User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 42

  1. #31
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    And what "bullshit" is this? You're a little vague here.

    Again, if "hate speech" is coming up as something some people want to implement, they're trying to meet a need.

    What's the need... and what might be better solutions (in your view) of how to meet it?

    Apparently no one can agree on what the original intent of the constitution was, because we all still argue about. This is starting to remind me of Biblical scholarship, where everyone claims to have ownership of the text but the basic fact is that even the guys who wrote the document might have had varied views of what the document meant. Is "constitutionality" dependent on who can leverage the most power?
    I was referring to "hate crimes" legislation and enforcement, not Obama's "gay agenda" as such. I do not need to personally come up with an alternate means of addressing some societal need in order to oppose specific laws or public policies-though it deserves mentioning that I might be more predisposed to take the time to think up some alternative means of addressing societal needs if I was not forced to spend my time and mental energy opposing some specific means as a first priority.

    As for the rest, originalists (either in terms of intent or meaning) do not believe that such a standard would lead to unaminity; what it would do is limit the parameters of Constitutional interpretation, thereby limiting the extent to which Jurists can abuse their power through arbitrary judgements.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    I'll reiterate. Can't be overstated.

    When you define crime as something other than breaking the rules, and make it about a reason, you detract from the importance of the difference between civil and uncivil conduct in general. It gives those of weak mind and prone to justify (Almost every criminal in existence) yet more reasons to excuse themselves for their actions.
    This logic is hard to refute, but harder to make it work for the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    All things equal, I think it makes it more likely for pre-existing laws to be broken after hate-crime legislation is passed (Or even mentioned).
    So you think subcategorizing crime to identify hate-crime is the opposite of a successful deterrent.

    If, meaning hypothetically, your government were to solicit the input of its civilians, would you have an alternative solution?
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  3. #33
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Split from Obama's Ghei Agenda.

  4. #34
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I was referring to "hate crimes" legislation and enforcement, not Obama's "gay agenda" as such. I do not need to personally come up with an alternate means of addressing some societal need in order to oppose specific laws or public policies-though it deserves mentioning that I might be more predisposed to take the time to think up some alternative means of addressing societal needs if I was not forced to spend my time and mental energy opposing some specific means as a first priority.
    So what I got out of that is that (1) you're fine with criticizing without having any real desire or concern about addressing the social needs here and (2) you're so preoccupied combating so-called "hate crime legislation" IRL that you don't have the time or energy to brainstorm some viable ideas of what could actually be done.

    If I'm wrong, please correct me.

    As for the rest, originalists (either in terms of intent or meaning) do not believe that such a standard would lead to unaminity; what it would do is limit the parameters of Constitutional interpretation, thereby limiting the extent to which Jurists can abuse their power through arbitrary judgements.
    And who decides what limiting the parameters of Constitutional interpretation entails? Do we have any external standard that can rationally be appealed to in order to legitimize one particular view over another? I'm honestly interested in hearing what a viable foundation would be.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #35
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Apparently no one can agree on what the original intent of the constitution was, because we all still argue about. This is starting to remind me of Biblical scholarship, where everyone claims to have ownership of the text but the basic fact is that even the guys who wrote the document might have had varied views of what the document meant. Is "constitutionality" dependent on who can leverage the most power?
    I view the Constitution as a contract between states. The intent of the founding fathers, as individuals, is irrelevant since they were not the ratifiers. Constitutionality should be based on the official interpretation of the states at the time they signed, which was made public. If people want to change the contract, then amend the contract or draw up a new contract and get everyone to sign it. Changing the interpretation is a terrible way to go about this, especially considering the fact that the original interpretation (by the states) is known.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #36
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    So what I got out of that is that (1) you're fine with criticizing without having any real desire or concern about addressing the social needs here and (2) you're so preoccupied combating so-called "hate crime legislation" IRL that you don't have the time or energy to brainstorm some viable ideas of what could actually be done.

    If I'm wrong, please correct me.



    And who decides what limiting the parameters of Constitutional interpretation entails? Do we have any external standard that can rationally be appealed to in order to legitimize one particular view over another? I'm honestly interested in hearing what a viable foundation would be.
    I'm saying that the means, in the long-term, are more important than the ends. Without the threat of well-intentioned but illiberal laws threatening the very foundations of a free society, I would be more inclined to consider solutions to this particular social need, both as a worthy endeavor in itself and as a fun mental game. At this particular moment in time, I'm concerned about something I consider to be far more important, so its receiving the bulk of my attention. Similarly, if someone was proposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning, my immediate motivation would be to oppose that rather than come up with ways to discourage and stigmatize such hateful behavior through alternative methods-the latter can wait, while the former is an immediate and long-term threat to everything I value.

    As for Constitutional parameters, there are several factors; A.) justifying constitutional interpretations according to pre-established and verifiable (albeit inherently disputable) criteria simply leaves less opportunity for judges to inject their own preferences into the law (by essentially appealing to whatever a temporary majority of people view pragmatically as a "good idea" in light of contemporary circumstances) B.) Jurist who abide by an originalists criteria mentally habituate themselves to abide by that criteria C.) It creates public expectations of what a jurists should do, creating ready opposition to balatantly arbitrary judgements. I'll try to refine my points later, I have to go now.

  7. #37
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    So what I got out of that is that (1) you're fine with criticizing without having any real desire or concern about addressing the social needs here and (2) you're so preoccupied combating so-called "hate crime legislation" IRL that you don't have the time or energy to brainstorm some viable ideas of what could actually be done.
    Jennifer, what societal needs are you talking about? I am assuming you're talking about combating bigotry - racism, homophobia, sexism? (if I'm assuming wrong, let me know)?

    My problem with legislating racist/homophobic/sexist motivations is it's too close to the 'thought police'. Free speech means ALL speech, even the offensive and repugnant. I oppose all legislation that makes a particular belief illegal, or liable to lead to different sentencing/punishment.

    Do I think racism etc. are fabulous? No, not at all. I think racists are dicks. But they're free to be dicks, as long as they don't break any laws regarding physical assault, employment discrimination (eg. not hiring someone because of their race) etc.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  8. #38
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I view the Constitution as a contract between states. The intent of the founding fathers, as individuals, is irrelevant since they were not the ratifiers.
    Thank you, that's an important clarification.

    Constitutionality should be based on the official interpretation of the states at the time they signed, which was made public.
    How was that made public? (I don't know about any of this, so information or references are good so that I can learn it / look it up.)

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    ...Without the threat of well-intentioned but illiberal laws threatening the very foundations of a free society, I would be more inclined to consider solutions to this particular social need, both as a worthy endeavor in itself and as a fun mental game. At this particular moment in time, I'm concerned about something I consider to be far more important, so its receiving the bulk of my attention. Similarly, if someone was proposing a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning, my immediate motivation would be to oppose that rather than come up with ways to discourage and stigmatize such hateful behavior through alternative methods....
    All right, I can see that -- although for some reason "flag-burning" seems far more abstracted and impersonal to me than the notion of protecting citizens directly. I'm not sure it's quite the same, but that's probably irrelevant to your point.

    I'll try to refine my points later, I have to go now.
    No rush; but thank you, I appreciate the clarifications (since they can be engaged) and others probably do as well.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #39

    Default

    I don't like hate crime legislation at all. In addition to the concerns about motivation (which is impossible to determine for sure without a confession), I don't like that it makes the same offense a greater crime depending whom it is visited upon. Hate crime statutes send the message that the loss of one citizen is a greater wrong than the similar loss of another.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  10. #40
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    How was that made public? (I don't know about any of this, so information or references are good so that I can learn it / look it up.)
    I'll post links when I have a chance to find them. It's been a while since I've looked into this, so I'll have to do some digging.

    Thank you, that's an important clarification.
    Then you can probably deduce that I believe states should be able to secede.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. [E7] The Wisdom of the Enneagram Seven
    By Starry in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 717
    Last Post: 07-27-2017, 04:16 PM
  2. Video: Carl Jung - The Wisdom of the Dream - A Life of Dreams Part 1 of 3
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-26-2014, 01:03 AM
  3. [Enneagram] The Wisdom of the Enneagram (Riso and Hudson)
    By highlander in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-18-2014, 09:11 AM
  4. The Wisdom Of Foolishness
    By highlander in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-15-2010, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO