I don’t know what your political leanings are, but I hope you continue your quest for rationality…something the world could use a little more of.

“In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack.
However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.”

In other words, according to this definition, a personal attack is not by itself an ad hominem attack. You have to actually be using that insult as a means to further an argument against the opposition.

In all fairness to the commentor, who has misread the above material, logic-chopping can be difficult for even the intelligent reader. Insulting Ad hominem, for example, can never used “as a means to further an argument against the opposition;” because one’s own argument can only be furthered by logic and fact. Ad hominem has nothing to do with one’s own argument, only with an opponent’s argument. These are admittedly subtle distinctions that Wiki makes. A little later on Wiki clarifies:

“In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed …”

In other words, ad hominem cannot prove anyone is incorrect. What the commentor was doing and continues to do is what Wiki defines as “Ad hominem abusive.”

“Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[In]Your ORIGINAL statement … You stated:

To me, what the statement describes is a democracy in the purist sense of the word. I hold the view that this nation is instead a republic.

The commentor continues to read meaning in my original sentence that is not there. Democracy? Republic? There is nothing in my sentence about either, explicit or implied.

In a pure democracy, majority rules. Period.

The above statement is puzzling in that we readers cannot know what it has to do with my sentence.

Since in my view this nation is a republic, there ARE restraints built into place guaranteeing the individual rights of each citizen – and ensuring that such abusive events as provided for examples are prevented from happening.

Here we go again with the commentor vehemently arguing for a position I have never opposed. I have NEVER said that the USA is not a republic.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like your original statement, grackle, and reinforces the point I have been making for over a week now!

Apparently the above quote of Jefferson sounds to the commentor like: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?” It might be somewhat similar if the phrase, “pretty much,” was not there but even then it would be a stretch.

But back to the issue of the restraints. Those *restraints* are built into the system up to the very highest levels of the federal government. I noted at least 2 of those *restraints* on congressional power. One was the presidential veto. Your response was that a veto was easily overrided by Congress.[emphasis mine]

Untrue. Here’s my original words: “Any veto can be overturned by Congress.” See the word, “easily,” anywhere in the sentence, dear readers?

Clearly, you were inferring that this was not really a restraint on congressional authority. How could it be, if it was easily overridden? To you, this was not a restraint on Congress, and you argued as much.

No, I NEVER argued that Presidential veto was not a restraint. I simply stated a fact: “Any veto can be overturned by Congress.” This elementary distinction is apparently beyond the commentor:

Stating something can be done does NOT mean it is “easily” done. I can put 6 shots within a 4 inch grouping on a target at 20 yards with one of my pistols. I’ve done it a couple of times. But it might take me a long time to duplicate this difficult task.

The other restraint I listed was the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down a law as unconstitutional. Your response was that they were “reluctant” to do so, and did so “rarely”. Again, you were inferring that this was not really a restraint on Congress either, and were arguing that this did not contradict your original statement.

I never stated or inferred that the Supreme Court was not “really” a “restraint” on Congress. Those are the commentor’s words, not mine. I stand by my original position:

“And it is true that the SCOTUS may declare any law passed by Congress ‘unconstitutional’ but in fact it does that sort of thing only rarely. In fact the SCOTUS is reluctant to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.”

I used the commentor’s own figures to illustrate the truth of the above statement:

The commentor said that 32 cases struck down by the SCOTUS over an 8 year period proved that the SCOTUS is not reluctant to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.

Considering that the SCOTUS, using the commentor’s own figures, will deliberate on over 800 cases in a typical 8 year period I must interpret such a low number(.04%) as, indeed, a reluctance on the part of the SCOTUS to strike down laws passed by Congress – especially when it is considered that a goodly portion of those 32 may have been laws NOT passed by Congress, but laws passed by the legislative bodies of cities, counties and states – on which the SCOTUS also deliberates.

In your latest missives you claim I never listed any restraints.

Untrue. The commentor mentioned “restraints” several times without noting what those restraints were. I asked him to list the restraints so that we could all know to what restraints he was referring and he used a great deal of space trying to explain why he could NOT list the restraints and referring the readers to search a long comment posted days back in order to figure out his meaning.

I offered the opinion that it would be easier on the readers to simply list the restraints and this observation excited him greatly, causing even more tortured explanations which only got the same request from me. Finally, he has come out with the restraints which could have been revealed in a couple of short sentences.

Again, I note the number of restraints above that were discussed back and forth – and to which you were a party in the discussion. You were lying and knew you were lying when you repeatedly made the claim that I had never listed any restraints.

I knew full well that sometime in the days past that the commentor had wrote about restraints and have never claimed he NEVER wrote of restraints. My request for him to list the restraints was so we could know for sure what he was talking about. I have learned to always wait until the commentor is explicit before engaging in debate. The commentor apparently believes that not stating the patently obvious(that he had written of some restraints in the past) is some form of lying. How were we to know whether his latest vague reference to restraints were the same as restraints he had previously written about? If he again vaguely writes of “restraints” days from now I will again forgo debate until he lists some specific restraints. It’s best not to assume ANYTHING when debating the commentor.

You didn’t qualify those two little words[“pretty much”] at the time you made them, and to later claim they mean so many different things is clearly disingenuous.

The commentor doesn’t seem to realize that to “qualify” a phrase which is already a qualification is redundant. No wonder he didn’t understand the Wiki material on ad hominem. I have NEVER claimed the phrase, “pretty much,” has meant anything but what it does mean.

In yet another attempt to expose the error in your original statement, I offered up the following alternative statement for consideration:

”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”

Ludicrously, you claimed your original statement was the same and still accurate.

Untrue. What I wrote was, “BTW, I’m perfectly willing to accede to the accuracy of the above paraphrase.” That’s not to say the commentor’s paraphrase was the “same” as my sentence. Some words in the paraphrase are different and the paraphrase contains more detail. What’s the “same” is the essential meaning.

You claimed agreement with that statement while at the same time admitting no contradiction between the two statements! I noted this contradiction, and you never adequately explained it away.

The commentor writes of a contradiction but doesn’t explain what he believes is contradictory. We are left to guess.

I later provided the following example as way of showing just how wrong your statement was, and why your position was contradictory.

Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day. This is analogous to your original statement.

The above is NOT “analogous” to my original sentence.

Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day, extorts lunch money from his classmates, deals drugs behind the gym, and physically assaults his teachers.

This is analogous to my suggested alternative statement. [”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”]

As I noted at the time, any school principal in the country will react MUCH differently to the second statement than the first, and contrary to your repeated assertions will not consider the two statements to be the same except for additional detail. The two statements are providing VASTLY different views of lil Johnny. If two statements provoke a different response, then it’s logical and reasonable to assume that the two statements are imparting a perception that is vastly different. That makes the statements different, btw….

Yes, the two sentences above ARE different. One contains more detail. But they can both be TRUE. Nothing in the second sentence precludes anything in the first sentence. Johnny may do bad things once he gets to school but that doesn’t mean that Johnny ever misses even one day of school. Johnny may go to school EVERY day and still be a criminal. The hypothetical reaction of Principals to either sentence has NOTHING to do with whether both sentences can be true.

Dear readers, contemplate the following sentence:

“Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school.”

It is clear from the qualifying phrase, “pretty much,” that Johnny’s attendance is not perfect but that in fact there are some days when Johnny does not attend.

Furthermore, it is not ordinarily required of the speaker to say, “Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school, except for days when he is ill with the flu, or has the mumps, or the chicken pox, or sprained his ankle in gym class, or has to recover from a hernia operation, or there is a family emergency, or when the family car has a flat on the way to taking him to school,” because all those exceptions are already implied by the phrase, “pretty much.”

This may seem like a simple concept, dear readers; I include this illustration not to belabor a point with you but only because it seems to be an idea that is too subtle for the commentor to grasp, although I’ve already provided examples several times.

The commentor continues with the ad hominem attacks and continues to beg/demand(it’s difficult to know which) that I argue for a position I never took. Here is why the commentor’s hypothetical is flawed:

It does not reflect an antithesis to my position. I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary.

But in all honesty, after taking a few days away from the internet, I find myself with the perspective that this is really a waste of my time and energy.

I have so many other more worthwhile things to do than argue repetitively over the same things, and getting the same dodging and weaving from you in response.

I kind of feel like I’ve been wrestling with a pig.

So I’m going for closure here.

I’m going to lay out in detail one last time all of these issues that have been piled on, then I’m done with this thread and moving on.

I’m sure you’ll just HAVE to have the last word, and it will be just more of the same dodging and weaving, but so be it. I have better things to do than waste more time on you on this subject.

If any of the “dear readers” want both sides, then it will be easy enough to read and understand this post and see just how far off base you are.

I’m sure you’ll come back with some claims that I’m vague or that there is no difference in what I’m saying, or that I’m misquoting you and what you are more lately claiming, but we both know how full of $hit you are on those claims, as well as your propensity for lying.

So, herewith are the issues:
———————————————–
1) *Ad Hominem Attack*

Since you want to play the definition game, here’s another definition of ad hominem:

“In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack.

However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

In other words, according to this definition, a personal attack is not by itself an ad hominem attack.

You have to actually be using that insult as a means to further an argument against the opposition.

This definition is consistent with the definition I learned many decades ago.

Ironically, your very claim of being a *victim* of an ad hominem attack is in itself a variation of an ad hominem attack.

You seek to lead any of the “dear readers” to the conclusion that since I insult you (plea for sympathy?), and you erroneously claim it’s an ad hominem attack, then I must be wrong and have a “weak” argument.

Sucker…..or rather hypocrit.
—————————————-
2) * Your ORIGINAL statement*

You stated:

“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”

This was at the end of a comment, with no other qualifying statements.

I disagreed.

To me, what the statement describes is a democracy in the purist sense of the word. I hold the view that this nation is instead a republic.

I did not go into detail in the argument at that time, thinking instead I could lead you to this conclusion on your own.

I grossly overestimated your intellectual abilities.

In a pure democracy, majority rules.

Period.

If the majority decides to confiscate every penny and every scrap of clothing from a man, leaving him with nothing, then decides to execute him, a democracy by simple majority rule can do such a thing.

I was alluding to this very ability of a democratic government to be abusive in later examples I provided, which will be listed in subsequent sections.

Since in my view this nation is a republic, there ARE *restraints* built into place guaranteeing the individual rights of each citizen – and ensuring that such abusive events as provided for examples are prevented from happening.

Before you go claiming this is a democracy, here are a couple of choice quotes from the guys who would know.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Thomas Jefferson

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like your original statement, grackle, and reinforces the point I have been making for over a week now!

“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

John Adams

Prescient man….especially in light of the following example.

Though he wasn’t a member of the Founding Fathers, he CERTAINLY knew – and participated in – a *democratic* type of government, the very kind of government that John Adams warned against.

“Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.”

Maximilien Robespierre

Research “Maximilien Robespierre”, the “French Revolution”, the “Committee for Public Safety”, and “The Reign of Terror” for more.

I’m sure HE would have agreed entirely with your viewpoint, grackle.

But back to the issue of the restraints.

Those *restraints* are built into the system up to the very highest levels of the federal government.

I noted at least 2 of those *restraints* on congressional power.

One was the presidential veto.

Your response was that a veto was easily overrided by Congress.

Clearly, you were inferring that this was not really a *restraint* on congressional authority.

How could it be, if it was easily overridden?

To you, this was not a *restraint* on Congress, and you argued as much.

The other *restraint* I listed was the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down a law as unconstitutional.

Your response was that they were “reluctant” to do so, and did so “rarely”.

Again, you were inferring that this was not really a *restraint* on Congress either, and were arguing that this did not contradict your original statement.

I noted the number of cases in which the Supreme Court had struck down a law passed by Congress within a recent time frame, as evidence that when the occasion called for it, the Supreme Court would in fact strike down a law when it needed to.

You claimed, since out of the vast majority of laws passed that only a relatively few had been struck down, that this was supportive of your case that it was not a real *restraint* on Congress.

Contradictorily enough, you later claim to embrace these *restraints* even though you were arguing against them!

You claimed that because the Supreme Court did not strike down vast numbers of laws passed by Congress, this was evidence in support of your position that the Supreme Court was *reluctant* to strike down laws and did so “rarely”, and were therefore inferring that it likewise was not a real *restraint* on what actions Congress chose to take.

It was apparently beyond your intellectual ability to realize that the small number of overturned laws in relation to the vast number of laws passed would actually indicate that Congress more often than not DID attempt to craft laws that stayed within the *restraints* imposed by the Constitution on their authority.

In other words, Congress was doing their job right the majority of the time – at least in the sense that they were staying within their designated areas of authority, so there was little reason for the Supreme Court to strike down very many of the laws in question.

In your latest missives you claim I never listed any *restraints*.

Again, I note the number of restraints above that were discussed back and forth – and to which you were a party in the discussion.

You were lying and knew you were lying when you repeatedly made the claim that I had never listed any *restraints*.

Regarding the endless scatalogical material you shoveled out regarding the meaning of “pretty much”, I hold to the fact that it neither adds nor detracts any information from your statement, and you have since attempted to use this small fig leaf as cover for anything you want it to mean.

You didn’t qualify those two little words at the time you made them, and to later claim they mean so many different things is clearly disingenous.

About the only thing you DIDN’T do, is go into a lengthy discussion regarding what the definition of he word “is”, is….
———————————————
3) *The ALTERNATIVE statement*

In yet another attempt to expose the error in your original statement, I offered up the following alternative statement for consideration:

”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”

Again, I’m looking at it from the standpoint of a democratic vs a republican form of government.

*Democratic*, in this sense, being the classical form of the word as understood by the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written.

Ludicrously, you claimed your original statement was the same and still accurate.

You claimed agreement with that statement while at the same time admitting no contradiction between the two statements!

I noted this contradiction, and you never adequately explained it away.

I later provided the following example as way of showing just how wrong your statement was, and why your position was contradictory.

*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day.*

This is analogous to your original statement.

*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day, extorts lunch money from his classmates, deals drugs behind the gym, and physically assaults his teachers.*

This is analogous to my suggested alternative statement.

As I noted at the time, any school principal in the country will react MUCH differently to the second statement than the first, and contrary to your repeated assertions will not consider the two statements to be the same except for additional detail.

The two statements are providing VASTLY different views of *lil Johnny*.

If two statements provoke a different response, then it’s logical and reasonable to assume that the two statements are imparting a perception that is vastly different.

That makes the statements different, btw….
————————————————
4) *The HYPOTHETICAL*

Your original statement, noted in #2 above, was:

“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”

I provided the following hypothetical that shows exactly how dangerous this type of thinking is, and why I feel the Founding Fathers imposed *restraints* on Congress as well as the rest of the government, regardless of what public opinion would countenance.

*What is to prevent Congress from passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear a yellow Star of David so the public can recognize them on sight IF the public supports this action?*

As I noted at the time, the hypothetical could NOT fit into the paraphrase I offered, and reviewed in the preceeding section.

This also, by the way, further clarifies that the two statements juxtiposed in section #2 above DO in fact constitute two very different ideas.

You subject the two statements to a common test, and if you get a different result then obviously there is a difference in the two statements!

Anyway, you never, EVER, provided an adequate response to the hypothetical.

The best you could ever come up with was that *this was not what you said* kind of a whining complaint.

So, I provided a point by point analysis showing precisely why the hypothetical DOES fit your statement.

I provided this analysis on August 29, 2009 @ 4:50 PM:

“1) The congress, under your statement, is given free rein to do as it pleases as long as it abides by public opinion.

2) The public opinion, in the hypothetical, is supportive of congress taking action against the specific minority.

3) Per your statement, since congress is limited by public opinion, and public opinion is supportive of the congressional action assumed in the hypothetical, then congress can pass just such a law and still be within the limits of the statement you originally made.

4) The law in question would mandate a specific minority wear a yellow Star of David so the general public can identify them on sight.”

I noted that this hypothetical COULD NOT occur under the alternative statement I suggested, and have since reviewed in item #3 above.

This only further clarifies that your original statement is different than the alternative provided for consideration.

As you whined that I was misrepresenting your statement, I suggested you provide a point by point analysis disproving my assertion.

You did not provide such an analysis. Your defense is basically *I didn’t say that*, and then repeating it over and over and over….then you provide this little gem:

“A far-fetched hypothetical such as proposed by the commentor – that Jews would be mandated by Congress to wear Star of David patches – are meaningless. If elephants had wings they might be able to fly, but they don’t so they can’t.”

Not really a logical, rational, reasonable refutation of the hypothetical, is it grackle?

So, I felt obliged to give you a history lesson on August 26th, 2009 at 8:15 am.

Namely, that just such an event:

“- occurred in a modern democracy

- occurred under democratically elected officials

- occurred using democratic government agencies to implement policies that elevated a little Austrian to the highest position in Germany, and that this little Austrian and his party never had support from more than about 37% (give or take) of the public

- occurred during a time of dire economic circumstances”

Please note, grackle, the number of times I mentioned variants of the word *democracy*.
————————————————-
*Summation*

For the sake of those “dear readers” whose opinions you seem so sensitive over, I believe at this time I’ve made several points.

- Your statement is inaccurately describing the nature of Congressional authority.

- Your statement has been shown defective on a number of counts that you have not been able to explain away.

- You have been repeatedly shown to be a liar.

That about sums it up.

I’m sure you will respond with some lengthy and misleading drivel, but until you can address the issues listed above you are accomplishing nothing, and any of your “dear readers” can see for themselves just how short you are falling in your responses.

Now, I have a life to get back to that is far more enjoyable and rewarding than dealing with a child who keeps their hands clamped firmly over their ears and screams the same thing over and over again as their arguments lay in tattered heaps around them.

Whenever I’ve referred to it I’ve always specified the phrase, “pretty much,” as I do here. I don’t expect the reader to refer to a long comment posted several days back in order to figure out what I might mean.

Rather than simply list a couple of those phantom “restraints” and quote me being “dismissive” of them the commentor goes through lengthy and tortured passages trying to explain why he doesn’t simply list his “restraints.” As for “irony,” irony is the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning; Irony would be if I praised the commentor for the preciseness of his comments.

I have NEVER claimed that the phrase, “pretty much,” meant “anything” I want, which is yet another figment of the commentor’s imagination. Note, readers, that he never quotes me in these instances – perhaps in this instance because it was the commentor himself who tried to link the meaning of the word, “anything,” to the meaning of the phrase, “pretty much.”

I think there are many more readers of most any blog than actually post comments. I’m also sure any reader would notice the commentor’s penchant for ad hominem attack and easy insult and might decide angering him isn’t worth the abuse they might receive. Forewarned is forearmed.

Dictionary.com: Ad hominem: attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

And under Dictionary.com’s usage notes: The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one’s opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.

The commentor denies ad hominem in the same breath as he uses it, labeling me as “a fool,” and as “not too intelligent,” blissfully confessing that he enjoys insulting me, calling it a “hobby.” Indeed, the commentor seems as unaware of the definition of “ad hominem” as he is of “irony.” But he accuses me of not understanding a “distinction.”

The commentor then continues with these unnecessarily complex explanations of why he doesn’t merely list a couple of those unfathomable “restraints” he is so fond of mentioning and declines again to quote me being “dismissive” of them and even goes so far as to dictate instructions on how the readers may comprehend his vague references by assiduously studying his past comments – but in his view I am the one who needlessly creates “extremely long comments.” Oh my.

Next the commentor threatens to use numbers in lieu of arguing issues. Indeed, I think the commentor would be better off substituting numbers for his ineffectual debate. That way he doesn’t have to go through the stress of arguing his case on its merits. A good idea(for him) that I hope he demonstrates.

As for “Johnny” I will simply repeat my previous illustration:

“Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school.”

It is clear from the qualifying phrase, “pretty much,” that Johnny’s attendance is not perfect but that in fact there are some days when Johnny does not attend.

Furthermore, it is not ordinarily required of the speaker to say, “Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school, except for days when he is ill with the flu, or has the mumps, or the chicken pox, or sprained his ankle in gym class, or has to recover from a hernia operation, or there is a family emergency, or when the family car has a flat on the way to taking him to school,” because all those exceptions are already implied by the phrase, “pretty much.”

This may seem like a simple concept, dear readers; I include this illustration not to belabor a point with you but only because it seems to be an idea that is too subtle for the commentor to grasp, although I’ve already provided examples several times.

This after you have been arguing for days on end about the specificity of “pretty much”.

Irony, meet grackle…..

Of course you WOULD continue to cling to those two tattered words as a fig leaf to cover your inability to defend yourself in any other way, as you can claim those two words mean ANYTHING you want at the moment.

Not a convincing argument at all. Really lame, actually.

It’s interesting you continue to refer to “dear readers”, and yet the only one I’ve noticed respond actually disparaged you!

Regarding any demeaning remarks, well, it’s not really ad hominem, as that would be an attempt to diminish the strength – or lack thereof – of your argument by casting aspersions upon you personally.

This is not the case.

It’s actually because I think you are appearing a fool, are not too intelligent, and am expressing as much.

No *ad hominem* attack is required.

Of course, it doesn’t surprise me that you would not understand that distinction either….besides, I rather enjoy insulting you.

It’s become something of a hobby.

Anyway, regarding the “restraint’ issue, rather than continuously repeat quotes over and over again that create extremely long comments (such as you seem to enjoy doing – or are perhaps you are incapable of anything more complicated than cut and paste), I’ve decided I will simply refer back to where I blew holes through the same assertion previously.

It makes the response much simpler and shorter, and any of the “dear readers” probably appreciative instead of having to wade through the drivel you substitute for debate skills – which seem to consist of massive cut and paste jobs.

I’m even considering number coding the responses so that when you repeat some lie again, I can just respond with “#1″, #2, #3″, etc., rather than repeat entire debunks of your assertions over and over and over…all the while you continue to NOT respond to the point in question.

Yes, you have gotten that predictable.

So, herewith, any time you trot out the debunked assertion regarding me not providing examples of “restraints” on congress, THAT will be responded to with “Response #1″.

Simply reference my comment made August 28th, 2009 at 8:10 am for further details of “Response #1″.

Other number codes will follow as needed.

But back to lil Johnny, it’s interesting that instead of explaining WHY such an example is inaccurate from your viewpoint, you re-word it to better fit your attempt at a defense, and then argue against THAT phrasing rather than what was actually provided for discussion.

Loser.

Every time you attempt to defend your statement, you fail miserably.

For instance, the hypothetical regarding congress passing any law as long as the public supports it, and that hypothetical fitting your original statement to a “T”.

Or perhaps when I illustrated the differences between the suggested alternative phrasing and your own.

But back to lil Johnny, do try again. Your last attempt at sidestepping fell flat.

The analogy fits. Try to explain again how the two statements are not different.

I look forward to watching you torture the english language….

It shouldn’t be too difficult for the commentor when he mentions “restraints” that he go ahead and actually list for the readers some “restraints” so the readers will know to what he is referring. Mere general mention of “restraints” without specifically listing them is nothing but vagueness.

Furthermore, the commentor asserted that that I was “dismissive” of those mysterious, unlisted “restraints” and that I have claimed “complete ignorance” without quoting anything I’ve posted to illustrate either assertion.

He went on to write that I have been “whacked over the head” by these phantom restraints and that I would “have no choice but to acknowledge them in some way.” I might perhaps be happy to “acknowledge” these restraints if only he would let us all know what in the devil he is talking about!

Directing us to one of his lengthy comments to pore over his circumlocutory missives to attempt to tease some meaning out of these murky references is an inadequate response to a simple request.

OK, I guess it’s not ramblings. At some point, it’s simply called lying.

Oh, so I’m a liar. I want to know and the readers to know exactly what the commentor means by “restraints” that I was in some way in the commentor’s mind “dismissive” of and that request means to the commentor that I am “lying.” I make a request which should take all of a minute and a couple of short sentences to honor and for this I am labeled a liar and this after we are treated to a lengthy, complicated discourse that never satisfactorily explains why the commentor cannot comply with such a simple request.

Anyway, for someone with such an inflated sense of their own intelligence, you certainly have a hard time with the english language – and general honesty.

More insults. I can’t say I’m surprised. After all, ad hominem attacks by the commentor have been appearing with more frequency as time has gone on.

This whole thing goes back to how you originally phrased your statement:

“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”

I disagreed, provided specifics as to why I disagreed, and eventually – as one method of many now – offered up the following alternative as a means of illustrating why the statement was in error:

The two sentences ARE completely different, and cast lil Johnny as a completely different person when you add the additional detail. I’m sure any principal in the country would be far more reactive to the second statement than the first. Clearly, the two statements are not the same thing and are not conveying the same idea. THIS is just one of the basic problems with your original statement. It’s clear in your original statement regarding congressional power you were incredibly sloppy and lazy in how you commented. When called on it, you have stuck your head in the sand and claimed confusion and the intellectual equivalent that up is down, left is right, and right is wrong for days now. As I said, you look very silly – and dishonest. At this point, you have zero credibility.

Well, of course if detail is added to the effect that Johnny is a criminal the meaning is somewhat changed.

Notice, readers, that the commentor still prefers vagueness over precision – continuing the cryptic references to “stuff” of which I supposedly have been “dismissive.”

I’ve always found that vagueness is one of the hallmarks of a debater with a weak case – they want to be able to assert without having the assertions analyzed.

As for credibility, the readers will be the judge of that, not the commentor. But, back to examples: Dear readers, contemplate the following sentence.

“Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school.”

It is clear from the qualifying phrase, “pretty much,” that Johnny’s attendance is not perfect but that in fact there are some days when Johnny does not attend.

Furthermore, it is not ordinarily required of the speaker to say, “Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school, except for days when he is ill with the flu, or has the mumps, or the chicken pox, or sprained his ankle in gym class, or has to recover from a hernia operation, or there is a family emergency, or when the family car has a flat on the way to taking him to school,” because all those exceptions are already implied by the phrase, “pretty much.”

This may seem like a simple concept, dear readers; I include this illustration not to belabor a point with you but only because it seems to be an idea that is too subtle for the commentor to grasp, although I’ve already provided examples several times.

Ah, more ramblings….but I expect little else from you.

I’ve already corrected you on your mischaracterization of the entire issue regarding the *restraints* being listed.

Simply go back to my comments posted August 28th, 2009 at 8:10 am where I knocked you on your a$$ regarding that specific deceit that you’ve decided to repeat here.

OK, I guess it’s not ramblings. At some point, it’s simply called lying.

Anyway, for someone with such an inflated sense of their own intelligence, you certainly have a hard time with the english language – and general honesty.

This whole thing goes back to how you originally phrased your statement:

“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”

I disagreed, provided specifics as to why I disagreed, and eventually – as one method of many now – offered up the following alternative as a means of illustrating why the statement was in error:

”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”

You erroneously claimed it means the same, and further claim that both statements are accurate.

Again, I disagree.

Here’s a good way to juxtapose the same situation using a different example.

*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day.*

Nothing wrong with that.

As a matter of fact lil Johnny sounds like a fine upstanding student.

Right?

Of course, if you add more detail – you know, that stuff you were also dismissive of earlier as irrelevant as to whether your statement was accurate or not…you may end up with something like this:

*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day, extorts lunch money from his classmates, deals drugs behind the gym, and physically assaults his teachers.*

The two sentences ARE completely different, and cast lil Johnny as a completely different person when you add the additional detail.

I’m sure any principal in the country would be far more reactive to the second statement than the first.

Clearly, the two statements are not the same thing and are not conveying the same idea.

THIS is just one of the basic problems with your original statement.

It’s clear in your original statement regarding congressional power you were incredibly sloppy and lazy in how you commented.

When called on it, you have stuck your head in the sand and claimed confusion and the intellectual equivalent that up is down, left is right, and right is wrong for days now.

As I said, you look very silly – and dishonest.

At this point, you have zero credibility.

The commentor keeps asking for me to do the same thing over and over. At some point such behavior ceases being a request and becomes begging. I leave it to the readers as to who holds the high ground on “intelligent response.”

Your so-called “acceptance” of the original paraphrase is disingenuous. You claim “acceptance”, yet at the same time insist your original statement is still accurate. This is illogical. The alternative I suggested is based upon the fact your original comment is inaccurate.

I don’t simply “claim” acceptance – I illustrate acceptance by quoting the commentor and my response and allow the readers to decide. And the “fact” is that my original comment is accurate.

Of course as badly as you have been whacked over the head with those *restraints* I noted earlier, you really have no choice but to acknowledge them in some way.

The commentor has in no way “noted” any “restraints” as mentioned in his last post. Mere general mention of “restraints” without specifically listing them is nothing but vagueness. Furthermore, the commentor asserted in his last post that that I was “dismissive” of those mysterious, unlisted “restraints” and that I have claimed “complete ignorance” without quoting anything I’ve posted to illustrate either assertion. Now he says I have been “whacked over the head” by these phantom restraints. I will perhaps “acknowledge” restraints as soon as the commentor lets us know what he is talking about.

I guess claiming two different statements mean the same thing is one way to at least try to get yourself out of that hole you’ve dug.

The commentor, now deserting his brief championing of paraphrase, reverts to his earlier tactic of negatively characterizing paraphrase as “two different statements.” As we have seen time and time again the commentor is VERY flexible in his stances and tactics.

At any rate, as I noted earlier, my statement, if placed into the hypothetical, remains accurate whereas yours does not.

I’m not sure what the commentor means here and so will withhold response until such time as the commentor can be more clear.

This is a huge problem for you to digest, I know, but take small bites. The crow will be easier for you to swallow that way…. Unless, of course, you can figure out how to make your statement fit the hypothetical in a positive manner that limits congress. OH – but if you do, then you change your original statement…. My, but you have a deep hole to dig out of….

Here again I am not sure what the commentor is trying to say and will withhold response until the commentor is able to bring more clarity to his thoughts.

Your so-called “acceptance” of the original paraphrase is disingenuous.

You claim “acceptance”, yet at the same time insist your original statement is still accurate.

This is illogical.

The alternative I suggested is based upon the fact your original comment is inaccurate.

Of course as badly as you have been whacked over the head with those *restraints* I noted earlier, you really have no choice but to acknowledge them in some way.

I guess claiming two different statements mean the same thing is one way to at least try to get yourself out of that hole you’ve dug.

At any rate, as I noted earlier, my statement, if placed into the hypothetical, remains accurate whereas yours does not.

This is a huge problem for you to digest, I know, but take small bites.

The crow will be easier for you to swallow that way….

Unless, of course, you can figure out how to make your statement fit the hypothetical in a positive manner that limits congress.

OH – but if you do, then you change your original statement….

My, but you have a deep hole to dig out of….

Yet another example of the commentor’s dissembling. The commentor now claims I never accepted a paraphrase offered by him. Below is the exchange; the readers can come take a look at it and come to their own conclusion:

The commentor: Perhaps something along the lines of *Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.

My acceptance: “I ask the readers to note carefully the commentor’s paraphrase above. The commentor is NOT saying here that my original sentence is wrong. All he is doing is adding more detail. IF he had wanted more detail I would have provided it but he attacked the sentence on the basis of accuracy, NOT that it wasn’t detailed enough. BTW, I’m perfectly willing to accede to the accuracy of the above paraphrase.”

And when I have previously attempted to paraphrase, before the commentor decided to start suggesting it himself, the commentor has immediately accused me of “evolving or shifting” my position, of “contradicting” myself, of being “intellectually bi-polar / schizophrenic,” of “parsing words,” of wiggling “all over the landscape,” of walking “away” from my “own original words,” etc.

… choosing instead at the time to continue to claim no difference between MY suggested revised statement – repeated here:

And YOUR original statement – noted here:

“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”

My suggestion clearly is more descriptive of reality, notes that there ARE limitations to congress, and was made with the clear understanding that it was NOT saying the same thing you originally claimed.

I accept that the commentor’s paraphrase is more detailed than my original sentence but that acceptance does not mean that my original sentence is inaccurate. Compare the 2 statements:

A bee just stung me.

A bee, with yellow and black stripes, approaching from the east, buzzing around my head several times, just stung me.

The second statement is more detailed but the first statement is accurate nonetheless.

Any casual reader will draw completely different conclusions as to congressional authority from each statement.

The casual reader, perhaps – the careful reader, unlikely.

In response to my suggestion that you provide an analysis of exactly why in your opinion the hypothetical is inaccurate, you go back to whining about me supposedly mischaracterizing your position:

“For the readers, here is why the commentor’s hypothetical is flawed: It does not reflect an antithesis to my position.”

Not exactly the point by point analysis that undermines the hypothetical I offered, is it grackle?

All the “points” of the hypothetical depend on the basic false assumption that my position is that Congress has no limitations beyond the voters. If the basic assumption is false all the “points” are meaningless. The hypothetical does not reflect an antithesis to my position, therefore to argue against my own position would be nonsensical.

I analyze, list and even number the reasons the hypothetical is appropriate and fits your statement. The best you can do is cry about how it “does not reflect an antithesis to my position”. You made no attempt to explain away the points I made. Again, it amounts to whining, is intellectually equivalent to claiming the dog ate your homework, and in no way refutes the hypothetical. But I think I have finally figured out why you are so terrible at debating. This quote is the clue:

“I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary.”

(Again, this referring back to when I originally suggested there WERE restraints on congress, and it’s quite clear at the time that you were dismissive of those restraints….you know, those restraints that only a few posts ago you were claiming complete ignorance of….)

Perhaps if the commentor could list the “restraints” and quote me being “dismissive” of them and of me “claiming complete ignorance” we could all know what in the hell he is talking about. Until then all we have is a mish-mash of vague assertions.

You must never have had to debate positions you didn’t agree with at any level of your education then. It’s a critical ability if you are ever to enter a debate with someone holding an opposing position. You have to actually understand other viewpoints than your own if you are to pick them apart. Your poor performance in this conversation is clear evidence of just how critical this ability should be considered.

I choose to limit my debate with the commentor from a position I actually hold, especially since in this case the commentor is falsely claiming I do not hold such a position. To accede to his false assumption would do damage to the truth.

You appear to be only able to argue from your own lil ivory tower and your own version of reality, and when that reality is challenged revert to covering your ears and whining.

Note readers, how the commentor continually describes me defending my position with deprecatory phases and words such as “your own lil ivory tower” and “covering your ears and whining.” Ad hominem attack seems to be his stock in trade.

I have no problem educating you though, so let’s leave this sidetrack yet again and go back to your original statement:

“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”

And my hypothetical that shows exactly how inaccurate this statement is:

What is to prevent Congress from passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear a yellow Star of David so the public can recognize them on sight IF the public supports this action?

For the readers, here is why the commentor’s hypothetical is flawed: It does not reflect an antithesis to my position. I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary.

As long as the commentor monotonously begs me to debate for a position I do not hold all I can do is monotonously refuse.