A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protections.

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby phoneutria » Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:00 pm

Parodites wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Ir will have escaped many what Parodites' main contribution was: to place Plato in the esoteric realm where he belongs and rip him out of political structures, where he has done more damage than can be calculated.


But then again, there are many things that have been misappropriated to the realm of the political. That is what politics is now, a game of misappropriating things to politics. Things like gay marriage or, to go back to the main point of the thread- drug use; these aren't even political discussions. They are simple personal liberties here that have been obfuscated and turned into political squabbles to distract everyone from the actual politics.


Legislating morality, my main issue with conservative parties.

It is good to see you posting again, Parodites.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:05 pm

I got sick, a cold; but those hit me harder than a flu does, as I've smoked three packs of cigarettes a day since I was 13 or 14, and I'm 30 now. And I rip the filters off before I smoke them so it's really like double that I suppose. And narcotics suppress my breathing and coughing reflex, so together it causes me to accumulate massive amounts of fluid and I am very prone to pneumonia. I'd have much preferred to be vomiting than suffocating, but it looks like I didn't die again, so I have returned.

When I was a child, I would obsess over death; every time I heard of the existence of a new disease or way of dying, I would become hypochondriacal about it for months; I'd spend hours inspecting my entire body for the slightest sign of melanoma, etc; every bump, lump, or discoloration was surely a cancerous lesion that was going to kill me. I feared to even be around second-hand smoke, worrying of cancer. At that age, about 14 or 15, I filled entire notebooks with ontological arguments for the immortality of the soul, trying to convince myself there was a way to exist beyond death. I was quite mad. But I learned to accept that I was going to die one day, and living for another year or for another 100 years makes no difference, when the only thing I want is to live forever. A year and thousand years are the same compared to eternity. So I pay no mind to my health anymore; exercise is for purely aesthetic and narcissistic reasons, as is the majority of my activity. '

I am mad, but I am not mentally ill. There is a difference. If I could have a wish granted, I would wish to absorb every living mind into myself and live forever,- alone, the last being, the final end of all existence: as a disembodied consciousness drifting in the void after the last protons decay, for trillions of years, writing more books than there were ever atoms in the universe as a reflection of- me, of my infinitudes; forever. I want to become everything; I want to transform everything, into myself and live forever. A reverse solipsism. And after spending 15 years in voluntary solitary confinement, I actually could bear eternity, alone, for Time ceases to have meaning in that environment, which played no small part in freeing my mind from worry about death.

But that is gnosis. If you can "know" (gnosis, that is what the word means; knowledge beyond knowledge) eternity- if you can understand eternity, well that is eternity. That understanding is eternity.
Last edited by Parodites on Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Gloominary » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:16 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Parodites wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Ir will have escaped many what Parodites' main contribution was: to place Plato in the esoteric realm where he belongs and rip him out of political structures, where he has done more damage than can be calculated.


But then again, there are many things that have been misappropriated to the realm of the political. That is what politics is now, a game of misappropriating things to politics. Things like gay marriage or, to go back to the main point of the thread- drug use; these aren't even political discussions. They are simple personal liberties here that have been obfuscated and turned into political squabbles to distract everyone from the actual politics.


Legislating morality, my main issue with conservative parties.

It is good to see you posting again, Parodites.

That's all both sides ever do is legislate morality (well that and loot us), they just have different ideas about what's moral.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby phoneutria » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:23 pm

What they do is keep everyone distracted arguing morality, in the meantime they can slip the stuff that actually matters under the radar.

By they I mean the three powers, and the money interests behind them.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Gloominary » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:24 pm

For example hate speech. You're not allowed to criticize, or express dislike of someone because of their nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability and so on. That's legislating morality.
Last edited by Gloominary on Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Gloominary » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:55 pm

phoneutria wrote:What they do is keep everyone distracted arguing morality, in the meantime they can slip the stuff that actually matters under the radar.

By they I mean the three powers, and the money interests behind them.

Exactly, morality is largely a cover for these people, what they really want to do is find excuses to lower taxes for the 1% and raise them on the 99%.
Slash spending on the 99% and increase it for the 1%.
What they really want is cheap labor, monopolization, a sick, dumbed down population, mass surveillance, mind control, and morality, along with health, safety and security are just pretexts.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Gloominary » Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:06 pm

I think everyone has at least one obsession, or addiction, it's a part of the human condition.
Last edited by Gloominary on Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby MagsJ » Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:40 pm

Did your mother (mom) go buy you the smokes?
Parodites wrote:I got sick, a cold; but those hit me harder than a flu does, as I've smoked three packs of cigarettes a day since I was 13 or 14, and I'm 30 now. And I rip the filters off before I smoke them so it's really like double that I suppose. And narcotics suppress my breathing and coughing reflex, so together it causes me to accumulate massive amounts of fluid and I am very prone to pneumonia. I'd have much preferred to be vomiting than suffocating, but it looks like I didn't die again, so I have returned.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ


Nobilis Est Ira Leonis | Om Surya Devaay namah | Manus justa nardus
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 19979
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …Suryaloka.. the sun

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:45 pm

iambioguous wrote:Me, I couldn't care less about how lenghty the paragraphs are in regard to articulating one's philosophical assessment of implicit constitutional protections. Instead, my complaint revolves around how those paragraphs can go on and on and on as though the actual "human condition" did not exist at all. Satyr in particular is obsessed with exploring all of this in intellectual contraptions.


Parodites wrote: It doesn't, the human condition: when we are discussing the philosophy of law or actual legal matters themselves. You might as well include the human condition in a discussion of mathematics as a rationale for allowing your numbers to get fuzzy.


Okay, point taken. Serious philosophers at work.

Which is why I posted this above:

All of these arguments going back and forth in regard to "constitutional philosophy". Indeed, some Humanists these days refer back to such documents as the U.S. Constitution as their religious counterparts refer back to the Bible. As though somehow the Constitution, like the Bible, really is some final arbiter regarding the right and the wrong thing to do.

The "rights of man". And these days not just the rights of white Anglo-Saxon protestant men. And, presumably, heterosexual men.

Instead, in my view, it is no less an existential contraption rooted historically and culturally in a particular set of political prejudices.

That's the part that interest me.

So, if anyone here would care to probe such things as "constitutional rights", "natural rights" "legal rights" "implicit rights" etc., in regard to an actual set of circumstances most here would be familiar with, I'd be more than willing to start up a new thread.

Either on this board or the philosophy board.


Perhaps you missed it. So far though no takers. How about you? Would you be willing to take your own intellectual contraptions above and expose them to a particular context relating to implicit protections said to be protected in a particular constitution?

Come on, as though discussions of the right to bear arms or the separation of church and state, or the role of government is on par with mathematicians discussing whether or not 1 is equal to .999...

In terms of actual consequences to be born by actual citizens in particular contexts.

You note:

The Constitution tells us that a Right does not need to be explicitly stated or defined, in order to be implicitly protected just the same as rights that are so defined, like our right to free speech.


But: Even regarding freedom of speech there's always the context. It's not like anyone [to my knowledge] has ever demonstrated [philosophically or otherwise] the absolute inherent right of a citizen to say anything to anyone at anytime. Let alone as a "natural right" to be protected for all human beings everywhere.

Most here know the components of my own argument. What then are the components of yours? Given a particular context of your own choosing.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36194
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby phoneutria » Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:03 am

Parodites wrote:I got sick, a cold; but those hit me harder than a flu does, as I've smoked three packs of cigarettes a day since I was 13 or 14, and I'm 30 now. And I rip the filters off before I smoke them so it's really like double that I suppose. And narcotics suppress my breathing and coughing reflex, so together it causes me to accumulate massive amounts of fluid and I am very prone to pneumonia. I'd have much preferred to be vomiting than suffocating, but it looks like I didn't die again, so I have returned.

When I was a child, I would obsess over death; every time I heard of the existence of a new disease or way of dying, I would become hypochondriacal about it for months; I'd spend hours inspecting my entire body for the slightest sign of melanoma, etc; every bump, lump, or discoloration was surely a cancerous lesion that was going to kill me. I feared to even be around second-hand smoke, worrying of cancer. At that age, about 14 or 15, I filled entire notebooks with ontological arguments for the immortality of the soul, trying to convince myself there was a way to exist beyond death. I was quite mad. But I learned to accept that I was going to die one day, and living for another year or for another 100 years makes no difference, when the only thing I want is to live forever. A year and thousand years are the same compared to eternity. So I pay no mind to my health anymore; exercise is for purely aesthetic and narcissistic reasons, as is the majority of my activity. '

I am mad, but I am not mentally ill. There is a difference. If I could have a wish granted, I would wish to absorb every living mind into myself and live forever,- alone, the last being, the final end of all existence: as a disembodied consciousness drifting in the void after the last protons decay, for trillions of years, writing more books than there were ever atoms in the universe as a reflection of- me, of my infinitudes; forever. I want to become everything; I want to transform everything, into myself and live forever. A reverse solipsism. And after spending 15 years in voluntary solitary confinement, I actually could bear eternity, alone, for Time ceases to have meaning in that environment, which played no small part in freeing my mind from worry about death.

But that is gnosis. If you can "know" (gnosis, that is what the word means; knowledge beyond knowledge) eternity- if you can understand eternity, well that is eternity. That understanding is eternity.


Well ok at least you recognize that you are mad.
As is with anyone who has a passion, to one degree or another.

I'm going through an obsessive process, myself, of understanding the perception of light levels. I find myself staring at things for a very long time, processing what I see, getting emotional about it. Unfortunately it is not something I can write about.
It will be a long time before my skill level can catch up with what I've learned by looking. I'm working on it.

In the mean time there are a lot of people who like what I have been making now, as amateur as it may be, and they're sure to come forward and express their admiration, by the hundreds at a time.
As a consequence I am exposed to people, a lot. And man...

It's pretty rough out there. I mean, if you think this forum is bad...
It has gotten to a point where I can predict what people will say, where the conversation will go, with a significant level of accuracy, most of the time.
Being surprised by something someone says has become rare. My communications are robotic.
In public it's worse. Whenever I am at a bar or coffee shop, I feel like I'm in a different species.

So in your defense, you are not missing much in terms of what people can add.

You do need to exercise your social muscles, though, don't you think?. It is too significant of a portion of the brain to neglect. Everything is so intricately connected in there that it is impossible to not cause other areas to suffer as well.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby surreptitious75 » Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:30 am

One can anticipate responses here since as it is a small forum one can model everyones psychology with some accuracy
Now human beings are not clockwork automatons but they nevertheless do have some degree of predictability to them
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby phoneutria » Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:36 pm

I meant everywhere, on the internet at large and in the physical world.
There are many practical applications to sampling people's behaviors and reactions in the thousands as I have. To a person of my disposition, noticing the patterns is inevitable.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 3136
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:12 pm

One can anticipate responses here since as it is a small forum one can model everyones psychology with some accuracy
Now human beings are not clockwork automatons but they nevertheless do have some degree of predictability to them


I meant everywhere, on the internet at large and in the physical world.
There are many practical applications to sampling people's behaviors and reactions in the thousands as I have. To a person of my disposition, noticing the patterns is inevitable.


Okay, take these abstract assumptions about predictability and practical applications and behavioral patterns and note how they might be understood more substantively by discussing implicit protections of particular constitutional rights relating to a context in which different people have very different political prejudices regarding "the right thing to do".

Otherwise, really, what's the point of a thread like this?

Pedantry?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36194
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:56 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Parodites is not asking you to agree with him. Or at least I hope not, I don't on most important things. He is asking you to address his points, which are extremely well made. Like, extremely.


If you agreed with me, first you would need to understand me, which would make you an equal to me. I can't have that. So you are quite correct: the last thing I want, is to be agreed with. Which does not mean I wish simply to be incomprehensible. No, I wish to be simply, a singularity.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:09 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:He can make opioid products more powerful than heroine from chemicals you might find in a university lab.

Don't know about omelettes. Or simplistic one liners.

I myself are pretty good at those though, so maybe I can help you?


Not only more powerful, but it actually has less peripheral nervous system activity. Central nervous system is where you get the good stuff: euphoria, pain relief. Peripheral involve unwanted side effects like, well: not breathing. So with the research chem I have in mind, you can survive the otherwise impossible euphoria. Not only that, but unlike all other opiates, it possesses NMDA activity, granting you what amounts to an ecstasy rush on top of the opiate rush. Simultaneously. From one drug. A drug that possess 100 percent bio-availability when taken orally, meaning that if you swallow it in pill form, it hits you immediately, as alcohol would, so there is no need to inject it. It is also hyper-addictive, it is so powerful that after only one or two doses, your body behaves as if you are withdrawing from years of heroin use. You are immediately physically addicted. And after even a few weeks, you are so far gone that the changes to the brain are essentially irreversible as far as I can tell, and you are stuck in a permanent state of withdraw, from which your only hope of escape would be suicide. Because of this severe issue, the chemical is only used in end of life palliative care, in the Netherlands. Go to the libraries and find the 1960's-1980's profiles on research chemicals, the writeups for synthesis are provided. The synthesis is non-trivial, but possible, without the multi million dollar labs needed for other pharms. I'm not stating the name of the chemical, I only wish to say that: it exists. As do 1,000 strange substances that have not been produced for many decades and are quite forgotten.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:11 pm

Parodites wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Parodites is not asking you to agree with him. Or at least I hope not, I don't on most important things. He is asking you to address his points, which are extremely well made. Like, extremely.


If you agreed with me, first you would need to understand me, which would make you an equal to me. I can't have that. So you are quite correct: the last thing I want, is to be agreed with. Which does not mean I wish simply to be incomprehensible. No, I wish to be simply, a singularity.


Understand you in regard to what set of conflicted behaviors in what particular context relating to the explicit/implicit protections of what rights pertaining to what assumptions underlying a particular constitutional philosophy?

Or is that not what serious philosophers pursue on this thread?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36194
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:23 am

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10573
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Parodites » Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:46 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Parodites wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Parodites is not asking you to agree with him. Or at least I hope not, I don't on most important things. He is asking you to address his points, which are extremely well made. Like, extremely.


If you agreed with me, first you would need to understand me, which would make you an equal to me. I can't have that. So you are quite correct: the last thing I want, is to be agreed with. Which does not mean I wish simply to be incomprehensible. No, I wish to be simply, a singularity.


Understand you in regard to what set of conflicted behaviors in what particular context relating to the explicit/implicit protections of what rights pertaining to what assumptions underlying a particular constitutional philosophy?

Or is that not what serious philosophers pursue on this thread?


yes
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 04, 2020 5:31 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Understand you in regard to what set of conflicted behaviors in what particular context relating to the explicit/implicit protections of what rights pertaining to what assumptions underlying a particular constitutional philosophy?

Or is that not what serious philosophers pursue on this thread?


Parodites wrote:yes


Doesn't surprise me. So, sure, by all means, carry on. =D>
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36194
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:31 pm

I deleted the video where I was talking and replaced it with this.. which has les than nothing to do with this context.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10573
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:31 pm

Iambiguous, you're such a wimp, lol
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10573
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:21 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Iambiguous, you're such a wimp, lol


Right, I'm a wimp for not going up into the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions largely devoid of any use or exchange value for men and women actually confronting particular protections relating to particular contexts relating to a particular constitutional philosophy, while Parodites sustains the courage necessary to do battle with those who do not share his own definitional logic up in the technical clouds of abstraction.

In much the same way [given my own discussions with you] you manage to defend value ontology. At least the part not derived directly "from the stars".

Pick one:
:wink:
:lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36194
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:26 pm

Maybe you're brave for being so transparent about not being capable of being substantive -- on the other hand, it takes an IQ like mine, apparently, to understand that you're being transparent.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Arch-Native Philosophy - Sumerian Bill and Ted - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10573
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:38 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Maybe you're brave for being so transparent about not being capable of being substantive -- on the other hand, it takes an IQ like mine, apparently, to understand that you're being transparent.


Brave and transparent in regard to what particular set of circumstances in which conflicts erupt in regard to the rationality of any one particular constitutional philosophy.

Say, for example, the U.S. Constitution in regard to protections afforded...as this pertains to a citizen's right to bear arms.

At what point in this discussion does it become foolish [and technically inappropriate] for a serious philosopher to go?

Or is this now just an exchange of quips and retorts between us?

Pick one:
:lol:
:lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36194
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: A point of constitutional philosophy: implicit protectio

Postby Meno_ » Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:53 am

Unfortunately it does take intellectual 'contraptions' to decipher the Constitution, as the founders were particularly influenced by stratospheric achievements to overcome the binds to the otherwise overwhelingly formidable established rules of conduct.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6738
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users