And I thought Pres. Carter’s brother was named Billy…
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.
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?
Ok, I’ll cut you some slack -this time. 
Thanks for the honesty. (BTW, I don’t read Spanish either).
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…
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.
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.
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.
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 would no longer do so.
Just my 2sense
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
I looked at the survey your link comes from, and it looks pretty biased to me. Here’s the most relevant question (bolding mine):
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):
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:
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.
Exactly. The opinion that people who are against the Constitution should leave is a Constitutionally protected opinion.
Why did you criticize my analogy be examining a completely different analogy?
I found the thread. Here it is, on page 2 of GW Bush Wins In A LANDSLIDE!!!. 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, 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).
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.
What completely different analogy? Earlier, you asked:
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.
What totalitarian opinions?
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.
No, I made an analogy between a troll and someone who does not like the Constitution. I did not equate them.
“Trolls violate rules, and people who don’t like the Constitution don’t” is not an analogy, nor did I say it.
After cross-examination I am forced to agree with Protesilaus that, overall, the survey seems biased.
Question #2 does seem fair to me:
Hi! I’m a Weenie
What’s your sign?
Well, there’s when you said this:
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,
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.
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.
- Of course it’s not an analogy, it’s my explanation for why your analogy is wrong!
- No, you didn’t say it. I said it. How can you not tell the difference between what you said and what I said?
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.
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.
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”.
When?
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.
Let’s look at the quote again:
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
No, you’re not the only person who has become annoyed at me pointing out their errors. So what?
Gee, could that be because you only have 66 posts? The Pit thread you referenced has more posts than you.
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.
Semantics:
- Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language forms.
- 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
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?