Now I think I fully understand the deviousness of the Alinskyites

[degsme]

Which is a great reason to try to understand the original intent of the framers. Yes, language evolves. Tracing and understanding this evolution is critical to understanding the Constitution.

and it is something that is cognitively impossible. Because as more and more empirical evidence shows us, our conception of linguistic meaning is NECESSARY for us to reason abstractly and relatively ( eg http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/fdurgin1/publications/GrodnerPietschDurgin2009.pdf) And thus we cannot be rid of our Contemporary context regardless of how hard we try.

Ignoring the original intent and applying a modern context to the Constitution would be like trying to understand Shakespeare if the only language I only know is Chinese.

No, pretending that you can understand original intent by reading limited selection passed down through history from a time and culture significantly different than our contemporary one is akin to translate SHakespear's gender infleted langauage in to gender neutral Chinese.

you can do it but it is incomplete and nuance and meaning are lost.

 

[Angel of Dearth]

[my reasoning] is something I can prove with inductive closure

And so you use reason to prove reason.

Circulus in Probando

Circular Reasoning. Your foundation is a fallacy. All your bullshit whining about "Guilt by Association" and "Red Herring" and "ad hominem" is itself grounded in fallacy. Miles and miles and days and tomes of baloney! What a colossal waste of time you are!

 

[degsme]

Originally Posted by degsme [my reasoning] is something I can prove with inductive closure

And so you use reason to prove reason.

Circulus in Probando

and once again you need to misquote to sustain your argument. Strawman fallacy

Circular Reasoning. Your foundation is a fallacy.

Nope. As I stated - positive empiricism is my underlying definitional assertion. Nothing more nothing less. All else derives via 1st principles from that.

Are you saying that you disagree with positive empiricism as invalid?

 

[degsme]

New poll for you degs! Check it out right here!

You should really look into it and vote. Do it quick before it gets axed like yours did (for whatever reason--that's a real head scratcher).

I'm very interested in your input!

You mean the poll running 2:1 against you?

 

[Angel of Dearth]

We're done here.

Cherry picking charges dismantled, inability to employ standard English definitions, misunderstood and incorrectly applied logic and reasoning, and an inordinate capacity to deflect discussion, argue irrelevant minutiae, ignore the truth, and resurrect settled issues while disregarding the evidence that closed them. This is why debating with you is a waste of time. You've shown you don't know what you're talking about historically so I have nothing to suggest you know what you're talking about now.

I'll stop wasting time by replying. You have nothing to offer.