Btw Merlin, Your mention of the dilemma of the Germans reminded me of something. Thanks!
Though I don’t see it happening soon (if ever) for a number of reasons, your point is well taken Stranger.
Though I don’t see it happening soon (if ever) for a number of reasons, your point is well taken Stranger.
If you can’t see it happening, perhaps you’re trying to grab too big a piece.
If you’re looking for snap responses, it matters less what you say and more how you say it. If you seem confident that the argument doesn’t bother you, that’s 90% of it right there.
Though I don’t see it happening soon (if ever) for a number of reasons, your point is well taken Stranger.
I meant my own leaving. I promised my two younger daughters I would stay close to home for the next several years. I don’t intend to break that promise.
I meant my own leaving. I promised my two younger daughters I would stay close to home for the next several years. I don’t intend to break that promise.
You don’t have to.
Stranger, Would you mind elaborating? And Libertyandlife, I’m glad you didn’t. One’s life is always made richer through laughter!
There is a difference between a nationalist and a patriot.
A nationalist loves his country, because he thinks it is a great country.
A patriot loves his country, because he loves his country.
A patriot may also merely have a love that goes no further than his neighbourhood or local region, but it remains the same. It’s about unconditional love for the strangers immediately outside your close family and not loving them just because they give you better medical care facilities, better schools, or better television shows.
If your opponents advocate that they only live in a country because it is good to them, then they have shown themselves incapable of unconditional love for their country and have proven that they would as soon leave it the moment it is not to their suiting. At least in your patriotism, you have decided to stay, and look at the problems because they are problems, and not because you expect your country to be the best.
MIT economist, Robin Wells, once left the United States because Reagan got elected. As a moderate social democrat, her views were based on solidarity for society, and yet she abandons that very society when it was not to her suiting. So what would be the point of having solidarity for it?
Whatever happened to the freedom of speech and the legal right to properly dissent? Are you advocating secession? What are your thoughts on Lincoln’s, or even the communist, response to secession?
Ever read No Treason Lyle?
I have not read “No Treason” in its entirety, but I agree that the Constitution is not an annuity which is less than completely alienable for longer than the law allows.
Tell them that the country was supposed to be - as designated by the Founding Fathers - a republic. That republic is home; the government is an invader, so it needs to leave. People who say that usually don’t understand the difference between a country and a government.
I read like one sentence from No Treason, and it convinced me. I never saw the Constitution as a contract and that the only people who need to abide by it are the ones who signed it.
Stranger, Would you mind elaborating?
Here is a very quick, logical way to deal with that line of thinking.
-
Ask if you are involved in a discussion in which they are willing to examine the relevant thinking or is it a pissing contest of words?
-
If the answer is anything besides “Yes, you could convince me if I thought about your argument and it made sense.” then terminate the conversation.
The “Love it or leave it” comeback is an emotional attempt to emotionalize the debate. They want to provoke a more heated confrontation or more likely just shut you up. Either way, what possible reason could you have to continue trying to convince someone who’s argument consists of a little more wordy version of “Fuck you”.
“So if I broke into your house and stole your stuff, it would be okay because you can just move to Wyoming?”
^ This seems to work for me. I’ll say something like: “I am going to come and rob you, at your house. If you resist, I will shoot you. If you choose to stay at your house and be robbed and or shot, then you can’t complain. Why? Because you could have moved.”
Also, find any disagreements they have with policy and say “if you don’t like it, leave!”
If a liberal complains about lack of gun control, war, marijuana laws, or whatever, tell them to leave! If a conservative complains about too many gays or whatever, tell them to leave! etc. Just ask them their position on any laws you already know they disagree with, then tell them to leave if they don’t like it.
Also, just pointing out that they are not even addressing your argument helps. You can just reply “Thats not an argument against my position. If you have to resort to personal attacks I will conclude that your reasons for disagreeing with me are based on emotion rather than reason.” The conversation will usually end there.
Many, (if not most), people would in all probability respond by saying that breaking into their house is not the same as them violating me in some way. In a case like this they would probably say, “There is a law against that. We are not talking about the same thing”. It has been my experience that if one attempts to show that these situations ARE similar (if not identical), they almost inevitably fall back on an intellectual cop-out. I seem to be missing a piece of the puzzle in order to drive the point home AND show them what their intellectual cop-out is and WHY it is an intellectual cop-out AND why it matters. Can anyone solve this puzzle?
Btw, thanks Stranger. I read some but got interrupted. It will require some thought on my part.
Also, it appears the State is their intellectual cop-out. They just seem to fall back on it when all else fails. This seems to me a sign of poor reasoning skills but, I guess mine aren’t much better because I’m having a difficult time overcoming “the State” as the arbiter or sanctioner of certain actions that are or are not permitted.
Oh, I too like the “So if I broke into your house” scenario. It seems to be right on target, but again; where to go from there to counter their counter-arguments.
Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2MxiQR4CIQ