"my original comment was solely that, a two paragraph reminder about historical time frames"
Uh huh. Which you thought was important to point out in case anybody reading forgot that 1880 and 1789 aren't right next to each other, not because you wanted to recast "new/modern" in terms of originalism?
"my respect. Which you have lost"
I am completely unsurprised that the loss of respect is mutual. That was expected. For the record, I consider the derailment to have begun with your first comment, not with your response to my saying why your first comment wasn't relevant.
Well, if you wanted to say my point was irrelevant, and you considered it "derailment", why did you post a five paragraph ramble on original intent? I mean, if you really thought that I was trying to derail the debate, why accelerate off the tracks with all your might? Did you really think I would not think you actually wanted to discuss the things you had brought up in your reply?
Bringing up "Derailment" the way you have is one of the truly petulant "internet argument techniques". Want to wind back from taking an awkward position on something, cry "Derailment" and insist that all that part of the discussion be ignored.
(no subject)
Uh huh. Which you thought was important to point out in case anybody reading forgot that 1880 and 1789 aren't right next to each other, not because you wanted to recast "new/modern" in terms of originalism?
"my respect. Which you have lost"
I am completely unsurprised that the loss of respect is mutual. That was expected. For the record, I consider the derailment to have begun with your first comment, not with your response to my saying why your first comment wasn't relevant.
(no subject)
Bringing up "Derailment" the way you have is one of the truly petulant "internet argument techniques". Want to wind back from taking an awkward position on something, cry "Derailment" and insist that all that part of the discussion be ignored.
(no subject)