Tube Amps / Music Electronics
|For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.||New: view Recent Searches.
New: visit Schematic Hell!
The sunn still shines online!
|Listen to great tunes streaming live right now!|
|12/20/2003 11:31 PM|
|anony-midget||Re: Spot the hidden conservatives in the picture|
Why exactly are people *entitled* to everything that appeals to their baser natures and indulgent side?
As the Constitution of the United States clearly states it:
BECAUSE THESE TRUTHS ARE SELF EVIDENT!
That's why. No further justification needed.
|12/22/2003 1:53 PM|
So, uh, your constitution proposes that child pornography is an inalienable "right"? That people should be able to have as much heroin as they want and give it to who they want? I don't think so, and neither does your Supreme Court. What was "self-evident" in the 18th century was self-evident from within the lens of a Christian-dominated largely agrarian culture where access to what we take for granted now was so strictly socially-controlled through informal means that they were non-issues and so not really worthy of mention in constitutions. They just had the advantage of not having to contend with it because the glare and shunning of one's community and church took ample care of it. It would have been a bit like legislating the change of seasons.
Some things DO remain inalienable and self-evident in an enduring way across history, like the right to personal safety and not to be tortured or persecuted. There is a whole lot of BS, however, that falls under the rubric of free speech and other "inalienable rights" that is simply exploited for the profit of those without conscience or a sense of social connectedness. I don't think that's what your founding fathers had in mind. Hell, in today's world they'd probably be stronger advocates of censorship and social control than I could ever imagine being.
The "self-evident truths" of constitutions are a bit like saying "Make yourself at home" to visitors. What you *mean* is "Don't feel like you need to formally clear all reasonable requests with me". What you *don't* mean is "Leave your skidmarked underwear, used condoms, and stinky socks anywhere you bloody well feel like it, and feel free to drink from the milk container and put back emptys in the fridge". Constitutions provide ideals which frame the sorts of compromises that will inevitably have to be made, and are not intended to be carte blanche. Certainly Supreme Courts need to be there because the compromises are difficult to weave in a socially cohesive way.
So, in contrast to your simplistic jerrymandering, I think some further justification IS needed. Flag-waving, of any kind, does not impress me.
|Book Of The Day||
The Ultimate Tone, Volume III by Kevin O'Connor
Note: The Ampage Archive is an Amazon Associate site. A small commission is paid to the site owner on any qualified purchase made after clicking an associate link such as the one above.
|12/23/2003 7:14 PM|
"What was "self-evident" in the 18th century was self-evident from within the lens of a Christian-dominated largely agrarian culture where access to what we take for granted now was so strictly socially-controlled through informal means that they were non-issues and so not really worthy of mention in constitutions."
So we were all better off when the Christians were running things?
|12/23/2003 7:40 PM|
Use your wayback machine and tell me.....on the OT/BS forum.
|12/19/2003 9:07 PM|
|anony-midget||Re: "Iraqi Involvement"?!|
And you said:
"it is foolish and condescending of me to dismiss you as "conservative"
Call me a conservative as much as you like. To me it would be a compliment.
And why all the fuss about being labeled a liberal? You are in good company. Some liberals of our day would include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, The Kennedy Boys, and perhaps even George Bush.
|<<First Page||<Prev||Page 6 of 6|