So how long will Ben last this time?

[Aeson]

So you're suggesting that they reserved natural born people to White people is not a significant concession?

It is clearly racist and misogynist (since it was white males). I can see why you want to pretend such a thing is good, since you are racist and misogynist.

You immediately dismissed the law as 'misogynist and racist', and yet would take part of it without the rest of it.

The argument wasn't about whether it was a good law or not, but whether "natural born citizen" applied to those born outside the US.

Mhmm, well I am pretty sure I understand their rationales and it still doesn't get you where you want to go.

Where I want to go is to show that you were wrong to say that "natural born citizen" could not apply to anyone born outside the US. You argued we should try to stick to what the founders wanted.

So the law of 1790 is as close as we can get to a legal definition of "natural born citizen" in regards to the founding of the US. And it clearly states that it can apply to someone born outside the US. You were wrong.

Inbred?

It is a natural pressure in hereditary rule to consolidate power through marriage to close relations. There are many cases throughout history of incestuous marriages within royal families.

[Ben Kenobi]

However you said that 'many women want to stay at home' as a blanket statement.

Yes. 47 percent of women staying at home with their children who are younger than 6 is an indication that many do want to stay at home. I did not say most. I said many. I'm not sure why that is controversial.

The implication I draw from that is that you think that women in general would prefer to be housewives. Proteus picked up on it, pointing out that many of these mothers will resume their jobs.

Did I say most?

At least your sexism towards women is less strident than Kid's, but it's still there.

Mhmm, I was surprised that number was as high as it was. So that should lead you to believe that I thought that number would be considerably less.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can see why you want to pretend such a thing is good, since you are racist and misogynist.

Did I say I believed that was good? I said I understood their rationales. There's a difference. I can understand something without supporting it. The law is the law. You need to look at the law in it's entirety not just a portion of it.

The argument wasn't about whether it was a good law or not, but whether "natural born citizen" applied to those born outside the US.

Then why are you arguing that I believed the law was good? Yes, it does - for white people only, which I suspect you find unacceptable.

you were wrong to say that "natural born citizen" could not apply to anyone born outside the US

You want to take part of the law and get rid of the rest of the law which I find curious. Again - the reason that was there was because they believed in retaining the culture of the United States, and that this was a proxy. Somehow I don't see you taking this desire into consideration when drafting a law today. Odd that.

It is a natural pressure in hereditary rule to consolidate power through marriage to close relations. There are many cases throughout history of incestuous marriages within royal families.

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the pierian springs
For shallow draughts intoxicate the brain
And drinking largely sobers us again.

It's a myth, really truly it is. The Tudors themselves are not inbred, because the Tudors had no relations to the Plantagenets. The Stuarts are not themselves inbred because they have relations with every single Scottish noble. None of the northern German families (Hohenzollern, etc), are inbred because they had quite a significant mix of families. There are only two lineages for which this sometimes comes into play.

1. The house of Jimenez in Spain. And even then, you get quite a bit of outbreeding due to illegitimate lines. Really, all it takes is one every three generations or so. Trastamara was an illegitimate branch, so they had a concentration that was not particularly inbred with the rest of Europe.

It's only rather later on with the Spanish Habsburgs that it got concentrated enough to be a problem.

And then you have some of the Capetians particularly the Valois cadet branch, where you can get 8, or 9 of 16 as individual Capetians.

For the Stuarts? Not an inbreeding problem in the slightest. If anything House Este was more inbred than they.

[Kidlicious]

Because that's my charism, Kid. Men who feel that they have gotten the short end of the stick tend to harbor resentment.



You might as well ask, "why are sunsets beautiful?" Words are inadequate.



Because I was one and they despise Mary. They have bad theology when it comes to her and the position of women within the Church.



The fact that I'm saved and will not go to hell because of them? Because of their kindness and support through some difficult periods of my life? Because they would invite me to lunch and tea? Women are not men, and thank God for that.



No, but they brought me to Him. And for that I am grateful.



We are not individuals, Kid. We are members of one Body, serving our Lord. This, again, is bad theology you have picked up.



Yes, it does matter, Kidicious. We are men because God chose to make us men. Women are women because God chose to make them that way. This, again, is part of the reason why protestants have issues with other parts of their theology, specifically concerning the body and the purpose that God has for us in our lives.

Women are supposed to be women, and you, and your church does not understand the beauty of this.



That you accuse me of 'worshipping women', is what is wrong with your theology. You consider honoring women worshipping them, and we can appreciate them for who they are.

You need to read your Bible, Kid. "He made them male and female".

You are lying about my religion. Heck. I've got my own problems with it. I've got my own problems with my church. I'm an individual. I can know who I am. You don't know who you are BK. I don't know how your world view got so screwed up, It looks like you got brainwashed. You think you are inferior because of your gender and you hate men.

[Aeson]

Did I say I believed that was good? I said I understood their rationales. There's a difference. I can understand something without supporting it. The law is the law. You need to look at the law in it's entirety not just a portion of it.

Your statement was unqualified. You claimed that "natural born citizen" could not apply to a citizen by birth born outside the US. Thus there is only one requirement for disproving it, to show that "natural born citizen" could apply in at least one case to a citizen by birth born outside the US. It doesn't matter one iota what the specifics of the case are, so long as it is applying "natural born citizen" to citizens by birth born outside the US. You are wrong no matter what the other specifics.

The rest of the law is not applicable to the matter in question. It is clearly racist and misogynist, and you are clearly racist and misogynist, so it's not hard to see why you "understood their rationales". That you chose to focus on how "rational" the racist and misogynist aspects of the law were, rather than to accept that you were wrong about how "natural born citizen" was applied by the law, shows clearly how you'd rather be racist and misogynist than to admit a simple factual truth.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are lying about my religion. Heck. I've got my own problems with it. I've got my own problems with my church. I'm an individual. I can know who I am. You don't know who you are BK. I don't know how your world view got so screwed up, It looks like you got brainwashed. You think you are inferior because of your gender and you hate men.

So I hate men because I affirm the unique, and God-given dignity of women?

[Ben Kenobi]

Your statement was unqualified. You claimed that "natural born citizen" could not apply to a citizen by birth born outside the US.

I stated that the understanding at the time of the constitution was that there was a distinction for natural born citizens that applied to them being born inside the United States. I was able to show this through my earlier quote of one of the discussions surrounding the 14th Amendment. Which, naturally, sought to supercede the earlier standard of restricting citizenship based on race and replacing it with one based on the location where one was born.

The Constitution does not defend discrimination on race, it does not say that only 'free men' are to be recognized in their God given rights. It says that all have been granted by God inalienable rights.

It doesn't matter one iota what the specifics of the case

So it matters not a whit that the law specifically excludes anyone who isn't white?

The rest of the law is not applicable to the matter in question. It is clearly racist and misogynist, and you are clearly racist and misogynist, so it's not hard to see why you "understood their rationales".

No. You believe that I am racist and misogynist. Those are two different things, Aeson.

That you chose to focus on how "rational" the racist and misogynist aspects of the law were, rather than to accept that you were wrong about how "natural born citizen" was applied by the law, shows clearly how you'd rather be racist and misogynist than to admit a simple factual truth.

Nonsense, I argue that the law you quoted did not uphold the constitution of the united states, and thus was superceded by the Fourteenth, which the Constitution anticipated. Of course, I say that because I believe that the Constitution protects the rights of everyone, not just Free white men.

That being said, I'm curious why you're arguing the fallacy that only arguments you agree with are rational arguments.

[Aeson]

It's a myth, really truly it is.
...
It's only rather later on with the Spanish Habsburgs that it got concentrated enough to be a problem.

I claimed hereditary rule has an innate pressure to consolidate power by marrying close relations. It clearly does have such a pressure. I also claimed that there were many cases throughout history of incestuous royal marriages. That is also true.

You claimed it was a myth ... then accepted that it was true. You're just ridiculous.

[Kidlicious]

So I hate men because I affirm the unique, and God-given dignity of women?

No. You are lying about Protestants. No protestants believe women are inferior. NONE! This is how bigots talk. You are like the KKK lying about what black people believe and how they are trying to destroy the white culture. You're a bigot!

[NICE MOBIUS]

Yes. 47 percent of women staying at home with their children who are younger than 6 is an indication that many do want to stay at home. I did not say most. I said many. I'm not sure why that is controversial.

What part of 'blanket statement' don't you understand!?

Concentrating exclusively on women staying at home to look after children younger than school age, I imagine many would if that was their choice. I think it is obvious that in an optimum scenario that one parent was able to look after their children at home at least until school age, but that their careers shouldn't necessarily be penalised for doing so. Hence why so many European countries have the sorts of commie socialist childcare options that would be anathema to cold-hearted capitalists like you.

The point is that you didn't make that distinction, you implied that women would be happy being stay at home housewives whether there were children or not. I imagine if, god forbid, you got married, you'd be happy coming home to a cooked meal after work and all the household chores done for you except the 'man stuff'...

Mhmm, I was surprised that number was as high as it was. So that should lead you to believe that I thought that number would be considerably less.

Any parent wants what's best for their child. Personally I believe that an optimum scenario if affordable by the parents is for at least one of them to be able to stay at home bringing up the child at least until he or she is of school age. The major difference with you is that I make no distinction whether that is the mother or the father.

You need to think in less sexist terms.

[Ben Kenobi]

I claimed hereditary rule has an innate pressure to consolidate power by marrying close relations.

The problem is that this theory doesn't bear up when looking at the pedigrees of most European nobles at the time. I would make the argument that they understood quite well the principles of consolidation (ie, doubling up on good lines), and outcrossing every third generation. People were used to animal husbandry and quite skilled at that. European nobility did the same.

I've already cited the example of James VI/I who founded the Stuart dynasty of England who was only 12.5 percent inbred. This is not particularly notable nor unusual.

[Aeson]

I stated that the understanding at the time of the constitution was that there was a distinction for natural born citizens that applied to them being born inside the United States. I was able to show this through my earlier quote of one of the discussions surrounding the 14th Amendment. Which, naturally, sought to supercede the earlier standard of restricting citizenship based on race and replacing it with one based on the location where one was born.

Ah ... so now the "more contemporary" view should supercede the original intent? But just a while ago you were claiming the original intent of the founders was most important. Why the sudden change of heart? Oh, right! Because you were wrong and your own criteria disproved your stance!

The Constitution does not defend discrimination on race, it does not say that only 'free men' are to be recognized in their God given rights. It says that all have been granted by God inalienable rights.

It quite clearly did not apply to non-white men, or women, as originally applied. History happened as it did, deal with it.

So it matters not a whit that the law specifically excludes anyone who isn't white?

Not in regards to our discussion on whether "natural born citizen" can apply to citizens by birth born outside the US. That is solely determined by whether "natural born citizen" can apply to citizens by birth born outside the US.

You're just casting up strawmen to try to distract from the fact that you were obviously wrong by your own stated measure.

No. You believe that I am racist and misogynist. Those are two different things, Aeson.

Thus the "AND", you moron.

(I want to point out I don't just believe you are a racist and misogynist ... it's something that is a very obviously fact given your posting history.)

Nonsense, I argue that the law you quoted did not uphold the constitution of the united states, and thus was superceded by the Fourteenth, which the Constitution anticipated. Of course, I say that because I believe that the Constitution protects the rights of everyone, not just Free white men.

You are a cherry picking hypocrite backtracking from the logic you were previously using to pick a source. The law of 1790 wasn't overturned by SCOTUS (the actual method where something is deemed to "not uphold the constitution of the united states"). It was updated, it's a very different thing.

That being said, I'm curious why you're arguing the fallacy that only arguments you agree with are rational arguments.

That's just another strawman you've erected to try to distract from the fact you were wrong.

You want to pretend that it's rational to only want white men to be citizens. It isn't rational. It's racist and misogynist. You can't see that because you are racist and misogynist.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. You are lying about Protestants.

Uh, I was a protestant.

No protestants believe women are inferior. NONE!

I stated that you despise the Theotokos and claim that we worship her. I did not accuse you of thinking that women are inferior, but rather, that there is nothing special about women and that men and women are no different. This is contrary to what scripture teaches that men and women are unique. This is a good thing. Catholics believe that women have special graces and men have special graces and that these God-given graces ought to be cultivated, not denied.

This is how bigots talk. You are like the KKK lying about what black people believe and how they are trying to destroy the white culture. You're a bigot!

No, sir. I am right about this. I was a Protestant.

[Aeson]

The problem is that this theory doesn't bear up when looking at the pedigrees of most European nobles at the time.

I didn't specify a timeframe. There are many instances of royal incestuous relationships throughout history.

I would make the argument that they understood quite well the principles of consolidation (ie, doubling up on good lines), and outcrossing every third generation. People were used to animal husbandry and quite skilled at that. European nobility did the same.

And the mad tyrants they routinely blighted the world with is your ideal government

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah ... so now the "more contemporary" view should supercede the original intent? But just a while ago you were claiming the original intent of the founders was most important. Why the sudden change of heart? Oh, right! Because you were wrong and your own criteria disproved your stance!

I claim that the original intent of the Constitution is to affirm the inalienable rights of all, not just free white men. Are you asserting otherwise?

It quite clearly did not apply to non-white men, or women, as originally applied. History happened as it did, deal with it.

Does it make the distinction between Free men and slaves? Does it say, "inalienable rights to white men"? It does not. Ergo, I conclude that it was the intent of the Founders to phrase it as it does.

Not in regards to our discussion on whether "natural born citizen" can apply to citizens by birth born outside the US. That is solely determined by whether "natural born citizen" can apply to citizens by birth born outside the US.

Yes, except that the same law denies that all men are created equal. Ergo I can only conclude that the greater law supercedes the lesser. We cannot simply take the part of the law we like and discard the parts we do not, we must consider the law as it was written in it's entirety order to truly understand why it was written that way.

Again, I already asserted the intent of the law, and the intent is vastly different from yours. Ergo, I can only conclude that the law doesn't advance your cause in the slightest. It is a blind alley.

You're just casting up strawmen to try to distract from the fact that you were obviously wrong by your own stated measure.

I'm amused that you're citing, voluntarily, laws that you believe are racist and misogynist in defense of your own arguments.

(I want to point out I don't just believe you are a racist and misogynist ... it's something that is a very obviously fact given your posting history.)

Indeed, it is a fact that you believe I am racist and misogynist. I do not contest that in the slightest.

You are a cherry picking hypocrite backtracking from the logic you were previously using to pick a source.

No, I'm just someone who happens to have read the opinions of the founders regarding slavery and is aware that the intent was explicitly to affirm that inalienable rights are not limited by race. Shall I quote your beloved Jefferson?

The law of 1790 wasn't overturned by SCOTUS (the actual method where something is deemed to "not uphold the constitution of the united states"). It was updated, it's a very different thing.

It was superceded. That is a very specific word. I argue that the Fourteenth applies the constitution correctly with regards to the laws concerning naturalization. That it specifically affirms natural born citizenship based on where you are born, not your race is a problem for you. But then, I'm not the one arguing against the Fourteenth.

That's just another strawman you've erected to try to distract from the fact you were wrong.

You explicitly stated that I must be a racist because I argued that I understood their rationale behind their arguments, IE, that they believed that it was important to maintain the European culture of the United States at the time. This is a logical fallacy.

Arguments can be rational and still wrong, Aeson. Arguments can be irrational and correct.

You want to pretend that it's rational to only want white men to be citizens. It isn't rational. It's racist and misogynist. You can't see that because you are racist and misogynist.

No, Aeson, we have a fundamental disagreement concerning the application of reason and truth. I've stated before that not all truth is rational. Some is, yes, but human reason is limited.

Kant, fwiw, says the same thing. He would be helpful to understand where I am coming from.