Got new for you,/every/ understanding of what the US Constitution means is an/interpretation/ of what the US constitution means.
And some interpretations are wrong, and obviously so. At least, I personally don't see how anyone can interpret things like "freedom of speech" as anything else. Otherwise, we may need new judges.
But, again, interpretation does not mean "changing the meaning of." Even if everything is just an interpretation, the definition of the word does not change.
With the Supreme Court being the highest law of the land, their judgment as to whether a law is constitutional or not is effectively the last word on whether or not it is constitutional.
No, it isn't. When someone asks whether something is constitutional or not, they are likely asking if it follows the constitution, not if the supreme court thinks it follows the constitution.
"Interpretation" is just trying to figure out what something means (and quite a few sections of the constitution are clear-cut). That is clearly different than changing its meaning, is it not?
A judge has discretion to interpret the constitution. If congress disagrees with that interpretation they can amend the constitution.
Huh? Amending the constitution isn't necessary for that. Either something is constitutional or it isn't. The supreme court can't decide that for themselves (all they can do is interpret it, as you said, which does not involve altering its meaning). They can say something is constitutional (or that it isn't), but that does not mean that they are right.
It's really not hard to remember the name Descartes, or to associate it with some opinions
Who isn't it hard for? You, or others?
No, you were saying that, whether or not it's what you intended to say.
I don't recall saying that all classes are memorization in the specific post that you replied to. I mentioned memorization, yes, but I didn't say that that was all the other courses involved. Your version makes more sense, though.
then they've shown they can do decently well even at a job they don't like.
Irrelevant for the position (just about anyone could do that if they needed to, I think). And not only that, but they might have liked the classes.
When did you say this? This is the first time the words "open-minded" or "rare" appear in this thread...
A few posts back:
The ability to be open-minded is, I think, more rare.
This person is functionally indistinguishable from the person who actually can't understand, and it's hard enough to distinguish the two of them from the person who is willing to lie in order to "win" the debate.
True, but I think that that's because they are stubborn, not because they are unable to understand at all if they tried. They seem indistinguishable, but technically, they're probably not.
Passing a philosophy course requires developing and using this skill
And, even if someone couldn't do that, perhaps they don't think it is an important skill.
It does matter, because if they like other things, we are at least talking about a human being, and not a robot.
We'd be talking about a human being in either case.
Yes, human society is difficult to predict, but there are common patterns and themes that repeat themselves.
But being able to state it as a fact depends on how much evidence you have that the specific future event will actually happen.
But the way I have to think to get through calculus is very similar to the way I have to think to write good software.
Then learning to write good software is a good way to do that, too. Actually, it's probably a far better way.
but that most classes I've been required to take (either directly or as an elective) have been related in some way.
Oh? And from those classes, how much of the knowledge did you actually use? If it is just a bit of it, then taking an entirely different class is probably a waste of time as you could learn the necessary information (and then hopefully not forget) through other means (perhaps even in the class itself).
In fact, if you agree with that estimate, I'm not sure we actually disagree.
I don't agree. I just don't think that taking entire classes to learn "necessary" tidbits of information is all that efficient (and it distracted you from the other classes).
The fact that someone thinks that we are universally superior because we can talk and "reason" is merely an opinion. I merely meant that humans aren't some magically selected species that are factually superior to everything else (which is just an opinion).
But, apparently you didn't understand what I meant. I meant "selected" by some god-like figure. Humans were born with the "right to live" and everything else was meant to be our "toys." That kind of thing.
If someone thinks that way, alright. But I don't believe that they should pretend that humans were selected by some god-like figure and that they have an inherent right to live and be superior to everything else. Believing that is different than stating it as a fact.
What? How do you save a life that never existed? In order to save something's life, it must first exist, correct? Otherwise, you're clearly using a different definition of "life" than me. But, I still don't agree with this ban at all.
Sorry, but when most people say "constitutional," they mean, "follows the constitution." The supreme court can't change facts and pretend that freedom of speech doesn't exist. They can interpret the constitution, but that isn't the same thing as altering it, and they can easily be wrong.
I think this has something to do with the fact that it's one of the best ways we've got to measure "intelligence" in any sort of quantifiable way. By "intelligence", I am talking about the capacity to learn, to think and reason, and there are real differences here that go beyond just a knack for a single field.
Yes, it is technically one of the best ways right now. But who knows how good it truly is?
The question is, will they be able to learn it from scratch at all, and how long will it take?
I'd say that depends on the person.
It's learning an idea, or more than that, a way of thinking and a point of view, to where you can answer questions like "How might Descartes respond to Hume's position on miracles?"
Except for the last part, it is more or less memorization.
But, many people don't do this. Just talk to a typical Creationist.
As I said, open-minded people are probably rare. I wouldn't say that they can't do this. I would say that they don't want to.
Having taken them, I don't see the same thing you do, so that leaves us with, "You're at a pretty terrible school."
"Were" would be more appropriate. But, no, I took them, and I just don't agree with you at all. I never said that everything was memorization. I just said that it is more about memorization than some people seem to realize. So, no, there's more than those two choices.
I mean, you realize you're either saying that all classes are memorization -- in which case, I'm surprised you made it through school at all -- or that all classes except those directly related to computer science are memorization.
Neither. I just don't care about them.
If your point is that this person might enjoy things other than programming, but that there aren't courses in these things, well, there really does seem to be a course for everything.
My point is that, perhaps they like other things (doesn't really matter), but don't want to waste time taking classes about them. Not everyone benefits from them.
Unless you apply the same standards of "absolute certainty" to every statement made about the future, I wouldn't.
Predicting what will happen in human society is a bit more difficult than predicting if the sun will rise. That is what I mean.
Yet it is these general classes I'm "forced" to take which make me much more able to learn those specific skills.
Depending on which classes you're even talking about, there's usually special classes that you take to learn more about the profession itself. And if you take anything else, then the classes, I would think, would at least be related to the profession or ensure that you will do better if you take them.
But to be fair, modern society operates on the principle there are human rights.
Really? I thought that most people at least required some evidence of something before they came to an absolute conclusion. Of course, whether or not most people do so does not matter to me.
And, indeed, humans rights are mentioned quite often, but how many people truly believe that they are similar to god-given inalienable rights, I wonder?
No, I just don't agree. Rights are something that are granted. The fact that humans are able to speak does not mean that they have a "right" to. Also, where do these "rights" even come from? If not for governments enforcing them, they are not written or shown anywhere. As far as I know, there is no evidence that humans are "owed" anything or that they are "special." For instance, who are you to decide that it is not an inalienable right for me to take whatever I want from everyone else? Who decides what is and isn't an inalienable right? How? Maybe I'll understand if that is explained.
That is in your opinion. I'm not happy with all of the Supreme Court decisions over the years, but in practical terms, the Supreme Court does define that which is and is not constitutional.
Essentially, yes. Technically, no. That is not how we define "constitutional" or "unconstitutional."
You said: "Whether or not it's a "problem" and whether or not it justifies their actions is up to the individual person to decide."
Understood as: It's not OK for someone to butt into your relationships and decide what is or is not acceptable for you.
I didn't make it clear whether or not I thought it was "okay." I merely said that it is a subjective matter.
You said: "And I'm the same way (unless the 'abuse' is physical) because I'm someone who just doesn't care about the 'offensive' words or beliefs of others. Though I don't know if the same applies to these 'larger groups.'"
Understood as: It's OK for you to butt in and decide for someone else what relationships are or are not acceptable.
Again, I said that it was a subjective matter. But this time, I said that if someone was being 'abused' with words, then I do not really care.
Are you implying that my goals or the means to them are strictly for my own benefit or a detriment to the rest of society?
No. I implied that forcing your beliefs upon others is something that happens on a daily basis. It is something that is difficult to avoid doing (unless everyone believed the exact same thing).
And, playing dumb AKA pretending not to understand
Slashdot Mirror
Got new for you, /every/ understanding of what the US Constitution means is an /interpretation/ of what the US constitution means.
And some interpretations are wrong, and obviously so. At least, I personally don't see how anyone can interpret things like "freedom of speech" as anything else. Otherwise, we may need new judges.
But, again, interpretation does not mean "changing the meaning of." Even if everything is just an interpretation, the definition of the word does not change.
I'm going to disagree with that.
Maybe not all of them, but I'd say most of them can. Or at least, I'd say that most of them wouldn't go out and replicate it (why haven't they?).
With the Supreme Court being the highest law of the land, their judgment as to whether a law is constitutional or not is effectively the last word on whether or not it is constitutional.
No, it isn't. When someone asks whether something is constitutional or not, they are likely asking if it follows the constitution, not if the supreme court thinks it follows the constitution.
"Interpretation" is just trying to figure out what something means (and quite a few sections of the constitution are clear-cut). That is clearly different than changing its meaning, is it not?
They said all this in their ruling, maybe these people should try reading it and then respond.
They did say why, but perhaps some people don't think that "tradition" is a good reason to uphold a decision.
A judge has discretion to interpret the constitution. If congress disagrees with that interpretation they can amend the constitution.
Huh? Amending the constitution isn't necessary for that. Either something is constitutional or it isn't. The supreme court can't decide that for themselves (all they can do is interpret it, as you said, which does not involve altering its meaning). They can say something is constitutional (or that it isn't), but that does not mean that they are right.
It's really not hard to remember the name Descartes, or to associate it with some opinions
Who isn't it hard for? You, or others?
No, you were saying that, whether or not it's what you intended to say.
I don't recall saying that all classes are memorization in the specific post that you replied to. I mentioned memorization, yes, but I didn't say that that was all the other courses involved. Your version makes more sense, though.
then they've shown they can do decently well even at a job they don't like.
Irrelevant for the position (just about anyone could do that if they needed to, I think). And not only that, but they might have liked the classes.
When did you say this? This is the first time the words "open-minded" or "rare" appear in this thread...
A few posts back:
The ability to be open-minded is, I think, more rare.
This person is functionally indistinguishable from the person who actually can't understand, and it's hard enough to distinguish the two of them from the person who is willing to lie in order to "win" the debate.
True, but I think that that's because they are stubborn, not because they are unable to understand at all if they tried. They seem indistinguishable, but technically, they're probably not.
Passing a philosophy course requires developing and using this skill
And, even if someone couldn't do that, perhaps they don't think it is an important skill.
It does matter, because if they like other things, we are at least talking about a human being, and not a robot.
We'd be talking about a human being in either case.
Yes, human society is difficult to predict, but there are common patterns and themes that repeat themselves.
But being able to state it as a fact depends on how much evidence you have that the specific future event will actually happen.
But the way I have to think to get through calculus is very similar to the way I have to think to write good software.
Then learning to write good software is a good way to do that, too. Actually, it's probably a far better way.
but that most classes I've been required to take (either directly or as an elective) have been related in some way.
Oh? And from those classes, how much of the knowledge did you actually use? If it is just a bit of it, then taking an entirely different class is probably a waste of time as you could learn the necessary information (and then hopefully not forget) through other means (perhaps even in the class itself).
In fact, if you agree with that estimate, I'm not sure we actually disagree.
I don't agree. I just don't think that taking entire classes to learn "necessary" tidbits of information is all that efficient (and it distracted you from the other classes).
The fact that someone thinks that we are universally superior because we can talk and "reason" is merely an opinion. I merely meant that humans aren't some magically selected species that are factually superior to everything else (which is just an opinion).
But we are superior to other animals.
Subjective.
But, apparently you didn't understand what I meant. I meant "selected" by some god-like figure. Humans were born with the "right to live" and everything else was meant to be our "toys." That kind of thing.
If someone thinks that way, alright. But I don't believe that they should pretend that humans were selected by some god-like figure and that they have an inherent right to live and be superior to everything else. Believing that is different than stating it as a fact.
How is it not crazy and silly?
Due to differences in opinion.
I dunno what the problem is here at all.
Hell, when I was growing up, the dogs usually got treated better in the family than *I* did...and my dogs are spoiled rotten too.
Well, some people are mean to their pets. And, because of these few people, pets must no longer be sold to anyone!
What? How do you save a life that never existed? In order to save something's life, it must first exist, correct? Otherwise, you're clearly using a different definition of "life" than me. But, I still don't agree with this ban at all.
Replaying an old game when you could be buying a new game is obviously equal to piracy.
Exactly. In both cases, they're potentially losing potential profit!
I would prefer people make up their own minds more often rather than depending heavily on others for making decisions and adopting beliefs.
As would I.
Sorry, but when most people say "constitutional," they mean, "follows the constitution." The supreme court can't change facts and pretend that freedom of speech doesn't exist. They can interpret the constitution, but that isn't the same thing as altering it, and they can easily be wrong.
Not sure I agree with that. If something is "wrong," I don't think tradition should matter in the least.
You most likely can't, but where in the constitution does it say that?
I think this has something to do with the fact that it's one of the best ways we've got to measure "intelligence" in any sort of quantifiable way. By "intelligence", I am talking about the capacity to learn, to think and reason, and there are real differences here that go beyond just a knack for a single field.
Yes, it is technically one of the best ways right now. But who knows how good it truly is?
The question is, will they be able to learn it from scratch at all, and how long will it take?
I'd say that depends on the person.
It's learning an idea, or more than that, a way of thinking and a point of view, to where you can answer questions like "How might Descartes respond to Hume's position on miracles?"
Except for the last part, it is more or less memorization.
But, many people don't do this. Just talk to a typical Creationist.
As I said, open-minded people are probably rare. I wouldn't say that they can't do this. I would say that they don't want to.
Having taken them, I don't see the same thing you do, so that leaves us with, "You're at a pretty terrible school."
"Were" would be more appropriate. But, no, I took them, and I just don't agree with you at all. I never said that everything was memorization. I just said that it is more about memorization than some people seem to realize. So, no, there's more than those two choices.
I mean, you realize you're either saying that all classes are memorization -- in which case, I'm surprised you made it through school at all -- or that all classes except those directly related to computer science are memorization.
Neither. I just don't care about them.
If your point is that this person might enjoy things other than programming, but that there aren't courses in these things, well, there really does seem to be a course for everything.
My point is that, perhaps they like other things (doesn't really matter), but don't want to waste time taking classes about them. Not everyone benefits from them.
Unless you apply the same standards of "absolute certainty" to every statement made about the future, I wouldn't.
Predicting what will happen in human society is a bit more difficult than predicting if the sun will rise. That is what I mean.
Yet it is these general classes I'm "forced" to take which make me much more able to learn those specific skills.
Depending on which classes you're even talking about, there's usually special classes that you take to learn more about the profession itself. And if you take anything else, then the classes, I would think, would at least be related to the profession or ensure that you will do better if you take them.
Because it was easier to explain than the alternative. And, from my point of view, unimportant.
But to be fair, modern society operates on the principle there are human rights.
Really? I thought that most people at least required some evidence of something before they came to an absolute conclusion. Of course, whether or not most people do so does not matter to me.
And, indeed, humans rights are mentioned quite often, but how many people truly believe that they are similar to god-given inalienable rights, I wonder?
No, I just don't agree. Rights are something that are granted. The fact that humans are able to speak does not mean that they have a "right" to. Also, where do these "rights" even come from? If not for governments enforcing them, they are not written or shown anywhere. As far as I know, there is no evidence that humans are "owed" anything or that they are "special." For instance, who are you to decide that it is not an inalienable right for me to take whatever I want from everyone else? Who decides what is and isn't an inalienable right? How? Maybe I'll understand if that is explained.
You can no more prove that inalienable rights exist than you can prove any other philosophical assertion.
Then stating it as a fact is a bit much, is it not?
That is in your opinion. I'm not happy with all of the Supreme Court decisions over the years, but in practical terms, the Supreme Court does define that which is and is not constitutional.
Essentially, yes. Technically, no. That is not how we define "constitutional" or "unconstitutional."
You said: "Whether or not it's a "problem" and whether or not it justifies their actions is up to the individual person to decide."
Understood as: It's not OK for someone to butt into your relationships and decide what is or is not acceptable for you.
I didn't make it clear whether or not I thought it was "okay." I merely said that it is a subjective matter.
You said: "And I'm the same way (unless the 'abuse' is physical) because I'm someone who just doesn't care about the 'offensive' words or beliefs of others. Though I don't know if the same applies to these 'larger groups.'"
Understood as: It's OK for you to butt in and decide for someone else what relationships are or are not acceptable.
Again, I said that it was a subjective matter. But this time, I said that if someone was being 'abused' with words, then I do not really care.
Are you implying that my goals or the means to them are strictly for my own benefit or a detriment to the rest of society?
No. I implied that forcing your beliefs upon others is something that happens on a daily basis. It is something that is difficult to avoid doing (unless everyone believed the exact same thing).
And, playing dumb AKA pretending not to understand
I didn't understand what you meant by "scars."