2 ms·

May I ask where you received your education pertaining to the Constitution? And just to be certain (as I am currently assuming you are), are you an American?

• nmrm2 11y ago
  > are you an American? Yes. > May I ask where you received your education pertaining to the Constitution? From a constitutional law course taught by a professor with a JD from Harvard. Again, rights of a minority are individual rights. But it's disingeneous to say that the constitution PROTECTS individual rights in general. It does not. It protects a small subset of individual rights that are most relevant when someone is in a political/racial/religious minority. Calling these rights minority rights is more accurate than calling them indvidual rights. In addition to minority rights, the consitutiton also provides a mechanism for ensuring other individual rights -- both de facto and de jure -- are protected. Most of the founding fathers considered freedom from unreasonable taxation a plausible individual right. The Constitution doesn't provide explicit protections against that; instead, it provides self-governance. Here is how I viewed this exchange: OP: 5 is a positive number. You: 5 is a number. Me. That's stupid. It's more accurate to say it's a positive number, why are you correcting OP? You: But positive numbers are numbers! Me: Yeah duh I'm done here.
  • jrs235 11y ago
    Positive number is more specific and accurate than number. I'd have agreed with you. Individual is more specific and accurate than minority. This would be more accurate: OP: The square root of a positive number is a number so the square root of a positive number times another number means it also a number. ME: The square root of a positive number is not just number, it's a positive number. OP: So what. ME: It means we can conclude even more... It means the square root of a positive number times a number is the sign of the non square root number.