It has been debated endlessly whether the constitution should be read literally, contemporaneously, in reference to ____. Really, it was a fairly well put together document. Solid effort, gold stars all around. But, given its quality, the constitution has been difficult to pull away from.
If you’ve ever seen what a group of kids spontaneously untethered by the rules of a game decide to do, it might offer some perspective on the coming years
It has been debated endlessly whether the constitution should be read literally, contemporaneously, in reference to ____.
Here's an easy flowchart for that:
Does the literal reading support the dismantlement of democracy and/or the implementation of a theocratic state? If yes, then it should be read literally. Otherwise no.
This. Simple as. It’s a common bad-faith debating technique called ‘saying whatever random-ass thing makes the stupid people listening think I am right’.
I realize the sarcasm, but this was a major point of contention for decades after the passing of the founding fathers, even without power grabs. Technically, every political move is a power grab, but still. There was previously more sincerity to the line of thought
Because they view the morals America was founded on as fair and just with a few tweaks. People on one side think the white supremacy is a betrayal of the promise of equality, while others see it as based. American values can then be celebrated by both without them meaning the same thing. At the end of the day, promises of human rights and genocidal bigotry made America what it is, and so long as America is America, they always will.
I personally don't give a shit what people 200+ years ago thought, nor do I care for dogma of today.
Why stop there? I bet Australopethecus Anamensis wasn't supportive of trans rights as well as other modern things like having teeth beyond your 26th birthday.
In 1950, evolutionary biologist Ernst Walter Mayr said that all bipedal apes should be classified into the genus Homo, and considered renaming Australopithecus to Homo transvaalensis.[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
If anyone needs evidence of the above, read his Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress, a letter he wrote to a non-specific younger man advising him on all the ways that an older mistress was superior to a young one. It's written in a humorous style, but also feels like he means every word.
I think i thought about it twice since, so i gotta work on remembering it. Especially since my body expresses primarily toward [eldritch/bewilder(-ing/-ed)] rather than any gender.
just because the legal system and framework needs an overhaul isn't a reason to throw out the entire thing. for example, Thomas Jefferson would have been a chaser too.
28 Comments
magic_lobster_party@fedia.io · 81 pts · 309d
Why do we need support from people who died 250 years ago? Or 2000 years ago for that matter.
Gullible@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 309d
It has been debated endlessly whether the constitution should be read literally, contemporaneously, in reference to ____. Really, it was a fairly well put together document. Solid effort, gold stars all around. But, given its quality, the constitution has been difficult to pull away from.
If you’ve ever seen what a group of kids spontaneously untethered by the rules of a game decide to do, it might offer some perspective on the coming years
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 16 pts · 309d
I dunno, I'd dock a star for the 3/5ths bit
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 309d
That wasn't until many years later.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 309d
The 3/5ths Compromise was made just months before the Constitution was written, in 1787.
ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 309d
Not true. It was written into the constitution as ratified in 1789.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 309d
Here's an easy flowchart for that:
Does the literal reading support the dismantlement of democracy and/or the implementation of a theocratic state? If yes, then it should be read literally. Otherwise no.
porksnort@slrpnk.net · 10 pts · 309d
This. Simple as. It’s a common bad-faith debating technique called ‘saying whatever random-ass thing makes the stupid people listening think I am right’.
Gullible@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 309d
I realize the sarcasm, but this was a major point of contention for decades after the passing of the founding fathers, even without power grabs. Technically, every political move is a power grab, but still. There was previously more sincerity to the line of thought
yakko@feddit.uk · 18 pts · 309d
For the logical fallacies that are inherent to their message? I dunno
blaze@programming.dev · 17 pts · 309d
For the record Joan of Arc is fully supportive.
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 309d
Because they view the morals America was founded on as fair and just with a few tweaks. People on one side think the white supremacy is a betrayal of the promise of equality, while others see it as based. American values can then be celebrated by both without them meaning the same thing. At the end of the day, promises of human rights and genocidal bigotry made America what it is, and so long as America is America, they always will.
I personally don't give a shit what people 200+ years ago thought, nor do I care for dogma of today.
marcela@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 307d
Why stop there? I bet Australopethecus Anamensis wasn't supportive of trans rights as well as other modern things like having teeth beyond your 26th birthday.
marcela@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 307d
I stand corrected!
Mind = blown
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 67 pts · 309d
"none of the founders would have supported trans"
they all owned literal slaves so i dont really give a fuck what they think
GeneralStrikeNow@piefed.social · 31 pts · 309d
What? No they didn't. Like half of them did, though.
Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 35 pts · 309d
Didn't Benjamin Franklin have a thing for GILFs?
Mandarbmax@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 309d
Famously there are no mountain lions in not just Philadelphia but the entire state of Pennsylvania! https://extension.psu.edu/cougars-are-not-in-pennsylvania
Because Ben Franklin hunted every cougar in the state.
Ya, the dude loved older women.
EpeeGnome@feddit.online · 12 pts · 309d
If anyone needs evidence of the above, read his Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress, a letter he wrote to a non-specific younger man advising him on all the ways that an older mistress was superior to a young one. It's written in a humorous style, but also feels like he means every word.
brown567@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 309d
What's a chaser?
Kellenved@sh.itjust.works · 34 pts · 309d
Someone who pursues trans women out of a fetish not genuine desire to connect emotionally
WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com · 26 pts · 309d
Basically people who see trans people irl and think we're a porn category.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social · 15 pts · 309d
Everyone's a porn category in some way ♥️
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 309d
yeah but i didn't sign up to be a lovecraftian whorer.
hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 306d
Imma steal that line for sure
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 305d
I think i thought about it twice since, so i gotta work on remembering it. Especially since my body expresses primarily toward [eldritch/bewilder(-ing/-ed)] rather than any gender.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 309d
just because the legal system and framework needs an overhaul isn't a reason to throw out the entire thing. for example, Thomas Jefferson would have been a chaser too.
spookz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 297d
Mallow@mastodon.world · 2 pts · 297d
spookz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 297d
TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 297d
No I don't. I've never watched jerma, just absorbed memes about him through cultural osmosis.
spookz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 297d
Mallow@mastodon.world · 2 pts · 297d
spookz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 297d
Mallow@mastodon.world · 1 pts · 296d