3 ms·

This is just silly. The Supreme Court realized the extremely obvious right to privacy in the Constitution. That was an inconvenience for the current hacks that

This is just silly. The Supreme Court realized the extremely obvious right to privacy in the Constitution. That was an inconvenience for the current hacks that stumbled onto the Court. It's unfortunate that this is now being undone by pigeons shitting on the legal chessboard, but on the bright side, we now have an opportunity to even more firmly rebuke regressives.

smsm42 4y ago
> The Supreme Court realized the extremely obvious right to privacy in the Constitution. There's no "extremely obvious" right to privacy in the Constitution. If there were, the concept of "penumbras" would not be necessary to support it. That is not a problem for a proponent of natural rights - to whom it is clear that the Constitution can not and should not enumerate all the rights - but for positivists it indeed presents a problem that needs quite a lot of artful work to resolve. Treating all that work as "extremely obvious" is not only silly but also not conductive to the good faith discussion - if you declare anybody who disagrees with you, including accomplished legal scholars, are idiots ipso facto, then there could not be any real discussion about anything. > we now have an opportunity to even more firmly rebuke regressives. If you goal is to hurt the other tribe, don't be surprised when the other tribe hurts you back. You sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind. If you want more pain, you will get more pain. That will continue until people realize there's value in finding reasonable consensus and hurting the outgroup is not a worthy goal in itself.
- gaganyaan 4y ago
  This isn't about hurting the other tribe, it's shooing the pigeons away from the chessboard so they stop shitting on it.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    Note how you see yourself and you allies as human chess players, and your arguments as thoughtful chess moves, but your opponents as mindless pigeons and their arguments as "shitting" and in need to be excluded from consideration entirely. Do you think with this approach, when they gain power - and they will gain power from time to time, unless you plan to do away with democracy and somehow find a way to install an immortal Democrat God-Emperor - would they be inclined to consider any of your interests in any way? Would they be inclined to seek a reasonable compromise with you?

smsm42 4y ago

> The Supreme Court realized the extremely obvious right to privacy in the Constitution. There's no "extremely obvious" right to privacy in the Constitution. If there were, the concept of "penumbras" would not be necessary to support it. That is not a problem for a proponent of natural rights - to whom it is clear that the Constitution can not and should not enumerate all the rights - but for positivists it indeed presents a problem that needs quite a lot of artful work to resolve. Treating all that work as "extremely obvious" is not only silly but also not conductive to the good faith discussion - if you declare anybody who disagrees with you, including accomplished legal scholars, are idiots ipso facto, then there could not be any real discussion about anything. > we now have an opportunity to even more firmly rebuke regressives. If you goal is to hurt the other tribe, don't be surprised when the other tribe hurts you back. You sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind. If you want more pain, you will get more pain. That will continue until people realize there's value in finding reasonable consensus and hurting the outgroup is not a worthy goal in itself.

gaganyaan 4y ago
This isn't about hurting the other tribe, it's shooing the pigeons away from the chessboard so they stop shitting on it.
- smsm42 4y ago
  Note how you see yourself and you allies as human chess players, and your arguments as thoughtful chess moves, but your opponents as mindless pigeons and their arguments as "shitting" and in need to be excluded from consideration entirely. Do you think with this approach, when they gain power - and they will gain power from time to time, unless you plan to do away with democracy and somehow find a way to install an immortal Democrat God-Emperor - would they be inclined to consider any of your interests in any way? Would they be inclined to seek a reasonable compromise with you?