The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments is how the Constitution is keeping up. You would know this if you were half as smart as you think you are, particularly since in the quoted setion of my remarks, I specifically mentioned the Ammendment process.
Furthermore, the Constitution is not outdated, as you suggest, but is as relevent today as it was 200 years ago when it was written. It remains that way because the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, added the ability to ammend the Constitution to deal with issues that they knew that they could not forsee, but also knew that would come up. While the process of ammending the Constitution is difficult, it is posssible, and that is what keeps the Constitution relavent.Tell me again how the constitution is keeping up....
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
How smart do I think I am David? Please enlighten me. Do you have some measure of how smart I think I am? Some measure of how smart I actually am?
I am certainly not as knowledgable on the constitution of the united states as i would like to be, what with being english and only having taken a relatively cursery hobby interest in it, but i also don't use language which suggests i believe that when asked why they forged the constitution, the framers answered 'god made me do it'.
I am trying to be respectful to you david. I don't agree with your politics or certain elements of the foundations of them. Rather than attacking you or your politics i have asked WHY you feel that way, asked you to justify your position. You answer well and change my mind, i don't bug you on them any more.
Ignore my questions, answer them, point out where i am wrong..but please, do not insult me as i try not to insult you.
For the record, i don't think i am smart. I can barely string a sentence together. I struggle to form a coherrant written arguement yet here i am trying, and in the company of people some of whom make me look like a babbling child. But you tell me, how much do you know about allopatric and sympatric speciation, the constitutional matters of the united kingdom, Joint European Torus experiment in nuclier fusion, the relative performance of the US and UK on numerous issues, the LHC, the poetry of Carrol Ann Duffy, the game theory, game theories applications in behavioural modeling, defensible space theory, french cinima, the lyrics of scrubbias Pip and the reproduction of the cowpea weevil. I've learned stuff about all these things and more because i don't want to be dumbest person in the room and when you can't physically understand the rules of punctuation, the only way to avoid being totally worthless is to know stuff.
Now, i am going to go re-read the amendments you cite, decide if i agree with your point or not, and either prepare a rebuttal or conceed the point to you.
Oh as a P.S.:
Anti-American? I am a british republician who considers the american constition to be a fine starting point in the formation of our constition when we finally get it.
I pointed to whole chunks of your article and said, i agree with this.
I think america is a great country and have said so more than once in the past. I have lorded the fact that america puts truely huge sums of money into basic science research. Friends tell friends when they are getting something wrong. Critism is the highest form of patriatism. You think i give your country a hard time, i think it is a national disgrace that the UK is 4th on scientific literacy and 19th on literacy.
I say all this stuff to you guys because i care, because your country is special. It is a beacon. I want it to live up to its promise.
David Fryer wrote:
You can quote statistics all you like, but the fact remains that people are willing to die to come to the United States.
Here is the thing. You can sneer at the facts,
STATS ARE NOT FACTS! Stats can be manipulated to look any way you want them to be.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."- Mark Twain.
A few words to the wise.
That is exactly what a statistic is. A single fact. It is a fact that by a given measure, servey or experiment, this peice of data is a FACT. If you want to challange the specific fact, ask for the citation and if i can be bothered i'll dig it up, and if i can't the claim is meaningless.
The fact is that by those measures, america is not the greatest country in the world, that hell england which i believe could be a considerably better place does better.
You don't think the measures matter, argue that, you don't think the specific studies are valid, challange them. But don't pull out twain.
I hope Gary locks this thread soon.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments is how the Constitution is keeping up. You would know this if you were half as smart as you think you are, particularly since in the quoted setion of my remarks, I specifically mentioned the Ammendment process.
Furthermore, the Constitution is not outdated, as you suggest, but is as relevent today as it was 200 years ago when it was written. It remains that way because the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, added the ability to ammend the Constitution to deal with issues that they knew that they could not forsee, but also knew that would come up. While the process of ammending the Constitution is difficult, it is posssible, and that is what keeps the Constitution relavent.Tell me again how the constitution is keeping up....
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.How smart do I think I am David? Please enlighten me. Do you have some measure of how smart I think I am? Some measure of how smart I actually am?
I am certainly not as knowledgable on the constitution of the united states as i would like to be, what with being english and only having taken a relatively cursery hobby interest in it, but i also don't use language which suggests i believe that when asked why they forged the constitution, the framers answered 'god made me do it'.
I am trying to be respectful to you david. I don't agree with your politics or certain elements of the foundations of them. Rather than attacking you or your politics i have asked WHY you feel that way, asked you to justify your position. You answer well and change my mind, i don't bug you on them any more.
Ignore my questions, answer them, point out where i am wrong..but please, do not insult me as i try not to insult you.
For the record, i don't think i am smart. I can barely string a sentence together. I struggle to form a coherrant written arguement yet here i am trying, and in the company of people some of whom make me look like a babbling child. But you tell me, how much do you know about allopatric and sympatric speciation, the constitutional matters of the united kingdom, Joint European Torus experiment in nuclier fusion, the relative performance of the US and UK on numerous issues, the LHC, the poetry of Carrol Ann Duffy, the game theory, game theories applications in behavioural modeling, defensible space theory, french cinima, the lyrics of scrubbias Pip and the reproduction of the cowpea weevil. I've learned stuff about all these things and more because i don't want to be dumbest person in the room and when you can't physically understand the rules of punctuation, the only way to avoid being totally worthless is to know stuff.
Now, i am going to go re-read the amendments you cite, decide if i agree with your point or not, and either prepare a rebuttal or conceed the point to you.
I wonder what you list of thiongs has to do with anything, since David did not post a similar list of all the things he knows. Thanks to the internet and wikipedia, most anyone can learn enough about all of the to BS the average person. The only reason to create such a list is to try and convince people how smart you are, because you aren't.
|
David Fryer wrote:
You can quote statistics all you like, but the fact remains that people are willing to die to come to the United States.
Here is the thing. You can sneer at the facts,
STATS ARE NOT FACTS! Stats can be manipulated to look any way you want them to be.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."- Mark Twain.
A few words to the wise.
That is exactly what a statistic is. A single fact. It is a fact that by a given measure, servey or experiment, this peice of data is a FACT. If you want to challange the specific fact, ask for the citation and if i can be bothered i'll dig it up, and if i can't the claim is meaningless.
The fact is that by those measures, america is not the greatest country in the world, that hell england which i believe could be a considerably better place does better.
You don't think the measures matter, argue that, you don't think the specific studies are valid, challange them. But don't pull out twain.
You spout information out as if everything you say you know is gospel truth. You don’t know what you speak of most of the time. Your vitriolic outbursts are becoming tiring.
A couple of my brain cells have died since reading this thread. I'm feeling litigious. Who can I call?
getting a little excited, posted some good points
I'd let it go at this point Zombie. I think we both know what we're dealing with here and it really doesn't make much sense to pursue a fleeing opponent. Let him go, let him have his opinions, you are not very likely at all to change them.
SmUrF
getting a little excited, posted some good pointsI'd let it go at this point Zombie. I think we both know what we're dealing with here and it really doesn't make much sense to pursue a fleeing opponent. Let him go, let him have his opinions, you are not very likely at all to change them.
I also think it's sad that Zombieneighbours' points won't be addressed and that the, in my mind, immature invasion of the blue people has taken place. As has been said elsewhere, if you* don't care for the political threads, don't participate in them. Quite simple, actually.
*you = people who spam the threads with little blue men.
|
|
Since the slurry is repeatedly referred to as non-toxic, less toxic, and EPA approved I find your putting words into Justice Scalia's mouth less than convincing.Approved slurry -- fine. "Really toxic stuff" (Scalia's words, not mine, by the way) -- not fine.
Both ideologies have good points, and some bad ones -- fine. "My side is flawless and perfect, but the other one has never done anything right" -- not true.
Very good point Kirth, but once one side is stuck in the "I am right and you are not." what point is there in a one sided conversation?
Once one side is stuck in the "I am right and you are not." what point is there in a one sided conversation?
I agree, that's a real problem. In this case, the major conversation-stopper is when we can't even GET to that point, because someone on one side believes ALL views from that "team" are automatically 100% correct (e.g., "A liberal is just a person who is too stupid to be a conservative! Naaa Naaa!") -- so that individual issues, or shades of interpretation (as you allude to) doen't even exist to them.
Once we get past that roadblock, then we can set to work on the fools who think that God somehow changes His mind to fit their personal opinions regarding specific issues.
|
|
Once one side is stuck in the "I am right and you are not." what point is there in a one sided conversation?I agree, that's a real problem. In this case, the major conversation-stopper is when we can't even GET to that point, because someone on one side believes ALL views from that "team" are automatically 100% correct (e.g., "A liberal is just a person who is too stupid to be a conservative! Naaa Naaa!") -- so that individual issues, or shades of interpretation (as you allude to) doen't even exist to them.
Once we get past that roadblock, then we can set to work on the fools who think they're perfect regarding specific issues (as I like to say, "He who claims to know with certainty the mind of God, is engaged in the Devil's work.")
Yes however I see this happening on both sides of the issue from both camps. People not reading the entire thread or understanding a response then choose to bring the conversation back to the same starting point.
PS did you get my email?
Yes however I see this happening on both sides of the issue from both camps.
YES!!!! That's my point exactly! As soon as someone says, "well, only conservatives do that!" or "well, only liberals do that!" they're not only making a factually untrue statement, but also dealing themselves out of the entire process of understanding one another.
P.S. Not yet; I'll be able to check email again in T minus 2 hours.
hence our little blue friends.
Yeah, the whole thing is pretty pathetic. I honestly believe that people have a deep-seated, primal need to separate into mutually antagonistic groups that refuse to talk to one another and just want to exterminate each other. Some kind of biological population control urge, maybe. They use religion, or politics, or skin color, or tribal affiliation as an excuse, but in the end it's just "lemme find a group to join, and then we'll all go find another group to fight and kill."
hence our little blue friends.Yeah, the whole thing is pretty pathetic. I honestly believe that people have a deep-seated, primal need to separate into mutually antagonistic groups that refuse to talk to one another and just want to exterminate each other. Some kind of biological population control urge, maybe. They use religion, or politics, or skin color, or tribal affiliation as an excuse, but in the end it's just "lemme find a group to join, and then we'll all go find another group to fight and kill."
We do!
As you may or may not know, humans have lots of wierd leftovers, mentally and emotionally, from being hunter-gatherer tribes. Like the possible MonkeySphere effect that makes distant atrocities mean far less because a part of your brain can only identify so many people as really human. i.e. You are prone to be more upset over a friend getting in a car crash and breaking an arm than hearing that a bus with 50 people was blown up in Dehli.
One interesting thing that modern politics uses to capitalise on the brains ill adjustment to much larger more interconnected societies is 'them' vs. 'us'.
The brain needs to identify threats quickly if you want to survive in the stone age, so black and white thought processes are a defense mechanism, which can lead even more unpleasantly to 'them' vs. 'us'.
It's visible throughout history. White vs. Black, Ally vs. Axis, DEMOCRAT vs. REPUBLICAN. And its very dangerous, because your dehumanising the other side, what happens if it gets to a point where you hear that three people died in a car crash, and ask if their Republican or Democrat before deciding to care?
I mean who cares if some of the those fanatic, racist Republicans die? Or if some of those America hating, gay-loving Democrats do?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
hence our little blue friends.Yeah, the whole thing is pretty pathetic. I honestly believe that people have a deep-seated, primal need to separate into mutually antagonistic groups that refuse to talk to one another and just want to exterminate each other. Some kind of biological population control urge, maybe. They use religion, or politics, or skin color, or tribal affiliation as an excuse, but in the end it's just "lemme find a group to join, and then we'll all go find another group to fight and kill."
I think that's because we're all pack animals.
My point (which I didn't convey clearly, sorry) was the specific examples of Scalia given didn't seem to me to be that bad. 1) The slurry and process was approved by the EPA, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, and 2) I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that. I also don't feel the need to put anyone to the sword who disagrees with me. Neither does Scalia, as his ruling on Flag Burning showed.
I can see flaws in the right (stance on legalization of drugs, stance on some health issues, etc) as well as the left (too much to mention). But when I disagree, I call it out.
If you want to be done talking, then I too tip my hat at you. It's depressing though when people give up so easily. Try to have a conversation, raise points to support your position, and then the other side walks away saying "its obvious we'll never agree". Well in truth you're right, we won't, but it is entertaining seeing people attempt to defend such positions, at least for me.
Personally, I LIKE arguments on controversial issues that go round and round and never get anywhere because they are fine entertainment. They can also considered a benefit to society because they hone the arguer's ability to use logic correctly and argue their positions effectively.
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.
So, never mind the writings of the Framers; things like, "the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion" (Treaty of Tripoli)? I mean, if I were a devout Christian as well as a devout patriot, it would be convenient if I could combine the two -- and Patrick Henry and John Jay tried like hell (and failed) to get that kind of thing written into the Constitution -- but that's expressly the opposite of what Jefferson, Madison, and others recommended.
The U.S. at the time of its independence was unique specifically because its authority was expressly stated as being derived from the consent of the governed, rather than from divine right handed down by God.
Besides, a lot of people like to conveniently (?) set aside that the main founding fathers were deists.
|
|
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.So, never mind the writings of the Framers; things like, "the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion" (Treaty of Tripoli)? I mean, if I were a devout Christian as well as a devout patriot, it would be convenient if I could combine the two -- and Patrick Henry and John Jay tried like hell (and failed) to get that kind of thing written into the Constitution -- but that's expressly the opposite of what Jefferson, Madison, and others recommended.
The U.S. at the time of its independence was unique specifically because its authority was expressly stated as being derived from the consent of the governed, rather than from divine right handed down by God.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration clearly state that unalienable rights are give by God.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.So, never mind the writings of the Framers; things like, "the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion" (Treaty of Tripoli)? I mean, if I were a devout Christian as well as a devout patriot, it would be convenient if I could combine the two -- and Patrick Henry and John Jay tried like hell (and failed) to get that kind of thing written into the Constitution -- but that's expressly the opposite of what Jefferson, Madison, and others recommended.
The U.S. at the time of its independence was unique specifically because its authority was expressly stated as being derived from the consent of the governed, rather than from divine right handed down by God.
Lets also look at the Declariation of Independance... And remember who the Treaty of Tripoli was with (hint, their spiritual descendents light their underpants on fire)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
The Declaration clearly state that the rights are handed down by God not from people
Maybe I'm picking at semantics, but I consider 'God' in the formal nomenclature and 'their Creator' to be different distinctions. Deists believed in a 'god', but their perception is that this 'god' did not interfere. The problem is that by default, people like to assume that 'their Creator' is inferring to Yahweh, YHWH, Jehovah, Iehova, etc.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The Declaration Clearly state these rights are given by God
Those are the natural rights of men, not the powers of the government. The U.S. government itself was in no way intended as an ecclesiastical body, or as an extension of God's will.
|
I do believe that the nation was founded on principles given by the Divine, and wish people would return to that.So, never mind the writings of the Framers; things like, "the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion" (Treaty of Tripoli)? I mean, if I were a devout Christian as well as a devout patriot, it would be convenient if I could combine the two -- and Patrick Henry and John Jay tried like hell (and failed) to get that kind of thing written into the Constitution -- but that's expressly the opposite of what Jefferson, Madison, and others recommended.
The U.S. at the time of its independence was unique specifically because its authority was expressly stated as being derived from the consent of the governed, rather than from divine right handed down by God.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration clearly state that unalienable rights are give by God.
Which one? Odin? Brahma? Allah? His Noodlieness?
Lets also look at the Declariation of Independance... And remember who the Treaty of Tripoli was with (hint, their spiritual descendents light their underpants on fire)
Three points.
(1) Again, we need to separate the "rights of men" from the "powers and authority of the government." These are two different things.(2) Deists reference a hands-off Creator who bears little resemblance to the hands-on Christian god.
(3) Who the treaty was with, to my mind, is irrelevant; I doubt that Washington and Adams thought, "Well, they're Muslims, so it's OK to lie through our teeth to them." Especially because Madison's and Jefferson's letters in particular make it clear that this statement is consistent with their views as well.
Which one? Odin? Brahma? Allah? His Noodlieness?
Exactly! But if I was forced at gunpoint, I'd defer to His Noodlieness. I don't have issues with Pastafarians. :P
|
|
Lets also look at the Declariation of Independance... And remember who the Treaty of Tripoli was with (hint, their spiritual descendents light their underpants on fire)Three points.
(1) Again, we need to separate the "rights of men" from the "powers and authority of the government." These are two different things.
(2) Deists reference a hands-off Creator who bears little resemblance to the hands-on Christian god.
(3) Who the treaty was with, to my mind, is irrelevant; I doubt that Washington and Adams thought, "Well, they're Muslims, so it's OK to lie through our teeth to them." Especially because Madison's and Jefferson's letters in particular make it clear that this statement is consistent with their views as well.
No, but they probably did think "they're murderous duplicitous bastards so it's ok to lie to them".
;)
No, but they probably did think "they're murderous duplicitous bastards so it's ok to lie to them".
You might think that. To me, an act reflects on the person doing it, not so much on the person it's being done to. And again, we can check the statement in the Treaty for consistency against any number of points made in the Founders' letters.
I know we're constantly bombarded with the message that "The U.S. was founded as a Christian country," and I know the Pilgrims probably wanted that, but that myth doesn't fit the evidence.
|
|
No, but they probably did think "they're murderous duplicitous bastards so it's ok to lie to them".You might think that. To me, an act reflects on the person doing it, not so much on the person it's being done to.
Eh, when it comes to politicians, even Founding Father types, my default position is, if their lips are moving...
(2) Deists reference a hands-off Creator who bears little resemblance to the hands-on Christian god.
Very few of the founding fathers were deists Kirth. This is a modern myth that keeps popping up.
getting a little excited, posted some good pointsI'd let it go at this point Zombie. I think we both know what we're dealing with here and it really doesn't make much sense to pursue a fleeing opponent. Let him go, let him have his opinions, you are not very likely at all to change them.I also think it's sad that Zombieneighbours' points won't be addressed and that the, in my mind, immature invasion of the blue people has taken place. As has been said elsewhere, if you* don't care for the political threads, don't participate in them. Quite simple, actually.
*you = people who spam the threads with little blue men.
You have the option of flagging all the posts by the blue folk.
Very few of the founding fathers were deists Kirth. This is a modern myth that keeps popping up.
Jefferson and Franklin for sure. Others maybe; Washington's wife wrote that "My husband was no Christian," for example. But it doesn't matter how many. It matters that some were Deist, and many were Christian, and most of them in both groups felt that all should get equal representation.
|
|
Very few of the founding fathers were deists Kirth. This is a modern myth that keeps popping up.Jefferson and Franklin for sure. Others maybe; Washington's wife wrote that "My husband was no Christian." But it doesn't matter how many. It matters that some were Deist, and many were Christian, and most of them in both groups felt that all should get equal representation.
Maybe Martha was commenting on George's conduct with the interns...
;)
(2) Deists reference a hands-off Creator who bears little resemblance to the hands-on Christian god.
Very few of the founding fathers were deists Kirth. This is a modern myth that keeps popping up.
You're saying folks such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. weren't Deists?
Maybe Martha was commenting on George's conduct with the interns...
Nice one!
|
|
(2) Deists reference a hands-off Creator who bears little resemblance to the hands-on Christian god.
Very few of the founding fathers were deists Kirth. This is a modern myth that keeps popping up.
And the Constitution explicitly rules out establishing any sort of state religion, so how can it be a Christian country if the document it's founded on rules out it being any one religion's country? It might well be a Country founded (partly) by Christians, but that's not what most people mean when they say a Christian country.
The UK is a Christian country, btw (established church and everyfing) and I doubt many of the people who wish the US to 'return to being a Christian country' would like it here. EDIT: Not specifically you Gary as I can't remember you saying that. Just that most people who say such things have a very specific view of Christianity that contains, to my outsiders view, some very un-Christian oddities.