Thread: Pondering......

Originally Posted by gugi

As far as Scalia goes, he has the view that dogma is better than pragmatism. I would say it is more rigorous, but I am just not quite sure if that approach is better for the society. The end result which I think everybody agrees on is that the laws ought to reflect the *current* society, not one from 200 years ago. The disagreement is how to get there. Scalia thinks that the only legitimate path is through interpreting the laws exactly as they were intended at the time when they were written, and any changes necessary due to the evolution of the society should be made explicitly by the proper political process.
For example when the founding fathers meant that the only human beings in US with rights, inalienable or otherwise, are white males, that's how it ought to be until the law is changed to explicitly include women or non-whites.
Of course, the process of constitutional amendments is rather cumbersome and slow (by design), so other people think that there are things that should not wait on it.

What you are describing IS the living constitution argument. And yes, there is a way to change the constitution but it is difficult. It was DESIGNED to be difficult. But while your argument against it for what is clearly one of morality, I don’t believe your argument holds. The constitution was never written for white males alone. It omitted the outright abolishment of slavery for a very old political tactic. The founders, needing to get all territories on board, punted (for lack of a better word) the issue. The northern states knew that all of the concepts in the document were contrary to the idea of slavery. But a union had to be established. They left that sticky debate to take place at a later time. But while your position on the matter is morally correct, gov’t has a tendency NOT to work that way. A perfect example often touted by the left is that of Brown vs. the Board of Education. The left loves to present this as the argument for living constitutionalism in that they suggest that separate but equal was rightfully deemed unconstitutional. But the court ruling of Plessy vs. Ferguson was itself an example of living constitutionalism. There was never any support for the concept of separate but equal anywhere in the constitution. It too was put there without regard for the original intent of equal protection. In fact, the one dissenting vote on the Plessy case was written by a southern racist and former slave owner who insisted that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were sufficient to guarantee any individual equal protection under the law. He later went on in his dissent to proclaim the white race superior and therefore doubted any need for separate but equal as he felt that the white race would rise above the rest. Yet the remaining justices were not in agreement with him and forced the unconstitutional idea of separate but equal when it had no basis for doing so. This is a perfect example of how living constitutionalism is no constitution at all.

I've not read anything except the OP in this thread and so that is what I am responding to here.

It is my belief that violence begets violence. It is also my belief that defeating violence with another kind of violence is still just violence.

Arming teachers and principals at primary schools is certainly one way to go about "protecting" children while at school. However, is this really the kind of society you want to create in the US? One based on mutual fear? Or perhaps you are already at that point, and are now just owning up to it?

Did you know that teachers (of all kinds: primary, secondary, tertiary and miscellaneous) as a group suffer extremely high levels of stress and related mental health issues? Would you implement 3-monthly psych evaluations to assess whether they should still be allowed to have a gun? How would your idea go down if even one teacher blew a fuse and mowed down their class-room with the gun issued to them for the purpose of protecting that class room?

And what do you do if an educator, based on their principles, refuses to accept a gun? I would. Do you then sack them? Will it be part of the job contract? Will shooting practice need to be incorporated into University degrees for teachers? Will professional development days for your child's teacher be spent at the shooting range?

It's your country and you can do what you want with it. But I surely hope that, for the sake of your children, more pondering is taking place because to my mind this is an ill-conceived, hasty, and potentially disastrous suggestion that would do tremendous damage to the mind set of Americans and their poor children.

James.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

But while your argument against it for what is clearly one of morality, I don’t believe your argument holds. The constitution was never written for white males alone.

No, my argument isn't of morality, it's about reality. Yes, you are right the constitution was not written for white males alone, it included the slaves as well, and discounted them by 40% (cf. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3).
You may call it punting, but the fact is that the founding fathers prioritized 'establishment of union' over treating all human beings equally. And that was not because they did not believe all human beings are equal. If anything this is a rather well established historical fact, and I don't see how you can ignore it in the context of originalism.
I only insist that the same standard is applied equally across the board, regardless of what that standard is.

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as "statistical fact". I have been biting my tongue on this for years, but I have finally had enough.

Statistics are calculated from samples. Samples are a subset of a population and vary randomly from collection to collection. Because the samples vary, so too do the statistics calculated from them. The best you can do with a statistic is to offer a probability that they contain the "true value" (or fact) - inference about facts.

You want facts, go ask the Demographers.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as "statistical fact". I have been biting my tongue on this for years, but I have finally had enough.

Statistics are calculated from samples. Samples are a subset of a population and vary randomly from collection to collection. Because the samples vary, so too do the statistics calculated from them. The best you can do with a statistic is to offer a probability that they contain the "true value" (or fact) - inference about facts.

You want facts, go ask the Demographers.

James.

That's no fun... LOL!!

Originally Posted by earcutter

That's no fun... LOL!!

Fear, not I am not afraid of a sexy face even with a rose!

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as "statistical fact". I have been biting my tongue on this for years, but I have finally had enough.

What about the entropy of a gaussian distribution being the logarithm of its variance? I am pretty sure it is statistical, but is it a fact?

Secondly, I postulate that the universe is gaussian, and if you don't accept this as a statistical fact, you better come to the land of easy guns and defend your position with a roo sack or whatever you use down there

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as "statistical fact". I have been biting my tongue on this for years, but I have finally had enough.

Statistics are calculated from samples. Samples are a subset of a population and vary randomly from collection to collection. Because the samples vary, so too do the statistics calculated from them. The best you can do with a statistic is to offer a probability that they contain the "true value" (or fact) - inference about facts.

You want facts, go ask the Demographers.

James.

Thank you!

That and abuse by adding conclusions and suggesting causal relationships seems more rule than exception, at least in popular media. I tend to take (most) statistics with a huge grain of salt. Methodology for gathering information, study and interpretation is key. I take ALL people using statistics in an argumentative discussion with a huge grain of salt. Just because you can rattle off statistics by heart that SEEM to speak in your advantage (plus a personal conclusion) doesn't necessarily mean you know how to make a well argued point.

"Just look at the facts", followed by a bunch of naked statistics just makes my brain hurt.

Originally Posted by gugi

Fear, not I am not afraid of a sexy face even with a rose!



What about the entropy of a gaussian distribution being the logarithm of its variance? I am pretty sure it is statistical, but is it a fact?

Secondly, I postulate that the universe is gaussian, and if you don't accept this as a statistical fact, you better come to the land of easy guns and defend your position with a roo sack or whatever you use down there

Dang gugi - you are being a real buz-kill here LOL!!!!!

I tell you what though - I am pondering his comment about violence begets violence! I like it... I believe it... I want proof!

Anyone got some stats on... un anyone got some... uh, can anyone prove that for me! That would be a killer place for the left to start, assuming a gun is violent or uh, that we can prove it's used to create violence. Dang!! This hurts! But seriously - I think Jimbo or rather James is on to something there!

Originally Posted by EMC45

Why, do tell, is it that when some folks suggest effective methods of reducing violence they are silenced? There has been talk lately of arming school employees after the tragedy (continue to pray for the families please) in CT and people are vehemently opposed to this. It works in a certain school district in TX. We allow armored car drivers to carry a gun to protect money (abominable) who go to our schools and universities, yet wil not allow trained individuals to carry and protect our precious children. The liberal mindset is lunacy. It is based on emotion and knee jerk reaction, not logic, statistical fact or reason. These same liberal politicians who want to take guns are themselves protected by armed guards. I cannot afford an armed security team. Neither can my children.

I'll give you logical hard fact.
In Belgium we have no carry laws. Only in very exceptional cases is one allowed to carry a gun.
Not even police are allowed to carry off duty. Thieves don't carry guns because they know that when caught, they're in for a world of trouble if they carry a gun. We also don't have metal detectors and armed security guards in our schools.

Yet despite the absence of guns, our violent crime rate and murder rate is 1/3 of yours.
Shocking, isn't it?

Must be that liberal mindset lunacy in action.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'll give you logical hard fact.
In Belgium we have no carry laws. Only in very exceptional cases is one allowed to carry a gun.
Not even police are allowed to carry off duty. Thieves don't carry guns because they know that when caught, they're in for a world of trouble if they carry a gun. We also don't have metal detectors and armed security guards in our schools.

Yet despite the absence of guns, our violent crime rate and murder rate is 1/3 of yours.
Shocking, isn't it?

Must be that liberal mindset lunacy in action.

You think that's a kind of violence begets violence thing?