4 ms·

The reason why you don't see people try to quarter troops is because of the 3rd amendment. You can't say it doesn't apply to today's society. The reason why t

by lmickh 14y ago

The reason why you don't see people try to quarter troops is because of the 3rd amendment. You can't say it doesn't apply to today's society. The reason why today's society adapted to its current form is because it was agreed that it was a very important issue. How is society supposed to self-improve if we dismiss the way we iterate on it? Try practicing the first amendment without the third. It won't go so well for you. While I accept the argument that some liberties conflict, some also rely on each other. Most all of the first ten amendments are interdependent. The system as a whole is what brings the stability and net-benefit. Not cherry picking which ones we feel apply the most to the day at hand. You can argue that freedom of speech is important all you like, but it doesn't mean that it stands on its own without others.

jonnathanson 14y ago
"The system as a whole is what brings the stability and net-benefit. Not cherry picking which ones we feel apply the most to the day at hand. You can argue that freedom of speech is important all you like, but it doesn't mean that it stands on its own without others." You're misreading me. I'm not arguing for cherrypicking some and dismissing others. I'm arguing that they have different weights. The first amendment is more important than the third, even if they are interdependent. I'm not saying we throw out the third because of that. [By the same token, I should emphasize that I have not even stated my opinion on the second amendment, let alone called for its revocation.] I'm simply responding to the author's assertion that all the amendments are equal, therefore, we don't have the moral or intellectual right to accept one without accepting all. That's reductive and fallacious logic.
- lmickh 14y ago
  I guess if I had to restate my point it would be this: We can't determine the equality or value of the Bill of Rights liberties because they are interdependent and it many cases an "apples and oranges" comparison. You can only derive their value as a whole. Now that said, I do agree that the original post is fallacious. I don't believe it is a take or leave it scenario because as you pointed out, we can rewrite the code to better solve the issues at hand. It was my bad for overstating the idea of dismissing specific amendments. I did not misread you. I was trying to make the point that highlighting one amendment over another doesn't do you any good. If the first relies on the third, then how can one be more important? Lack of equality does not equal importance.

by lmickh 14y ago

jonnathanson 14y ago

"The system as a whole is what brings the stability and net-benefit. Not cherry picking which ones we feel apply the most to the day at hand. You can argue that freedom of speech is important all you like, but it doesn't mean that it stands on its own without others." You're misreading me. I'm not arguing for cherrypicking some and dismissing others. I'm arguing that they have different weights. The first amendment is more important than the third, even if they are interdependent. I'm not saying we throw out the third because of that. [By the same token, I should emphasize that I have not even stated my opinion on the second amendment, let alone called for its revocation.] I'm simply responding to the author's assertion that all the amendments are equal, therefore, we don't have the moral or intellectual right to accept one without accepting all. That's reductive and fallacious logic.

lmickh 14y ago
I guess if I had to restate my point it would be this: We can't determine the equality or value of the Bill of Rights liberties because they are interdependent and it many cases an "apples and oranges" comparison. You can only derive their value as a whole. Now that said, I do agree that the original post is fallacious. I don't believe it is a take or leave it scenario because as you pointed out, we can rewrite the code to better solve the issues at hand. It was my bad for overstating the idea of dismissing specific amendments. I did not misread you. I was trying to make the point that highlighting one amendment over another doesn't do you any good. If the first relies on the third, then how can one be more important? Lack of equality does not equal importance.