5 ms·

> I'm not really interested in getting pulled into a 200 year old debate. Why not, if the debate is still valid? These issues weren't so much "resolved" as put

> I'm not really interested in getting pulled into a 200 year old debate. Why not, if the debate is still valid? These issues weren't so much "resolved" as put aside in favor of more government power or postponed (in the case of slavery, equal protection). The mere fact that the debate is 200 years old is simply more credit to its importance. The constitution is imperfect (like our government), as it itself acknowledges, and is "correct" only as Lincoln said that it serves a nation "conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all (men) are created equal". As someone else once said, don't take refuge in the false security of consensus.

gnaritas 13y ago
> The mere fact that the debate is 200 years old is simply more credit to its importance. No, it usually means one side lost and can't get over it. Half the country still disagrees with Darwin, it doesn't make the debate important despite it being well over 100 years old. The same applies here.
- argumentum 13y ago
  > Half the country still disagrees with Darwin If you don't think that debate is still important, you are essentially conceding it to the half the country you disagree with (because they sure as hell think its important). I'm sure you don't want your kids being taught creationism just because you consider yourself "above" the argument. And regardless, the same does not apply here, because unlike the overwhelming evidence we have for evolution by natural selection, there simply is not enough data on the usefulness of central banking to the prosperity of the nation.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > If you don't think that debate is still important, you are essentially conceding it to the half the country you disagree with No I'm not. The debate was over 100 years ago, the ignorant just haven't figured it out yet. They simply get laughed at now for trying to argue the case. Mockery is not concession. > there simply is not enough data on the usefulness of central banking to the prosperity of the nation. Not what I was referring to. I was referring to this, " For better or worse, most of the latent ambiguities in the Constitution were resolved in favor of the interpretation espoused by Hamilton and the Federalists." You can't ignore 200 years of judicial interpretation and case law simply because you prefer to interpret the text differently, that was his point and he's correct. That debate is over.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "No I'm not. The debate was over 100 years ago, the ignorant just haven't figured it out yet. They simply get laughed at now for trying to argue the case. Mockery is not concession." If it's actually half the country, and they actually think it's substantially more important than the other half the country, there's an argument that it's effective concession. But, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I more understood you to be saying that having the argument wasn't important - conveying the understanding behind your "your side" of that argument you might consider quite a bit more important.
      - logfromblammo 13y ago
        There never was a debate. Having a debate presumes that it is possible for one side to concede. The public discussion between Bill Nye and Religiousguy Whatsisface showed that one side is not debating; they're just baiting. Bill Nye said all it would take to change his mind is just one piece of real evidence. The other guy said that nothing anyone could ever say or do would change his mind. On hearing that, it becomes obvious. There is no quest for truth or spirit of inquiry in the opposition. They are simply obstacles to progress that must be routed around. The debate is not over; it never took place, and it never will. If you can't get someone to support rational argumentation by means of rational arguments, you're better off talking to someone--anyone--else.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        There are some people who claim to be beyond convincing. There are probably some people who are beyond convincing - and there's probably some overlap between those two groups. It's just not the case that either of these sets includes everyone who doesn't "believe in" evolution.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        You can't have a reasoned debate about evolution; reasonable people already know it's a fact and don't dispute it. Only unreasonable people are still disputing a basic fact of the world discovered well over 100 years ago.

gnaritas 13y ago

> The mere fact that the debate is 200 years old is simply more credit to its importance. No, it usually means one side lost and can't get over it. Half the country still disagrees with Darwin, it doesn't make the debate important despite it being well over 100 years old. The same applies here.

argumentum 13y ago
> Half the country still disagrees with Darwin If you don't think that debate is still important, you are essentially conceding it to the half the country you disagree with (because they sure as hell think its important). I'm sure you don't want your kids being taught creationism just because you consider yourself "above" the argument. And regardless, the same does not apply here, because unlike the overwhelming evidence we have for evolution by natural selection, there simply is not enough data on the usefulness of central banking to the prosperity of the nation.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > If you don't think that debate is still important, you are essentially conceding it to the half the country you disagree with No I'm not. The debate was over 100 years ago, the ignorant just haven't figured it out yet. They simply get laughed at now for trying to argue the case. Mockery is not concession. > there simply is not enough data on the usefulness of central banking to the prosperity of the nation. Not what I was referring to. I was referring to this, " For better or worse, most of the latent ambiguities in the Constitution were resolved in favor of the interpretation espoused by Hamilton and the Federalists." You can't ignore 200 years of judicial interpretation and case law simply because you prefer to interpret the text differently, that was his point and he's correct. That debate is over.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "No I'm not. The debate was over 100 years ago, the ignorant just haven't figured it out yet. They simply get laughed at now for trying to argue the case. Mockery is not concession." If it's actually half the country, and they actually think it's substantially more important than the other half the country, there's an argument that it's effective concession. But, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I more understood you to be saying that having the argument wasn't important - conveying the understanding behind your "your side" of that argument you might consider quite a bit more important.
    - logfromblammo 13y ago
      There never was a debate. Having a debate presumes that it is possible for one side to concede. The public discussion between Bill Nye and Religiousguy Whatsisface showed that one side is not debating; they're just baiting. Bill Nye said all it would take to change his mind is just one piece of real evidence. The other guy said that nothing anyone could ever say or do would change his mind. On hearing that, it becomes obvious. There is no quest for truth or spirit of inquiry in the opposition. They are simply obstacles to progress that must be routed around. The debate is not over; it never took place, and it never will. If you can't get someone to support rational argumentation by means of rational arguments, you're better off talking to someone--anyone--else.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        There are some people who claim to be beyond convincing. There are probably some people who are beyond convincing - and there's probably some overlap between those two groups. It's just not the case that either of these sets includes everyone who doesn't "believe in" evolution.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        You can't have a reasoned debate about evolution; reasonable people already know it's a fact and don't dispute it. Only unreasonable people are still disputing a basic fact of the world discovered well over 100 years ago.