Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
1–10 of 388 posts
Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
#2No post body was provided.
Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
#3>The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either.
That's not true - the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The search part prevents the police from reading your mail or wiretapping your phones without a warrant (which declares the search reasonable), except illegally.
Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
#4Quoted post unavailable.
I’m confused by your first paragraph. Are you saying a parent should be able to kill a 12 year old?
Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
#5> The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either. That's not true - the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The search part prevents the police from reading your mail or wiretapping your phones without a warrant (which declares the search reasonable), except illegally.
You failed at understanding the author.
Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
#6"Seek first to understand, then to be understood." -- habit #5 of the 7 habits of highly successful people
Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
#7> The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either. That's not true - the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The search part prevents the police from reading your mail or wiretapping your phones without a warrant (which declares the search reasonable), except illegally.
You failed at understanding the author.
I don't think factual inaccuracies should get a free pass under the principle of assuming good faith, because the principle of assuming good faith only applies to how ambiguous claims should be construed. There is no way to construe "the constitution does not mention privacy" as a correct statement.
Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
#8> The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either. That's not true - the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The search part prevents the police from reading your mail or wiretapping your phones without a warrant (which declares the search reasonable), except illegally.
You failed at understanding the author.
It doesn't say the exact word "privacy" or "abortion", but what it does say is a lot closer to privacy than to abortion.
Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
#9Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?
#10Titles like this irk me.
It clearly isn’t
It should be something more like: “how has general discourse become so polluted and toxified in its perceptions for it to appear that the following statement yields any factuality” …
I guess that doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though.