Heroes for our times

[KevinR]

Mar 12, 2010 17:49:16 GMT -5 Stephen said:

I specified eleven areas where I perceived your views to be in direct opposition to those of the founders.

Please directly address my eleven points with accurate historical data to support your position, or conversely, concede that on this particular issue I have raised a valid point, and permit that new information to affect your views.

It doesn't matter how much evidence you think you've posted if the conclusion results in saying I would not have fought for my country or the freedom of my friends and brothers against the oppressive British Government. There's no defense needed. I can state whole heartedly that it's not true, regardless of how many points you attempt to raise to prove it.

[Stephen]

Mar 12, 2010 18:08:23 GMT -5 KevinR said:

I can state whole heartedly that it's not true, regardless of how many points you attempt to raise

You continue making claims without supporting evidence, refuse to address specific historical evidence to the contrary, yet demand that others take you at your word.

This is what I mean about the basic rules of debate... the position you have taken is an automatic debate loss in any forum under Cross Examination, Academic, or any other set of standard rules.

My original reference was only to Americans in general. It was you who made the specific claim that you would have supported the founding fathers in the Revolution. If I had been unable to back my position with facts, no response would be necessary... your word would stand until challenged. But if you are to make claims in a debate, you must be prepared to defend them against solid historical evidence if you expect anyone to believe them. Simply demanding that others accept your word is insufficient.

My position may not be correct. But - at this time, with the available evidence - it is the only one that is remotely supportable until you are willing to step up to clearly enunciate the precise evidence that supports your claims.

[KevinR]

(Bangs head against wall)

Your statement was not about Americans in general, your statement was very specific: "Kevin you would have been a Tory". No amount of evidence you post can substantiate or back up that claim. That statement was not following the demands of debate rules that you yourself are making.

[KevinR]

Mar 9, 2010 11:09:48 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Mar 8, 2010 18:41:56 GMT -5 KevinR said:

I would have fought boldly and gladly at the sides of the founding fathers of our country.

If you defend the government's ability to steal from it's own citizens today, you certainly would not have opposed the paltry 3% tax paid by American colonists.

If you believe government should regulate drugs and alcohol today, you certainly would not have opposed the modest taxation and restrictions on rum and wine imposed by the Molasses Act and the Sugar Act of 1764.

If you support foreign wars against nations that have not attacked us today, you would not have opposed paying for King George's wars in Spain and France.

If you support a 2 million-man standing army today, you certainly would not oppose a British standing army then.

If you support police actions today, you would not rebel against British officers Hugh White and John Goldfinch when they opened fire on the criminals on King Street and started the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770.

If you support federal controls to outlaw abortion over state legislatures, you could not have opposed the Townshend Acts of 1767 that transferred control of law from the colonies to the British central government.

If you do not support the abolition of today's regulations, papers and forms for immigration, banking and real estate, you certainly could not have opposed the Stamp Act of 1765 which mandated new forms for land purchases and wills.

If you do not oppose licensing drivers and forcing airline passengers to produce their state papers today, you certainly would not have any problem with the Coersive Act of 1775 which mandated permission for travel by American colonists in Boston (among other things).

If you support 501c3 IRS certification for churches today, you would certainly have accepted government designations and mandates in the Church of England in 1776.

If you support singing praises to the state and displaying national flags in churches today, you certainly would not have opposed doing the same for the British monarchy in your church in 1770.

And if government is established by God, your rebellion against the British crown would be sinful, unrighteous and blasphemous. You would have called Patrick Henry an extremist, anti-government, rebellious traitor.

And you would have been right!

Sorry, Kevin. You would have been a Tory.

It doesn't matter how much "Evidence" you think you have posted if the conclusion you come to is wrong.

That is just like me giving a list of reasons why I think your behavior matches up with Satanists and then saying thus you must be a Satanist. If your conclusion is wrong, it doesn't matter if you list 2000 things YOU think prove that conclusion.......

[KevinR]

Mar 13, 2010 11:12:26 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Mar 12, 2010 18:08:23 GMT -5 KevinR said:

I can state whole heartedly that it's not true, regardless of how many points you attempt to raise

You continue making claims without supporting evidence, refuse to address specific historical evidence to the contrary, yet demand that others take you at your word.

It's a silly waste of time. I could get into a long drawn out debate with you about your opinion on how things went down in history all to prove to you that I wouldn't have been a Tory (which was your conclusion), or I can simply say you are wrong I wouldn't have been a Tory. I don't need evidence to support that statement anymore then you should have to present evidence proving you aren't a Satanist if I listed 200 behaviors of Satanists that I said matched yours. It's preposterous. This isn't a court of law, we aren't on trial. We're having a discussion. Try to be more rational.

[Stephen]

Mar 13, 2010 11:41:50 GMT -5 KevinR said:

(Bangs head against wall)

Your statement was not about Americans in general, your statement was very specific: "Kevin you would have been a Tory".

That is false. My original statement in direct response to Rick's article stated:

"So the article is both right and wrong. America is ready for a revolution. Most of its people are not. "

Yes, my statement WAS about Americans in general. I only addressed you personally AFTER you claimed that you would have fought for the Revolution.

Now let's move on.

[Stephen]

Mar 13, 2010 11:44:57 GMT -5 KevinR said:

It doesn't matter how much "Evidence" you think you have posted if the conclusion you come to is wrong.

Are you suggesting that we reach a conclusion first, and then make the evidence conform to it?

Or is it more reasonable to disregard our pre-conceived conclusions and seek evidence first, then conform our ideas to the truths that the evidence points us toward?

[Stephen]

Mar 13, 2010 11:48:08 GMT -5 KevinR said:

It's a silly waste of time.

That's a cop-out.

You made a claim. I offered specific historical evidence to refute it. I am willing to listen and willing to be wrong. So either stand up and demonstrate your point with valid historical evidence, or accept that aligning your views with those of the Tories is not an unreasonable position given the available facts.

[Michael]

Mar 13, 2010 12:30:15 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Mar 13, 2010 11:48:08 GMT -5 KevinR said:

It's a silly waste of time.

So either stand up and demonstrate your point with valid historical evidence, or accept that aligning your views with those of the Tories is not an unreasonable position given the available facts.

And you would've been a French revolutionist fighting with Napoleon. This name calling has got to stop.

[phoenix]

Mar 17, 2010 11:56:11 GMT -5 Michael said:

Mar 13, 2010 12:30:15 GMT -5 Stephen said:

So either stand up and demonstrate your point with valid historical evidence, or accept that aligning your views with those of the Tories is not an unreasonable position given the available facts.

And you would've been a French revolutionist fighting with Napoleon. This name calling has got to stop.

I don't see you providing factual evidence to prove that he would've been a revolutionist, so yes, you're name calling.

Listing facts, and then coming to a natural conclusion is not name calling.

[Michael]

Mar 17, 2010 14:48:58 GMT -5 phoenix said:

Mar 17, 2010 11:56:11 GMT -5 Michael said:

And you would've been a French revolutionist fighting with Napoleon. This name calling has got to stop.

I don't see you providing factual evidence to prove that he would've been a revolutionist, so yes, you're name calling.

Listing facts, and then coming to a natural conclusion is not name calling.

Kevin and I would not have been Tories. This thread has now become a proving ground for how hypocritical we all can be. I motion for the closing of this thread.

[Stephen]

Mar 17, 2010 15:17:47 GMT -5 Michael said:

Kevin and I would not have been Tories.

Then it should be very simple to demonstrate, to some reasonable degree, that your views reflect those of the revolutionaries.

We have already agreed that your views on taxation do not align with the founders, nor do your views on the US army or the military draft.

However, your views in all three areas align perfectly with both British law and practice at the time of the Revolution.

It is perfectly reasonable for me to conclude that you would have aligned yourself with those who most closely resembled your belief system had you been alive at that time.

I am asking you and Kevin a direct question - by what evidence do you claim that you would have supported the traitors against the British government?

[KevinR]

Your whole argument is flimsy and based solely on your political opinions about the events of history. If you want to debate the issues fine, but stop making wild assertions.

I could assert that you would have been a proud Nazi, and demand you to give proof that you wouldn't. Does this prove my position? What if I gave views of Nazi's that I said agreed with your views? Would that prove my position and force you to prove to me you're not a Nazi? This whole discussion is ridiculous and pointless, and you should just give it up because all it's doing is making you look bad.

[KevinR]

Mar 13, 2010 12:26:16 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Mar 13, 2010 11:44:57 GMT -5 KevinR said:

It doesn't matter how much "Evidence" you think you have posted if the conclusion you come to is wrong.

Are you suggesting that we reach a conclusion first, and then make the evidence conform to it?

Or is it more reasonable to disregard our pre-conceived conclusions and seek evidence first, then conform our ideas to the truths that the evidence points us toward?

If the conclusion is erroneous yes. Evidence can and is often bent to the views of the person. See Lewrockwell.com for more of that.

[KevinR]

It would be erroneous for me to make a statement that Stephen you are a space alien. No matter how much "Proof" I offered, you are not a space alien. For me to provide what I think are 11 things that prove you to be a space alien and then demand you to provide proof that you are not is ludicrous, and a very poor way to debate an issue. You're trying to win an argument at the expense of whatever it costs. (what you accuse others of doing in one of your threads).