Common Logical Fallacies In Political Arguments

[martybegan]

========
It isn't that your view is INVALID it is that it is only your opinion and does not overrule the rulings of the Supreme Court.

You may hold the opinion that they are wrong but that doesn't make them wrong.

Unless you have as much education and experience with Constitutional Law as the Justices do, your opinion is not even in the same league as they are.

You seem to believe that because YOU think they are wrong .... that MAKES them wrong.

In reality YOU are the one who is wrong ... not for holding an incorrect opinion but for believing your opinion should override the Supreme Court.

it does make them wrong, my opinion not having any legal weight doesn't change that.

And where does my pointing out that they are wrong translate to thinking my opinion should somehow magically override the court's decisions? Again, I am just saying that in general they are wrong, their tone has been wrong, and the idea that they can create crap out of thin air is wrong. \

Unlike progressives, I realize that my thoughts, positions and concepts just don't poof into reality because I really really feel they should.

Try really hard to get this through your head: The Argument From Authority fallacy is when someone who is an expert in one field speaks on a matter in a field in which they are NOT an expert, and being given more weight to their opinion because of their expertise in the unrelated field.

Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.

Got it now?

That is one version.
From the wikipedia definition:

T

he argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:

X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[11]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[11]

When used on this board, it falls under the last qualifier, where they state their argument MUST be true because someone in authority has the same view.

There is no legitimate argument from authority. Claims are either true for they are false. That the authorities think is irrelevant. The facts determine whether a claim it true. Einstein was an authority on physics. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.

Being wrong is not the same as committing a fallacy.

The Authority Fallacy is, Einstein is a really smart guy so if he says Brand A toothpaste is better for my teeth he must be right (and my dentist is a moron). That is a fallacy. Going with what your dentist says on toothpaste is not, even if he is wrong. That is his expertise, piss freak.

That's only one version, the other one is where an authority on a given subject is assumed to be completely right, instead of noting that their expertise does lend additional credence to their position.

Your first is more about appeal to false authority.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

it does make them wrong, my opinion not having any legal weight doesn't change that.

And where does my pointing out that they are wrong translate to thinking my opinion should somehow magically override the court's decisions? Again, I am just saying that in general they are wrong, their tone has been wrong, and the idea that they can create crap out of thin air is wrong. \

Unlike progressives, I realize that my thoughts, positions and concepts just don't poof into reality because I really really feel they should.

Try really hard to get this through your head: The Argument From Authority fallacy is when someone who is an expert in one field speaks on a matter in a field in which they are NOT an expert, and being given more weight to their opinion because of their expertise in the unrelated field.

Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.

Got it now?

That is one version.
From the wikipedia definition:

T

he argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:

X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[11]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[11]

When used on this board, it falls under the last qualifier, where they state their argument MUST be true because someone in authority has the same view.

There is no legitimate argument from authority. Claims are either true for they are false. That the authorities think is irrelevant. The facts determine whether a claim it true. Einstein was an authority on physics. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.

Being wrong is not the same as committing a fallacy.

The Authority Fallacy is, Einstein is a really smart guy so if he says Brand A toothpaste is better for my teeth he must be right (and my dentist is a moron). That is a fallacy. Going with what your dentist says on toothpaste is not, even if he is wrong. That is his expertise, piss freak.

That's only one version, the other one is where an authority on a given subject is assumed to be completely right, instead of noting that their expertise does lend additional credence to their position.

Your first is more about appeal to false authority.

Fine...

The point being, trusting an authority is not a fallacy, even if they turn out to be wrong. The only fallacy then would be not thinking, hmmm, but I wonder if he was wrong actually, we should look into that...

 

[martybegan]

Try really hard to get this through your head: The Argument From Authority fallacy is when someone who is an expert in one field speaks on a matter in a field in which they are NOT an expert, and being given more weight to their opinion because of their expertise in the unrelated field.

Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.

Got it now?

That is one version.
From the wikipedia definition:

T

he argument from authority can take several forms. A legitimate argument from authority can take the general form:

X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.[11]
The argument is fallacious if one or more of the premises are false, or if it is claimed that the conclusion must be true on the basis of authority, rather than only probably true.[11]

When used on this board, it falls under the last qualifier, where they state their argument MUST be true because someone in authority has the same view.

There is no legitimate argument from authority. Claims are either true for they are false. That the authorities think is irrelevant. The facts determine whether a claim it true. Einstein was an authority on physics. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.

Being wrong is not the same as committing a fallacy.

The Authority Fallacy is, Einstein is a really smart guy so if he says Brand A toothpaste is better for my teeth he must be right (and my dentist is a moron). That is a fallacy. Going with what your dentist says on toothpaste is not, even if he is wrong. That is his expertise, piss freak.

That's only one version, the other one is where an authority on a given subject is assumed to be completely right, instead of noting that their expertise does lend additional credence to their position.

Your first is more about appeal to false authority.

Fine...

The point being, trusting an authority is not a fallacy, even if they turn out to be wrong. The only fallacy then would be not thinking, hmmm, but I wonder if he was wrong actually, we should look into that...

The fallacy is in using an authority as ending the debate.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That is one version.
From the wikipedia definition:

T
When used on this board, it falls under the last qualifier, where they state their argument MUST be true because someone in authority has the same view.

There is no legitimate argument from authority. Claims are either true for they are false. That the authorities think is irrelevant. The facts determine whether a claim it true. Einstein was an authority on physics. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.

Being wrong is not the same as committing a fallacy.

The Authority Fallacy is, Einstein is a really smart guy so if he says Brand A toothpaste is better for my teeth he must be right (and my dentist is a moron). That is a fallacy. Going with what your dentist says on toothpaste is not, even if he is wrong. That is his expertise, piss freak.

That's only one version, the other one is where an authority on a given subject is assumed to be completely right, instead of noting that their expertise does lend additional credence to their position.

Your first is more about appeal to false authority.

Fine...

The point being, trusting an authority is not a fallacy, even if they turn out to be wrong. The only fallacy then would be not thinking, hmmm, but I wonder if he was wrong actually, we should look into that...

The fallacy is in using an authority as ending the debate.

When I find a site where they debate things, I'll try to remember that...

 

[martybegan]

There is no legitimate argument from authority. Claims are either true for they are false. That the authorities think is irrelevant. The facts determine whether a claim it true. Einstein was an authority on physics. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics.

Being wrong is not the same as committing a fallacy.

The Authority Fallacy is, Einstein is a really smart guy so if he says Brand A toothpaste is better for my teeth he must be right (and my dentist is a moron). That is a fallacy. Going with what your dentist says on toothpaste is not, even if he is wrong. That is his expertise, piss freak.

That's only one version, the other one is where an authority on a given subject is assumed to be completely right, instead of noting that their expertise does lend additional credence to their position.

Your first is more about appeal to false authority.

Fine...

The point being, trusting an authority is not a fallacy, even if they turn out to be wrong. The only fallacy then would be not thinking, hmmm, but I wonder if he was wrong actually, we should look into that...

The fallacy is in using an authority as ending the debate.

When I find a site where they debate things, I'll try to remember that...

Wait, repeatedly typing the same thing over multiple pages isn't debating????

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Being wrong is not the same as committing a fallacy.

The Authority Fallacy is, Einstein is a really smart guy so if he says Brand A toothpaste is better for my teeth he must be right (and my dentist is a moron). That is a fallacy. Going with what your dentist says on toothpaste is not, even if he is wrong. That is his expertise, piss freak.

That's only one version, the other one is where an authority on a given subject is assumed to be completely right, instead of noting that their expertise does lend additional credence to their position.

Your first is more about appeal to false authority.

Fine...

The point being, trusting an authority is not a fallacy, even if they turn out to be wrong. The only fallacy then would be not thinking, hmmm, but I wonder if he was wrong actually, we should look into that...

The fallacy is in using an authority as ending the debate.

When I find a site where they debate things, I'll try to remember that...

Wait, repeatedly typing the same thing over multiple pages isn't debating????

It's abuse, of letters and bytes....

 

[martybegan]

That's only one version, the other one is where an authority on a given subject is assumed to be completely right, instead of noting that their expertise does lend additional credence to their position.

Your first is more about appeal to false authority.

Fine...

The point being, trusting an authority is not a fallacy, even if they turn out to be wrong. The only fallacy then would be not thinking, hmmm, but I wonder if he was wrong actually, we should look into that...

The fallacy is in using an authority as ending the debate.

When I find a site where they debate things, I'll try to remember that...

Wait, repeatedly typing the same thing over multiple pages isn't debating????

It's abuse, of letters and bytes....

Funny. not.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Try really hard to get this through your head: The Argument From Authority fallacy is when someone who is an expert in one field speaks on a matter in a field in which they are NOT an expert, and being given more weight to their opinion because of their expertise in the unrelated field.

Such as a casino owner talking about constitutional law.

Got it now?

Why can't a casino owner talk about constitutional law? What of said owner was an attorney?

========
What < kind > of attorney?

A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.

What kind of education / experience does he have?

Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.

Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.

I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.

The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.

========

What is " correct "? Only decisions you agree with are " correct " .

But that isn't the way the Constitution makes it.

According to the Constitution when you have a majority decison that IS the law of the land.

You may < consider > it to be wrong ( based on your religious beliefs or some other standard by which you think you operate ) but YOUR OPINION is IRRELEVANT.

Just because I consider the Citizens United decision to be wrong ( and I do ) it < is > the law of the land and I must live with it unless we can get Congressmen ( who are bought and sold by business ) to pass a law against it ( which will then be appealed to --- guess who --- the Supreme Court ) and they can rule either for or against the new law depending on how they interpret the Constitution.

Or we could also get a Constitutional Amendment but that is opening Pandora's Box. Because when you have a Constitutional Convention you open the Constitution to be changed in any way they decide to.

They could eliminate the 2nd Amendment for instance and change wording so that Citizens United is no longer Constitutional.

 

[martybegan]

Why can't a casino owner talk about constitutional law? What of said owner was an attorney?

========
What < kind > of attorney?

A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.

What kind of education / experience does he have?

Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.

Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.

I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.

The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.

========

What is " correct "? Only decisions you agree with are " correct " .

But that isn't the way the Constitution makes it.

According to the Constitution when you have a majority decison that IS the law of the land.

You may < consider > it to be wrong ( based on your religious beliefs or some other standard by which you think you operate ) but YOUR OPINION is IRRELEVANT.

Just because I consider the Citizens United decision to be wrong ( and I do ) it < is > the law of the land and I must live with it unless we can get Congressmen ( who are bought and sold by business ) to pass a law against it ( which will then be appealed to --- guess who --- the Supreme Court ) and they can rule either for or against the new law depending on how they interpret the Constitution.

Or we could also get a Constitutional Amendment but that is opening Pandora's Box. Because when you have a Constitutional Convention you open the Constitution to be changed in any way they decide to.

They could eliminate the 2nd Amendment for instance and change wording so that Citizens United is no longer Constitutional.

Again, tell me where I stated my opinion has any binding power on anything. What I am saying is that progressive justices overstep the bounds of their constitutional duties when it suits them, making new laws and rights out of thin air because they feel like it.

My argument has always been that just because a SC decision makes something legal, it doesn't mean that whatever they decided suddenly becomes part of the constitution. Only an amendment can do that. The fact that we had such a radical change as the SC saying all of sudden Gay marriage is a Federal Constitutional right without it ever being even considered part of the document, or the scope of the federal government is my only complaint.

 

[Correll]

========
What < kind > of attorney?

A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.

What kind of education / experience does he have?

Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.

Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.

I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.

The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.

========

What is " correct "? Only decisions you agree with are " correct " .

But that isn't the way the Constitution makes it.

According to the Constitution when you have a majority decison that IS the law of the land.

You may < consider > it to be wrong ( based on your religious beliefs or some other standard by which you think you operate ) but YOUR OPINION is IRRELEVANT.

Just because I consider the Citizens United decision to be wrong ( and I do ) it < is > the law of the land and I must live with it unless we can get Congressmen ( who are bought and sold by business ) to pass a law against it ( which will then be appealed to --- guess who --- the Supreme Court ) and they can rule either for or against the new law depending on how they interpret the Constitution.

Or we could also get a Constitutional Amendment but that is opening Pandora's Box. Because when you have a Constitutional Convention you open the Constitution to be changed in any way they decide to.

They could eliminate the 2nd Amendment for instance and change wording so that Citizens United is no longer Constitutional.

Again, tell me where I stated my opinion has any binding power on anything. What I am saying is that progressive justices overstep the bounds of their constitutional duties when it suits them, making new laws and rights out of thin air because they feel like it.

My argument has always been that just because a SC decision makes something legal, it doesn't mean that whatever they decided suddenly becomes part of the constitution. Only an amendment can do that. The fact that we had such a radical change as the SC saying all of sudden Gay marriage is a Federal Constitutional right without it ever being even considered part of the document, or the scope of the federal government is my only complaint.

He can't hear you.

 

[Arizona Willie]

========
What < kind > of attorney?

A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.

What kind of education / experience does he have?

Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.

Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.

I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.

The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.

========

What is " correct "? Only decisions you agree with are " correct " .

But that isn't the way the Constitution makes it.

According to the Constitution when you have a majority decison that IS the law of the land.

You may < consider > it to be wrong ( based on your religious beliefs or some other standard by which you think you operate ) but YOUR OPINION is IRRELEVANT.

Just because I consider the Citizens United decision to be wrong ( and I do ) it < is > the law of the land and I must live with it unless we can get Congressmen ( who are bought and sold by business ) to pass a law against it ( which will then be appealed to --- guess who --- the Supreme Court ) and they can rule either for or against the new law depending on how they interpret the Constitution.

Or we could also get a Constitutional Amendment but that is opening Pandora's Box. Because when you have a Constitutional Convention you open the Constitution to be changed in any way they decide to.

They could eliminate the 2nd Amendment for instance and change wording so that Citizens United is no longer Constitutional.

Again, tell me where I stated my opinion has any binding power on anything. What I am saying is that progressive justices overstep the bounds of their constitutional duties when it suits them, making new laws and rights out of thin air because they feel like it.

My argument has always been that just because a SC decision makes something legal, it doesn't mean that whatever they decided suddenly becomes part of the constitution. Only an amendment can do that. The fact that we had such a radical change as the SC saying all of sudden Gay marriage is a Federal Constitutional right without it ever being even considered part of the document, or the scope of the federal government is my only complaint.

========
That's where I believe you are wrong.

Decisions of the Supreme Court DO become the Law of the Land.

NOTHING becomes part of the Constitution without a Constitutional Amendment.

The Law of the Land and the Constitution are two different things entirely.

The Laws that are passed by CONGRESS and / or rulings of lower courts are judged to be Constitutional or not by the Supreme Court whose justices are ELECTED by the President and Senators.

When they vote to confirm a Justice the Senate ELECTS the Justice(s).

If they reject then the President nominates another candidate. They don't appear on a ballot like most elections but they ARE elected by the Senate votes.

Gay marriage is considered a part of the Constitution under the " right to life, liberty, and happiness " clause because the Supreme Court said it is.

You want to be able to approve of their decisions, and if you could you would claim you can ignore them if you don't like them.

We see that type on here all the time.

But you aren't alone. I believe I saw something this morning about the Alabama Supreme Court defying the United States Supreme Court on gay marriage I believe.

They will get slapped down.

Like it or not ... decisions of the Supreme Court are considered part of the Constitution because they rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional and they said laws banning gay marriage unfairly deny those human beings their right to life liberty and happiness under the Constitution.

They ruled that queers have a right to be married and miserable too.

But how does letting queers get married affect your marriage? Unless it does you have no complaint.
Why is it any of your business what someone else does in their bedroom.
You wouldn't accept the queers demanding the Supreme Court make you use a condom or anything else connected to your sex life so why should YOUR religious beliefs be allowed to prevent someone else from getting married?

I don't give a fuck if they get married or not. None of my business.

Keep your nose out of other people's business and you won't get upset over what they do or don't do.

 

[Arizona Willie]

========
What < kind > of attorney?

A divorce attorney would not be an expert in Constitutional Law.

What kind of education / experience does he have?

Just being an attorney does not make one an expert in every legal field.

Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.

I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.

The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.

========
The Supreme Court < IS > the Ultimate Legal Authority under the Constitution the righties claim to love so much --- until they don't like what it says and then they want to wipe their ass with it.

Under the Constitution it does not matter how the vote breaks down as long as their is a majority.

A majority decision is deemed to be the Law of the Land.

Republicans want to act like it has to be unanimous and in their favor or else a Supreme Court decision is worthless and need not be followed when nothing is further from the truth.

With this short Court a 5-3 decision is just as good as an 8-0 decision and with a regular Court a 5-4 decision is just as good as an 9-0 decision.

THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND

Don't like it, emigrate to some other country where they have a dictatorship ... I'm sure you will like that better.

The question isn't if it becomes law, the question is if the matter is "settled". Getting 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to agree with you on something settles NOTHING.

And segregation used to be THE LAW OF THE LAND, and was backed up by an SC decision, so I guess MLK and his people should have just left the country, right?

========
Gee you are soooo good at being wrong. Do you do it deliberately?

The Justices ARE elected.

The Senate VOTES on them. The either vote to approve or deny.

The Senate's members were voted into office by the citizens of their state and they in turn vote up or down on nominated Justices.

To claim they are " unelected " is just a big fat LIE.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More examples from this forum:

Kelly Ayotte (R) staffer (R) resigns after prostitution arrest

A Republican is arrested for hiring a hooker.

The Tu Quoque Brigade rides into town:

Two words: Barney Frank

I forget what the old school term for Bill Clinton's women would be.
Is it Chipee?

Hmmm, what about the 16 year old sex slaves held on Epstein Lolita Island? You know, the girls that Bill Clinton make 12 to 30 trips to go minister to?

Were the arrangements made by the secret service or the DEA?

Hey what the fallacy when you tell people, "Drink piss!"?

It's not a logical fallacy when you point out the truth to someone.

What, that you're a fucking rube?

 

[martybegan]

Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.

I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.

The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.

========

What is " correct "? Only decisions you agree with are " correct " .

But that isn't the way the Constitution makes it.

According to the Constitution when you have a majority decison that IS the law of the land.

You may < consider > it to be wrong ( based on your religious beliefs or some other standard by which you think you operate ) but YOUR OPINION is IRRELEVANT.

Just because I consider the Citizens United decision to be wrong ( and I do ) it < is > the law of the land and I must live with it unless we can get Congressmen ( who are bought and sold by business ) to pass a law against it ( which will then be appealed to --- guess who --- the Supreme Court ) and they can rule either for or against the new law depending on how they interpret the Constitution.

Or we could also get a Constitutional Amendment but that is opening Pandora's Box. Because when you have a Constitutional Convention you open the Constitution to be changed in any way they decide to.

They could eliminate the 2nd Amendment for instance and change wording so that Citizens United is no longer Constitutional.

Again, tell me where I stated my opinion has any binding power on anything. What I am saying is that progressive justices overstep the bounds of their constitutional duties when it suits them, making new laws and rights out of thin air because they feel like it.

My argument has always been that just because a SC decision makes something legal, it doesn't mean that whatever they decided suddenly becomes part of the constitution. Only an amendment can do that. The fact that we had such a radical change as the SC saying all of sudden Gay marriage is a Federal Constitutional right without it ever being even considered part of the document, or the scope of the federal government is my only complaint.

========
That's where I believe you are wrong.

Decisions of the Supreme Court DO become the Law of the Land.

NOTHING becomes part of the Constitution without a Constitutional Amendment.

The Law of the Land and the Constitution are two different things entirely.

The Laws that are passed by CONGRESS and / or rulings of lower courts are judged to be Constitutional or not by the Supreme Court whose justices are ELECTED by the President and Senators.

When they vote to confirm a Justice the Senate ELECTS the Justice(s).

If they reject then the President nominates another candidate. They don't appear on a ballot like most elections but they ARE elected by the Senate votes.

Gay marriage is considered a part of the Constitution under the " right to life, liberty, and happiness " clause because the Supreme Court said it is.

You want to be able to approve of their decisions, and if you could you would claim you can ignore them if you don't like them.

We see that type on here all the time.

But you aren't alone. I believe I saw something this morning about the Alabama Supreme Court defying the United States Supreme Court on gay marriage I believe.

They will get slapped down.

Like it or not ... decisions of the Supreme Court are considered part of the Constitution because they rule on whether or not laws are Constitutional and they said laws banning gay marriage unfairly deny those human beings their right to life liberty and happiness under the Constitution.

They ruled that queers have a right to be married and miserable too.

But how does letting queers get married affect your marriage? Unless it does you have no complaint.
Why is it any of your business what someone else does in their bedroom.
You wouldn't accept the queers demanding the Supreme Court make you use a condom or anything else connected to your sex life so why should YOUR religious beliefs be allowed to prevent someone else from getting married?

I don't give a fuck if they get married or not. None of my business.

Keep your nose out of other people's business and you won't get upset over what they do or don't do.

One can always have a complaint. Again with the whole "you don't have an argument" tact instead of countering the argument. And for me it isn't a religious issue, its an issue of the SC thinking it can expand the document and not interpret it. That is a dangerous path.

My biggest gripe is that while progressives see rights to things like gay marriage and abortion in the document through smoke and mirrors, they feel they can ignore the 2nd amendment and deny me my actual detailed rights to keep and bear arms without infringement.

It's hypocrisy, nothing more or less.

 

[martybegan]

Of course not.... I just reject he notion that one "can't" talk about something simply because one isn't an expert. That's silly.

I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.

The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.

========
The Supreme Court < IS > the Ultimate Legal Authority under the Constitution the righties claim to love so much --- until they don't like what it says and then they want to wipe their ass with it.

Under the Constitution it does not matter how the vote breaks down as long as their is a majority.

A majority decision is deemed to be the Law of the Land.

Republicans want to act like it has to be unanimous and in their favor or else a Supreme Court decision is worthless and need not be followed when nothing is further from the truth.

With this short Court a 5-3 decision is just as good as an 8-0 decision and with a regular Court a 5-4 decision is just as good as an 9-0 decision.

THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND

Don't like it, emigrate to some other country where they have a dictatorship ... I'm sure you will like that better.

The question isn't if it becomes law, the question is if the matter is "settled". Getting 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to agree with you on something settles NOTHING.

And segregation used to be THE LAW OF THE LAND, and was backed up by an SC decision, so I guess MLK and his people should have just left the country, right?

========
Gee you are soooo good at being wrong. Do you do it deliberately?

The Justices ARE elected.

The Senate VOTES on them. The either vote to approve or deny.

The Senate's members were voted into office by the citizens of their state and they in turn vote up or down on nominated Justices.

To claim they are " unelected " is just a big fat LIE.

That is not "elected". They are appointed and confirmed. Stop trying to be smart, it isn't working.

 

[Arizona Willie]

I didn't say they couldn't, you obtuse idiot. I said the fallacy is when their opinion is given more weight than they deserve.

The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.

========
The Supreme Court < IS > the Ultimate Legal Authority under the Constitution the righties claim to love so much --- until they don't like what it says and then they want to wipe their ass with it.

Under the Constitution it does not matter how the vote breaks down as long as their is a majority.

A majority decision is deemed to be the Law of the Land.

Republicans want to act like it has to be unanimous and in their favor or else a Supreme Court decision is worthless and need not be followed when nothing is further from the truth.

With this short Court a 5-3 decision is just as good as an 8-0 decision and with a regular Court a 5-4 decision is just as good as an 9-0 decision.

THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND

Don't like it, emigrate to some other country where they have a dictatorship ... I'm sure you will like that better.

The question isn't if it becomes law, the question is if the matter is "settled". Getting 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to agree with you on something settles NOTHING.

And segregation used to be THE LAW OF THE LAND, and was backed up by an SC decision, so I guess MLK and his people should have just left the country, right?

========
Gee you are soooo good at being wrong. Do you do it deliberately?

The Justices ARE elected.

The Senate VOTES on them. The either vote to approve or deny.

The Senate's members were voted into office by the citizens of their state and they in turn vote up or down on nominated Justices.

To claim they are " unelected " is just a big fat LIE.

That is not "elected". They are appointed and confirmed. Stop trying to be smart, it isn't working.

========
The people of the various states ELECT their Senators who then VOTE on a nominee.

They either vote to confirm or deny. When you take a vote that is called an election.

You can try to split hairs all you want but when they vote to confirm that is an ELECTION.

And that is what the Constitution calls for.

Why do you hate the American Constitution?

 

[martybegan]

The problem on this board is people use it to end the debate. an example is that when one argues about something like gay marriage, they say "well since the SC ruled on it, and they are the authority, your position is pointless", even though it breaks two of the rules i quoted 1) preponderance of authority (it was a 5-4 decision) and claiming that the view is the absolute correct one due to said authority.

========
The Supreme Court < IS > the Ultimate Legal Authority under the Constitution the righties claim to love so much --- until they don't like what it says and then they want to wipe their ass with it.

Under the Constitution it does not matter how the vote breaks down as long as their is a majority.

A majority decision is deemed to be the Law of the Land.

Republicans want to act like it has to be unanimous and in their favor or else a Supreme Court decision is worthless and need not be followed when nothing is further from the truth.

With this short Court a 5-3 decision is just as good as an 8-0 decision and with a regular Court a 5-4 decision is just as good as an 9-0 decision.

THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND

Don't like it, emigrate to some other country where they have a dictatorship ... I'm sure you will like that better.

The question isn't if it becomes law, the question is if the matter is "settled". Getting 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to agree with you on something settles NOTHING.

And segregation used to be THE LAW OF THE LAND, and was backed up by an SC decision, so I guess MLK and his people should have just left the country, right?

========
Gee you are soooo good at being wrong. Do you do it deliberately?

The Justices ARE elected.

The Senate VOTES on them. The either vote to approve or deny.

The Senate's members were voted into office by the citizens of their state and they in turn vote up or down on nominated Justices.

To claim they are " unelected " is just a big fat LIE.

That is not "elected". They are appointed and confirmed. Stop trying to be smart, it isn't working.

========
The people of the various states ELECT their Senators who then VOTE on a nominee.

They either vote to confirm or deny. When you take a vote that is called an election.

You can try to split hairs all you want but when they vote to confirm that is an ELECTION.

And that is what the Constitution calls for.

Why do you hate the American Constitution?

They are still not elected, no matter how much you try to spin it.

And I have far more respect for the actual written constitution than you ever will. You worship the Court, of course only when it suits you.

 

[Arizona Willie]

========
The Supreme Court < IS > the Ultimate Legal Authority under the Constitution the righties claim to love so much --- until they don't like what it says and then they want to wipe their ass with it.

Under the Constitution it does not matter how the vote breaks down as long as their is a majority.

A majority decision is deemed to be the Law of the Land.

Republicans want to act like it has to be unanimous and in their favor or else a Supreme Court decision is worthless and need not be followed when nothing is further from the truth.

With this short Court a 5-3 decision is just as good as an 8-0 decision and with a regular Court a 5-4 decision is just as good as an 9-0 decision.

THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND

Don't like it, emigrate to some other country where they have a dictatorship ... I'm sure you will like that better.

The question isn't if it becomes law, the question is if the matter is "settled". Getting 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers to agree with you on something settles NOTHING.

And segregation used to be THE LAW OF THE LAND, and was backed up by an SC decision, so I guess MLK and his people should have just left the country, right?

========
Gee you are soooo good at being wrong. Do you do it deliberately?

The Justices ARE elected.

The Senate VOTES on them. The either vote to approve or deny.

The Senate's members were voted into office by the citizens of their state and they in turn vote up or down on nominated Justices.

To claim they are " unelected " is just a big fat LIE.

That is not "elected". They are appointed and confirmed. Stop trying to be smart, it isn't working.

========
The people of the various states ELECT their Senators who then VOTE on a nominee.

They either vote to confirm or deny. When you take a vote that is called an election.

You can try to split hairs all you want but when they vote to confirm that is an ELECTION.

And that is what the Constitution calls for.

Why do you hate the American Constitution?

They are still not elected, no matter how much you try to spin it.

And I have far more respect for the actual written constitution than you ever will. You worship the Court, of course only when it suits you.

========
Not at all.

I am 100% against the Citizens United decision but I accept it as the law of the land ... until such time as Congress passes legislation that outlaws it and THAT legislation is found Constitutional.

There are a lot of decisions I don't like but I don't try to invalidate them claiming the Justices aren't elected ( when they aren't even required to be elected under the Constitution ) or any of that other crap right wingers vomit all over the Internet.

I have far more respect for the Constitution and the SC than you do ... that's obvious.

 

[SwimExpert]

I am 100% against the Citizens United decision but I accept it as the law of the land ... until such time as Congress passes legislation that outlaws it and THAT legislation is found Constitutional.

Undoing Citizens United will require a constitutional amendment. Period.

 

[Pogo]

I see this thread has completely jumped its rails. Pity.

But it does allow us to note we hadn't listed "Red Herring".