Is the US constitution carved in stone?

[Patria Antiqua]

This is an invalid, and self-servingly-narrow, defintion of 'justified'. Your argument fails.

If you cannot put forth a sound argument that illustrates how the Constitition does not qualify as "justified", under any of its relevant definitions, then your position is invalid and you are then, by your own standard, an insurrectionist.

Invalid because you say it is is not convincing, I'm afraid. I will wait patiently while you show me what warrant the Constitution has to exist.

 

[Goobieman]

Invalid because you say it is is not convincing, I'm afraid. I will wait patiently while you show me what warrant the Constitution has to exist.

This has already been done, at least two different ways.

You have yet to show how those arguments do not justify the Constition, if for no other reason that your definition of "justified" isnt valid.

And so, you're back to engaging in insurrection.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

But who requires that a law have a "logical need to exist"? Who made that the definition of "justified"?

Besides, a perfectly logical reason for a law to exist is that most people want it to.

If most people decide they want a law that says "no soup on Thursdays," that law is not justified by majority opinion. There is no logical reason why soup should be banned on Thursdays, and thus no reason for the law to exist.

Oh, and that's the definition because there can be no other. If a law is made on a whim for no substantive reason, what justification could there be? People want many things, it doesn't mean they ought to have them.

 

[Ockham]

Most of the Constitution can be found in the ancient Magna Carta, a British list of laws from the 11th century.

Jefferson or the other members really didn't originate anything. He just cherry picked from the British laws already in effect. Check it for yourself.

ricksfolly

Jefferson didn't have anything to do with writing the Constitution. And the Magna Carta bears little to no resemblance to the Constitution. (Plus, there's an awful lot of sexist and anti-Semitic stuff in it.)

Common mistake - folks can't determine the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Ricksfolly should do better at knowing the difference... :sinking:

 

[Patria Antiqua]

This has already been done, at least two different ways.

You have yet to show how those arguments do not justify the Constition, if for no other reason that your definition of "justified" isnt valid.

And so, you're back to engaging in insurrection.

The day someone explains why the vox populi gives something validation, I will perhaps admit I was mistaken. So far, all you've told me is that it's justified because it's justified because it's justified because it's justified because it's justified . . .

 

[Goobieman]

If most people decide they want a law that says "no soup on Thursdays," that law is not justified by majority opinion.

According to what relevant defintion of "justified"

There is no logical reason why soup should be banned on Thursdays, and thus no reason for the law to exist.

How is "a logical reaosn" the only valid standard in judging "justified"?

Oh, and that's the definition because there can be no other.

This is, of course, absurd - there are any number of relevant definitions of "justified", as any quick look into a dictionary will illustrate.

 

[Harshaw]

If most people decide they want a law that says "no soup on Thursdays," that law is not justified by majority opinion. There is no logical reason why soup should be banned on Thursdays, and thus no reason for the law to exist.

Just because you personally might disagree with their reasons, it doesn't mean there is no reason. Sorry.

Oh, and that's the definition because there can be no other.

Why, because you say so?

If a law is made on a whim for no substantive reason

No law is ever made without a reason of some kind, else no one would bother. That you disagree with the reason doesn't make . . . not a reason. It just means you disagree.

what justification could there be? People want many things, it doesn't mean they ought to have them.

Funny, you just got done saying that if society decides someone has a right to something, then they have a right to it.

No, it's pretty clear that you arrogate unto yourself the right decide what's justified and what's not, and that anyone who disagrees with what you yourself deem justified is engaging in "insurrection."

That's simply entirely contrary to anything resembling a free society, but you've also made it clear that it doesn't trouble you to be so.

 

[Ockham]

If most people decide they want a law that says "no soup on Thursdays," that law is not justified by majority opinion. There is no logical reason why soup should be banned on Thursdays, and thus no reason for the law to exist.

Since when do laws have to be logical. And I'm not sure what country you live in... but if people want "no soup Thursdays" bad enough, they'll elect representatives who support "no soup Thursdays" and it will pass, or there will be a referendum and public vote on "no soup Thursdays". You seem under a delusion that there's some "logic" police who intercede and quantitatively weigh laws in units called "logic". There is no such thing. Majority DOES rule.

If a law is made on a whim for no substantive reason, what justification could there be? People want many things, it doesn't mean they ought to have them.

Substanitive to whom? Justification of a majority of voters is justification enough. I'll point you to the now defunct 18th Amendment. People wanted that and they got it. Then people wanted it abolished and they got that too. See how government works?

 

[Goobieman]

The day someone explains why the vox populi gives something validation, I will perhaps admit I was mistaken

Several of the definitions of "justify" itself do just that.

That you will only "perhaps" admit that you are wrong is telling.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

According to what relevant defintion of "justified"


How is "a logical reaosn" the only valid standard in judging "justified"?


This is, of course, absurd - there are any number of relevant definitions of "justified", as any quick look into a dictionary will illustrate.

According to my definition, of course, because this whole thing started with me offering my opinion on who is and is not an insurrectionist.

Just because you personally might disagree with their reasons, it doesn't mean there is no reason. Sorry.



Why, because you say so?




No law is ever made without a reason of some kind, else no one would bother. That you disagree with the reason doesn't make . . . not a reason. It just means you disagree.




Funny, you just got done saying that if society decides someone has a right to something, then they have a right to it.

No, it's pretty clear that you arrogate unto yourself the right decide what's justified and what's not, and that anyone who disagrees with what you yourself deem justified is engaging in "insurrection."

That's simply entirely contrary to anything resembling a free society, but you've also made it clear that it doesn't trouble you to be so.

It is quite possible for people to have unjustified rights, I wouldn't say otherwise. It has nothing to do with arrogating myself any sort of authority.

The fact that some want a law to exist does not mean that it must exist.

 

[Ockham]

The day someone explains why the vox populi gives something validation, I will perhaps admit I was mistaken. So far, all you've told me is that it's justified because it's justified because it's justified because it's justified because it's justified . . .

The answer is simple: Majority rule... or if you want it in latin, major domus sceptrum

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Since when do laws have to be logical. And I'm not sure what country you live in... but if people want "no soup Thursdays" bad enough, they'll elect representatives who support "no soup Thursdays" and it will pass, or there will be a referendum and public vote on "no soup Thursdays". You seem under a delusion that there's some "logic" police who intercede and quantitatively weigh laws in units called "logic". There is no such thing. Majority DOES rule.

Substanitive to whom? Justification of a majority of voters is justification enough. I'll point you to the now defunct 18th Amendment. People wanted that and they got it. Then people wanted it abolished and they got that too. See how government works?

I agree with you that the majority often rules, with sometimes ridiculous results. Do you believe that if a majority of Americans were to vote to send homosexuals to death camps, that would be justification enough, or would there have to be a good reason in your eyes?

 

[Goobieman]

No, it's pretty clear that you arrogate unto yourself the right decide what's justified and what's not, and that anyone who disagrees with what you yourself deem justified is engaging in "insurrection."

Funny... that was the exact sentiment of my response to his claim that rights are a construct of society and that the only rights you have are those society gives you -- that this is a claim often made by those who are among the first to cry when society tries to take away a right he thinks he should have.

My, how I nailed that one.

 

[Goobieman]

According to my definition, of course

Aha.
Well then, let us know when you can create a sound argument not dependent on your own self-serving defintions of words.

 

[Harshaw]

According to my definition, of course, because this whole thing started with me offering my opinion on who is and is not an insurrectionist.


It is quite possible for people to have unjustified rights, I wouldn't say otherwise. It has nothing to do with arrogating myself any sort of authority.

Sure it does. You make yourself the arbiter of what's "justified" and what isn't.

The fact that some want a law to exist does not mean that it must exist.

Doesn't mean it must not, either.

Besides, you confuse "logic" with what you see as your own preferred ends.

"Logic" has little meaning outside being applied to an end. Logic doesn't exist for its own sake. A "logical" reason for a law to exists has everything to do with what the specific aims are for it. There IS NO "logical" aim in its own right.

You are simply deciding what you think the ideal society is and then you think only those things which are "logical" to those ends are truly "logical." But other people have different opinions as to the ideal, and anything they enact which is "logical' toward their ideal is "logical," too.

So if people simply decide that society functions better if you don't eat soup on Thursdays, then it's logical to outlaw it. Whether or not you agree with it could not be more irrelevant. You don't own logic. And your ideal is not everyone's.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Sure it does. You make yourself the arbiter of what's "justified" and what isn't.




Doesn't mean it must not, either.

Besides, you confuse "logic" with what you see as your own preferred ends.

"Logic" has little meaning outside being applied to an end. Logic doesn't exist for its own sake. A "logical" reason for a law to exists has everything to do with what the specific aims are for it. There IS NO "logical" aim in its own right.

You are simply deciding what you think the ideal society is and then you think only those things which are "logical" to those ends are truly "logical." But other people have different opinions as to the ideal, and anything they enact which is "logical' toward their ideal is "logical," too.

So if people simply decide that society functions better if you don't eat soup on Thursdays, then it's logical to outlaw it. Whether or not you agree with it could not be more irrelevant. You don't own logic. And your ideal is not everyone's.

I think I can get to the point of this fairly quickly. If a society would be improved by no soup on Thursdays, that would be a justification for the law, as it must exist for the betterment of society, which is, I think, a universal goal as well as the aim my logic.

Now, to your first sentence, of course I make myself arbiter. Who isn't the arbiter of their opinions? All I've done is express my view, so naturally I'm going to tell you what I think. Isn't that what people in this precious free society of yours do, express their view?

 

[Harshaw]

I think I can get to the point of this fairly quickly. If a society would be improved by no soup on Thursdays, that would be a justification for the law, as it must exist for the betterment of society, which is, I think, a universal goal as well as the aim my logic.

Then any law whatsoever is "justified" as long it logically serves the ends of the people who promulgate it. If you disagree, then you're an insurrectionist. You made the rules; I'm just applying them.

Thus, the Constitution is justified, because it was created to logically serve specific ends. And the fact that society continues to value those ends and to considers it an instrument toward those ends, it's justified. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Now, to your first sentence, of course I make myself arbiter. Who isn't the arbiter of their opinions?

No, you make yourself the arbiter of whether or not a law is justified, not just of your opinions.

All I've done is express my view, so naturally I'm going to tell you what I think.

No, you're not. You're declaring what is and isn't so, not as an opinion, but as a matter of universal truth.

Isn't that what people in this precious free society of yours do, express their view?

Of course they do, and I'm not stopping you from doing so, nor would I ever suggest that you should be stopped.

But you've asserted that those who merely disagree with what you consider "justified" law are "rabblerousers" and engaging in "insurrection." Under your own construct, you would not be allowed to do exactly what you're doing, because you'd be engaging in insurrection.

I didn't make you say any of this. You said it yourself.

 

[Goobieman]

I think I can get to the point of this fairly quickly. If a society would be improved by no soup on Thursdays, that would be a justification for the law, as it must exist for the betterment of society, which is, I think, a universal goal as well as the aim my logic.

All of which is meaningless, because "that which might improve society" or "the betterment of society" is nothing but a subjective standard set by you for determining what is "justified", and as such, does not in any way create a -sound- position.

And, of course, under your argument, the Constitution "might improve society" and serve for "the betterment of society", and is therefore, by your argument, justified.

If you disagree, then according to what you've said here, you're an insurrectionist

 

[Harshaw]

All of which is meaningless, because "that which might improve society" or "the betterment of society" is nothing but a subjective standard set by you for determinign what is "justified", and as such, does not in any way create a -sound- position.

And, of course, under your argument, the Constitution "might improve society" and serve for "the betterment of society", and is therefore, by your argument, justified.

If you disagree, then you're an insurrectionist

Correct. Logic simply is. It has no value judgment or preferred outcome.

 

[Goobieman]

Correct. Logic simply is. It has no value judgment or preferred outcome.

I really dont understand why people try to argue positions based on their own self-serving defintions.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

All of which is meaningless, because "that which might improve society" or "the betterment of society" is nothing but a subjective standard set by you for determining what is "justified", and as such, does not in any way create a -sound- position.

And, of course, under your argument, the Constitution "might improve society" and serve for "the betterment of society", and is therefore, by your argument, justified.

If you disagree, then according to what you've said here, you're an insurrectionist

Of course some people may think that destroying a country is improving it, and there isn't any such thing as objective standards, but I have the right to my view of what is and isn't improvement, and to advocate what is and is not justified on those grounds.

According to my politics, which are the only ones that matter when you ask for my opinion on something, the Constitution hinders us, and we would be better served with extensive redrawing of it. As it doesn't serve the society as best it can, and needs to be improved by a superior document, it is not justified in its continued existence, and I may inveigh against it at my pleasure.

Then any law whatsoever is "justified" as long it logically serves the ends of the people who promulgate it. If you disagree, then you're an insurrectionist. You made the rules; I'm just applying them.

Thus, the Constitution is justified, because it was created to logically serve specific ends. And the fact that society continues to value those ends and to considers it an instrument toward those ends, it's justified. Quod erat demonstrandum.




No, you make yourself the arbiter of whether or not a law is justified, not just of your opinions.




No, you're not. You're declaring what is and isn't so, not as an opinion, but as a matter of universal truth.




Of course they do, and I'm not stopping you from doing so, nor would I ever suggest that you should be stopped.

But you've asserted that those who merely disagree with what you consider "justified" law are "rabblerousers" and engaging in "insurrection." Under your own construct, you would not be allowed to do exactly what you're doing, because you'd be engaging in insurrection.

I didn't make you say any of this. You said it yourself.

Not quite a QED, because you haven't shown that the Constitution is necessary for society's betterment. If it was, and could be demonstrated to be so, then I would be an insurrectionist. As it stands now, I think the Constitution in its current form hinders us in too many ways to count, and is thus not justified. Even so, the fact that society values the ends it serves doesn't mean that those ends are necessarily good for the society in which it lives.

 

[Goobieman]

Of course some people may think that destroying a country is improving it, and there isn't any such thing as objective standards, but I have the right to my view of what is and isn't improvement, and to advocate what is and is not justified on those grounds.

Yes.... -we- understand that your argument is not sound.
The question is: do you?

Not quite a QED, because you haven't shown that the Constitution is necessary for society's betterment.

No.......
Your standard is that it "might improve society" or "might serve for the betterment of society". According to -your- standard, there's no need to show necessity, but simple potential for benefit, with "benefit" left as a subjective defintion determined by the person making the argument.

The constitution "might" improve society because it creates a governemt that is intended to create a more perfect union. This "might" benefit society because said more perfrct union would have justice, domestic tranquility, an effective common defense, and a framework for the promotion of the general welfare. As such, the Constitution is justified.

And thus, acccording to your your standard, in your oppositon to the Constitution, you are an insurrectionist.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Yes.... we understand that your argument is not sound. The question is: do you?


No.......
Your standard is that it "might improve society" or "might serve for the betterment of society". According to -your- standard, there's no need to show necessity, but simple potential for benefit, with "benefit" left as a subjective defintion determined by the person making the argument.

The constitution "might" improve society because it creates a governemt that is intended to create a mnore perfect union. This "might" benefit society because said more perfrct union would have justice, domestic tranquility, an effective common defense, and a framework for the promotion of the general welfare. As such, the Constitution is justified.

And thus, acccording to your your standard, in your oppositon to the Constitution, you are an insurrectionist.

Not potential, it has to be shown to be of benefit, I apologize if I mispoke on that point, but I don't believe I did.

In terms of my argument being not sound, what does that mean exactly, that you personally don't agree? That isn't very convincing.

 

[Goobieman]

Not potential, it has to be shown to be of benefit, I apologize if I mispoke on that point, but I don't believe I did.

Ah. Moving the goalposts.
Not a surprise - its what usually happens when someone knows their argument is circling the drain.

WE understand that your argument is not sound.
The question is: do you?

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Ah. Moving the goalposts.
Not a surprise - its what usually happens when someone knows their argument is circling the drain.

WE understand that your argument is not sound.
The question is: do you?

Could you quote where I set the parameter that it "may" have potential, as opposed to "needs" to? As far as I know, I've been rather clear that the benefit must be explained and demonstrated.