3 ms·

Due process is a valuable principle yes -- but it is a gap in your argument to say that since the constitution specifies citizens' rights to it under the most e

Due process is a valuable principle yes -- but it is a gap in your argument to say that since the constitution specifies citizens' rights to it under the most exigent circumstance, namely, when facing criminal penalty by the government, that it follows it needs to be applied and provided with the same universality and standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) in non-criminal contexts.

stale2002 4y ago
> to say that since the constitution I am not saying that because it is in the constitution, it is valuable. Instead, I am saying that the principle is valuable, and that this is why we put it in the constitution. And that this idea of "don't put soldiers in my home without my permission", and "due process", and "free speech" are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. And that therefore, people saying "well, its a private company doing it, therefore its OK" are wrong. They are wrong, because these ideas "are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. " The causation is reversed. We put them in the constitution, because they matter. Therefore, because these things matter, they matter outside of just the government. > Due process is a valuable principle yes Ok, you agree with me completely then, got it. > what does the 3rd amendment have to do with anything Because it is an example of something that matters, that thing being "don't put soldiers in my home, without my permission" And this thing matters, both in the case of a private company, and the government doing it, even though the amendment only applies to the government. It shows an example of this reverse causation. Where yes, the amendment only applies to the government. But the underlying principle also matters. Therefore "Lol, its a private company" is a dumb argument.
- chowchowchow 4y ago
  Your argument demonstrates absolutely no awareness of context and how a principle can be more important, or one might even say urgent to the point of needing to be spelled out in the constitution, in some contexts than others.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    Edit: :( Bad faith arguments make me sad
    - chowchowchow 4y ago
      So it is a gap in your argument as stated then. Like, you need to do some work to explain why principles which are important in extreme circumstances, dealing with the use of force by and punishment power of the government, apply in less extreme ones like workplace disputes. You don't get to just point at the constitution and go "a ha!" and have everyone applaud your brilliant argumentation.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        Edit: deleting comment due to the worthlessness of dealing with someone who is intentionally engaging in bad faith. I can't argue against intentional misphrasings.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        chowchowchow 4y ago
        You refuse to outline what you mean by due process, and only point to the constitution. Just name a standard, man. "Any concept of due process" is meaningless if the only reference you're able to produce is the constitution. Is that the problem? You can only reference the constitution because it's the only example you're familiar with?
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > But, I think it is self evidently clear, to most people, that the principle of due process is something that matters outside of just this singular extreme circumstance of the government sending people to jail. Yes, that’s why, e.g., the Constitution requires due process from government generally (see Amendments 5 and 14), not just in the criminal sphere. But the 6th Amendment confrontation clause right is not the same thing as due process.

stale2002 4y ago

> to say that since the constitution I am not saying that because it is in the constitution, it is valuable. Instead, I am saying that the principle is valuable, and that this is why we put it in the constitution. And that this idea of "don't put soldiers in my home without my permission", and "due process", and "free speech" are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. And that therefore, people saying "well, its a private company doing it, therefore its OK" are wrong. They are wrong, because these ideas "are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. " The causation is reversed. We put them in the constitution, because they matter. Therefore, because these things matter, they matter outside of just the government. > Due process is a valuable principle yes Ok, you agree with me completely then, got it. > what does the 3rd amendment have to do with anything Because it is an example of something that matters, that thing being "don't put soldiers in my home, without my permission" And this thing matters, both in the case of a private company, and the government doing it, even though the amendment only applies to the government. It shows an example of this reverse causation. Where yes, the amendment only applies to the government. But the underlying principle also matters. Therefore "Lol, its a private company" is a dumb argument.

chowchowchow 4y ago
Your argument demonstrates absolutely no awareness of context and how a principle can be more important, or one might even say urgent to the point of needing to be spelled out in the constitution, in some contexts than others.
- stale2002 4y ago
  Edit: :( Bad faith arguments make me sad
  - chowchowchow 4y ago
    So it is a gap in your argument as stated then. Like, you need to do some work to explain why principles which are important in extreme circumstances, dealing with the use of force by and punishment power of the government, apply in less extreme ones like workplace disputes. You don't get to just point at the constitution and go "a ha!" and have everyone applaud your brilliant argumentation.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      Edit: deleting comment due to the worthlessness of dealing with someone who is intentionally engaging in bad faith. I can't argue against intentional misphrasings.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - chowchowchow 4y ago
        You refuse to outline what you mean by due process, and only point to the constitution. Just name a standard, man. "Any concept of due process" is meaningless if the only reference you're able to produce is the constitution. Is that the problem? You can only reference the constitution because it's the only example you're familiar with?
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > But, I think it is self evidently clear, to most people, that the principle of due process is something that matters outside of just this singular extreme circumstance of the government sending people to jail. Yes, that’s why, e.g., the Constitution requires due process from government generally (see Amendments 5 and 14), not just in the criminal sphere. But the 6th Amendment confrontation clause right is not the same thing as due process.