It is entirely possible that your opinions, (or the way that you express them as absolutes with no basis in actual fact), are what set Bricker off. (This is what prompted my remark that prompted this thread.)
OTOH, Bricker was not doing what you claim many others were doing until you had posted a couple of times. ElvisL1ves’s comment was silly, since Bricker had already announced his intention to behave in exactly that manner only as a response to your odd remarks. (Hence the “Whooosh” to ElvisL1ves.) Bricker was not responding to anyone else’s posts in the same manner and, since you had not posted any actual argument in the thread–merely snide and baseless remarks about the members of SCOTUS–there was no actual point to responding to you, hence my observation to him that his responses to you were neither productive nor worthwhile.
As far as I can tell, GD has never been about debates, but about taking the more contentious subjects and sticking them in a forum where people can argue about them incessantly without tying up the other forums with the animosity such touchy subjects usually engender.
If it wasn’t for the animosity, GD would just be IMHO.
Isn’t the whole point of the forum that it’s for topics that will never have an answer and it’s about subject that have been argued endlessly, over and over again, and will be for eternity?
A “whoosh” that made no sense since Bricker had been doing what ElvisL1ves complained of for the entire thread. For more than that thread actually, he’s been talking that way for years.
“Snide and baseless”? Hardly. In fact I gave specific examples of when I felt they had behaved in a corrupt fashion, making decisions according to politics and religion instead of the law or the facts.
I’ll admit I sometimes find myself in a debate where I feel other people are willfully refusing to understand what I’m saying and the temptation is to keep explaining it until they get it. I’ve learned to stop myself when I find I’m about to essentially repeat a post I’ve already made and just walk away from the thread. You have to tell yourself that if people didn’t listen the first time, they’re not going to listen the second or third or fourth or fifth.
That would be an interesting forum. It would also be a rather different forum.
I find Tom’s advice to be sound: it’s best to pitch your speech towards the better arguments. Part of the skill of participating in GD is to scroll through the chaff and focus on the meat. (Many posters like to focus on the weaker arguments: I prefer to grapple with the stronger ones.) Then again, I also participate in clean up duty now and then. But that’s a distasteful endeavor.
Anyway, DT’s posts can often be handled with cut and paste techniques. To wit:
Your claim lacks evidence or empirical substantiation.
Your post generates more heat than light, methinks. Cite???
Admittedly, I will on occasion mock weak argumentation, at least when they are made habitually by posters whom I believe to be capable of better efforts.
Most participants here can’t absorb opposing points of view and fold them into their own position. They figure if their adversaries say A, they must be obliged to say Not A – or more likely remain silent and pound their best logic, facts or table. It’s a weak-minded approach even on a rhetorical level: the best arguments acknowledge the opponents position – then show why it’s irrelevant to the matter at hand. Hey no worries, it’s a big world and we can choose whom we want to converse with, at least to some extent.
Only if such cite has more to it than a similar gratuitous assertion, *no matter *that it comes from a judge.
But that’s all you’ve provided - merely references to other gratuitous assertions, combined with peremptory dismissals of any observation that either (1) that’s what you’re doing, or (2) that the assertion is gratuitous, or (3) that your own “argument” is *based on *claiming that it doesn’t actually mean anything!
You can call that debate if you like, but don’t expect to convince anybody.
If one is arguing what should be Constitutional, you might have a point. If one is arguing what is Constitutional, you don’t.
You are arguing on textualist grounds, where it matter what the Constitution says, not what a judge wants it to say. If the Constitution says whatever a judge wants it to say, then such a cite as you mention is not only valid, it is definitive.
Try arguing against Roe v. Wade by pointing out that the Constitution does not assign the power to regulate abortion to the feds, and therefore the Tenth Amendment assigns that power to the states, or the people. See how far it gets you on the SDMB.