« A joyous Christmas to those who still believe | Main | Scattershots – 27dec18 (updated 30dec18) »

26 December 2018

Comments

Tricky McClean

George, this is one of your silliest yet. I mean a world class stinker for sure. I can identify a number of logical fallacies but the straw ones are most egregious.
Clap Clap!

Scott O

Good job, Mr Tricky - it turns out you identified not one single 'logical fallacy'.
Simply declaring that there were 'straw ones' is not a cogent argument.
Now get yourself back to the eggnog bowl and enjoy the Holidays.

George Rebane

TrickyM 459pm - you folks on the left continue to embarrass yourselves with your kindergarten playground critiques that seldom rise above name calling and snark. If you really "can identify a number of logical fallacies", then let readers know what they are so that you can demonstrate some substance. Checking back on your comments Mr McClean, you really are an empty suit when it comes to serious discussion of issues - why you insist on confirming this with every ensuing contribution in these comment streams remains a mystery.

Warren

Must say, this looks like a high school term paper written at six am. Can't you (or your editor) even bother to use a grammar/spell check? Example: "Such broad ascent . . . " I'm not even sure what you are pontificating about. Should have written about birds of a feather.

Todd Juvinall

Oh my another spell checker. Don't libs always give themselves away?

George Rebane

Warren 857am - Thanks for pointing out the typo (now corrected). BTW, don't expect grammar or spell checkers to find that kind of error, because the sentence was technically correct. It would have taken a contextual AI editor or a keen mind like yours to have picked it out. I'm sorry that the topic was of no interest for you, but thanks for being a RR reader.

Steven Frisch

Let’s start day-lighting some of the logical fallacies embedded in your critique George.

The first logical fallacy embedded in your little ditty is the idea that global engagement through treaties and agreements is inconsistent with national sovereignty. This canard, stated by Dr. Arnn and repeated by you, assumes that engagement, coalition, participation in international organizations and treaties inherently reduces national sovereignty.

As evidence of this you quote Churchill, however Churchill’s country was one of the original and principle founders of the League of Nations, which Churchill himself supported, and his government was a signatory of the United Nations Charter. In both cases they did so as a sovereign nation state under the acts of Parliament, which is the stand in for a formal written British constitution. ( I find it ironic that Churchill stated that people are governed by constitutions when Great Britain lacks one.)

Sovereign states have processes for making international agreements and treaties—including, low and behold, the United States—Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution provides that, “treaties, like statutes, count as the supreme law of the land.

Under interpretation of both Article II and the Supremacy Clause some of these treaties automatically have the effect of federal domestic law and are known as self-executing treaties, meaning they become supreme when ratified; some of these treaties require legislation to enforce, and are known as non self-executing treaties.

So, in short, under our existing Constitution, the federal government has both the power and authority to enter into international agreements and treaties, and by definition, since the Constitution sets these rules, and is the document that creates our sovereignty, entering into a treaty is not a challenge to that sovereignty.

Furthermore, because a treaty can be both entered into and abrogated by an act of the national governments who are signatories, it is a logical fallacy to assert that signing or entering into a treaty is a rejection of sovereign nation-state status.

What you are actually objecting to is THE CONTENT of those treaties, whether for global mutual security, trade, climate action, or collective decision-making, simply because you don’t like their content. Of course you have a right to object to the content of a treaty and oppose entering into a treaty either through the courts or through legislative action, as was the case with the League of Nations; we live in a free society.

To do that you need to get the treaty voted on by the Senate and you need 1/3 of the votes present to reject it.

However it is a logical fallacy to assert that these agreements reduce national sovereignty; the right to enter into them is explicitly defined in the Constitution.

What you are making is essentially an extra-Constitutional argument. (Which does not surprise me at all since I think of you as the quintessential extra-constitutional guy.)




George Rebane

StevenF 928am - Nice try Steve, but your reading skills trumped you again. Nowhere have I ever maintained or "embedded the idea that global engagement through treaties and agreements is inconsistent with national sovereignty." In fact, these pages, my credo, and the 'Rebane Doctrine' promote and celebrate the exact opposite. (Is this another case of 'I know what you and Dr Arnn were really thinking.'?)

It is when such "treaties and agreements" seek to supersede sovereignty that the globalism problem begins. The historical notion of a United States of Europe and its current attempts under the EU (and the UN's A21 objectives) highlight the difficulties. I'm afraid you mounted a mighty defense of a hill not attacked. But thanks for bringing up the notion for our consideration.

Steven Frisch

Bullshit, that is exactly what you said George..

"It is when such "treaties and agreements" seek to supersede sovereignty that the globalism problem begins."

I love how you always try to deny what you are always actually saying...as though by creating plausible deniability and engaging in immature semantics you can avoid responsibility for your beliefs.

You have stated numerous times on these pages that you oppose engagement in numerous international agreements, including trade agreements, climate agreements, and the United Nations, on the basis that it is a threat to our sovereignty as a nation state.

You have a right to oppose these actions, but we as a nation also have a right to enter into them, and that is the fucking point.

If you think like a nationalist why can't you at least have the courage of your convictions and be man enough to engage in an intellectually honest argument?

Todd Juvinall

Frisch does hat all the libs do, put words in others mouths.

George Rebane

StevenF 952am - I think you just confirmed your unique ability to extract the real meaning of other people's words. Where you fall down is when you can't tie your mythical extractions to what was written/said, then you throw a tantrum and start accusing people of being intellectual cowards and ideological miscreants.

Your most recent trip-ups are enmeshed in the kindergarten logic that if one opposes an element or a subset of a set, then that infers that they must oppose all elements of that set.

BTW, I have always said that I am an American nationalist, and have defined that term meticulously in these pages. However, it is not the definition you leftwingers today seek to inject into the national lexicon with all your appended pejoratives.

Tricky McClean

Oh dear, it appears Mr. Frisch has handed you your backside the first two rounds. Ouch!

So, let’s poke some straw shall we?
“There is zero chance that all the world’s peoples under a global government will be of a sufficiently like-mind on [whether a citizen killing a fellow citizen is murder]. Under such a behemoth government ... where then can smaller groups of the like-minded [murder lovers] go, save to the re-education camps or worse that Leviathan has prepared for such [turn on silly sarcasm] anti-social miscreants?”

In the above example, the straw man is “behemoth government,” which I have tilted back up since murder is universally condemned by every nation state of which I am aware.

My problem with your writing, George, is that you insist on using a sledgehammer instead of a pen. This is why you are so often accused of submitting silly propaganda.

Gregory

"You have stated numerous times on these pages that you oppose engagement in numerous international agreements, including trade agreements, climate agreements, and the United Nations, on the basis that it is a threat to our sovereignty as a nation state.

You have a right to oppose these actions, but we as a nation also have a right to enter into them, and that is the fucking point."

-Frisch

And we as a nation also have a right to rail against them. It's the "we" you keep assuming for yourself and yor'n.

I'd insert Maurice Strong quotes here but we all know his vision for climate regulations as the vehicle for bringing down, if necessary, western industrial societies.

So far, your side is batting 0.0% in getting treaty status for agreements to cede sovereign authority to set CO2 emission rights.

Gregory

"In the above example, the straw man is “behemoth government,” which I have tilted back up since murder is universally condemned by every nation state of which I am aware."
Tricky McDicky 1236pm

Ahh, since murder is universally condemned by every nation state you are aware of... even those who regularly murder ... that means "behemoth government" is a straw man to be summarily knocked down.

Interesting use of language, there, Tricky.

George Rebane

TrickyM 1236pm - "Oh dear, it appears Mr. Frisch has handed you your backside the first two rounds. Ouch!"

Excellent Mr McClean, excellent!

(Does this mean that you share the extraordinary powers of extracting true semantics claimed by Mr Frisch? How many of you are out there peering into unrecalcitrant minds?)

Steven Frisch

I'm not extracting anything....your basic position is that engagement in treaties that obligate the United States to act collectively with other nations to achieve any set of objectives that you perceive to be not in our national interest is a loss of sovereignty....it is not; it is an action of our government clearly articulated and enumerated in our Constitution, which defines our sovereignty, and thus by definition cannot be a loss of sovereignty. You may disagree with it....but it ain't a loss of national sovereignty.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Gregory | 27 December 2018 at 12:39 PM

Hey Greg, I stated and support George's right to oppose the terms of a treaty, he can turn purple for all I care; the logical fallacy I pointed out is that approving such treaties is by definition not a loss of sovereignty. I'm not interested in the actual content of the treaties because that is irrelevant to logical fallacy.

TJ Max

Isn't it about time for Todd to chime in with some sage bit of wisdom such as, "Frisch is a dum lib. I hat libz."

George Rebane

StevenF 201pm - You may have been in too much of a hurry, because you most certainly don't understand MY "basic position" about "engagement in treaties". Nowhere have I maintained that ALL treaties in which the US is obligated "to act collectively with other nations to achieve any set of objectives" automatically abrogates our sovereignty. Have no idea where you get such silly notions, given all the treaties we have entered into and still maintain while obviously still retaining our sovereignty. But if such black/white reasoning is the best you can do in such discussions, then so be it.

The only treaties that I and mine fear are the ones contemplated that will reduce or drastically erode our sovereignty. And that threshold, of course, is debatable. Most progressives have yet to see a multi-national treaty calling for collective action that they reject, especially ones where a third-party adjudicates its provisions. Conservetarians, on the other hand, are always leery of any new 'foreign entanglements'.

Robert Cross

All of this talk about sovereignty etc. is really meaningless until the discussion gets down to the attitudes, beliefs, and values that are behind one POV or another. The real question at this juncture in time is what are the attitudes, beliefs, and values that allow someone to support the policies and practices of a known adulterer pathological liar, and sociopath, Donald trump, versus those who don't support his regime. That should shed light on how one arrives at all the other political/social positions.

Scott O

Stevie says - "The first logical fallacy embedded in your little ditty is the idea that global engagement through treaties and agreements is inconsistent with national sovereignty."
I went back over the original post several times. Steve's claim is totally without merit. "Imbedded" seems to be the key term here. It just must be in there somewhere!
The best line came from Tricky - "In the above example, the straw man is “behemoth government,” which I have tilted back up since murder is universally condemned by every nation state of which I am aware."
Yeah - there aren't any nation states currently murdering anyone.
That kind of nonsense is mind boggling.
What I await (and will be wanting) is any sort of treatise by the left as to how much they want (or don't want) a world governing body that the US must bow to.

Scott O

Ah - Bobby brings it home - "...support the policies and practices of a known adulterer pathological liar, and sociopath, Donald trump, versus those who don't support his regime."
Can't back up Steve's or Tricky's nonsense, so switching to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
George's post has to do with issues that have arisen prior to Trump, exist totally outside of Trump's presidency and will be with us long past his presidency.
But I fear the froth from Bobby's mouth has blinded him to anything but the fact that Trump sits laughing inside of Bobby's skull.

George Rebane

RobertC 242pm - Mr Cross, however did you overlook the subject matter of this commentary that focused on concepts of national sovereignty, international relations, and world order which have nothing to do with who holds what office when??? Is your TDS so intense that it shines through no matter what is being discussed?

Gregory

Hey Steve 206pm, using a Constitutional process to cede in a treaty what would otherwise be sovereign powers reserved to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the US government is still a ceding of sovereignty.

It does appear we'll be saved from being Constitutionally IPCC'd into internationalist oblivion by the weakening sun. This would not be the case if the chicken little's had been more organized at the start, or had cycle 24 been more like the previous cycles than like the cycles to come... assuming Zharkova's solar model is correct.

Tricky McClean

I defined murder as citizen killing citizen, not state murder. Big difference.

Gregory

Tricky McDickie 801pm ... to quote Bill the cat..."Thppt".

scenes

"It is when such "treaties and agreements" seek to supersede sovereignty that the globalism problem begins."

That seems like a reasonable observation.

The place that I think the slippery slope begins is when the treaty, and whatever bureaucracy it implies, produces the terms of the deal *after* the initial agreement. The open-ended nature of the thing produces a supranational government.

Now, if that's your intention all along, knock yerself out. The EU is obviously a case of that and is in the formation stage of a new empire. It was probably a mistake of the US to actively seek a united Europe, but the short-term Soviet threat appeared too great. There's always been a tendency for existing empires to produce new ones on their periphery, sometimes on purpose in order to better manage them, so there's nothing new there...although it can bite you on the ass in the long term.

off-topic note to George. It's an interesting thing to think about whether a united Europe will ever have enough asabiyya to produce a real nation. Their elite will likely have to produce threats, probably artificial (Russian invasion? yeah, sure) in order to build any kind of unity. The US is obviously in a downward trend here and likely could not deal with any kind of existential threat at this point. WWII was fought by a completely different nation.

Bill Tozer

Wasn’t it Woodrow Wilson who both lead the formation of the League of Nations and segregated the military? How does one reconcile the two????????

Was not a impetus for Brexit caused by faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels telling the British they could not fish in their waters but the Portuguese fishermen could? Was it not the unelected bureaucrats that told German chocolate makers that they cannot any longer make goodies with white chocolate? Sure, the Germans are a wee bit more flexible:

“Europe must be stronger… and win more sovereignty,” he [Macron] went on to demand, just as Merkel has, that EU member states surrender national sovereignty to Brussels over “foreign affairs, migration, and development” as well as giving “an increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources”.

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/11/merkel-nation-states-must-today-be-prepared-to-give-up-their-sovereignty/

Ok, I have posted this a couple times before, but I show no sign of growing tired of it. More relavent with each passing day: 89 seconds

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY&vl=en

George Rebane

We should never confuse the tenets of the League of Nations with racial or cultural equality. There is no reconciliation necessary since the LoN was clearly a multi-national organization with a structured membership placing the white European elites at the top.

Don Bessee

You mean like when Japan said screw you and your resolutions and walked out? @10

;-)

Robert Cross

George 2:55

So under what category would it be appropriate to discuss the abandonment of one's moral compass in exchange for political expediency, as it the case with trump supporters?

Todd Juvinall

We Trump supporters are morally correct. It is you liberal buffoons that would sell out your momma that need the help.

Scott O

Bobby-Who's-Cross 12:27: If your mommy or daddy isn't available to help you with discerning the topic under discussion, please don't start flailing about with your latest breathless update in the never-ending saga of Trump is ACTUALLY Hitler.
We're talking about a grownup sort of topic.
Now scoot along to your room and get out your TruthOut action figures of Woke-Willy and Social-Justice-Jill and re-enact the Brett Kavanaugh teen age rape room scenario.

George Rebane

RobertC 1227pm - The current Scattershots contains topics of which one can easily argue their moral components. And, of course, there's always the current sandbox. However, I hope you actually are able to launch an appropriate discussion, which requires you to think out and offer founded propositions, which then can be supported or countered. So far in these pages your forte has been making naked pronouncements as if by ex cathedra - e.g. witness your current assertion, "... the abandonment of one's moral compass in exchange for political expediency, as it the case with trump supporters".

Gregory

"So under what category would it be appropriate to discuss the abandonment of one's moral compass in exchange for political expediency, as it the case with trump supporters?"

-Bobbie 1227pm

Golly, I thought that fit the members of every political party that has actually held power, unlike mine.

Now off to Scattershots for a pithy comment or two.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)