8 ms·

There's this pattern I've noticed, where whenever a constitutional issue comes up on HN, nirvana makes this post that starts with a complete constitutional misu

There's this pattern I've noticed, where whenever a constitutional issue comes up on HN, nirvana makes this post that starts with a complete constitutional misunderstanding followed by a Randist rant. And it's always top-voted. Yuck. For starters, the Constitution clearly states that Congress may make laws necessary and proper for all powers vested in the government of the United States, not just those in the enumerated powers of article I. Specifically, the executive branch of the government has the power to enforce laws. It's not really one of those things that's a matter of judicial interpretation--it's in plain text, black and white. The idea that the Constitution does not authorize a "federal police force", as the OP states, is so strange I can't really fathom how someone who's read the Constitution could come up with it. Anyway, since we were talking about asset forfeiture, I'll add that it has withheld a number of constitutional challenges as well. I'm not an expert on this but I'd be shocked if the OP was.

nirvana 15y ago
There's this pattern I've noticed, whenever I make an argument on HN and cite the constitution, people respond by characterizing me, rather than responding to my arguments. And its always the top voted response. Yuck. >the Constitution clearly states... it's in plain text, black and white. Sure sounds like something you'd be able to quote... and why didn't you? What possible reason could you have for choosing not to quote something that is "in plain text, black and white"? This makes me think that the purpose of those assertions is to pretend like you're making an argument, when your real purpose is ad hominem. You could have dropped the ad hominem and just given us the quote and an argument. After all, its not like I didn't explicitly ask for such a quote in my post! (but ignoring that is necessary to pretend like I've said something I haven't your response is predicated on.) I really think its a shame that you feel comfortable making ad hominem attacks like this on Hacker News, because by doing so you have derailed any possible discussion about the topic and made me the topic. I think this is anti-intellectual. I think your down vote brigade is shameful as well. This response is being down voted for pointing out the ad hominem while the ad hominem is up voted. My original post has dropped 5 points in only a few minutes.... The sad thing is my crime is trying to find common ground with liberals. Which means it is nothing that I actually said that you object to, but the very existence of a different way of thinking.
- cynicalkane 15y ago
  Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Article 2, section 3: "He [The President] must... take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article 2 also expresses that the President has power to head executive departments and delegate powers thereunto. While you're at it, you might also want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem . 'Ad hominem' is a particular type of invalid deduction. It's not a fancy Latin name for when you feel persecuted.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    >you might also want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Did you read that page? "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]" You do it again here: "In particular, something doesn't become ad hominen because you feel insulted by it. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your persecution complex." Neither of your two posts contain any argument, only a (still unsupported) assertion about what the constitution says, and assertions of negative characteristics about me. Your citation of Article 1, section 8, is an evasion on your part, as it shows that the constitution only authorizes laws to execute "the foregoing Powers". Or in short, Article 1, section 8 proves my claim that the government only has the legal power in the constitution as enumerated by the enumerated powers. You haven't shown the existence of this power either in the enumerated powers clause or elsewhere (in the amendments), and thus you haven't actually addressed my claim at all. Article 2, section 3, merely requires the president to adhere to the requirements of these enumerated powers. Which is actually further support for my claim, not an undermining of it. The fact is that these enumerated powers are very specific: "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" shows that they are not so broad as to fit anything not mentioned in between the cracks. You can't say the government has the power to establish an Airline and Airports and Air Routes based on that enumeration, for instance. You blithely quote the word "powers" but ignore that until you show where the constitution grants the power to maintain a standing police force, you haven't even addressed my argument. You can't make an argument on the points. You have twice pretended like there's an argument to be made, and in the second time, effectively evaded the point and quoted irrelevancies as if it were an argument. I must conclude that you have no argument to make, which explains why you choose personal attack instead. Well, I'm done. You can post whatever you want to try and make me look bad. I don't are. Your doing so only serves to prove my point. Even if you managed to find an actual quote in the constitution that rebuts me completely, your twice choosing to engage in ad hominem rather than debate still means you lost. So, I'm done. The sad thing is, this is typical of the intolerance for differing perspectives that is exhibited on Hacker News. I was making point where we had common ground-- but you don't care about that. You simply cannot tolerate the existence of someone who can articulate a different perspective. And so you attacked me. I suspect people like you and the down vote brigade are a large reason why hacker news has become somewhat of a monoculture.
poppysan 15y ago
Seems to me like every post Nirvana makes turns into a battle. I don't intend to pass judgement on the validity of the main point of his posts, but I think what sets people off is the unnecessary blend of either pro-apple rhetoric or libertarian talking-points (all stated as fact) that are controversial topics (by hn standards.) While I disagree with his conclusions some of the time, the controversial topics + the ultra loquacious posts are always a blast for me to read!
- nirvana 15y ago
  Well, I make arguments. Here, in fact, I was really asking people for ideas! I wasn't even disagreeing with anyone. Its just that, because I like Apple (and that's against the HN consensual ideology) and I'm a libertarian (again frowned upon) SOME people simply can't tolerate me making articulate posts. I generally get several responses from people who make counter arguments and we have a nice debate (if we both stick around.) But its the people who engage in personal attacks who are VOTED UP on HN and who have there pile in with them to engage in personal attacks, or nonsense arguments, like the ones at the top of this thread (where there are a lot of assertions but very little argument from the opposition). I'd love for there to be a salon type place where intelligent people can talk about startup topics. (really, and not politics.) Security of your domain name is a startup topic. The liberal ideology that the constitution places no restraints on government action is something I thought would be kept at bay since this is a conversation about exactly and abuse of that unlimited power... but alas, I was too optimistic. Surely liberals see power being abused-- they howled when bush was in office, that's for sure, and these same things have been continued under obama, so why can't we talk about that? Why must the topic be about how evil I am for daring to think differently? A shame your comment was voted down.

nirvana 15y ago

There's this pattern I've noticed, whenever I make an argument on HN and cite the constitution, people respond by characterizing me, rather than responding to my arguments. And its always the top voted response. Yuck. >the Constitution clearly states... it's in plain text, black and white. Sure sounds like something you'd be able to quote... and why didn't you? What possible reason could you have for choosing not to quote something that is "in plain text, black and white"? This makes me think that the purpose of those assertions is to pretend like you're making an argument, when your real purpose is ad hominem. You could have dropped the ad hominem and just given us the quote and an argument. After all, its not like I didn't explicitly ask for such a quote in my post! (but ignoring that is necessary to pretend like I've said something I haven't your response is predicated on.) I really think its a shame that you feel comfortable making ad hominem attacks like this on Hacker News, because by doing so you have derailed any possible discussion about the topic and made me the topic. I think this is anti-intellectual. I think your down vote brigade is shameful as well. This response is being down voted for pointing out the ad hominem while the ad hominem is up voted. My original post has dropped 5 points in only a few minutes.... The sad thing is my crime is trying to find common ground with liberals. Which means it is nothing that I actually said that you object to, but the very existence of a different way of thinking.

cynicalkane 15y ago
Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Article 2, section 3: "He [The President] must... take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Article 2 also expresses that the President has power to head executive departments and delegate powers thereunto. While you're at it, you might also want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem . 'Ad hominem' is a particular type of invalid deduction. It's not a fancy Latin name for when you feel persecuted.
- nirvana 15y ago
  >you might also want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Did you read that page? "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]" You do it again here: "In particular, something doesn't become ad hominen because you feel insulted by it. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your persecution complex." Neither of your two posts contain any argument, only a (still unsupported) assertion about what the constitution says, and assertions of negative characteristics about me. Your citation of Article 1, section 8, is an evasion on your part, as it shows that the constitution only authorizes laws to execute "the foregoing Powers". Or in short, Article 1, section 8 proves my claim that the government only has the legal power in the constitution as enumerated by the enumerated powers. You haven't shown the existence of this power either in the enumerated powers clause or elsewhere (in the amendments), and thus you haven't actually addressed my claim at all. Article 2, section 3, merely requires the president to adhere to the requirements of these enumerated powers. Which is actually further support for my claim, not an undermining of it. The fact is that these enumerated powers are very specific: "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" shows that they are not so broad as to fit anything not mentioned in between the cracks. You can't say the government has the power to establish an Airline and Airports and Air Routes based on that enumeration, for instance. You blithely quote the word "powers" but ignore that until you show where the constitution grants the power to maintain a standing police force, you haven't even addressed my argument. You can't make an argument on the points. You have twice pretended like there's an argument to be made, and in the second time, effectively evaded the point and quoted irrelevancies as if it were an argument. I must conclude that you have no argument to make, which explains why you choose personal attack instead. Well, I'm done. You can post whatever you want to try and make me look bad. I don't are. Your doing so only serves to prove my point. Even if you managed to find an actual quote in the constitution that rebuts me completely, your twice choosing to engage in ad hominem rather than debate still means you lost. So, I'm done. The sad thing is, this is typical of the intolerance for differing perspectives that is exhibited on Hacker News. I was making point where we had common ground-- but you don't care about that. You simply cannot tolerate the existence of someone who can articulate a different perspective. And so you attacked me. I suspect people like you and the down vote brigade are a large reason why hacker news has become somewhat of a monoculture.

poppysan 15y ago

Seems to me like every post Nirvana makes turns into a battle. I don't intend to pass judgement on the validity of the main point of his posts, but I think what sets people off is the unnecessary blend of either pro-apple rhetoric or libertarian talking-points (all stated as fact) that are controversial topics (by hn standards.) While I disagree with his conclusions some of the time, the controversial topics + the ultra loquacious posts are always a blast for me to read!

nirvana 15y ago
Well, I make arguments. Here, in fact, I was really asking people for ideas! I wasn't even disagreeing with anyone. Its just that, because I like Apple (and that's against the HN consensual ideology) and I'm a libertarian (again frowned upon) SOME people simply can't tolerate me making articulate posts. I generally get several responses from people who make counter arguments and we have a nice debate (if we both stick around.) But its the people who engage in personal attacks who are VOTED UP on HN and who have there pile in with them to engage in personal attacks, or nonsense arguments, like the ones at the top of this thread (where there are a lot of assertions but very little argument from the opposition). I'd love for there to be a salon type place where intelligent people can talk about startup topics. (really, and not politics.) Security of your domain name is a startup topic. The liberal ideology that the constitution places no restraints on government action is something I thought would be kept at bay since this is a conversation about exactly and abuse of that unlimited power... but alas, I was too optimistic. Surely liberals see power being abused-- they howled when bush was in office, that's for sure, and these same things have been continued under obama, so why can't we talk about that? Why must the topic be about how evil I am for daring to think differently? A shame your comment was voted down.