Pssst, Chuck…
that’s not a straw man.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Sure it is my good friend….😅😂
No Chuck, seriously. It's not.
You identified the right thing, the implication of attitude; but that's an assumption (inductive logic). Prove the assumption false, and it doesn't matter what follows from it. There's maybe a hint of ad hominem sprinkled on there that can be inferred.
Anyway, a straw man is when one characterizes another's argument, and then attacks the characterization they've constructed. Your post is closer to that than Kazoolaw's.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
"The Constitution does not say that the President shall execute the laws, but that “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...s-law-enforcer
This teaches me that when someone says Joe Biden is going against the Constitution, he may not necessarily be. His justice department is going against the state of Texas on their abortion ruling. In light of the above concept, he is simply making sure the laws are faithfully executed give that abortion is legal in the US.
Since we are discussing the Constitution...
"Mr. Pence told him that the president was convinced that Mr. Pence could throw out the election results in order to keep himself in power.
“Mike, you have no flexibility on this,” Mr. Quayle told Mr. Pence. “None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away.”
“I know, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell Trump,” Mr. Pence said. “But he really thinks he can. And there are other guys in there saying I’ve got this power.”
Mr. Pence then echoed Mr. Trump’s false claims of election fraud. “Well, there’s some stuff out in Arizona,” Mr. Pence said.
“Mike, I live in Arizona,” Mr. Quayle said. “There’s nothing out here.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/14/u...ook-trump.html
nevermind
Last edited by TSherbs; September 15th, 2021 at 10:03 AM.
You’re not the only one unless you’re not reading my posts, my learned friend.
Not a strawman argument. Heaven knows I've built one or two in the past.
I've given you Biden's exact words, in quotations. He said he would "get them out of the way." What constitutional method does he contemplate using? And no, I don't think Joe will go Tony Soprano on the guvs.
Whataboutism?
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
You’re no better at that definition than you were with straw man .
Nah, go ahead, ignore the stay based on "grave statutory and constitutional concerns."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/w...e-blocked.html
Mandate exceeds government's authority, most likely violates principle of separation of powers, causes irreparable harm to individuals: Fifth Circuit Court Opinion staying vaccine mandate. Another failure to preserve, protect, and defend.
"First, the Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority
under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that
falls squarely within the States’ police power. A person’s choice to remain
unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity."
***
"Second, concerns over separation of powers principles cast doubt over
the Mandate’s assertion of virtually unlimited power to control individual
conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation."
***
"It is clear that a denial of the petitioners’ proposed stay would do them
irreparable harm. For one, the Mandate threatens to substantially burden the
liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between
their job(s) and their jab(s). For the individual petitioners, the loss of
constitutional freedoms “for even minimal periods of
time . . . unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
BST Holdings vs OHSA
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinion...-60845-CV0.pdf
dneal (November 13th, 2021)
Are you for or against a vaccine mandate, Kaz? If against, what rational basis would you suggest?
A rational basis.
nm_constitution_101230_mn.jpeg
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
kazoolaw (November 14th, 2021)
I believe that the Pope is exceeding his authority, as the alleged representative of an imaginary deity, in denying reproductive rights to women.
Where do I file a case?
Certainly not in the present Supreme Court.
One generation ago we decided to limit one’s freedom by making drunk driving illegal. Half a generation ago we decided to limit one’s freedom by making smoking in public and work places illegal. Some countries decided to limit one’s freedom by making gun ownership a strictly legally regulated exception rather than a rule. There is plenty of rational basis to limit individual freedom for one if it interferes with the freedom of others. I don’t see any reason why allowing virus particles of a deadly disease to be blown in my face be any different. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you can’t handle that, we take away that freedom.
Edit: typo
Last edited by Linger; November 14th, 2021 at 02:48 AM.
Chuck Naill (November 14th, 2021), Empty_of_Clouds (November 14th, 2021)
dneal (November 14th, 2021)
Bookmarks