Just bouncing the ball back. Why do you think I was being 'assertive' (in lack of a better word) when I merely used the words you used in my entire post? Perhaps you shoul dconsider yu own intentions.
LOL! And then I will toss the ball right back to you! Two more players and we can play basketball! Listen... I'm more interested in the topic at hand than bickering. Hilarious though it may be, lame it appears to the rest of the forum. Lets try to keep the conversation to the topic at hand.
The fact that no such document is validated and expresses the intent to punish those not following its 'rulebase' is unsubstantiated?????
Pleased do compare the workings in your mind with the workings in the world.
All that is really required for your position is more substantiation. The "fact" that no document is valid etc. ect. is an axiom. I'm sure the idea is actually quite good, but that the same as saying the moon is made of cheese. I could say it til the cows come home, even provide a logical chain that it appears to be of a cheesy nature. But where would we be under that line of inquiry. Factual substantiation...that's all.
Don't you think that a document which is supposed to validate other documents needs to be validated itself? If that is not done it carries the same amount of weight in any proof as religious documents. Things are not true because they are written down in some work that is supposed to have authority. They are true regardless of it being written down or not. Hence the ignoratio elenchi: it ignores the issue.
Let's agree on the thought that the only causa sui that can possibly exist is 'God'.
No. Because the constitution is inherently a "starter" document. But I see where you are coming from. You feel like the document itself should be legitimated before it itself is legit. I actually agree with you... in fact, it would not be a legitimate constitution without it. At this point, I think it is a "my bad" on my part becuase I assumed you knew this. In order for any constitution to be legal, from the American constitution to the constitution of Athens three thousand years ago, you need ratification
. Ratification is a self implied verification of the documents authenticity. Simply... the document does it itself. So I do agree that some validation is necessary... only if it were done by another document... it would be redundant.
That basically proves my point, don't you think? It shows that apparently no validation is needed for bullying the populace around. The contents of the constitution is irrelevant. I am actually quite surprised that you think the decorations are more to the core of this argument than what keeps the decorations up.
Unfortunately, that snippet does not include anything of ratification, the sefl implied verification of the document itself. The piece that you have taken from wiki underlines the fact that a constitution is basically a document with rights and privileges to the people. But someone would really want to change that wiki entry, becuase rights and privileges are not given to "the people" in general, but to the citizens of the constitution it substantiates. This bit does not imply that "the man" is just making the constitution to push the peons around, only that the citizen has rights. BIG QUESTION: Why would a dictatorship go out of its way to give people inalienable rights that would, if violated, nullify any sense of loyalty or commitment to the state???
A paradox is the confusion of two levels into one level, thus creating the apparant refutation. Hence, it is a paradox.
Though some of your definition of a paradox is agreeable, the fact is that what you said in post #19 was not really a paradox.
a) Elections within democracies leave the constitution intact, proving that the state itself was not dissoved, and elections are used to fill the seats of the public offices. The democratic state therefore has a different foundation than elections: the rulebase.
b) The 'rulebase' is that which dictates the rules in a state: the constitution. The use of the word 'rulebase' is quite common for teleological ethics....as any goverment is (rule-utalitarianism). I would think you knew of it in this context.
c) The paraphrase of Aristotle is not used as a petitio, it is merely used to show that for something to be 'legitimate' it would actually have to be facilitated by something legitimate. Seeing as that does not exist the entire farce is exposed. Aristotle used this thought to show monarchies are bollocks and I used it to show that democracies are bollocks. The same goes for the validity of documents by the way.
There is a lot that is wrong with this statement. Take (A) for example. Elections in a democracy do not
leave the constitution intact. That is only a fraction of the 12th amendment of the u.s. constitution. There are other deal-breakers. How then say elections leave the constitution intact and then prove the the state is undissolved is... well...puzzling to say the least.
I could go on. I think my main issue with what you say is the faulty logical chain you use. Substantiation... substantiation.
I hope you will refrain from using axiomatic assumptions.
I have yet to see a convincing argument aside from axioms and misplaced suppositions leading to faulty conclusions. Your counter arguments do not hold water. I would also caution against using big words in the wrong context.
LOL! Though I suppose at this point that you believe this statement is entirely too clever, I will for all intensive purposes suppose that it was.
Really.....you have done nothing but in this discussion.
I have. Thank you!