Another school shooting in rural America

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 256
#241
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
If the framers of the constitution couldn't have possibly considered X at the time of it's drafting (because X didn't yet exist) then it can't possibly be up to them to determine whether the constitution applies to it.
The classic collectivist propensity to engage in "will over reason" thinking.

"It doesn't matter what is real, it matters who decides"

Diagnostic question: If the founders or those contemporary to them had claimed that "arms" included strawberry shortcakes and actively infectious small pox samples does that mean that must be true? If the answer is "no" then it seems that it's not up to them to determine whether the constitution applies even when they did consider X at the time of drafting.

i.e. it's never up to them.

It's not up to you either. Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning. That doesn't imply that the objective meaning is defined as the whims of a judge, nor could it be implied given the definition of "objective".

It is determined by the meaning of those words when they were written. That is related to intent by virtue of both being determined by the context of the debates during drafting but disconnected in that the meaning persists despite the hypothetical confessions of differing intent. e.g. if Benjamin Franklin was preserved in stasis and when he woke up started to insist that the 5th amendment guaranteed the right to steal everyone's left shoe, that would not matter.


Therefore, it is up to those of us living people to figure out to the best of our abilities, using logic and reason, whether it applies.
Agreed


Note that this is very different from "the words on that piece of paper say so if you interpret every word literally and without that context, therefore we're stuck with whatever the framers didn't think about".
The context relevant to meaning is found in the debates and the meaning of the words at the time.

You not liking the consequences in the modern setting does not change the meaning.


Also notice that this is very different from "if X didn't exist at the time the constitution was drafted then X is automatically, without any thought or reason, excluded".
You still have not provided an explanation as to the relevance of:

"Still didn't exist and therefore could not have possibly been considered at the time they wrote the 2nd amendment."

Your attempted explanation that it is relevant because "that means it's up to us to use reason to understand" has failed (see above).
#242
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Diagnostic question: If the founders or those contemporary to them had claimed that "arms" included strawberry shortcakes and actively infectious small pox samples does that mean that must be true?
Yes, if that was clearly the legislative intent then that's what it would mean. Why they would include something so ridiculous is another question.

It's not up to you either. Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning. That doesn't imply that the objective meaning is defined as the whims of a judge, nor could it be implied given the definition of "objective".
Do you believe there is such thing as a reasonable disagreement?

Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning. 
That by definition means it's up to them.

Or do you believe objective meanings have magical powers that enforce themselves?
#243
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Diagnostic question: If the founders or those contemporary to them had claimed that "arms" included strawberry shortcakes and actively infectious small pox samples does that mean that must be true?
Yes, if that was clearly the legislative intent then that's what it would mean. Why they would include something so ridiculous is another question.
The only way that would be clear is if they explicitly stated that they were no longer using the English language. Whether they did this before, during, or after ratification that would render the so called law null and void. It's a social contract and nobody is bound to obey nor can they consent to a contract whose meaning is not found in the words but in the supposed intent of the insane or deceptive.

In other words, write what you mean because what you write is what binds; not what you meant.


It's not up to you either. Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning. That doesn't imply that the objective meaning is defined as the whims of a judge, nor could it be implied given the definition of "objective".
Do you believe there is such thing as a reasonable disagreement?
Of course. Incomplete evidence, incomplete inference, and inductive inference are all sources of uncertainty. Within the bulk of the bell curve of uncertainty disagreement can be called 'reasonable'.


Nor is it up to judges, judges are just given the job of determining the objective meaning. 
That by definition means it's up to them.
That is equivocation. "up to them" in this context means "the fact is decided by their whim" not "they've been tasked with giving an answer".


Or do you believe objective meanings have magical powers that enforce themselves?
No more than I believe the equals sign has a magical ability that prevents anyone from writing unequal expressions on each side.
#244
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Or do you believe objective meanings have magical powers that enforce themselves?
No more than I believe the equals sign has a magical ability that prevents anyone from writing unequal expressions on each side.
Person 1 writes "A = B"

Person 2 writes "A =/= B"

How does a society of human beings resolve this?
#245
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Or do you believe objective meanings have magical powers that enforce themselves?
No more than I believe the equals sign has a magical ability that prevents anyone from writing unequal expressions on each side.
Person 1 writes "A = B"

Person 2 writes "A =/= B"

How does a society of human beings resolve this?
Red herring. Correction:

Person 1 writes "A = B"

Person 2 writes "Person 1 wrote A =/=B because if A = B then bad thing would happen"

Resolution: Person 2 made a compound statement:

Person 1 wrote A =/= B <- false
If A = B then bad thing would happen <- separate proposition, use logic and evidence to see if it's true. Then see see if A = B is true or false.
#246
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Red herring. Correction:
Wasn't a red herring, and no convoluted correction is needed. This is a really simple and straightforward question:

Person 1 writes "A = B"

Person 2 writes "A =/= B"

How does a society of human beings resolve this?

A represents the words written into law. B is an interpretation of how those words apply to a given situation. So how does this get resolved?
#247
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
So how does this get resolved?
Reason is the only source of truth. Debate is social reasoning. Debate is the only solution.

#248
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Debate is the only solution.
And yet debate in many if not most cases solves nothing (as our conversations have proven). So in those cases there is no solution other than to leave the decision up to a final arbitrator. And since no deity is about to come down to the heavens to fill that role, it has to be a living human being. Sucks, but that is reality no matter how inconvenient.
#249
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
A final arbiter? Enjoy the dictatorship I guess.....
#250
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Debate is the only solution.
And yet debate in many if not most cases solves nothing (as our conversations have proven).
You're assuming both parties are doing it correctly.


So in those cases there is no solution other than to leave the decision up to a final arbitrator.
If debate is a failure because it does not cause all parties to agree then so is an arbiter. If it seems that arbitration (and I'm glossing over the shades of meaning between judge and arbiter) solves problems more often that is certainly due only to the fact that arbitration is either: mutually consented to beforehand, OR the only option that doesn't make you an enemy of the state.


More fundamentally what is "a solution" supposed to mean in this sentence? A misguided parent might think anything which causes the kids to stop yelling and pointing fingers is a "solution", but children raised that way have a high chance of becoming sociopaths because they learn that they need only do something outrageous (and lie about it) to force a compromise out of their victim. This is equally if not more true in the shallow and corrupt world of rotted government or between the Karen and the world she wishes to control.

I assert that the yelling and the finger pointing is a secondary problem where the real problem is the proposition of falsehood and injustice. The only solution to falsehood is truth. The only solution to injustice is justice. In that case arbitration isn't a "solution" it's a strategy that hopefully leads to the only real solution.

Just as government is a means to an end so is arbitration and the attempt to debate. As tools they can fail (through a diversity of fault points) and when they do we (I) say they have failed which is a far cry from defining success as obedience to their outcome.
#251
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
A final arbiter? Enjoy the dictatorship I guess.....
It's a logical necessity genius. If there is no individual or entity who gets the final say then no issue would ever be legally resolved.
#252
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You're assuming both parties are doing it correctly.
No, I'm assuming both parties are comprised of human beings.

More fundamentally what is "a solution" supposed to mean in this sentence?
A mutually accepted resolution

If debate is a failure because it does not cause all parties to agree then so is an arbiter
Agreement and acceptance of the outcome are two different things. Ask Al Gore.

Just as government is a means to an end so is arbitration and the attempt to debate. As tools they can fail (through a diversity of fault points) and when they do we (I) say they have failed which is a far cry from defining success as obedience to their outcome.
That's your whole problem; you don't respect any resolution you disagree with as legitimate. There will always be disagreement within a society, that's not avoidable. If people do not accept the outcomes they disagree with we wouldn't have one.
#253
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,905
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
If there is no individual or entity who gets the final say then no issue would ever be legally resolved.
Wrong, judges accept deals all the time and don't have to make any decision. Not to mention the million ways you can settle disputes with legal contracts outside of a court.

Also, chill with the ad-homs, it makes you look more unhinged than you are.
#254
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,127
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
You're assuming both parties are doing it correctly.
No, I'm assuming both parties are comprised of human beings.
Why would the species be relevant?


More fundamentally what is "a solution" supposed to mean in this sentence?
A mutually accepted resolution
Insofar as arbitration is already a mutually accepted resolution all you have said is that mutually accepted resolutions are mutually accepted resolutions.

Now are you claiming to make a point relevant to the OP, epistemology, or the objective meaning of the bill of rights? because I'm not seeing it.


That's your whole problem; you don't respect any resolution you disagree with as legitimate.
Nobody does, if we didn't see anything wrong with the 'resolution' we would agree with it, but we're programmed by society (said like joker) to have the mildly sociopathic strategy of pretending.

The understanding of free speech in the united states is one of the few examples of near perfection in law and government policy. There is nothing that I can't disagree with and no law is permitted to force me to agree with anything. If I went to court there is no phase at which the judge will ask me to agree or be whipped. They make a decision and it doesn't matter who agrees.

That's not normal in human history, it was much more normal to focus on the surrender of convictions as the actual goal. "confess! confess!"

Now would I consent to a government with judges that occasionally get things wrong? Of course I would, but that is not consenting to accepting that what they got wrong was right and it is predicated (and this would be explicit in a well written constitution) on those errors being minimized and rare. To be worthy of consent a constitution would have to have as many safeguards as possible in all areas to prevent corruption and even then (as I said in the other thread) no document can survive an unlimited willingness to misinterpret it.

It is simply a fundamental moral fact that when you consent to A, and it turns into ~A, you didn't consent to whatever the hell it has become.


There will always be disagreement within a society, that's not avoidable.
True


If people do not accept the outcomes they disagree with we wouldn't have one.
I have no trouble accepting that people may use their liberty in ways I find less than ideal. I have no trouble accepting that people will fail to use logic. That's the only acceptance that is required for civilization to exist.

The trouble is when I am ordered to accept the fallible as the definition of truth.
The trouble is when I am ordered to accept the violation of liberty.
#255
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Wrong, judges accept deals all the time and don't have to make any decision. Not to mention the million ways you can settle disputes with legal contracts outside of a court.
You're talking about situations where both parties agree. That's entirely different. The fact that people will not always agree is why we need systems like this in the first place, that's what's being critiqued here.

Also, chill with the ad-homs, it makes you look more unhinged than you are.
Then be serious and stop strawmanning my points.
#256
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Now are you claiming to make a point relevant to the OP, epistemology, or the objective meaning of the bill of rights? because I'm not seeing it.
This is the path you took us down. We were talking about what the second amendment means and you took the position that it's meaning is objective (and of course you're the one who has it right) and therefore anyone who disagrees with the "real" meaning is objectively wrong. And then you argued that because the opposition is objectively wrong, their decisions do not need to be respected as legitimate, even if they are the judge or the person who is legally designated to make the final decision. So essentially, you're arguing that the law enforces itself through objectivity, by which you really mean that it's up to you personally to decide whether the law is followed, because your ability to understand it is better than everyone else's.

Insofar as arbitration is already a mutually accepted resolution all you have said is that mutually accepted resolutions are mutually accepted resolutions.
Arbitration isn't a resolution, it's a process.

That's your whole problem; you don't respect any resolution you disagree with as legitimate.
Nobody does
Nonsense. I just gave you an example.

You seem to think there is no distinction between respecting a determination and respecting the process by which that determination was derived. The latter is where it's legitimacy comes from. I do not respect the supreme court's immunity ruling, I think it is among the worst decisions they've ever made. I recognize it as legitimate though and if I were in a position of power I would not pretend that until it's overturned perhaps decades from now, this is the law of the land.

That's not me pretending anything, what I respect is the system and in no practical sense would any legal decision make it worth throwing the entire system overboard.

The trouble is when I am ordered to accept the fallible as the definition of truth.
This is pure fantasy, nothing remotely like that happening.