Shag, at best most of your logic could be described as ‘circular’.
If that is the case, then demonstrate how. I don't think you can do it without mischaracterizing me in some fashion. People have tried in the past to accuse me of making fallacious arguments but can never give me the courtesy I extend them in making the argument specific enough to be disprovable. You gonna do the same?
You rarely actually answer a talking point, instead you say “You want me to answer it, demonstrate to me that I am wrong, and that you are not two-faced but are in fact trustworthy in some sense.” or something similar.
If a talking point is fallacious then it is not worth considering and not worth answering. To do so would be to legitimize it, re-enforce that type of argument and drag down the debate to the point of the "truth" and what is "right" simply being determined by who can make the more clever and/or convincing argument; not by who can make the most reasonable and logical one. They are two distinctly different things.
Rest assured, if you make a logical argument (or repeat a logical talking point) and I will "answer" it.
Most all of what I type, being reactive, is very content dependant. So what was the context of that quote? Or did I even actually say that?
The quote you cite was in response to asking something that is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion, unless you are trying to change direction in some fashion.
As far as the trust thing goes, you have earned that distrust. I gave you a chance when you first showed up and cut you a lot of slack (arguably more so then many conservatives here) and you know it. Your own actions hung you.
I will never be trustworthy in your eyes – so you never have to answer anything I pose to you, even though it is relevant within the discussion.
And this is based on
nothing I said.
When you start asking questions that aren't really on topic and don't connect them to the topic first, a person has to trust that the ultimate point you are going for is honest and tied to the point at hand and not. It could very easily be a means to change the focus of the debate and/or to decietfully trap you into agreeing to something you don't agree with (
fallacy of many questions). Unless I trust you are not going for one of those decietful possibilities (and I don't), it would be foolish of me to answer that question as you worded it. You need to show how it is related to the topic in a substantive (and not merely tangential) way.
How the majority stands regarding abortion rights is relevant, even though you try to dance around it…
How?
And the norm on the left aren’t radical – you can keep stating that and stating that, and you will continue to be wrong. I imagine most people who read this know you are wrong about this. They have friends who are liberal, they have family members who are liberal, they all know many liberals, and they aren’t radical.
By I am not simply "stating that and stating that". I have provided examples,
including the effective head of the party; Barak Obama who
are radical on this and try to misrepresent their record.
Your claim the the norm on the left is not radical is "proven" simply by "stating it and stating it", which is a textbook
proof by assertion fallacy.
Continue to rant about this – I encourage it. It makes the right seem irrational and illogical. Because it is irrational and illogical. Note - this is paragraph 6
Actually it is not, and most people can see that. I have given enough examples to meet the "
proponderance of evidence" burden of proof.
You have simply provided assertions to prove your point.
Or, maybe I have been wrong about you Shag, and you are way right. The extreme right (or left) sees all of the opposing side as bad, evil, and completely wrong. It is part of the definition of ‘extreme’.
now here is an argument to marginalize me and my point.
Ad hominem circumstancial?
Weather or not I am "extreme right" doesn't say anything about weather or not my point is accurate.
And you keep ranting about my (fill in the blank with many descriptive, derogatory terms) – fine, rant all you want to. I am not afraid to let others look at both of our sides and judge. Plus, I don’t have to resort to calling or labeling you as ‘dishonest, two-faced, untrustworthy, lying, cheating, ‘uncreditable’, flawed, and whatever else is the demeaning term of the day to call foxpaws. I have no need to answer in kind. I let my arguments and rational stand on its own without having to lower myself to your level.
If it was simply insults to distract from the debate and dishonestly marginalize you that would be one thing.
But it is logical conclusions about you based on habitual actions you have taken on this forum. The fact that it is insulting is tangential.
And, weather you realize it or not, this does come across as nothing more then your own passive agressive attempt at an
ad hominem abusive argument.
Weather or not I am being in some way "childish" or "rude and insulting" or whatever, is irrelevant. What matters is that what I say is
accurate. You aren't attacking the accuracy of what I say, you are attacking the manner in which I say it.
And radicals on the right are rare??? Only if you are right. There are plenty.
Then you can provide more examples then "right wing firebombers"; examples that
are closely tied to conservatism.
Just because you happen to agree with them doesn’t mean that they are ‘rare’.
And just because you
disagree with them doesn't make them "radical". You would do well to keep that in mind.
Here are a few definitions of radical (as it relates to this debate):
- marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional
- tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
- of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change
- advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
Conservatism, at it's core, is
defined by tradition. Hard to be radical when your ideology is tradition based and inherently adverse to unknown change (
precautionary principle).
On the other hand modern, egalitarian liberalism, as a political philosophy is utopian based. Always striving for a better world then we currently have. It is
defined by change from the known to the unknown.
Very easy to be radical with that ideology.
Could it mean that they are more palatable to you – because you are right – probably. Just as left radicals might be more acceptable to me because I am liberal. But to say that radicals on the right are extremely rare, and that they are the norm on the left… once again – refer to paragraph 6 – I appreciate the reaffirmation of the fact that by continuing to brand and belittle the entire left the right is slowly killing itself.
Again, I have given examples as to why the left is radical and shown that they have a philosophical predisposition to radical change. I have show that the right has a philosophical predisposition
against radical change and that the only "radical" group you cite on the right is very isolated and not in any way the norm (something you admit).
You keep trying to prove that one side isn't dominated by radicals so the other side must not be either. That is a non sequiter. Weather or not one side is or isn't dominated by radical is irrelevant to weather the other side is or isn't dominated by radicals.
Your "proof" is to simply try to marginalize anyone making that argument as "illogical". You need to show that the
argument is illogical (be specific, cite examples) not simply label the person or point of view as illogical.
Before you try to claim that I do what I just laid out, I
always attack the
argument as illogical then draw a conclusion about the person or side
making the argument. You are starting out by attacking the perspective and people, not the argument.
To date, the only "proof" you have offered concerning the argument is proof by assertion in the form of a vague and unfounded assertion that the argument is illogical then start claiming that the perspective (and thus the person arguing it) is illogical. You need to demonstrated that the argument is illogical, not simply give speculation about the perspective meaning that the conclusion is not drawn logically.
You try now to blame schools and msm – fine, place blame, it is much easier than actually admitting that maybe, most people would rather the government not get involved in this issue.
Yep. I'm just being petty and immature, so my argument should be rejected because of that.
So, now you admit that society’s values have changed – great – then you can just stop with all this debate. Society will dictate… Society changes all of the time shag. That is why we have amendments, to accommodate that change. Heck, they can even be repealed when society swings back in the other direction.
Society's views have changed, but it is unclear as to where. And the problem is that society
is not and
has not dictated their views on this. The left works to keep that from happening. When society did dicated their views, the left put a stop to that by judicial fiat in the
Roe v. Wade decision.
I have always said that abortion should be put up for an amendment. The left constantly works to make sure that doesn't happen.
So, as you said society currently doesn’t have the momentum to look at changing the laws. So, society has enforced its morals – as you so often point out that it is allowed to do (your post #135) – correct?
Again, society hasn't enforced anything. The left has
circumvented society in this case (as they usually do in imposing their agenda).
That is the problem. The right wants to have that discussion and debate in society and ultimately let society determine things. The left is working to
circumvent the will of society and impose
their will
on society. It is they way the Democrat party works.
And if liberals want to start getting rid of constitutional rights, I will be all over them.
They have and you aren't.
And, shag life is life – I believe in the death penalty. However, I believe we are killing a human being when we enforce that penalty. I don’t try to pretend that it is a ‘different’ type of life then others. They may be guilty of a crime, but the definition of life does include them. They breathe, they have cognizant thought, they are human beings, by any definition you can imagine. You start to categorize ‘life’ into different buckets – guilty – innocent – hateful – precious – whatever. You are destroying human life when that person is put to death. I believe that society has made that decision that it is apropos to end that human life. But I don’t try to justify it by making it some sort of ‘lesser’ life with the whole ‘guilty/innocent’ standard.
So any right is absolute and it cannot even be taken away with due process. Justice be damned. Weather you realize it or not, that is what you just justified.
No right is absolute and any right can be taken away through due process. That is the point of having a court system; to impose impartial justice. If a "right to life" cannot be taken away in certian instances given certian actions, then no right can be taken away.
No right in the constitution is absolute. Any and all rights can be taken away through due process, per the constitution. So you are cherry picking the right to life as an absolute here and effectively rejecting justice in regards to it.
It is not a simple catagorization or an arbitrary line by the right (as you imply). That line is justifed by the whole concept of justice, to reject that line out of hand is to reject justice (at least in certian instances).
However the line you draw in the reverse (death penalty "OK"/ right to life in the womb "not OK")
is rather arbitrary.
I would love to get rid of the labels – let’s get rid of pro-life, it isn’t a good descriptor, and it does imply ‘pro-death’ Shag – I do know how rhetoric works on both sides, why do you think I kept calling it ‘anti-choice’?
I never said get rid of labels. It helps you know where someone is coming from. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" may not be the most accurate discriptors, but they are the ones everyone knows and accepts, and the ones we are going to use. Most people can see through the spin inherent in them. However "anti-choice" is not accepted by everyone and is a slanderous label (to an implied mischaracterization of the position).
Shag - I am saying that if you want fetal life to be protected in the constitution you have change the constitution to define it as a human being, a 'person' or something we afford 'rights' to.
Same thing when it comes to "substantive rights" including a "right to choose". Unless you can simply get activist courts to rewrite the constitution for you.
The right wants to
have that vote by society (in the form of an amendment process), the left has worked for longer then I have been alive to
avoid that vote.
