The Constitution is not set in stone; and given that we don't have the people around who wrote it, we need to interpret it to the standards of the day.
Some of the wordings in the constitution are basically set in stone. For instance, pretending that there exists exemptions in the constitution where there is not and calling it "interpretation" could probably be considered wrong. They interpret it, and their interpretations can be wrong.
Otherwise you need to stop playing stupid word games.
I don't see where I was playing "stupid word games." You stated that the burden of proof is on people who want change (and you said nothing else about it at the time), and I disagreed with that slightly. Hence, my reply.
Um, why do all your points sound like you just took a Freshman philosophy class?
I don't know what someone who just took a freshman philosophy class sounds like, and I don't see what it has to do with anything.
Of course bad is subjective.
Actually, you'd be surprised at how many people that I've seen state that things such as "good," "evil," and "bad" are not subjective. In light of this, how am I to tell who believes what if they don't even say what they really mean?
You can ask for proof from whomever you want, but if you demand proof from me to justify warranted wireless tapping, I will mock you overtly, and go on my way knowing that warranted wiretapping will continue.
I was just saying that claiming to know something as a fact will probably make people think that you have some degree of evidence to prove it (and I don't think that is such a terrible assumption). Otherwise, why would you state it as a fact?
So the only way that will ever change is if people show that it is bad.
And even if they didn't, I do not think that that is a reason to violate peoples' rights. Some people seem to be greatly overestimating the chances of a terrorist attack actually happening (as well as greatly overestimating how useful the TSA actually is).
But there are also many interpretations by which you're clearly wrong.
That is what I was getting at. I believe my original point was that all of them could be "wrong."
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the law means and if they say it means one thing, there is no legal mechanism by which one can say that they are incorrect.
I know, and while I think having them is definitely a good idea, making their decision absolutely final is a flaw in the system in my opinion.
I don't care what the founding fathers thought. I care what is in the constitution. Still, I'd be interested to know how you know what the founding fathers thought at the time that they made the constitution. Do take into account that there was more than one of them.
or is directly intended to cause a stampede leading to deaths? (shouting fire in a crowded theatre).
Anyone who would stampede over another person based on unproven information is, in my opinion, an idiot. I couldn't care less if they or the people around them died, but how often does this really happen? But, really, if someone acts foolishly based on information given to them, I believe that it is their fault and their fault alone.
What makes you think the founding fathers were murderous psychopaths?
Even if they did support speech without limits, I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion.
rather than a machinelike literalist interpretation.
That's the only type of interpretation that does not require guesswork because it does not force you to try to guess what the founding fathers were thinking (which results in all kinds of interpretations).
I'm just not sure a piece of software could really be self-aware, or humanlike, and accept slavery.
It could fully be aware that it was programmed that way but still not care. Yes, in that sense, it probably wouldn't be "human," but I don't think it would matter in the end.
then ethically, it's still a slave
According to whose ethics? If it was created this way from the very beginning and enjoys what it does, then I don't see how it could be considered a "slave," despite the intention of its creator(s). Of course, if they are legally considered your property rather than them just being programmed to want to be, then you could, by definition, call them a slave.
Now, a purely inhuman AI would have plenty of uses I can think of.
We could replace most (if not all) human workers with intelligent AI.
Of course, that does bring up the interesting question of what happens when they build a droid that's fully human, mentally speaking. At that point "sexbot" becomes a degradation, since instead of making an animatronic realdoll or dildo with legs you're instead making what is essentially an unwilling slave, with all the violation of basic rights that entails.
Slave or not, that doesn't make the "relationship" any less real if the AI is programmed well enough. If it truly believes that it enjoys it (because it was programmed that way), then it probably won't matter.
Well that's something that should be decided, by society.
"Should be," depending on who you ask.
Are we aiming to punish criminals because that feels right, or are we aiming for the lowest possible crime rate?
Personally, I'd go for the lowest possible crime rate as long as it offers an extremely low chance of punishing the innocent and there is no other option at the moment.
a swat on the hand to a kid that's transgressing is not vengefully motivated anyway, so I was probably wrong to criticise you for it.
I wasn't the one who posted that comment.
I just think that when we're looking at how we treat our criminals, we should take the ideas of punishment and revenge out of the equation.
I agree, but I suspect that it would be quite difficult to convince people of this.
However, you should go and learn some systems theory -- just because a trait of a system is not advocated, it doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen
Where in my post did I say that?
Communism itself is really natural for dictatorships.
From what we've observed so far, yes (and from the current implementations that were tried).
Its most important flaw however is that it fails to take into account human nature.
Not necessarily. However, even if so, that does not mean that it will always fail. I don't believe that communism will work exactly as intended, but I won't state that as an absolute fact.
Take the claim that the meaning of "freedom of speech" having a clear and univocal meaning with no room for interpretation. Does that mean that we are free to slander someone, to shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theater when there is no evidence of such, to use words judged as obscene by one's local community, to use "fighting words" when speaking to others?
According to that wording, yes.
People who don't even understand English should not be judges, I think.
As for definitions of words not changing, consider the use of the 'gay' 100 years ago compared to today.
You look at the definition of the words used at the time the document was made. And you don't just "decide" to change the words completely. That happens over time, and it happens when many people adopt the new definition. You can't just change it and make the old definition vanish from everyone's minds.
Using your logic (if I understand what you're even talking about), they could just ignore any part of the constitution at any time and claim that they interpret it differently. Oh, look, the word "one"? Clearly that is referencing the number 2! Why bother with anything? No matter what interpretation you use, you're clearly always "right."
It's hard to fault people for using the term communism to describe this kind of government in informal speech.
Really? Even if they have failed thus far, that does not mean that they will always fail. And, considering that communism can mean different things in different contexts, as you said, I think it is rather foolish for someone to imply that all types of communism advocate this type of government and treat communism as some sort of "evil" (as some people seem to do).
+ Middle aged people who haven't bought a console since the NES and they just remember that back in the day, Nintendo was "the shit". + Mom's who bought a Wii to stick in the living room for their kids and as far as they know, it's a total success and doing well and their kids love it, because they don't know any better, so when the next Wii comes out, it's an obvious replacement. + People who buy everything with Nintendo on it. Period.
+ People who think the games are actually fun because they have a different opinion than others.
A potential loss of potential profit. Of course, using their superior intellect, they are able to transform that into a situation where they are certainly losing money that already belongs to them!
Slashdot Mirror
I merely replied to what was in your comment. If you do not want that to happen, then I suggest that you do not comment in the first place.
The Constitution is not set in stone; and given that we don't have the people around who wrote it, we need to interpret it to the standards of the day.
Some of the wordings in the constitution are basically set in stone. For instance, pretending that there exists exemptions in the constitution where there is not and calling it "interpretation" could probably be considered wrong. They interpret it, and their interpretations can be wrong.
Otherwise you need to stop playing stupid word games.
I don't see where I was playing "stupid word games." You stated that the burden of proof is on people who want change (and you said nothing else about it at the time), and I disagreed with that slightly. Hence, my reply.
Um, why do all your points sound like you just took a Freshman philosophy class?
I don't know what someone who just took a freshman philosophy class sounds like, and I don't see what it has to do with anything.
Of course bad is subjective.
Actually, you'd be surprised at how many people that I've seen state that things such as "good," "evil," and "bad" are not subjective. In light of this, how am I to tell who believes what if they don't even say what they really mean?
What level of fictional, digital violence would be patently offensive?
Whether something is "offensive" or not is subjective no matter what. As such, how could anything possibly be "patently offensive"?
Conversely, with sex, the opposite is true.
How so?
You can ask for proof from whomever you want, but if you demand proof from me to justify warranted wireless tapping, I will mock you overtly, and go on my way knowing that warranted wiretapping will continue.
I was just saying that claiming to know something as a fact will probably make people think that you have some degree of evidence to prove it (and I don't think that is such a terrible assumption). Otherwise, why would you state it as a fact?
So the only way that will ever change is if people show that it is bad.
"Bad" is subjective.
And even if they didn't, I do not think that that is a reason to violate peoples' rights. Some people seem to be greatly overestimating the chances of a terrorist attack actually happening (as well as greatly overestimating how useful the TSA actually is).
Burden of proof is on the one who wants to make a change.
I'd say that the burden of proof is on whoever states something as a fact (because it implies that they know something for a fact).
but police SHOULD be able to investigate bad people.
Whether or not they "should" be able to and whether or not these people are "bad" is subjective.
But there are also many interpretations by which you're clearly wrong.
That is what I was getting at. I believe my original point was that all of them could be "wrong."
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the law means and if they say it means one thing, there is no legal mechanism by which one can say that they are incorrect.
I know, and while I think having them is definitely a good idea, making their decision absolutely final is a flaw in the system in my opinion.
I'd rather them just leave things alone and realize that it's pointless to pass these laws because they are likely easily abused and do no good.
ego trip by a bunch of misguided kids
Or a group of kids or adults with a different set of values and morals than other people.
I don't care what the founding fathers thought. I care what is in the constitution. Still, I'd be interested to know how you know what the founding fathers thought at the time that they made the constitution. Do take into account that there was more than one of them.
or is directly intended to cause a stampede leading to deaths? (shouting fire in a crowded theatre).
Anyone who would stampede over another person based on unproven information is, in my opinion, an idiot. I couldn't care less if they or the people around them died, but how often does this really happen? But, really, if someone acts foolishly based on information given to them, I believe that it is their fault and their fault alone.
What makes you think the founding fathers were murderous psychopaths?
Even if they did support speech without limits, I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion.
rather than a machinelike literalist interpretation.
That's the only type of interpretation that does not require guesswork because it does not force you to try to guess what the founding fathers were thinking (which results in all kinds of interpretations).
I'm just not sure a piece of software could really be self-aware, or humanlike, and accept slavery.
It could fully be aware that it was programmed that way but still not care. Yes, in that sense, it probably wouldn't be "human," but I don't think it would matter in the end.
then ethically, it's still a slave
According to whose ethics? If it was created this way from the very beginning and enjoys what it does, then I don't see how it could be considered a "slave," despite the intention of its creator(s). Of course, if they are legally considered your property rather than them just being programmed to want to be, then you could, by definition, call them a slave.
Now, a purely inhuman AI would have plenty of uses I can think of.
We could replace most (if not all) human workers with intelligent AI.
Of course, that does bring up the interesting question of what happens when they build a droid that's fully human, mentally speaking. At that point "sexbot" becomes a degradation, since instead of making an animatronic realdoll or dildo with legs you're instead making what is essentially an unwilling slave, with all the violation of basic rights that entails.
Slave or not, that doesn't make the "relationship" any less real if the AI is programmed well enough. If it truly believes that it enjoys it (because it was programmed that way), then it probably won't matter.
But... humans are special! That is my opinion (which therefore makes it a fact).
Did you miss my sarcasm or did I miss yours?
I wasn't really talking to you directly.
Well that's something that should be decided, by society.
"Should be," depending on who you ask.
Are we aiming to punish criminals because that feels right, or are we aiming for the lowest possible crime rate?
Personally, I'd go for the lowest possible crime rate as long as it offers an extremely low chance of punishing the innocent and there is no other option at the moment.
a swat on the hand to a kid that's transgressing is not vengefully motivated anyway, so I was probably wrong to criticise you for it.
I wasn't the one who posted that comment.
I just think that when we're looking at how we treat our criminals, we should take the ideas of punishment and revenge out of the equation.
I agree, but I suspect that it would be quite difficult to convince people of this.
However, you should go and learn some systems theory -- just because a trait of a system is not advocated, it doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen
Where in my post did I say that?
Communism itself is really natural for dictatorships.
From what we've observed so far, yes (and from the current implementations that were tried).
Its most important flaw however is that it fails to take into account human nature.
Not necessarily. However, even if so, that does not mean that it will always fail. I don't believe that communism will work exactly as intended, but I won't state that as an absolute fact.
Take the claim that the meaning of "freedom of speech" having a clear and univocal meaning with no room for interpretation. Does that mean that we are free to slander someone, to shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theater when there is no evidence of such, to use words judged as obscene by one's local community, to use "fighting words" when speaking to others?
According to that wording, yes.
People who don't even understand English should not be judges, I think.
As for definitions of words not changing, consider the use of the 'gay' 100 years ago compared to today.
You look at the definition of the words used at the time the document was made. And you don't just "decide" to change the words completely. That happens over time, and it happens when many people adopt the new definition. You can't just change it and make the old definition vanish from everyone's minds.
Using your logic (if I understand what you're even talking about), they could just ignore any part of the constitution at any time and claim that they interpret it differently. Oh, look, the word "one"? Clearly that is referencing the number 2! Why bother with anything? No matter what interpretation you use, you're clearly always "right."
It's hard to fault people for using the term communism to describe this kind of government in informal speech.
Really? Even if they have failed thus far, that does not mean that they will always fail. And, considering that communism can mean different things in different contexts, as you said, I think it is rather foolish for someone to imply that all types of communism advocate this type of government and treat communism as some sort of "evil" (as some people seem to do).
+ Middle aged people who haven't bought a console since the NES and they just remember that back in the day, Nintendo was "the shit".
+ Mom's who bought a Wii to stick in the living room for their kids and as far as they know, it's a total success and doing well and their kids love it, because they don't know any better, so when the next Wii comes out, it's an obvious replacement.
+ People who buy everything with Nintendo on it. Period.
+ People who think the games are actually fun because they have a different opinion than others.
A potential loss of potential profit. Of course, using their superior intellect, they are able to transform that into a situation where they are certainly losing money that already belongs to them!
And we all know that you scheme works perfectly with all humans, regardless of developmental stage.
Exactly. That's why we need to allow people to swat others when someone believes that another person is doing something "wrong."
not on any hard data as to the best outcomes for society.
What are the "best outcomes for society"? That sounds awfully subjective to me.
I think most sensible people can agree to that.
That depends on your subjective definition of the word "sensible."
and I would hope most people can see the absurdity of it.
This is subjective, too.
then the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence
The burden of proof, I believe, is on whoever states something as a fact (simply because it hasn't been proven either way).