Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 128

Thread: States rights and liberty

  1. #81

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    Wrong. The beauty of a republic is that the entire system is based on an objective law firmly stating the proper boundaries of government.
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of a Republic is subjective, so neither one of us can be "wrong" or "right".
    That's what the Constitution was meant to be, and that's what people like you have destroyed.
    What's with the ludicrous name-calling? I definitely do not want to destroy the constitution. It is a great document that I believe the government is following just fine in most cases.
    "Promote the general welfare" is not an enumerated power of Congress.
    Hence, not covered by Necessary and Proper Clause.
    Try again.
    I will.
    Definition of "provide"
    -supply: give something useful or necessary to; "We provided the room with an electrical heater"
    -give what is desired or needed, especially support, food or sustenance; "The hostess provided lunch for all the guests"
    Source
    The government (in the case of healthcare) is making healthcare available to the populace, the majority of whom desired it since it's inception, providing for the general welfare of the United States.
    Yes.
    I recognize the value of a Constitution. That doesn't mean I don't realize that the Constitution has a specific end: A just society.
    That's your interpretation of its end. There is nothing in the constitution that addresses what a "just society" is. That's up for the citizens, senators and representatives, and the president to decide within the confines of the constitution itself.
    The law shouldn't be broken often or for frivolous reasons, and CERTAINLY not for evil reasons (public healthcare).
    Here we go again with the political opinion. Healthcare is constitutional. It's making available (or providing, if you will) healthcare for many Americans in order to provide for the general welfare of the United States through its people. I'm fine if you believe that healthcare isn't effective or that it's a waste of tax dollars. You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact it does take your tax dollars doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Hell, the government could increase the income tax to 99% and it would be constitutional as long as it was used for something congress was charged to provide for, like the navy. Of course, this notion is ridiculous, NOT constitutionally, but practically.

    Public healthcare is not unconstitutional. Its methods may vary in effectiveness, but it's constitutional.
    "Failed" how?

    Again, because the Louisiana Purchase might not have happened?
    Failed in that strict constructionalism's fatal flaw was exposed, that is, how to deal with situations that aren't in the constitution. Breaking the constitution was a better alternative than going to war with one of the strongest nations in the world, or with any nation who we had to buy land from (Mexico, Spain, Panama etc. etc.)
    Ridiculous. The entire argument you're making is ridiculous. It's not just a "method" of running the legislative and executive branch, it is THE ONLY LEGAL AND PROPER METHOD. It is how this government was FORMED and the only way it might ever remain just.
    Obviously a strict constructionist and a loose constructionist see the constitution in different ways. The former sees healthcare as overstepping its bounds because it is not a specifically enumerated power. The latter sees healthcare as a perfectly legal institution because it is what is necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Two different methods both following the constitution. The world is not as black and white as you think it is.
    I'm arguing "for state's rights" in a manner related to the 9th and 10th Amendments and Article 1 Section 8.
    Alright good to know. I haven't seen a good argument so far of how the federal government has overstepped their boundaries.
    I'm not a fan of statist states either, but at least those are legal under Federal law.
    As opposed to what? Healthcare?
    I know, but it may have lead to it by undermining the law.

    Such is the danger of breaking the law, and that is exactly why it should only be done in extreme circumstances.
    I don't think that was the case...the Louisiana Purchase was formed into territories. The northern states spread there pro-federal influence to the northern territories while the southern states' idea of states rights flowed into the southern territories. Any statism that emerged was merely the spreading influence of the ideologies and opinions of the original states. The Louisiana Purchase didn't really bring anything new into the federal vs. state debate besides new territory and subsequently new states to influence (which really didn't encourage or discourage statism anyway).
    Take it however you wish. I say precisely what I mean to say.
    I know, but I want to know as a separate question not pertinent to this debate what you think the role of the Supreme Court is.
    I don't think a video game will change my opinion of the Law of the Excluded Middle.
    Lighten up, will you? I hardly find revelations in video games. I don't expect you to either.
    --- Theseus1234
    Suum cique (To each their own) -Motto of the Kingdom of Prussia

    The Crown of Aragon AAR- The Iberian Supremacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    ^Human hubris knows no bounds.

  2. #82
    Justice and Mercy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, US of A
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Theseus1234 View Post
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of a Republic is subjective, so neither one of us can be "wrong" or "right".
    So if I said that the beauty of a Republic is that jews are massacred it wouldn't be "wrong"?

    Subjectivism is utter nonsense.

    I definitely do not want to destroy the constitution.
    Why fight so hard for something you don't want?

    I will.
    Definition of "provide"
    -supply: give something useful or necessary to; "We provided the room with an electrical heater"
    -give what is desired or needed, especially support, food or sustenance; "The hostess provided lunch for all the guests"
    Source
    Do you not remember that we're discussing how the power to provide healthcare is necessary for the carrying out of the enumerated powers?

    That's your interpretation of its end.
    That's it's proper end.

    If it acts counter to that end it must be abolished or changed.

    Here we go again with the political opinion.
    Odd that I'd share my political opinion in the Political Academy.

    Healthcare is constitutional.
    No it's not.

    As opposed to what? Healthcare?
    As opposed to a statist Federal government.

    I know, but I want to know as a separate question not pertinent to this debate what you think the role of the Supreme Court is.
    To understand the Constitution and apply it properly in regard to legislation.

    Which is not what they're doing.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison

  3. #83
    Cannibalking's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    678

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    The state reserves too many rights.

    I myself am a fan of Big government. The federal government should have every right to enforce all laws regarding personal freedoms. The only things I believe should be reserved to the states are taxes and gun laws. (Gun laws because some cities, like Chicago, have different gang situations)

    I agree with you completely though.

  4. #84

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    So if I said that the beauty of a Republic is that jews are massacred it wouldn't be "wrong"?

    Subjectivism is utter nonsense.
    Obviously that's an extreme example, but if the Republic in question regularly participated in the massacring of Jews, it would be a valid, albeit frowned upon, viewpoint. As far as I know, we don't really massacre Jews here, so I base my idea of beauty on its merits rather than what it could be and almost implausible extreme scenarios.

    EVERYTHING is subjective. That's why politics are an issue and heavily debated. If nothing was subjective, we wouldn't have different political parties, opinions, or religions (or religion at all). If only objectivity were completely possible, the world would be much simpler. If everything were objective, you and I wouldn't be disagreeing. There is no complete objectivity in terms of politics.
    Why fight so hard for something you don't want?
    I haven't said anything remotely similar to "destroying" the constitution. Arguing that healthcare is constitutional does not automatically mean I am "destroying the constitution". Arguing that "loose" constructionists lead to that is a Slippery Slope argument.

    To destroy the constitution would be to destroy everything that this country is. I don't want that to happen. I merely want to improve or provide for the welfare of this nation through its people. For what is a nation without its people?
    Do you not remember that we're discussing how the power to provide healthcare is necessary for the carrying out of the enumerated powers?
    Provide for the general welfare of the United States. The United States is made up by its people. By providing healthcare, the intention is to aid its people and thus the nation as a whole. Again, the effectiveness is questionable and it should be argued based on that, but the constitutional backing is there. Healthcare is a method to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

    Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't want to help the people of the United States since it's not specifically listed in Article I Section 8. But my view is that, since a nation is made up of people, helping the people will help the nation. Or, in the words of the constitution. Providing for the general welfare of the people is providing for the general welfare of the nation.
    That's it's proper end.
    Going by your logic earlier, that would be your view and thus subjective. And since "subjectivism is utter nonsense", your opinion doesn't matter. What it should be doesn't change what it is.The purpose of the constitution as written in the constitution is to:
    form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
    I see to "establish justice", but for what? To whom? What kind of justice? By who's standards? Who's beliefs? You see? Gray area. The answer is your opinion and is subjective.
    I also see promote the general welfare. To whom? In what form? Gray area, and again, subjective.
    If it acts counter to that end it must be abolished or changed.
    It's not (although that's arguable and subjective. Justice is like that).
    Odd that I'd share my political opinion in the Political Academy.
    We're arguing constitutionality, not political ideology. Theres already a thread on healthcare here if you want to comment on it's effectiveness (or lack thereof).
    No it's not.
    Addressed this earlier in my post.
    As opposed to a statist Federal government.
    I don't really understand this point. Are you saying the federal government is allowing or influencing statism?
    To understand the Constitution and apply it properly in regard to legislation.

    Which is not what they're doing.
    Again, subjectivity is everything. People view the constitution differently, which is why we get different judicial views on practically the same issue. Humans are not objective beings, and everything is subjective. Unfortunately, your idea that "everything is objective" is a political fallacy. That should be obvious to everyone.
    --- Theseus1234
    Suum cique (To each their own) -Motto of the Kingdom of Prussia

    The Crown of Aragon AAR- The Iberian Supremacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    ^Human hubris knows no bounds.

  5. #85

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    The state should only be there to punish people who commit crimes- Murder, robbery, etc. The state should have no other use and shouldn`t be allowed to raise taxes, forbid people to enter the country and shouldn`t be able to attack our personal freedom.




  6. #86
    Justice and Mercy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, US of A
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Theseus1234 View Post
    Obviously that's an extreme example, but if the Republic in question regularly participated in the massacring of Jews, it would be a valid, albeit frowned upon, viewpoint.
    It would NOT be a valid viewpoint. The beauty of a republic is most certainly NOT that jews are massacred in one.

    That's why politics are an issue and heavily debated. If nothing was subjective, we wouldn't have different political parties, opinions, or religions (or religion at all). If only objectivity were completely possible, the world would be much simpler. If everything were objective, you and I wouldn't be disagreeing. There is no complete objectivity in terms of politics.
    There is only one truth. There is only one final arbiter on what is true and what is not: Reality.

    I haven't said anything remotely similar to "destroying" the constitution.
    This entire conversation has it's roots in the fact that people like you want to destroy the Constitution.

    Arguing that healthcare is constitutional does not automatically mean I am "destroying the constitution". Arguing that "loose" constructionists lead to that is a Slippery Slope argument.
    Not even close.

    "Loose constructionism" is the bottom of the slope. It IS destruction. There is no gray area in reality or in morality. It is or it isn't.

    Going by your logic earlier, that would be your view and thus subjective.
    I'm sorry? What logic are you talking about? Nothing I've said would paint that as "subjective".

    And since "subjectivism is utter nonsense", your opinion doesn't matter.
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.

    What it should be doesn't change what it is.
    It is the law of the land. The law of the land has a proper purpose.

    What purpose? Read Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" and you'll get an idea.

    It's not (although that's arguable and subjective. Justice is like that).
    If "justice" is subjective there is no right and wrong. Nothing goes and so everything goes equally.

    Completely nonsense.

    We're arguing constitutionality, not political ideology. Theres already a thread on healthcare here if you want to comment on it's effectiveness (or lack thereof).
    Oh I see.

    Hey, we're discussing constitutionality, not the proper place for me to post what I post.

    See what I did there?

    I don't really understand this point. Are you saying the federal government is allowing or influencing statism?
    I'm saying that a statist state is not illegal by the Constitution.

    A statist Federal government is.

    Unfortunately, your idea that "everything is objective" is a political fallacy. That should be obvious to everyone.
    But if opinion is subjective, isn't my claim that my opinion is objective just as valid as your claim that it's not?

    Subjectivism is nonsense. I can't stress this enough.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison

  7. #87

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    This part of the post just smacked me in the face. You know how amazingly incorrect that is...right? Not to mention you are just appealing to your own pride.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  8. #88
    Justice and Mercy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, US of A
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    You know how amazingly incorrect that is...right?
    How do you know? Everything is subjective, right?
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison

  9. #89

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    It would NOT be a valid viewpoint. The beauty of a republic is most certainly NOT that jews are massacred in one.
    It would be in an anti-semitic culture or Republic biased against Jews.



    There is only one truth. There is only one final arbiter on what is true and what is not: Reality.
    Theoretically yes, but only in a world with no sentient organisms. People have different views and see reality differently. Unfortunately there are more to life than facts. These facts have to be interpreted, presented, and then reinterpreted. News channels like FOX news give surprisingly different facts that another news station like CNN would. Human beings cannot possible view everything objectively, no matter how much you stress that it's the only truth.
    This entire conversation has it's roots in the fact that people like you want to destroy the Constitution.
    Complete strawman. I don't want to destroy the constitution. You automatically link "Loose constructionist" with "destroyer of the constitution" with no reason, proof, evidence, etc. False, unsupported claim.
    "Loose constructionism" is the bottom of the slope. It IS destruction. There is no gray area in reality or in morality. It is or it isn't.
    Loose constructionists are still confined to the constitution.

    Your reality is not the objective reality. None of our realities are.
    I'm sorry? What logic are you talking about? Nothing I've said would paint that as "subjective".
    You said you "recognized its proper end: a just society". Yourecognizing something is subjective.
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    Could you be more pompous and arrogant? Objectivity through humans is a lie, impossible, and a fallacy.
    It is the law of the land. The law of the land has a proper purpose.
    Sure. Its purpose as defined by itself is to set up a federal Republic, influenced by the tyranny of Britain.
    What purpose? Read Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" and you'll get an idea.
    Read John Locke's 2nd Treatise and you'll get the idea of support of society as being the purpose of government.
    If "justice" is subjective there is no right and wrong. Nothing goes and so everything goes equally.
    I'm saying your justice is different from my justice. My justice includes the death penalty being legal for the most heinous of crimes. Does yours include that? Even if it does, there are still different understandings of a "just" society.

    A just society could be that everyone fends for themselves, and only the strongest survive. Another version of a just society could be a man who uses unemployment benefits to sustain himself until he gets a job, and then pays taxes to secure
    Hey, we're discussing constitutionality, not the proper place for me to post what I post.

    See what I did there?
    Yes I did. You used an analogy to incorrectly describe my previous point.
    My previous point was that you just had a problem with public healthcare and argued against it with ill-based claims of its unconstitutionality when you would have much better success just claiming that it was just ineffective and a waste of money.
    I'm saying that a statist state is not illegal by the Constitution.

    A statist Federal government is.
    Sorry if I'm still a little confused by this point. Do you mean a statist federal government as in a government that believes in power to the states or power to the federal government?
    But if opinion is subjective, isn't my claim that my opinion is objective just as valid as your claim that it's not?

    Subjectivism is nonsense. I can't stress this enough.
    Before I respond. May I ask how you think the different political parties come along? Or different religions?

    And my response:
    Yes, and its here which we've reached an impasse. The only way through it is to stop assuming that you're automatically right because you somehow possess a "completely objective view" unlike every other human on earth. Then we can proceed with regular logic, instead of a self-inflated sense of your own opinion.

    May I suggest we end the debate here? We can continue if you want to (I don't mind either way) but I see that neither of us are going to make any ground. Your pretentiousness isn't going to sway me (especially now) and I see that it's going to be arguing against an arrogant person who believes everything they believe is the absolute truth.

    And honestly if you can't see how arrogant and conceited you are then there really is no hope.

    Come to think of it, I'm going to sig that statement. It's actually hilarious how you think you can be 100% objective.
    --- Theseus1234
    Suum cique (To each their own) -Motto of the Kingdom of Prussia

    The Crown of Aragon AAR- The Iberian Supremacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    ^Human hubris knows no bounds.

  10. #90
    Justice and Mercy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, US of A
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Theseus1234 View Post
    Theoretically yes, but only in a world with no sentient organisms.
    The fact that there are sentient organisms doesn't mean that reality morphs to their will.

    One reality. One truth.

    Loose constructionists are still confined to the constitution.
    You pretend to be.

    Your reality is not the objective reality. None of our realities are.
    There is only one reality.

    You said you "recognized its proper end: a just society". Yourecognizing something is subjective.
    Me recognizing something is a recognition of the single reality that we all live in.

    Could you be more pompous and arrogant?
    Probably.

    I'm saying your justice is different from my justice.
    Then you're wrong.

    Whew, see how simple things are when I apply logic?

    Either a statement is true or it's negation is. Either I'm right, or I'm not. Either you're right, or you're not. I am, you're not.

    Sorry if I'm still a little confused by this point. Do you mean a statist federal government as in a government that believes in power to the states or power to the federal government?
    Look up the word "statist" and look up the term "Federal government".

    That's what I mean.

    Yes, and its here which we've reached an impasse. The only way through it is to stop assuming that you're automatically right because you somehow possess a "completely objective view" unlike every other human on earth. Then we can proceed with regular logic, instead of a self-inflated sense of your own opinion.
    I'm not automatically right. I'm right by virtue of applying reason.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison

  11. #91

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    The fact that there are sentient organisms doesn't mean that reality morphs to their will.

    One reality. One truth.
    Yet everyone is not as enlightened as you are. How can that be? /sarcasm
    You pretend to be.
    I know I'm not. I'm just a little more creative in ways to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
    There is only one reality.
    Yes. And no one can see it. Not even you.
    Me recognizing something is a recognition of the single reality that we all live in.
    See above. You are not the arbiter of truth and justice in a world of wrong, although you think you might be.
    Probably.
    People generally don't listen to others who are pompous and self-important.
    Then you're wrong.

    Whew, see how simple things are when I apply logic?

    Either a statement is true or it's negation is. Either I'm right, or I'm not. Either you're right, or you're not. I am, you're not.
    Yes, the "you're wrong I'm right" argument is logically valid from the standpoint of a 3 year old.
    I'm not automatically right. I'm right by virtue of applying reason.
    The reasoning of a 3 year old, yes.
    --- Theseus1234
    Suum cique (To each their own) -Motto of the Kingdom of Prussia

    The Crown of Aragon AAR- The Iberian Supremacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    ^Human hubris knows no bounds.

  12. #92
    Justice and Mercy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, US of A
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Theseus1234 View Post
    Yet everyone is not as enlightened as you are. How can that be?
    Because they refuse to exercise proper judgement.

    Yes. And no one can see it. Not even you.
    If you can't see reality how do you know I can't? Am I not part of reality? If so, you can't see me. If you can't see me, how can you know my nature? If I'm not part of reality, what am I?

    Subjectivism is ridiculous, and only gets moreso the more you think about it.

    See above. You are not the arbiter of truth and justice in a world of wrong, although you think you might be.
    I am not the arbiter of that which is true, but the discoverer.

    People generally don't listen to others who are pompous and self-important.
    Not really my problem, now is it?

    Yes, the "you're wrong I'm right" argument is logically valid from the standpoint of a 3 year old.
    Three year olds have a shockingly advanced grasp of logic.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison

  13. #93

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    Because they refuse to exercise proper judgement.
    And what did you do to be able to exercise complete and proper objective judgment?
    If you can't see reality how do you know I can't? Am I not part of reality? If so, you can't see me. If you can't see me, how can you know my nature? If I'm not part of reality, what am I?
    By that logic, I am also part of reality. How do you know I am not right? Anything you apply to yourself you can also apply to me. The only difference is that you somehow think you're opinion is worth more than any other opinion.
    Subjectivism is ridiculous, and only gets moreso the more you think about it.
    Your attempts at trying to convince me are the only things that are getting more so ridiculous. You haven't made a single good argument besides the childish "You're wrong I'm right"
    I am not the arbiter of that which is true, but the discoverer.
    I've never seen such self-importance before. I'll believe it when I see it.
    Not really my problem, now is it?
    Only if you really want to change things in the world. It's hard to change things when people don't listen. You continue this attitude and soon people will take the opposite stance just to spite me. If you wish to spread your knowledge of the "objective truth", you're going to have some bad luck with that.

    I'll humor you. Convince me that you're the discoverer of objectivity and truth in the world. Show me the light, if you will.
    --- Theseus1234
    Suum cique (To each their own) -Motto of the Kingdom of Prussia

    The Crown of Aragon AAR- The Iberian Supremacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    ^Human hubris knows no bounds.

  14. #94
    Justice and Mercy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, US of A
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Theseus1234 View Post
    And what did you do to be able to exercise complete and proper objective judgment?
    I grew up to be a healthy human being.

    It's not a question of ability, it's a question of choice.

    By that logic, I am also part of reality.
    Yes you are.

    How do you know I am not right?
    About what in particular?

    Anything you apply to yourself you can also apply to me.
    Not the case. We obviously have different ideas.

    The only difference is that you somehow think you're opinion is worth more than any other opinion.
    My opinion is right.

    Your attempts at trying to convince me are the only things that are getting more so ridiculous. You haven't made a single good argument besides the childish "You're wrong I'm right"
    You can't say that my arguments aren't good without debunking them. Hardly proper forum etiquette.

    Only if you really want to change things in the world. It's hard to change things when people don't listen.
    The only alternative is to lie to them. Either that or I tell them the truth and hope they'll listen.

    Guess which I've chosen?

    I'll humor you. Convince me that you're the discoverer of objectivity and truth in the world. Show me the light, if you will.
    That's a VERY complicated epistemological question. Any answer I care to give here will not do it justice.

    To summarize: I am a human being. Nature has bestowed upon me senses capable of sensing, and a mind capable of thinking. If I exercise these tools properly, I may know reality. Such is the purpose of these tools.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison

  15. #95

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    I grew up to be a healthy human being.

    It's not a question of ability, it's a question of choice.
    And I'm not healthy? I grew up in a very normal way, good education, good parents. How does upbringing determine the truthfulness of your statements?
    [quote]Yes you are.
    No I'm not.
    About what in particular?
    About constitutionality, about justice, about everything. What makes you right and me not?
    Not the case. We obviously have different ideas.
    Yet yours are automatically right because you see things objectively and I cannot? Bull.
    My opinion is right.
    Are you trolling? It seriously sounds like you're trolling. Your opinion is exactly what it is, an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
    You can't say that my arguments aren't good without debunking them. Hardly proper forum etiquette.
    There aren't any arguments to debunk. This is our argument. You're the mule:

    The only alternative is to lie to them. Either that or I tell them the truth and hope they'll listen.

    Guess which I've chosen?
    The one where the truth falls upon deaf ears.
    To summarize: I am a human being. Nature has bestowed upon me senses capable of sensing, and a mind capable of thinking. If I exercise these tools properly, I may know reality. Such is the purpose of these tools.
    No. You're wrong. I am right. My version of justice is correct, and yours is not. My recognition of the values in the constitution are the only correct ones. Everyone else is wrong. I am just using my unexplainable nature-given ability for discerning right from wrong and truth from lie.

    Fundamentalists are hard to argue with.
    Last edited by Theseus1234; August 15, 2010 at 10:20 PM.
    --- Theseus1234
    Suum cique (To each their own) -Motto of the Kingdom of Prussia

    The Crown of Aragon AAR- The Iberian Supremacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    ^Human hubris knows no bounds.

  16. #96
    Justice and Mercy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, US of A
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Theseus1234 View Post
    And I'm not healthy? I grew up in a very normal way, good education, good parents. How does upbringing determine the truthfulness of your statements?


    You missed my point entirely. I'm saying that every healthy human being is fully capable of exercising proper judgement. It's a matter of choice.

    About constitutionality, about justice, about everything. What makes you right and me not?
    The fact that I exercise proper judgement and you don't.

    There aren't any arguments to debunk.
    Pay better attention. I've been showing you the inherent contradictions in subjectivism for several posts now. Either these contradictions must be reconciled, or you must drop the philosophy entirely.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison

  17. #97

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    [QUOTE=Justice and Mercy;7889216]

    You missed my point entirely. I'm saying that every healthy human being is fully capable of exercising proper judgement. It's a matter of choice.
    And I am exercising my proper judgment. I stand by all of the points relating to constitutionality on this thread.
    The fact that I exercise proper judgement and you don't.
    I do.
    Pay better attention. I've been showing you the inherent contradictions in subjectivism for several posts now. Either these contradictions must be reconciled, or you must drop the philosophy entirely.

    It's YOUR perogative.
    No you're not. All I see is you saying that you have the objective truth.
    There aren't any contradictions in subjectivism that you've convinced me of. It simply is. Your opinion that you are objective IS subjective. That's the only contradiction here.
    EDIT: Your skills as a debater are lacking at best. Anyone who reads this thread will instantly discredit you and your opinions.
    --- Theseus1234
    Suum cique (To each their own) -Motto of the Kingdom of Prussia

    The Crown of Aragon AAR- The Iberian Supremacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    ^Human hubris knows no bounds.

  18. #98
    Justice and Mercy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, US of A
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Theseus1234 View Post
    And I am exercising my proper judgment.
    Clearly not.

    You're a subjectivist. You don't believe in "proper judgement".

    There aren't any contradictions in subjectivism that you've convinced me of.
    Nor have you debunked any.

    Here's the simplest one: If reality is subjective, how do you know reality isn't objective? After all, nothing goes, so everything goes equally.

    Or maybe I'm wrong about that logic? No, I can't be wrong. But I can't be right either. How can I be sure that I can't be right?

    Subjectivism is 100% illogical. It cannot be reconciled.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison

  19. #99

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    Nor have you debunked any.

    Here's the simplest one: If reality is subjective, how do you know reality isn't objective? After all, nothing goes, so everything goes equally.

    Or maybe I'm wrong about that logic? No, I can't be wrong. But I can't be right either. How can I be sure that I can't be right?

    Subjectivism is 100% illogical. It cannot be reconciled.
    First, you must start with the premise that you aren't always right. I'm not always right. No one is always right. That's the truth.

    Then, you must realize that everything in the world, facts, information, impressions, everything, is filtered through our human minds, where we analyze it, filter it, determine what's important to us, etc. That is where the subjectivity of EVERY human being comes in. Complete objectivity is practically impossible. THAT'S the only illogical thing here.

    Your mind isn't chemically different than the average human mind. Any revelation that you have to change your subjectivity into objectivity is a feeling, not knowledge based on facts. You have no facts to prove your objectivity besides "I know it" much in the same way a fundamentalist Christian believes that god is real, or as much as a little girl knows that unicorns exist.

    And that's what you are, a political fundamentalist.
    --- Theseus1234
    Suum cique (To each their own) -Motto of the Kingdom of Prussia

    The Crown of Aragon AAR- The Iberian Supremacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice and Mercy View Post
    My opinion is 100% objective. That's how I'm so right all the time.
    ^Human hubris knows no bounds.

  20. #100
    Justice and Mercy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, US of A
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: States rights and liberty

    Quote Originally Posted by Theseus1234 View Post
    First, you must start with the premise that you aren't always right. I'm not always right. No one is always right. That's the truth.
    Oh, but that's only YOUR truth, right?

    Maybe my truth is different?

    Subjectivism is crap.

    Then, you must realize that everything in the world, facts, information, impressions, everything, is filtered through our human minds, where we analyze it, filter it, determine what's important to us, etc. That is where the subjectivity of EVERY human being comes in. Complete objectivity is practically impossible. THAT'S the only illogical thing here.
    "Because he has eyes, blind. Because he has ears, deaf."

    Any revelation that you have to change your subjectivity into objectivity is a feeling, not knowledge based on facts.
    The concept of "fact" itself suggests the ability to understand reality.
    The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - James Madison

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •