5 ms·

I have a more authoritative body of text that I believe everyone should remind themselves of (yourself especially): > Congress shall make no law respecting an

I have a more authoritative body of text that I believe everyone should remind themselves of (yourself especially): > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No emergency, situation, or "externality" will ever supersede this body of text as it is currently written. That is not a bug. That's a feature. A feature namely to prevent people like you from grabbing power and constricting rights when challenges inevitably arise.

ryan_j_naughton 6y ago
> a more authoritative body of text. Thanks for your appeal to authority, but such logical fallacies are not an answer to my points. And constitutional originalism is a terrible philosophy. We have learned so much since our founding fathers wrote that document, but I'll quote the author of the bill of rights for just how ludicrous it is: "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." The concept of externalities is A fundamental part of an understanding of rights in modern philosophy and the social sciences. A direct response to it as opposed to a quoted dismissal would be appreciated. Additionally, the supreme court has held in many cases that the right to free speech is not absolute. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not allowed. Libel is not allowed. In both cases because of the harms to others and the lack of any positive value of said speech. You quoted a text pretending like you are standing on some solid ground of an absolute and inviolable philosophy yet even the conservative supreme court chef justice recognizes limits of these rights as shown through Justice Roberts siding with limiting the rights of religious organizations to gather during the pandemic so long as those rights are not limited more than the rights of comparable secular organizations.
- chokeartist 6y ago
  Predictable wall of text. Nothing you said changes my opinion. People like you come and go all the time with claims that "it is different" or "it is nuanced". It never is.

ryan_j_naughton 6y ago

> a more authoritative body of text. Thanks for your appeal to authority, but such logical fallacies are not an answer to my points. And constitutional originalism is a terrible philosophy. We have learned so much since our founding fathers wrote that document, but I'll quote the author of the bill of rights for just how ludicrous it is: "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." The concept of externalities is A fundamental part of an understanding of rights in modern philosophy and the social sciences. A direct response to it as opposed to a quoted dismissal would be appreciated. Additionally, the supreme court has held in many cases that the right to free speech is not absolute. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not allowed. Libel is not allowed. In both cases because of the harms to others and the lack of any positive value of said speech. You quoted a text pretending like you are standing on some solid ground of an absolute and inviolable philosophy yet even the conservative supreme court chef justice recognizes limits of these rights as shown through Justice Roberts siding with limiting the rights of religious organizations to gather during the pandemic so long as those rights are not limited more than the rights of comparable secular organizations.

chokeartist 6y ago
Predictable wall of text. Nothing you said changes my opinion. People like you come and go all the time with claims that "it is different" or "it is nuanced". It never is.