piscator wrote:Seth wrote:piscator wrote:
I've explored your "ideas" briefly and found them to have little regard for anything other than your personal interpretation of the intents of people you've never met and who died long before you were born, handwaving centuries of Constitutional authority, legislative action, and Supreme Court decisions as mere fallacies of common practice in your quest to insert your onanistic oughts into eminently practicable and organically derived iss.
What is and what ought to be are not inexorably the same thing.
True. In fact, it's a grave logical error to go from an is to an ought, and getting the
is wrong in the first place only aggravates the flaw.
In the course of making some wild declarations like the US Government is constitutionally barred from possessing any lands, you implied the US Government arbitrarily takes certain (mineral) rights from private landowners. I pointed out you were seriously in error.
No, you ASSERTED that I am in error by committing the fallacy of appeal to common practice. Now all you have to do is build a rational foundation and argument to support that assertion and we can then continue to discuss the fine points involved. Except you don't want to do that.
In fact, you're usually fucked up whenever you open your mouth about US land law, a subject in which I have a particular expertise and hence, a certain authority.
I dispute your qualifications. Now you are using an appeal to authority fallacy, and you're claiming yourself as the expert that supports the arguments that you have not yet made.
This is not a true/false quiz about the state of land use law in the United States you see, it's a philosophical discussion about the motives, justifications, strengths, weaknesses and rationales involved in land use law in the United States. I say "This is what the Founders intended, and what exists now is in direct conflict with their original intent and here's why." You say "This is what the law is and it got that way because that's the way it got that way, so it must therefore be correct." That is a quintessential appeal to common practice fallacy.
When I produce evidence to support the claim that you are batshit on a certain issue, you further my case when you repeat, 'Neener neener! Fallacy!!'
ad nauseum. What's more, this behavior offers continuing strong support to the general proposition that "Seth is a gobby git".
Wind your neck in, get on the page, and quit making a twit of yourself. That is all.

Go fuck yourself.
Now, once again, you substitute ad hom personalization for rational debate because, evidently, you have no rational argument to make in support of your fallacious appeals to common practice.
You can allude to stare decisis all you want but that doesn't make your argument valid, it just demonstrates that you haven't the wit or intelligence to engage in a rational philosophical debate that steps outside your narrow-minded preconceptions and hide-bound obedience to precedent.
Precedent, you see, is much more political than it is rational, which you would know if you actually had a working knowledge of how our court system actually works. But you're not interested in examining the strengths or weaknesses of how we got to where we are today, you just want to blindly claim that because the Supreme Court of the Congress said this or that it must mean that those decisions are inexorably morally, ethically or legally correct.
Here's a clue for you: They aren't. Rather often in fact. That they constitute the status quo isn't really an argument of any rational value unless and until you can demonstrate through rational and logical analysis how and why they are morally, ethically and legally correct. Anything else is,
ipso facto a fallacious appeal to common practice or authority.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.