04-02-2018, 04:29 PM
(04-02-2018, 03:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like we agree on something. I've always said that someone who consistently defends right wing positions and constantly deploys right wing definitions and rhetoric against "leftists" may not credibly proclaim himself a "centrist." I agree that if Stevens consistently (i.e., not occasionally) defends left wing positions or liberal positions then for all practical purposes he is a "leftist" or a "liberal." But a question still remains. What is a "leftist/liberal" then? What "actions and words" make one recognizably one or the other or both?
You constantly vomit up this accusation and I've consistently challenged you to prove it. Cite all the right leaning arguments I make and then cite the left leaning arguments I make. Unless you do so, kindly cease your inane accusations based on a single topic.
Quote:You prize exact definitions here and scorn inexact, the kind that "vary considerably" relying upon an "arbitrary mix."
Quote:Can we extend this commendable standard a little further, into the political sphere, where definitions also vary considerably and arbitrarily? Stevens thinks of himself as a conservative Republican. Some agree.
http://www.newsweek.com/actually-john-paul-stevens-conservative-213206
Some think he is best described as "independent."
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=nulr
https://epic.org/privacy/justice_stevens.html
But this is not really a matter counting pundits votes, or shouldn't be.
What actions and words, in your view, make someone a "leftist" or a "liberal"? Does it makes sense to conflate the terms or use them interchangeably? Are both "assault weapons" or is one better described as simply some kind of "long gun"? What are the criteria you use to place actors on the political spectrum and, just as importantly, what is the source of those criteria? Clarifying that would surely minimize the obfuscation you impute to people disagreeing with your views on Stevens and the 2nd Amendment.
Clarification of your definition would help people understand if it matters at all whether this retired Justice was left, liberal, independent or conservative when he argued law. It might also provide more solid footing for some of your claims about the "real" intent of people supporting gun control--or not. Let's see.
Is RGB considered a liberal justice? If the answer is yes, and many found Stevens to be to the left of her then you have your answer. If you disagree that Stevens was a left leaning justice that is certainly your prerogative, it's just a minority opinion.
(04-02-2018, 03:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Just to clarify. Fred is not claiming you argued that "All white people are white supremacists." He is arguing by analogy, the common denominator being that you are inferring something about a larger demographic based on the words and actions of a subgroup which does not speak for the whole.
The fact that you even took away that I was insinuating this means you're so beyond the topic actually being discussed as to make your intended contribution meaningless. Please stop wasting my time.
Quote:I.e., Fred is arguing that your argument has the same logical/inferential flaw AS FOUND in the argument that because a minority of whites espouse White Supremacy then all or most do. Just as that logic is invalid in the white supremacist example, so is it in yours. That invalidity is what Fred attributes to your argument, not anything about white supremacy.
Someone who so frequently invokes "logic" in support of his views should then address the point actually made--e.g., by showing how his inference from part to whole is valid--rather than digress into accusations based on misreading.
I doubt there is a single person on this thread besides yourself who sees the "tactic" you attribute to Fred above. But Fred is at least the FIFTH person on this thread to have questioned your method, your inference from part to whole. Addressing that weak link directly would be productive.
Seriously, your obsequious defending of Fred is disturbing. I'm sure you'll snitch me out for making this point, but how you ignore the consensus opinion on how Fred conducts his "debates" on this site is beyond me.
