Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter
I have not said that.
Ben Carson's words already made a religious test of Islam as not being consistent with the US Constitution.
That statement is a test and is, in itself, not consistent with the Constitution.
My argument is that it is not illegal (unconstitutional) to vote for Carson
because he made such an "unconstitutional test", but it is hypocritical.
This is Scalian logic-tool used to argue that because my knowledge
of the historical thinking back at that time is authoritative, therefore:
"The Constitution means what I say it means."
|
No. I am not appealing to my own authority built by what I know, I am building it on specific pieces of information, statement's who's factual nature can be discussed and examined. I am not saying that "C is right because look how much I know", I am saying "I am right because based on the facts that I know, A & B, we can understand that C doesn't mean D".
Now, A & B can be disputed, and so can their relationship to C:
Perhaps I am wrong to think that america was a british colony that has recently gained independence at the time of writing the constitution, perhaps I am wrong to think that the concept of subjective weight in judging is one that has developed with post modernism, or perhaps I made some logical fallacy in connecting the pieces of information themselves to the context I described, and if one of those is the case, you could - quite easily - provide information to dispute it.
However, appealing to my own authority is not one of them, and let me make it clear that I have none - I am not american and it is quite likely you've learned plenty of things about american history that I did not). Frankly, in my experience the only people who's authority is worth anything are those that never need to appeal to it in the first place.
tldr - My arguments are built on bra sizes, not hat stores.