Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’

[Curried Goats]

Yelling "fallacy" does not further your case.

Identifying fallacy only works to provide an avenue of attack.

It's like a doctor diagnosing a disease, then declaring the patient cured without doing anything else.

Of course most West Africans were better off in slavery, but the same is true for many locked up criminals. They get 3 hots and a cot for free, but ask ANY of them if they like their situation. A tiger at the zoo never goes hungry but the moment tiger gets an opportunity, it escapes.

So, I guess we can say that you are both right and both wrong.


They were better off in slavery

Slavery sucks and it is 100% wrong

I was giving the moron the chance to recognize his fallacy and hilariously, you missed it as well.

 

[AMart]

Only to a moron who was ignorant of history or morally deprived.

The threshold was made as high as it is to protect slavery and any process who's implicit purpose was the protection of slavery is fairly criticized.

What a phucking idiot. The constitution was amended. The threshold was overwhelmingly states rights. Some states allowed it some did not. It was allowed so all of the colonies would join the union. Go find an Arabic, African, or Indian board where slavery still exists you big cry baby.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gratitude is an emotion, a feeling not an objective notion but a subjective one. A reasonable argument can't hinge on subjective emotions. That you don't know that means you are even dumber than I originally thought, which is saying something because original my bar for your intelligence was extremely low to begin with. This isn't even the fallacy I was referencing earlier. You managed to introduce a brand new one.

West Africans are better off in America.

FACT

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I was giving the moron the chance to recognize his fallacy and hilariously, you missed it as well.

You still don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You failed to identify and make a counter-argument.

A trained chimp can do what you just did.

 

[Curried Goats]

What a phucking idiot. The constitution was amended. The threshold was overwhelmingly states rights. Some states allowed it some did not. It was allowed so all of the colonies would join the union. Go find an Arabic, African, or Indian board where slavery still exists you big cry baby.

You last line isn't an argument it's an emotional cry because you don't enjoy the context or reality and it's implications. The reason the threshold is what it is in order to amend the Constitution was so that Southern slave states could be assured Northern states wouldn't immediately amend the constitution to end slavery. With the threshold being what it is slave states would have to agree, something they would eventually go to war to deny.

 

[Curried Goats]

You still don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You failed to identify and make a counter-argument.

A trained chimp can do what you just did.

No, I simply enjoyed watching you clowns flop around, straining to make a rational argument. It's fucking hilarious.

As for your argument that blacks should be grateful to slavers because Americans today are better off on average than west Africans ignores the fact that the ideology of those slavers and segregationists had to be defeated in order for that to be the case.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You last line isn't an argument it's an emotional cry because you don't enjoy the context or reality and it's implications. The reason the threshold is what it is in order to amend the Constitution was so that Southern slave states could be assured Northern states wouldn't immediately amend the constitution to end slavery. With the threshold being what it is slave states would have to agree, something they would eventually go to war to deny.

WRONG, as usual.

It was so that states would actually accept the new constitution and give up the enumerated rights to the new federal government. It was to guarantee that the majority of states could not easily amend the constitution to grant the FedGov more power than already granted. It was to preserve local government authority.

No doubt that slave states benefited from the purposely difficult amendment process, but so did the northern states.

The fact that you believe the entirety of the constitution surrounds the preservation of slavery indicates to everyone reading this that you have a slave-only perspective on the founding, which is warped, retarded, and immature. It completely ignores all the concerns addressed in the Federalist Papers, of which you have likely never even heard.

 

[Mac-7]

A reasonable argument can't hinge on subjective emotions.

You have no reasonable argument

without slavery most black people in America would not be here

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You have no reasonable argument

without slavery you most black people in America would not be here

I already responded to his bullshit:

"West Africans are better off in America."

That is an emotionless fact.

He cannot refute it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, I simply enjoyed watching you clowns flop around, straining to make a rational argument. It's fucking hilarious.

As for your argument that blacks should be grateful to slavers because Americans today are better off on average than west Africans ignores the fact that the ideology of those slavers and segregationists had to be defeated in order for that to be the case.

So, all I have to do when responding to you is type "fallacy" and the argument is over?

mmmmkay

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I wonder if Goat Fucker has ever read The Declaration of Independence. Doubtful.

 

[Curried Goats]

WRONG, as usual.

It was so that states would actually accept the new constitution and give up the enumerated rights to the new federal government. It was to guarantee that the majority of states could not easily amend to constitution to grant the FedGov more power than already granted. It was to preserve local government authority.

Not easily amended? It was amended nearly right after it was adopted to add the bill of rights. The biggest question threatening the adoption of the Constitution was the protection of slavery. The South would not comply until they were assured ending slavery was impossible without their consent.

No doubt that slave states benefited from the purposely difficult amendment process, but so did the northern states.

That's how compromises usually work, moron.

The fact that you believe the entirety of the constitution surrounds the preservation of slavery indicates to everyone reading this that you have a slave-only perspective on the founding, which is warped, retarded, and immature. It completely ignores all the concerns addressed in the Federalist Papers, of which you have likely never even heard.

Framing it as if I claim the entirety of it was to protect slavery is another strawman, it is simply a fact that a good portion of it was.

 

[Mac-7]

That is an emotionless fact.

Correct and irrefutable

 

[Curried Goats]

So, all I have to do when responding to you is type "fallacy" and the argument is over?

mmmmkay

I explained at the bottom why your argument was fallacious. Go ahead and address it if you can.

 

[Curried Goats]

You have no reasonable argument

without slavery most black people in America would not be here

That's not an actual rational argument. How do you know what events would transpire without slavery? You can't change the past and then argue an unchanged present. That should be obviously illogical to you but maybe I continue to underestimate just how big of a moron you are.

 

[Richard-H]

That is what makes it great.

So we're forever stuck in 1784?

 

[Richard-H]

I don't know any slaves, do you know any slaves?

I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go.....

 

[Meister]

I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go.....

So an employee now is a slave? Just quit your job
wow

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not easily amended? It was amended nearly right after it was adopted to add the bill of rights.

The bill of rights was adopted WITH the ratification of the constitution, you ignorant half-wit. They were SPECIFCALLY addressed in the Federalist Papers BEFORE ratification.

The biggest issue threatening the adoption of the new constitution was GIVING UP STATE RIGHTS, which was tangentially related to slavery, but get over your black self. It wasn't about you.

That's how compromises usually work, moron.

Correct. The problem is that nobody really gave too much of a shit about slavery at the time. They were more concerned about tyranny, which they had recently thrown off with a costly war.

Framing it as if I claim the entirety of it was to protect slavery is another strawman, it is simply a fact that a good portion of it was.

that is LITERALLY how you framed it, dip shit. Look at your own words:

The reason the threshold is what it is in order to amend the Constitution was so that Southern slave states could be assured Northern states wouldn't immediately amend the constitution to end slavery. With the threshold being what it is slave states would have to agree, something they would eventually go to war to deny.

You stated it EXACTLY that way.

 

[Mac-7]

That's not an actual rational argument.

Its not an argument

its a statement of FACT

without slavery most black people would not be here today