17 ms·
You failed at understanding the author.
by mpalczewski 4y ago
You failed at understanding the author.
- whatshisface 4y agoI don't think factual inaccuracies should get a free pass under the principle of assuming good faith, because the principle of assuming good faith only applies to how ambiguous claims should be construed. There is no way to construe "the constitution does not mention privacy" as a correct statement.
- SilasX 4y agoYes, as "the constitution does not explicitly mention privacy" or "... does not mention privacy by that term."
- whatshisface 4y ago"The constitution does not use the word privacy, although it does directly protect it," is not a reasonable interpretation in context.
- SilasX 4y ago“The constitution does not explicitly use the term privacy but does refer to related concepts from which one can infer some logic about what kinds of privacy are protected vs not” is a reasonable interpretation in context … and coincidentally, exactly what the author is arguing, once you get beyond the quoted part. I think this whole subthread is being too hard on a snippet.
- rat9988 4y agoOp is saying there is no factual inaccuracy though. And I agree with him.
- Jiro 4y agoIt doesn't say the exact word "privacy" or "abortion", but what it does say is a lot closer to privacy than to abortion.
- suture 4y agoThe five axioms of Euclidean geometry don’t mention triangles and yet they are a big part of geometry. The five axioms of Euclidean geometry give rise to a vast collection of consequences. The U.S. Constitution is considerably more complex than the 5 axioms of geometry so one should not be surprised that concepts will arise as logical consequences that are not specifically mentioned in the document. This is especially so since the Constitution was not written with mathematical precision.