This poster did not say truth does not exist.
Truth is a term we use to (try) to describe an idea, an aspiration, a concept.
'Absolute truth' may exist, but it is beyond humans to know it without Divine Revelation, and that is entirely personal.
Has anyone here been contacted in that way?
You obviously have a different definition of "absolute truth" than most philosophers. The terms refers to any fact which isn't subject to subjective interpretation.
Which would rule out the Constitution, law, history, and anything we're discussing. As they're all subject to subjective interpretation.
No it doesn't. Of course, there is no shortage of imbeciles who have uninformed opinions on these subjects, and there are also plenty of unscrupulous demagogues who are intent on distorting the issues, but that doesn't prove there are no facts about them. If there weren't, then what the hell are you doing wasting your time debating them in this forum? The fact that you do shows you don't really believe what you just posted.
Not all facts are equally relevant. Which you prioritize and which you don't can lead to radically different conclusions. And there's plenty which isn't known. So we have to draw logical conclusions from the evidence that does exist. Which in many causes is contradictory. The entire process is subject to subjective interpretation.
You can imagine otherwise, but your imagination changes nothing. Its still a hopelessly subjective process.
I ignore arguments that I have already addressed and dispensed with.
But you haven't actually dispensed with them. You've simply disagreed with them. And your basis of disagreement is almost universally your personal opinion. You don't actually back your perspectives with evidence.
Worse, most of your arguments are made in stark contradiction of actual evidence. The Constitution's stark lack of any mention of secession, despite your insistence that its authorized under the constitution. The explicit contradiction by James Madison during the ratification process. Contradictions by the USSC in multiple cases.
You may imagine that you and Madison are equally authoritative and knowledgable on what the constitution is supposed to mean. Or that you and the USSC are likewise equally authoritative. But you're not. And any argument you offer on that basis is invalidated by your faulty premise.
I've watched you post for quite a while. There really is nothing to you but insisting your personal opinion must be true. And that's not 'dispensing' with anything but common sense.
That is hardly the "sole basis of my credibility."
Really? Then why would you cite Madison and then ignore Madison on the exact same topic?
You cited him when you thought he was supported you. You ignored him when he contradicted you. Its clearly not Madison's knowledge or place as the 'father of the constitution (your own words) that is your basis of credibility. Else he'd be just as knowledgeable and just as 'fathery' when he destroys your claims as when you thought he supported you.
You have no standards, Brip. None save your own opinion. You'll ignore anything, dismiss anything, discard any ruling, ignore any document, speech or source to cling to your beliefs.
However, it does undermine the credibility of anyone who holds up Madison as some kind of ultimate authority on the Constitution. He isn't. His opinion is no more valid than anyone else's opinion.
Odd, y
ou didn't say that when you thought Madison supported you.
Madison was on the side of secession and nullification when the struggle over the Alien and Sedition Acts erupted. When the Federalist's during the John Adams administration passed them, it created a firestorm with the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, Adams's Vice President.
Jefferson with his ally James Madison, the author of the United States Constitution and co-leader of the Republican Party developed their party's strategy. Jefferson drafted resolutions boldly claiming the constitutional authority of the individual states to declare the Alien and Sedition Acts not only unconstitutional but null and void.
Bripat9643
Post 389
Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Nope, there's not a single mention of Madison's position being merely 'opinion' and being no more valid than anyone else's. Lets see I can find another post from you on the topic and see if you mention it.
Both Jefferson and Madison, the father of the Constitution, announced their support for secession and nullification, so any claims that it was illegal ring hollow.
Britpat9643
Post 394
Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Nope, not a single mention.
Madison is the 'Father of the Constitution' when you think he agrees with you. When he doesn't, his opinion isn't any more valid than yours.
EXACTLY as I said, your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you. If they do, you cite them. If they don't, you ignore them. Even if its the same source on the same topic.
That's just plain old confirmation bias. A classic fallacy of logic. And the beating heart of your entire process.
Worse,
you lie constantly. You claimed that Madison supported secession. He never did. There's not the the slightest mention of secession anywhere in the Virginia or Kentucky Resolutions. And when pressed to show us where they were?
But you never did. Not once. You lied. And its hardly the only time. You claimed that the NY Ratification document reserved the right to secede. But when shown the ratification document and asked where the right to secede is mentioned.......you dust off the same lie you gave us with your 'Madison supported secession' idiocy; that you've already posted it.
You're literally inventing sources that don't exist, lying about posts you've never made, and imagining your argument from nothing. All while ignoring your own sources.
Um, no thank you. You citing you is meaningless. And its all you have.
