conservatives.. you can look at the posts in this forum for proofs if you want, but i predict you'll find more of the '5 d's' in leftist tactics than in the right.. of course, who is going to be the judge!?

Conservatives tend to be more naive than leftists. They are generally less involved in political discussions, & have a simpler view of things.. and they think when you discuss something, the topic will stay on the issue, instead of the deflections the left uses. Conservatives are light years behind these propaganda techniques. You guys on the left win that battle hands down.

Quote :

If we were standing next to each other and I got stung by a bee you won't feel the sting like I do.
So if you lean more towards the right and people are slinging arrows in that direction you'll notice those arrows more than somebody who is not as closely tied to that position.
Conversely you won't feel the sting as much when the side you support is throwing those same arrows back across the wall.
It's perspective. You notice the insult more when it's leveled at you. It's not so insulting if it's fired at somebody else (and you happen to agree with it).
Bottom line is - the "left" is not doing anything different, or anything worse than the "right" is doing and has done before.
They both play the same game and write the same rules as they go along.
Neither the right or the left has a "moral high ground" to stand on.
It only might appear that way because of the side you tend to identify with, but the reality is both sides are guilty.

Logic is not dependent on how you feel about it. Lies can sting, as well as the truth. A true logician & truth seeker is not concerned about the feelings of those involved, but on the truth. How something makes you feel has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the things being said. Truth must be dug out.. by logic, facts, & sound reasoning... not if it hurts your feelings.

Perhaps this seems unfair.. perhaps you think that truth should always be politically correct.. it should soothe & encourage. But it does not. It is hard, indifferent, & uncaring.

On the flip side, lies & personal attacks can also hurt our feelings. That can be true whether the attacks are true or not. So your critique of my premise does not apply.. the only way to measure my premise is to add up the stats.. see how many from the left employed any of the 5 d's, vs those on the right.. that would have some bearing, statistically, on my claim. Just asserting they are the same does not apply. My charge that the left does it more should be easy to disprove.. just add them up. Do you want to use just your threads, or all of the threads in the off topic section? If you can show that both the right & left do this equally, i will concede the point & bow to your logic.

Jäger wrote:

mucker wrote:

Opinions are like assholes...everybody got one.
Jag definitely doesnt mind letting his opinion known to us.
I dont see that as a bad thing...rather, I enjoy a critic.
Though , I'm sure, all his virtual foes on this forum, wish he could SUM UP his critiques a little better....he does have something to add.

Aside from the statist/socialist views you and Motorkid share, here is where you share a further point.

To varying degrees, you bitch that my responses are too long. Which leaves me wondering "Do these people have the attention span of small, spoiled children, or poor reading skills that I'm unfairly taxing?" Motokid happily provides us with "clickies" to articles he's presumably read that far exceed the length of the posts I've written. He can manage to stumble and flail his way through those articles he likes, approve of them enough to provide us with a "clicky" so we can also benefit from their magnificence... but my posts are too long for him?

Yeah, right, whatever....

Or perhaps you simply have a problem with somebody that doesn't just have an opinion like they have an jesuschrysler asshole, but also takes the time to make a reasoned defense of why they see it that way?

Or let's turn that around for a moment: why are people like you, Motokid, jesuschrysler, etc so unable to make the pronouncements you do accompanied by a logical defense of those points? If you're so "right", why is it so apparently impossible for you to provide a rational, logical defense of your pronouncements? Can't type fast enough? Don't have enough time? The rest of us wouldn't understand you anyways?

I'm sure you all have some excuse or other for your inability to provide a reasoned explanation for the pronouncements you make - why don't you trot it out and we'll see how it flies?

Quote :

His massive replies and ramblings are just a reflection of what He believes...not what he believes in particular...but he would tell u better.
I have never got the impression that Jag is looking for a break, rather he volunteeers readily, with his opinion, whenever we have an opinion to talk about.

Given the scintillating clarity of that first sentence, it's pretty obvious you're unqualified to offer any kind of opinion of what I believe or how I think. Clearly you have enough trouble just attempting orderly thought processes in your own mind, much less understanding others.

But yes, just because Motokid posts up new threads that appeal to his statist/socialist views on life, doesn't mean conservative constitutionalists aren't going to provide an opposing viewpoint.

Quote :

Just cause i'm always right and he's usually wrong, doesnt make him a bad person...

As I said, you're great at making pronouncements. Rational, logical defences of those pronouncements... not so much.

Which makes taking apart your pronouncements about as hard as clubbing baby seals.

Quote :

Feel the love?

I really don't give a ragged rat's ass whether you throw insults or not - although, my rule is that if you want to pull the old dog's tail, you better have a plan for the teeth end as well. I'd like to think that if we all ignored the insults, those throwing them would eventually quit. But I know better, and possibly, so do you. And so, if you want to sling insults, I'll sling them right back to ensure you get no free lunch.

What really annoys and bothers me, however, is that it is seldom that the insults coming from leftists and statists are accompanied by a rational argument defending their position. Why is that?

Part of that may be that these positions and opinions are so out to lunch that what you support really isn't logically supportable to begin with.

But in large part I think you have to be somewhat bereft of logic and reasoning to believe what you do as a statist/socialist in the first place. Related to this topic, I simply can't see what you can find to rationally approve of in a Supreme Court justice who says the American Constitution she serves is pretty much useless, but the Canadian Constitution that allows government to remove your civil rights with a simple majority vote is infinitely better. Admiration that she'll openly say what she thinks, perhaps (see: American Constitution, First Amendment, freedom of speech), but what else?

Very well put!

Jäger wrote:

mucker wrote:

Opinions are like assholes...everybody got one.
Jag definitely doesnt mind letting his opinion known to us.
I dont see that as a bad thing...rather, I enjoy a critic.
Though , I'm sure, all his virtual foes on this forum, wish he could SUM UP his critiques a little better....he does have something to add.

Aside from the statist/socialist views you and Motorkid share, here is where you share a further point.

To varying degrees, you bitch that my responses are too long. Which leaves me wondering "Do these people have the attention span of small, spoiled children, or poor reading skills that I'm unfairly taxing?" Motokid happily provides us with "clickies" to articles he's presumably read that far exceed the length of the posts I've written. He can manage to stumble and flail his way through those articles he likes, approve of them enough to provide us with a "clicky" so we can also benefit from their magnificence... but my posts are too long for him?

Yeah, right, whatever....

Or perhaps you simply have a problem with somebody that doesn't just have an opinion like they have an jesuschrysler asshole, but also takes the time to make a reasoned defense of why they see it that way?

Or let's turn that around for a moment: why are people like you, Motokid, jesuschrysler, etc so unable to make the pronouncements you do accompanied by a logical defense of those points? If you're so "right", why is it so apparently impossible for you to provide a rational, logical defense of your pronouncements? Can't type fast enough? Don't have enough time? The rest of us wouldn't understand you anyways?

I'm sure you all have some excuse or other for your inability to provide a reasoned explanation for the pronouncements you make - why don't you trot it out and we'll see how it flies?

Quote :

His massive replies and ramblings are just a reflection of what He believes...not what he believes in particular...but he would tell u better.
I have never got the impression that Jag is looking for a break, rather he volunteeers readily, with his opinion, whenever we have an opinion to talk about.

Given the scintillating clarity of that first sentence, it's pretty obvious you're unqualified to offer any kind of opinion of what I believe or how I think. Clearly you have enough trouble just attempting orderly thought processes in your own mind, much less understanding others.

But yes, just because Motokid posts up new threads that appeal to his statist/socialist views on life, doesn't mean conservative constitutionalists aren't going to provide an opposing viewpoint.

Quote :

Just cause i'm always right and he's usually wrong, doesnt make him a bad person...

As I said, you're great at making pronouncements. Rational, logical defences of those pronouncements... not so much.

Which makes taking apart your pronouncements about as hard as clubbing baby seals.

Quote :

Feel the love?

I really don't give a ragged rat's ass whether you throw insults or not - although, my rule is that if you want to pull the old dog's tail, you better have a plan for the teeth end as well. I'd like to think that if we all ignored the insults, those throwing them would eventually quit. But I know better, and possibly, so do you. And so, if you want to sling insults, I'll sling them right back to ensure you get no free lunch.

What really annoys and bothers me, however, is that it is seldom that the insults coming from leftists and statists are accompanied by a rational argument defending their position. Why is that?

Part of that may be that these positions and opinions are so out to lunch that what you support really isn't logically supportable to begin with.

But in large part I think you have to be somewhat bereft of logic and reasoning to believe what you do as a statist/socialist in the first place. Related to this topic, I simply can't see what you can find to rationally approve of in a Supreme Court justice who says the American Constitution she serves is pretty much useless, but the Canadian Constitution that allows government to remove your civil rights with a simple majority vote is infinitely better. Admiration that she'll openly say what she thinks, perhaps (see: American Constitution, First Amendment, freedom of speech), but what else?

I'm guessing the reason you are so takin back by thouhtful arguments,is because they are rarely Black and White.
If we were discussing the distance to the moon or any other mathematical query, the correct answers would be, let's say simple, to prove. Very little to argue.
Where as if we were to question the value of a stick...the debate would take a more artful form, where the more info from different sources that were included, regardless of where from, would add to the value of the discussion...for If you were to argue a stick only has one value, and all other replies are useless and only show ignorance, would only show your lack of intelligence, ignorance and lack of patience for a healthy debate.
Black and White seems to be the vast majority of replies from the religious right...they have no patience or tolerance for the grey areas. They will recite their perfect patterns that they have learned and suggest the only reason people could possibly have to argue those patterns is that they are ignorant...sounds kinda childish to me.
When we talk about how humans should best conduct themselves, that would be considered a grey area...if your only replies are Black and White and seemingly beyond criticism, then I suggest you are just repeating the same old dogma that has made you comfortable, as opposed to adding your incite in an honest, intelligent and artful way.
Jag has many posts on this forum, I usually try to catch them all...and have never, ever seen him even slightly consider anything that even slightly resembles a comment from the left, as having any merit. I would even suggest that Jag could not even state a name of a person, even left leaning that he has respect for...especially their intelligence.He has made it very clear here, that he sees no usefulness in the left at all...finite. He can get so into his replies that he will start mis-quoting people, even slightly, to make his point. Such as when he quoted me as being more educated than the founders or suggesting I support the Canadian process whole heartedly, without criticism.
There are many examples as I'm sure all have seen. He probably doesn't even realize he does it...but who knows.
Not to mention the way people on here reply with quotes, point by point, only fuels the errors of people taking things out of context. It's one thing to quote what someone said...and another to rip apart every single line someone says , like a grumpy old english teacher, repeatedly, I think promotes bad habits. One cannot see a single coherent thought, if they arent looking for it.
Maybe I am no genius, but if you suggest, that because, I don't carry around my flawless copy of the new world constitution in my back pocket, I am somehow unworthy to criticise yours or i guess anything and everything up to this point. I would say that gives more reliable info about you, than me. So no worries...Im not easily offended and I do like a challenge.

I dont even want to get into the discussion of who is the absolute rudest poster on this forum...
...But I do wish everyone would work on their manners a bit...We'ld get allot more accomplished.


And yes, I did type all this with two fingers...you are welcome.

mucker wrote:

Not to mention the way people on here reply with quotes, point by point, only fuels the errors of people taking things out of context. It's one thing to quote what someone said...and another to rip apart every single line someone says , like a grumpy old english teacher, repeatedly, I think promotes bad habits. One cannot see a single coherent thought, if they arent looking for it.

..just a comment from me on this point..

I think the bigger problem in forum discussions is NOT having the exact quote in a reply, but a caricature or a distortion of what was said. I have no problem with someone quoting something i really said, but if it is edited & taken out of context to mean something else, that is a distortion.

We are debating issues on a motorcycle forum.. in an off topic section! There are no rules, except what the mods put up.. but no rules for truth, logic, or fair play. That is something we do willingly, as reasonable people.

My bigger problem.. & i addressed it in another thread, is personal insults, rather than issues. I have no problem at all if my argument is ridiculed because it has faulty reasoning or falsehoods, but that should not lead to personal attacks. But too many times in these forums, personal attacks are substituted for debate over issues.

Since we are discussing debating techniques & judicial decisions, i don't think this is off topic. It is never off topic to call someone on their facts or logic. It is like someone saying, 'acme oil is the best!' You know what kind of heated discussion you will get with that!

It is completely fair to answer an assertion or a charge with a detailed response. If someone make baseless accusations, then they are answered & refuted, it is unfair to then say, 'oh, all this detail is being nit picking'. If you're going to make an assertion, you better be prepared to defend it. Or just ignore the response, if all that was intended was a troll or to stir things up.

The bigger complaint i see in your remark here is the more complicated replies & multiple points being made. It is harder to follow logic when there are many facets of the discussion, & simpler one liners or bumper sticker slogans are easier to read. This seems to be the trend in our new media communication. Too bad. We used to be in an age of reason, but we seem to be evolving to an age of emotion & short attention spans, where hysteria & indignation has more value than truth or reason.

rydnseek wrote:

mucker wrote:

Not to mention the way people on here reply with quotes, point by point, only fuels the errors of people taking things out of context. It's one thing to quote what someone said...and another to rip apart every single line someone says , like a grumpy old english teacher, repeatedly, I think promotes bad habits. One cannot see a single coherent thought, if they arent looking for it.

..just a comment from me on this point..

I think the bigger problem in forum discussions is NOT having the exact quote in a reply, but a caricature or a distortion of what was said. I have no problem with someone quoting something i really said, but if it is edited & taken out of context to mean something else, that is a distortion.

We are debating issues on a motorcycle forum.. in an off topic section! There are no rules, except what the mods put up.. but no rules for truth, logic, or fair play. That is something we do willingly, as reasonable people.

My bigger problem.. & i addressed it in another thread, is personal insults, rather than issues. I have no problem at all if my argument is ridiculed because it has faulty reasoning or falsehoods, but that should not lead to personal attacks. But too many times in these forums, personal attacks are substituted for debate over issues.

Since we are discussing debating techniques & judicial decisions, i don't think this is off topic. It is never off topic to call someone on their facts or logic. It is like someone saying, 'acme oil is the best!' You know what kind of heated discussion you will get with that!

It is completely fair to answer an assertion or a charge with a detailed response. If someone make baseless accusations, then they are answered & refuted, it is unfair to then say, 'oh, all this detail is being nit picking'. If you're going to make an assertion, you better be prepared to defend it. Or just ignore the response, if all that was intended was a troll or to stir things up.

The bigger complaint i see in your remark here is the more complicated replies & multiple points being made. It is harder to follow logic when there are many facets of the discussion, & simpler one liners or bumper sticker slogans are easier to read. This seems to be the trend in our new media communication. Too bad. We used to be in an age of reason, but we seem to be evolving to an age of emotion & short attention spans, where hysteria & indignation has more value than truth or reason.

I have to agree on all points...except for maybe your last.
I resemble the first part of your last remark but feel that my logic suits me well...even if improvement is needed.
There is a modern aingst common on the internet...especialy games and faceless stuff. And it is common and faceless. Doesnt make it right...

There's always been media and education and distortion of truth.
There has always been honour.
Being an honourable person is an old concept.
I would like to be an honourable person without exception.
...but that is yet to be seen.

If you cannot explain something simply...then you do not know it well enough.
Emotions are easy to remember...facts take a little more effort.
Simplifying ideas, is not a trend...but part of natural change.