# don't like the Constitution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2001, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897 "2001-02-10T07:56:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/21 "2001-02-10T18:16:15Z")
> [@](#): > > PS: I’m also a fan of the Magna Carter. And I thought Pres. Carter’s brother was named Billy… ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/22 "2001-02-10T19:17:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EddietheDane \* > \*\*that’s easy…pack up your crap and move someplace that doesn’t have one…say that worker’s paradise known as Cuba…see how much happier you are in that little garden of Eden. \*\* > [@](#): > > **It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.** > _Johnson v. Texas_, 491 U.S. 397, 421 (1989) (J. Kennedy, concurring) Substitute “Constitution” for “flag” in the foregoing quote from Justice Kennedy and you will see why your statement is so offensive as to not belong in Great Debates at all. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2001, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/23 "2001-02-10T20:28:18Z")
There’s big difference between believing that people that disagree with you should leave, and believing that they should be forced to leave. I see nothing totalitarianist about expressing a desire that people who are fundamentally opposed to the principle of this country leave it. Is it totalitarianist to wish that a troll would leave the SDMB? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/24 "2001-02-11T00:07:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EddietheDane \* > My initial post may not have clearly expressed my entire thought on the matter (I thought I was responding to an earlier thread, but in fact it posted as a new one, and therefore I didn’t feel the need to state my entire thinking on the matter. Ok, I’ll cut you some slack -this time. 😉 Thanks for the honesty. (BTW, I don’t read Spanish either). > [@](#): > > To make it clear, I am NOT suggesting that people who disagree with one or more elements of the US constitution should pick up and leave…what I AM suggesting is that people who disagree that the document should be the framework of our system of government should leave…plain and simple. Actually, that’s anything but “plain and simple”. Say somebody wants to institute, or better yet _discuss_, a unicameral legislature. Now that might step beyond the framework of the bicameral Constitution, but it would hardly be undemocratic. Indeed, IIRC, Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be reviewed, perhaps scrapped, every couple of generations. (Any Jefferson scholars out there?) It seems unwise to foreclose discussion of political reform just because it’s in conflict with the compromises and best efforts of a 1786 committee. If there is anything that is at the core of the American political system, I’d say it’s freedom of speech. Telling constitutional reformers that they should pack up and leave seems to me at least to be UnAmerican. Not that such a characterization is the worst that I could say about it… ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/25 "2001-02-11T02:26:52Z")
[Jefferson Quotes](http://libra.netmastersllc.com/doc/Q/QTJefferson.html) > [@](#): > > \*Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most productive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that it received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every 19 or 20 years, should be provided in the constitution, so that it may be handed on, with periodic repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure. > > Happily for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers, and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or restore their constitutions.\* > [@](#): > > _The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead. > The will and the power of man expire with his life, by nature’s law… > We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country._ > [@](#): > > _A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; > when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. > Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man._ ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/26 "2001-02-11T16:08:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **I see nothing totalitarianist about expressing a desire that people who are fundamentally opposed to the principle of this country leave it.** The First Amendment grants the freedom to publicly voice your opinions. This is true of **all** opinions, even those of, for example, the [United Fascist Union](http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/7344/). > [@](#): > > \*\*Is it totalitarianist to wish that a troll would leave the SDMB? \*\* Your analogy is faulty. Trolls, and others who violate the rules, are banned. Citizens who violate the country’s rules are sent to prison. Disliking the Constitution is not one of those rules, because the First Amendment gives the freedom to hold that opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/27 "2001-02-11T16:57:01Z")
Thanks, Protesilaus. What some folks (to include 2sense) don’t seem to understand is that the US Constitution (the document, not the ship) has a method of improving it. That method is called “Amendment.” It has been used more than once, and certainly more than just ot add the Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/28 "2001-02-11T18:55:55Z")
The Alien and Sedition Acts, the destruction of labor movements such as the Wobblies, the Palmer Raids, McCarthy’s House Commitee on Un-American Activities, and countless FBI’s investigations of suspected radicals including the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Liberation Movement make a mockery of the claim to free speech. Political dissent which threatens our rule of minority has been crushed. We can never know how the citizenry of today would feel if there had been a free and open discussion of ideas. Perhaps the [slim majority of Americans who favor the Constitution](http://www.constitution.org/col/half4constitution.htm) would no longer do so. * * * Just my 2sense ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/29 "2001-02-11T18:57:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EddietheDane \* > Marc, I am an atheist too and for me the Constitution IS scripture. There is no higher document in my opinion ever created. I think Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet each have a more coherent story line, better pacing, and a much more lyrical use of language. Better go pack my bags. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/30 "2001-02-11T20:20:47Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by 2sense_ > \*\*Perhaps the [slim majority of Americans who favor the Constitution](http://www.constitution.org/col/half4constitution.htm) would no longer do so. \*\* I looked at the [survey](http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1066.html) your link comes from, and it looks pretty biased to me. Here’s the most relevant question (bolding mine): > [@](#): > > 1. Suppose that you had a chance to vote for or against approving **the entire Constitution** today **with all of its Amendments and restrictions on government**. A vote for the Constitution would also **eliminate all federal programs that have been approved without Constitutional Authority**. Would you vote for or against the Constitution? > > 51% For > 22% Against > 27% Not sure In other words, if you disagree with _even one clause_, you should vote against the Constitution. This is even more biased when you take a look at this question (again, bolding mine): > [@](#): > > 1. The Constitution gave limited powers to the federal government. Sometimes, Congress passes laws that are not authorized by the Constitution. For example, **there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to pay for 100,000 additional teachers in local school systems.** > > In a case like this, **is it better for Congress to follow the Constitution or is it better for Congress to pay for 100,000 additional teachers?** > > 36% Follow the Constitution > 51% Pay for 100,000 teachers > 13% Not sure This question establishes that the Constitution would forbid Congress from passing such a bill, a claim I would dispute. This question precedes the other one, and biases the surveyed against the Constitution by making them think that if they say yes to 12, they’d be agreeing that the extra teachers should not be funded, since, after all, the Constitution wouldn’t allow it and a vote for the Constitution eliminates all programs that the Constitution doesn’t expressly allow. In addition, the pool from which this data was taken seems biased as well. I got this impression from these questions: > [@](#): > > 1. Another area of controversy has evolved around the issue of separating church and state. Should prayer be allowed in public schools? > > 72% Yes > 21% No > 7% Not sure > > 1. School prayer has been banned since a Supreme Court ruling nearly 40 years ago. Do you think that America’s political leaders really believe that school prayer violates the Constitution or are they just using this as an excuse to do what they want anyhow? > > 25% Politicians believe school prayer violates the Constitution > 63% That is just an excuse > 11% Not sure > > 1. Think for a moment about the terrible tragedy in Colorado’s Columbine High School. If school prayer were allowed, would incidents like this be less likely to occur? > > 46% Yes > 34% No > 20% Not sure > > 1. Which would do more to prevent future school tragedies-allowing school prayer or passing more gun control laws? > > 49% School prayer > 31% More gun control > 21% Not sure Do you really believe that half of Americans think that school prayer would prevent school shootings? Or that half would think it more successful than gun control? Would you say that nearly 2/3 of Americans feel that the decisions that school prayer is unconstitutional just an excuse to get rid of it? That almost 3/4 think school prayer should be allowed? It seems like Republicans are more than a little overrepresented. There’s another reason to dispute these statistics - they come from Portrait of America. According to PoA polls just before election time, Bush was going to crush Gore in the popular vote. (There was a thread which mentioned this. I’ll post it as soon as I can find it.) We now know that that poll was inaccurate. Since both polls show a heavy leaning towards Republican opinion, it seems that PoA polls are hardly an accurate depiction of what Americans think. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/31 "2001-02-11T20:47:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > > **I see nothing totalitarianist about expressing a desire that people who are fundamentally opposed to the principle of this country leave it.** > > The First Amendment grants the freedom to publicly voice your opinions. This is true of **all** opinions, even those of, for example, the [United Fascist Union](http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/7344/). Exactly. The opinion that people who are against the Constitution should leave is a Constitutionally protected opinion. > [@](#): > > Your analogy is faulty. Trolls, and others who violate the rules, are banned. Citizens who violate the country’s rules are sent to prison. Disliking the Constitution is not one of those rules, because the First Amendment gives the freedom to hold that opinion. Why did you criticize my analogy be examining a completely different analogy? ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/32 "2001-02-11T21:08:15Z")
I found the thread. Here it is, on page 2 of [GW Bush Wins In A LANDSLIDE!!!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41799&pagenumber=2). In the middle of the page, **Freedom** and **Danielinthewolvesden** are discussing the PoA poll. It actually says that Bush would be way ahead in the _electoral_ vote, not the popular one - I remembered incorrectly - but it’s still wrong. If you look at their [state-by-state projections](http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/poll-1214.html), you’ll also find they lean significantly right of the actual results. They gave 8 Gore states to Bush (Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus a tie in Minnesota) and were way of in the percents in other states (in New Jersey: predicted - Gore 46%-40%, actual - Gore 56%-41%, in Nevada: predicted - Bush 49%-37%, actual - Bush 49%-46%, and so on). ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/33 "2001-02-11T21:21:40Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by TheRyan_ > \*\*Exactly. The opinion that people who are against the Constitution should leave is a Constitutionally protected opinion. \*\* I never said that it wasn’t Constitutionally protected. I said it was totalitarian. As you can see by the fact that the UFU is allowed to exist, even totalitarian opinions (such as yours) are Constitutionally protected. > [@](#): > > **Why did you criticize my analogy be examining a completely different analogy?** _What_ completely different analogy? Earlier, you asked: > [@](#): > > \*\*Is it totalitarianist to wish that a troll would leave the SDMB? \*\* In doing so, you equated a troll on the SDMB to someone who does not like the Constitution. I then explained to you that trolls violate rules, whereas Constitution-haters do not, because the Freedom of Speech allows them to freely express their distaste for the Constitution. **That** is the faulty analogy, and it’s the analogy you made. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2001, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/34 "2001-02-11T22:45:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \* > even totalitarian opinions (such as yours) are Constitutionally protected. What totalitarian opinions? > [@](#): > > _What_ completely different analogy? My analogy was between people who want trolls to leave and people who want people who don’t like the Constitution to leave. Your analogy was between **forcing** trolls to leave and **forcing** people who don’t like the Constitution to leave. > [@](#): > > In doing so, you equated a troll on the SDMB to someone who does not like the Constitution. No, I made an **analogy** between a troll and someone who does not like the Constitution. I did not equate them. > [@](#): > > I then explained to you that trolls violate rules, whereas Constitution-haters do not, because the Freedom of Speech allows them to freely express their distaste for the Constitution. **That** is the faulty analogy, and it’s the analogy you made. “Trolls violate rules, and people who don’t like the Constitution don’t” is not an analogy, nor did I say it. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/35 "2001-02-12T00:36:48Z")
After cross-examination I am forced to agree with **Protesilaus** that, overall, the survey seems biased. Question #2 does seem fair to me: > [@](#): > > \*Is follwing the Constitution the best way to govern our country today or does it need to be updated to reflect the massive changes in society that have taken place over the past 200 years? > > 56% Following the Constitution is best > 37% The Constitution needs to be updated > 7% Not sure \* * * * Hi! I’m a [Weenie](http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame6.html) What’s your sign? ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/36 "2001-02-12T01:05:43Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by The Ryan_ > **What totalitarian opinions?** Well, there’s when you said this: > [@](#): > > **I see nothing totalitarianist about expressing a desire that people who are fundamentally opposed to the principle of this country leave it.** Now, I already explained to **EddietheDane** why this is totalitarian, but I’ll repeat it for you: You like the Constitution. He does not. It follows that he does not think like you. For this reason, you want him to leave the country. Therefore, you want those who do not think like you do to leave the country. Totalitarianism is government that suppresses dissent. Dissenters are those who think differently than the ruling faction. Therefore, totalitarians are those who suppress people who think differently than they do. See the connection? You want everyone in the country to think like you do, and you aim to do this by getting rid of those who do not think like you. I can’t make this any clearer without invoking Godwin’s Law. I hope that clears that up. Moving along we have, > [@](#): > > \*\*My analogy was between people who want trolls to leave and people who want people who don’t like the Constitution to leave. Your analogy was between forcing trolls to leave and forcing people who don’t like the Constitution to leave. \*\* I never made an analogy, I just explained why your analogy is no good. I know it’s your analogy because it’s in the quote above, where you claim it to be your analogy. It’s the exact same analogy I’ve told you was faulty twice already. I will explain a third time why this analogy is no good. A troll is someone who goes out of their way to be a jerk, and acts insulting and abusive towards others. Someone who does not like Constitution merely holds a view opposite to your own. Is it reasonable to want a troll, such as **Phaedrus** or **JDT** , banned? Yes. Is it reasonable to want someone, such as **2sense** , who does not agree with you that the Constitution is a good idea, banned? Of course it’s not reasonable to want to get rid of someone because you don’t agree with them. Please note that I said “want banned,” **not** “banned”. There is no force here. A troll is abusive and harrassing. A troll violates the rules of the MB. A criminal violates the rules of the country. Is it reasonable to want a criminial to leave the country? Yes. A Constitution hater has a point of view unlike yours. It is **LEGAL** to disagree with you. Someone who doesn’t like the Constitution is **NOT A CRIMINAL**! They have the right to feel this way, and it is intolerant of you to demand they leave. And that is exactly what you did. That you did not demand the government to force them to leave is irrelevant, as you did demand that they leave. You **cannot** compare a troll to someone who doesn’t like the Constitution. They are not the same. > [@](#): > > \*\*No, I made an analogy between a troll and someone who does not like the Constitution. I did not equate them. \*\* Those words mean the same thing! An analogy compares two things for the purpose of showing how they are similar. When you say two things are the similar, you equate them. > [@](#): > > **"Trolls violate rules, and people who don’t like the Constitution don’t" is not an analogy, nor did I say it.** 1. Of **course** it’s not an analogy, it’s **my** explanation for why your analogy is wrong! 2. No, you didn’t say it. _ **I** _ said it. How can you not tell the difference between what you said and what I said? ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/37 "2001-02-12T01:23:55Z")
**2sense** : I agree with you that Question 2 is a fair one, and that, from time to time, we must update our Constitution. It seems that our disagreement is simply over the best way to make those updates. Currently, we update via amendments, and have made sweeping changes, such as ending slavery (13th Amendment), extending the right to vote (15th, 19th, and 26th), allowing direct election of senators (17th), establishing a line of presidential succession (25th), and setting a two-term limit for presidents (22nd). All these changes have improved our Constitution for the better, and if we see the need for more changes, we can pass new amendments to implement those changes. I think that our current system allows us to improve upon something that’s worked pretty well so far, and I just don’t see the need to throw it all out and start again. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/38 "2001-02-12T02:04:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \* > > > [@](#): > > > > **I see nothing totalitarianist about expressing a desire that people who are fundamentally opposed to the principle of this country leave it.** > > Now, I already explained to **EddietheDane** why this is totalitarian, but I’ll repeat it for you I didn’t say that I desire that people that are fundamentally opposed to the principles of this country leave it, I said that expressing that desire is not totalitarianist. > [@](#): > > See the connection? You want everyone in the country to think like you do, and you aim to do this by getting rid of those who do not think like you. As I said before, I have not expressed a desire that everyone in the country think like me. Furthermore, the OP has not said anything which supports your contention that he aims to get rid of people that disagree with him. He has simply asked these people to leave; he has not shown any inclination to force them out. > [@](#): > > I never made an analogy, I just explained why your analogy is no good. No, you simply presented a difference between trolls and people that disagree with the Constitution without ever showing how this explains how this invalidates my analogy. Simply beacause the two are different, that doesn’t mean that any analogy involving the two is invalid. > [@](#): > > Is it reasonable to want someone, such as **2sense** , who does not agree with you that the Constitution is a good idea, banned? Of course it’s not reasonable to want to get rid of someone because you don’t agree with them. Please note that I said “want banned,” **not** “banned”. There is no force here. Of course there is. Banning someone forces them to not post here. And I note that you **still** are not listening to me. There is nothing wrong with wishing that someone who irritates you would leave. Read that preceding sentence again. I did not say “There is nothing wrong with wishing someone who irritates you would be banned”, I said “There is nothing wrong with wishing that someone who irritates you would leave”. > [@](#): > > They have the right to feel this way, and it is intolerant of you to demand they leave. And that is exactly what you did. When? > [@](#): > > You **cannot** compare a troll to someone who doesn’t like the Constitution. They are not the same. Are you implying that you can only compare two things if they are the same? Compare: To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of. How can you note the differences of two things if they’re the same? > [@](#): > > Those words mean the same thing! An analogy compares two things for the purpose of showing how they are similar. When you say two things are the similar, you equate them. No, when I say that two thing are similar, I say that they are similar. Similarity is very different from equality. > [@](#): > > 1. Of **course** it’s not an analogy, it’s **my** explanation for why your analogy is wrong! > 2. No, you didn’t say it. _ **I** _ said it. How can you not tell the difference between what you said and what I said? Let’s look at the quote again: > [@](#): > > I then explained to you that trolls violate rules, whereas Constitution-haters do not, because the Freedom of Speech allows them to freely express their distaste for the Constitution. That is the faulty analogy, and it’s the analogy you made. The word “that” is a pronoun, and the obvious choice for its antecedent is the previous sentence. Therefore, it seems very clear that you are saying that the previous statement is a) an analogy b) something that I said. which contradict your current position. There is no other reasonable explanation for what “that” could refer to. However, you certainly have not been reasonable in this thread, so perhaps you meant it to refer to something else. Is that so, and if so, what? ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/39 "2001-02-12T03:29:02Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by The Ryan_ > \*\*As I said before, I have not expressed a desire that everyone in the country think like me. Furthermore, the OP has not said anything which supports your contention that he aims to get rid of people that disagree with him. He has simply asked these people to leave; he has not shown any inclination to force them out. > > No, you simply presented a difference between trolls and people that disagree with the Constitution without ever showing how this explains how this invalidates my analogy. Simply beacause the two are different, that doesn’t mean that any analogy involving the two is invalid. > > Of course there is. Banning someone forces them to not post here. And I note that you still are not listening to me. There is nothing wrong with wishing that someone who irritates you would leave. Read that preceding sentence again. I did not say “There is nothing wrong with wishing someone who irritates you would be banned”, I said “There is nothing wrong with wishing that someone who irritates you would leave”. > > Are you implying that you can only compare two things if they are the same? > Compare: To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of. > How can you note the differences of two things if they’re the same? > > No, when I say that two thing are similar, I say that they are similar. Similarity is very different from equality. > > The word “that” is a pronoun, and the obvious choice for its antecedent is the previous sentence. Therefore, it seems very clear that you are saying that the previous statement is > a) an analogy > b) something that I said. > which contradict your current position. > > There is no other reasonable explanation for what “that” could refer to. However, you certainly have not been reasonable in this thread, so perhaps you meant it to refer to something else. Is that so, and if so, what? \*\* These aren’t arguments, **TheRyan** , they’re semantic wordplay. My writing style and grammar are clear to others, so I can only assume you’re being deliberately obtuse. I’ve seen that you [have a history of this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57376&pagenumber=1), it’s not just me. I also must note, seeing as how I’m the “unreasonable” one here, that there are no Pit threads full of complaints about _me_. If you wish to actually debate the issue, I’d be happy to do so, if you just want to engage in semantics, forget it. I won’t play. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2001, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897/40 "2001-02-12T06:14:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Protesilaus \* > These aren’t arguments, **TheRyan** , they’re semantic wordplay. Insisting that you use words correctly is hardly “semantic wordplay”, and considering what you consider an argument, your advice in this area is far from valuable. > [@](#): > > My writing style and grammar are clear to others, so I can only assume you’re being deliberately obtuse. If you are unable to explain your position, it’s my fault? My, you certainly are expressing a rather high opinion of yourself. If you refuse a request for clarification, you can hardly call your opponent “deliberately obtuse”. If I were being deliberately obtuse, I would not have offered you an opportunity to set me straight. And if you were really interested in defending your position, you would not have refused it. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen that you [have a history of this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57376&pagenumber=1), Are your ad hominem attacks supposed to impress me? Congratulations, you’ve shown that you know how to use the search function to dig up dirt on people. I would think that being able to actually argue your point would be more useful, but I suppose we all have different priorities. > [@](#): > > it’s not just me. No, you’re not the only person who has become annoyed at me pointing out their errors. So what? > [@](#): > > I also must note, seeing as how I’m the “unreasonable” one here, that there are no Pit threads full of complaints about _me_. Gee, could that be because you only have 66 posts? The Pit thread you referenced has more posts than you. > [@](#): > > If you wish to actually debate the issue, I’d be happy to do so, I **have** been debating. Your posts have had a quality similar to that of “Wah, wah, you don’t agree with me, you’re a nasty totalitarianist, wah, wah”. I really hope you’re one of those kids that have taken advantage of their school’s internet connection to visit this message board, because the idea that an adult could present such an immature “argument” as you have is rather depressing. I can’t recall a single logical progression of ideas that you’re presented in our entire discussion. And no, “You don’t like people that disagree with you, totalitarianists don’t like people that disagree with them, therefore you’re a totalitarianist” is **not** a logical argument. It’s a classic logical fallacy that no serious debater would be caught dead making. > [@](#): > > if you just want to engage in semantics, forget it. I won’t play. Semantics: 1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language forms. 2. Logic. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. In this sense, also called semasiology. In other words, semantics is paying attention to what words mean. I glad you’re honest enough to admit that you will be ignoring the true meaning of words, although I would be even more happy if you were able to truthfully say that you do care. And I still haven’t seen a cite for your accusation > [@](#): > > They have the right to feel this way, and it is intolerant of you to demand they leave. And that is exactly what you did. Making personal attacks and then refusing to back them up is hardly the best way to convince me that you’re really interested in a real debate. Oh, and way to waste bandwith. Was that quotation really necessary? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-like-the-constitution/53897.md?page=3)