Replies

Using the word "rational" in a manner that implies an opposite view is irrational in an exchange of differences not specifically having to do with rationality, is an indirect form of an ad hominem argument or what is often called The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy , and is thereby irrational in its use and by its user. Now if rationality is the subject of the discussion, then an argument must be presented to demonstrate its appropriate application.

Every time you have used the word you demonstrated your own lack of rational thinking, and reduce the intellectual level of discussion to childish name calling.

Come on, anyone who provides a link to that excellent web page on the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" has got to be able to rise above such squalor.

As for the rest of your reply, to much redundancy, of that which there is no disagreement, incorrectly implying disagreement and where there is a disagreement to much argumentum ad nauseam. Then suddenly you have a conclusion pop out of know where, not supported by any argument (ie explanation) by you in the text. What's left is na, I'm right and you are wrong. UH UH, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG. Nope, I know better therefor I'm right. YEA, SURE, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS ME. Oh yea, well my idea is ... ... ...

I finished reading the the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" yesterday, and found it to be extraordinarily concise, profoundly accurate, and very well written. Needless to say, I had a few disagreements with it. But out of fairness to it, I don't recall ever reading anything longer than 4 or 5 paragraphs that I didn't find disagreement. At any rate, its clear unambiguous presentation of constitutional principles and law, in such a short presentation will have a most positive impact. I want to see this document get wide dissemination and reading. Its well worth the read.