Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That point has already been made, or rather attempted to be made. The keywords; logical, unbiased standpoint, and yes, fallacy pretty much tells me you are an american liberal/leftist. I am a conservative from a traditional culture. I can assure you what I have an entirely different set of criteria for those words than you do. You are entitled to your own opinions and cultural norms. In other words I doubt what you consider logical I would find logical.
If you are dealing with differing cultures and differing cultural norms understanding becomes problematic. Compromise isn't happening. I don't see it happening unless one side or the other prevails or we go our separate ways. I vote for the latter.
Actually I am not liberal... in fact by definition liberal views imply putting the freedom of the individual first... my posts if you had actually read all of them were asking the individual to put personal biased aside in order to favor the greater good and actually solve problems.... so nice attempt at poisoning the well fallacy there with the whole attempt to discredit by accusing someone of opposing views.
I approach things on a per issue basis. Likewise logic by defintion is a systemic approach dealing with facts and accepted knowledge as I explained to someone else later... logic in of itself is not subjective.
That was my point, so long as people (note I never named any side in my posts) rely on appeal fallacy to generate support there will always be polarizing of views... because Appeal fallacy hinges on personal feelings or the belief of a group... rather than raw data about the problem.
You left out one of the "facts." The bill was written a hundred years ago to ensure equality for freed slaves. It had nothing to do with people who choose to sleep with members of their own gender. If you want to make something that is really "fact" go out, and create a new amendment and have it ratified into law. That is exactly what the founding fathers had intended to happen. (another fact.)
Actually the wording of the equal protection clause makes no reference to slaves at all... that is fact... the only determining and qualifying factor in said equal protection clause is that one is a Natural Citizen. Said clause has thus been upheld in the courts not only for racial issues but women's rights as well.
Are you then trying to imply that someone who is homesexual should no longer be considered a natural citizen? Because the Equal protection clause actually says that the state may not amend the rights or immunities of any citizen, nor create or enforce any law that does so.
If a homesexual is a natural citizen, the wording of the 14th amendment still applies... if it had only said slaves it would have been useless for other racial issues or even equal rights issues based on race or gender.
It actually reads
" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Interpretation of law is a matter for the courts, but no where in the wording of the amendment itself does it mention race, creed, gender, or any qualifier other than citizen... so from a legal standpoint it protects all citizens from any sanction that would amend their rights. So unless an individual violates the law in a way that justifies amending their rights via due process.... the nature of that citizen is irrelevant.
Your comment is actually perfect example if what I mean about the affects of Appeal to Emotion and Appeal to Belief... a polarization singling out a group when a logical glance at the document in question shows that such an action would in fact be unconstitutional.... which is as I said why the supreme court dismissed the bill as unconstitutional.
More straw Man? Really? That is the best you can do?
First off... I already defined two sides... those relying on logic and those relying on fallacy... your focus on your red herring to the exclusion of my answers is in of itself straw man fallacy
and no the title of the thread and the op says "meet in the middle" and my original post covered my stance there... that the reliance on appeal fallacies is why people do not meet in the middle but rather become polarized.
I never quoted or claimed you said anything, so no I am not fixating on any part of what you said to the exclusion... I am responding to your claims about my comments... line by line... thus again not focusing to exclusion... so I am in fact not resorting to straw man.
To reiterate my original point since I am not sure you got it from the sound of things
So long as either side relies upon appeal fallacy to garner support it will result in an exclusive middle which prevents the two sides from coming together to solve a problem. Only by choosing not to rely on such flawed logic and instead act from a logical and unbiased stance by putting aside differences in preference and ideology can people come to a honest and logical compromise.
The polarization caused by this reliance on appeal fallacy is the reason we have numerous laws in numerous states being flip flopped as Group A rallies votes based on appeal... and when it reaches course logic tears that apart based on legal precedence and constitutional rights. Then Group A tries again, while group B appeals... and it just goes back and forth.
again you are not logical. And you use a straw man to avoid a true discussion.
You have not named a topic for discussion where group A and Group B find a logical middle.
there is not a logical middle until you address what the issue is and then address that issue to the constitution
Your logic is a fallacy
With most of todays issues there is no middle.
Budget issue , you are either a racist tea party member who is old stupid and white, or you an elite socialist the only cares about spending teaching intolerance while being intolerant.
if the other side disagrees with you , you are labeled by so many different labels that we cant mention them all.
If the other side disagrees with you, you turn it into a personal attack on them and many times their family.
There is no middle
I like what you have said. Your right with most today's issues concerning us, there is surely no middle, and we can see it right here on this forums.
Someone will label your somehow. And your right how many of us are guilty of turning those who disagree with us into a personal attack. Happens over and over again.
I think the escalation started in 2000 with the election of Bush, followed by the war in Iraq, the endless economic recession and the election of Obama as president, which pushed everything in the opposite direction. Such polarization did not exists during Bush 41, or Clinton's years.
again you are not logical. And you use a straw man to avoid a true discussion.
You have not named a topic for discussion where group A and Group B find a logical middle.
there is not a logical middle until you address what the issue is and then address that issue to the constitution
Your logic is a fallacy
I get it. Instead of sticking with your ideology, look at the issue and speak to the other side, discuss, exchange ideas and be willing to compromise to solve a problem.
Do you HAVE to name a topic to discuss to make that point? If you do you derailed the thread. The subject is to meet in the middle and leave the agendas at home. Once you make an example you will pull in all the agendas and lose the point as it really applies to ANY issue.
Sadly, people will argue over legal definitions and "criteria" in the name of "fact". That's my point. Sorry if you missed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
That would be assertion fallacy.
The 14th amendment exists... this is a fact... group A is composed of Citizens... this is a fact... the rights and immunities of citizens are protected by the 14th amendment... this is also fact.
There are indeed facts regarding people, society, social groups, and various issues... but more often than not people do not look solely at these facts.
A recent bill in Iowa is a good example of this, said bill amended the rights of natural citizens based on the ideological preference of a social group.... using the facts I just mentioned one can easily infer that if said people who would have had their rights amended are indeed natural citizens, that amending their rights would be unconstitutional based on the facts of the matter. In fact this is exactly what the supreme court of the state of Iowa did... when they overturned said bill.
Liberals enforce socialism too e.g., libraries, etc. Libraries are for the greatest good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
Actually I am not liberal... in fact by definition liberal views imply putting the freedom of the individual first... my posts if you had actually read all of them were asking the individual to put personal biased aside in order to favor the greater good and actually solve problems.... so nice attempt at poisoning the well fallacy there with the whole attempt to discredit by accusing someone of opposing views.
I approach things on a per issue basis. Likewise logic by defintion is a systemic approach dealing with facts and accepted knowledge as I explained to someone else later... logic in of itself is not subjective.
That was my point, so long as people (note I never named any side in my posts) rely on appeal fallacy to generate support there will always be polarizing of views... because Appeal fallacy hinges on personal feelings or the belief of a group... rather than raw data about the problem.
Actually I am not liberal... in fact by definition liberal views imply putting the freedom of the individual first... my posts if you had actually read all of them were asking the individual to put personal biased aside in order to favor the greater good and actually solve problems.... so nice attempt at poisoning the well fallacy there with the whole attempt to discredit by accusing someone of opposing views.
I approach things on a per issue basis. Likewise logic by defintion is a systemic approach dealing with facts and accepted knowledge as I explained to someone else later... logic in of itself is not subjective.
That was my point, so long as people (note I never named any side in my posts) rely on appeal fallacy to generate support there will always be polarizing of views... because Appeal fallacy hinges on personal feelings or the belief of a group... rather than raw data about the problem.
In point of fact by liberals tend to lean toward human rights as opposed to individual liberties. Do I detect a liberal bias here? So much for objectivity. As far as "poisoning the well" I'm just here to present an opposing view. I'm hoping that is still allowed on political forums, otherwise all you have is a liberal "glee club" approach that doesn't accomplish anything.
Good luck with your "logical" approach to solving this problem of competing cultures and subcultures in the us. All you have to do is to cure just about every problem tribalism has been producing since the beginning of time. This is something that has never been accomplished.
While you're out there thinking of ways to "solve problems" generated by american liberals/leftists in the first place I'll be watching this mess we call a country start a strange, long, slow, downward spiral. I'll continue to watch democratic party identity politics, excessive spending schemes, more foreign adventures, more foreign policy disasters due to the ineptness of your mr obama, more gridlock between the two parties, more calls to violence by both sides (especially by union leaders), all the while the disparate collection of peoples who inhabit this country without borders of ours contintue to drift apart. Yep, I'll be watching that, mr. spock.
Liberals enforce socialism too e.g., libraries, etc. Libraries are for the greatest good.
Actually libraries predate progressives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
