After Hours

Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion

Locked

There's no right of revolution in a democracy

By NickNielsen ·
Tags: Off Topic
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/27/bogus.right.rebel/index.html

As it happens, I agree with him. I've been trying to articulate this for years, but never quite succeeded.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

You put far too much faith in a piece of paper...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to I find it troubling . . . ...

Wait; I forget - does the US Constitution say "As it harms none, do what you will"?
Because, otherwise, you'll see how it falls short of an exhaustive definition of any set of rights.

Collapse -

Maxwell, I think

by santeewelding In reply to You put far too much fait ...

Speaks more to the contrary dictum of what is allowed, all else forbidden. Yours suffers from brevity, too. It is too scant to properly address, as though but one leaf from a folio.

Collapse -

True...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to Maxwell, I think

but since Maxwell turns the deaf ear after an average of one sentence, I gotta be brief...
I see your point though.

Collapse -

I would guess. . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to You put far too much fait ...

..... that the U.S. Constitution is well outside your area of expertise, and even your understanding. As such it's pointless to even diiscuss with you.

Collapse -

Disagree

by santeewelding In reply to I would guess. . . .

Andreas, I find, is more than a capable correspondent; far more so than mainstream.

He just needs to reflect, more. When he is brief, he needs to draw himself up to his full height. So do you, Joe.

Collapse -

With all due respect, Santee. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to I would guess. . . .

..... I disagree with you.

The history, the purpose, and the intent of the US Constitution - and how it makes the USA unique among the free nations of the world - is seldom understood by United States' citizens, much less ones from Finland (or Denmark, or wherever).

I can't help but think (but know) that I understand those things much better than he does, but he tries to come across as the expert on the US Constitution.

Do I want to discuss it with him under those conditions? No thanks.

Collapse -

I understand

by santeewelding In reply to I would guess. . . .

Lock, stock, and barrel.

You gots to be circumspect, though, about who "understands" what. You rope me in with the phrase, "United States' citizens", where, to the point of that lock, stock, and barrel, only I get to speak of my understanding.

You don't, in my understanding of things.

It is precision that I expect when you speak of high matters.

Collapse -

You

by AnsuGisalas In reply to I would guess. . . .

still only want to discuss with people who either agree with you already, or are no match for you?
About the constitution: You know it only from the inside, served - as it is - stewed in tradition and the compounded beliefs of your forefathers.
I know it only from the outside, true, sans stew.
Is yours an inherently, objectively better perspective?
Is mine?
You gave your answer, here's mine; neither is better.
One is thesis, the other, antithesis.
You're like a man in grief, shouting "You can't possibly know how I feel!"
And it's true - I don't know your specifics and your idiosyncratics.
But I know other things and see things from other angles.
If you trusted in your own knowledge, you would not need fear my perspective.
Trusting in your authoritative method, you're really saying "I am one of the Chosen - I am guardian of our holy Gospel of Constituence - and no unbeliever may speak of it and live"...

Now, pull my finger.

Collapse -

Ansu - I can prove you wrong

by maxwell edison In reply to I would guess. . . .

Re: You still only want to discuss with people who either agree with you already, or are no match for you?

That was your opening salvo, upon which the rest of your message was based. Let's go no further, and address only that.

You couldn't be more wrong. Where in these threads do I discuss anything with people who agree with me? I don't go on and on with them, reinforcing each other's beliefs, so to speak. If you disagree, give me one instance where I did.

As it relates to the original article linked to by Nick, this is my way of trying to change people's minds. Why would I want to preach to the choir? I actually want to engage those who disagree with me - so I can try to change their minds. I may not always be effective, but those are the ones with whom I seek to engage. I invite people to challenge me - sometimes, I suppose, even bait people to challenge me.

I get frustrated, to be sure, when challenged with only disingenuous arguments or illinformed rhetoric. I try to use facts instead of fiction and reason over emotion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, to be sure. But no one is entitled to his own facts. There's a difference between a fact and a belief, and it's a distinction that should be made clear. And arguments that are based on emotion can usually be dissected and discredited under the slightest bit of scrutiny; but people don't like to have their arguments discredited. I, on the other hand, invite people to try and discredit mine - using facts and reason, not fiction and emotion.

My favorite person to engage around this water cooler is one who is neither an American nor one who philosophically agrees with me on very many issues. We disagree on almost everything. He challenges me with facts and reason, and he really makes me think about my positions. I believe I reply in kind; at least I hope I do. We've never had harsh words or hard feelings between us. And I'd like to think that we've come to respect each other's opinions, and respect the thought and reason behind them. Do you know to whom I'm referring?

I suppose what I really seek might be called a philosophical and political Chess match. And just like a real game of Chess, I like to engage those who are either my equal or, better yet, those who are better than me. (As a side note, one of my favorite Chess opponents is a fifteen year old young man who has a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome. I've played dozens of matches with him, both in person on a real board and on-line. I've never defeated him. The closest I've ever come to victory was a draw; and that's happened only once.) But I don't want to play with people I beat all the time. Where's the fun in that? Unless, of course, it can be done productively. As a teaching moment, so to speak. To get someone to consider other strategies and ways of looking at the game.

When I was teaching my son to play chess (and golf, for that matter), I was never one of those parents who let him win just so he felt good. He must have lost over a hundred games to me before he finally caught me off-guard (that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!) and defeated me. We're now pretty evenly matched, in both chess and golf - and also in matters political and philosophical. I'm not an authoritarian parent. I invite him to challenge me; I embrace it; it makes both him and me think about our beliefs.

So Ansu, your opening statement was wrong - plain and simple. And if your premise is wrong, why should I even bother with the rest of your comments?

We could have constructive dialogue and discussion, but up to now, Ansu, it's you who's been unwilling. You invite me to pull your finger. But I, on the other hand, invite you to choose one of my close fisted hands (Chess lingo). That's the difference I see between you and me, Ansu - and what a huge difference it is.

I'll pass on pulling your finger.

Collapse -

If you wish to believe it is so...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to I would guess. . . .

Did you not say that I am unfit to discuss constitutions with you, on account of not being a US citizen? Sounded like that...

Another: I never claimed to be discussing your constitution, rather constitutions in general, rights in general, limits in general.

I do make the claim that the US constitution is a constitution, and so subject to comparison with other constitutions and to the concept of constitutions in general.

You don't have to pull my finger if you're not being a pompous ***...

Related Discussions

Related Forums