Thoughts on the Founders

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This was sparked because a person on my friends list posted... here let me find it.



And I pointed out that the concept itself was absurd because the Founders wouldn't have known what health insurance was in the first place.

What a beautiful image! Here, let me see if I can do it...

Straight up. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, it's essentially an appeal to authority.

Which makes it just as fallacious as every other appeal to authority in history.

'

Oh goddamn the meta just broke my everything. I am not sure I will laugh again ever.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Gogira- go for it. This is one that doesnt even need attribution since its. Just... Common bloody sense

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Well, it's essentially an appeal to authority.

Which makes it just as fallacious as every other appeal to authority in history.

'

Oh goddamn the meta just broke my everything. I am not sure I will laugh again ever.

I think the meta is lost on me

[Junkenstein]

Gogira- go for it. This is one that doesnt even need attribution since its. Just... Common bloody sense

Common sense is surprinsingly uncommon. Actual thinking is rarer still.

Carlos/Queen G - Could we get the appeal to authority bit tagged after the dead ghost stinger?

I think it'll be great with a statement to that effect as the kicker.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I view the founders as some sort of anchor that we're tethered to.  Were they perfect in real life?  Of course not.  But that myth of perfection, of total wisdom, is what keeps us from wandering too far afield.  Of course, we cheerfully ignore the awful shit like the bits they wrote about slavery...Which we probably SHOULD ignore for this purpose, those sections having been amended out.

Because as hilarious as the push-pull concerning the "founders' intent", and despite the horrible reality, the simple fact of the matter is, without the constitution, we'd be a theocracy by now.  No matter how bad things are, no matter how fucking funny it gets, it would be 50 times worse without the check on popular opinion imposed by the document.

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

[Junkenstein]

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

They made a film of the UK version. Was pretty popular. "E" or something.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The fact that something isn't perfect does not imply that it is the cause of your problems.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

They made a film of the UK version. Was pretty popular. "E" or something.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I view the founders as some sort of anchor that we're tethered to.  Were they perfect in real life?  Of course not.  But that myth of perfection, of total wisdom, is what keeps us from wandering too far afield.  Of course, we cheerfully ignore the awful shit like the bits they wrote about slavery...Which we probably SHOULD ignore for this purpose, those sections having been amended out.

Because as hilarious as the push-pull concerning the "founders' intent", and despite the horrible reality, the simple fact of the matter is, without the constitution, we'd be a theocracy by now.  No matter how bad things are, no matter how fucking funny it gets, it would be 50 times worse without the check on popular opinion imposed by the document.

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

Most certainly. Having a document spelling out how the government functions is a very important thing. But I think we can still have them as an anchor and be able to recognize that asking what they would think about, say gay marriage, is a ridiculous thing to ask, and a question that shouldn't be asked.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I view the founders as some sort of anchor that we're tethered to.  Were they perfect in real life?  Of course not.  But that myth of perfection, of total wisdom, is what keeps us from wandering too far afield.  Of course, we cheerfully ignore the awful shit like the bits they wrote about slavery...Which we probably SHOULD ignore for this purpose, those sections having been amended out.

Because as hilarious as the push-pull concerning the "founders' intent", and despite the horrible reality, the simple fact of the matter is, without the constitution, we'd be a theocracy by now.  No matter how bad things are, no matter how fucking funny it gets, it would be 50 times worse without the check on popular opinion imposed by the document.

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

Most certainly. Having a document spelling out how the government functions is a very important thing. But I think we can still have them as an anchor and be able to recognize that asking what they would think about, say gay marriage, is a ridiculous thing to ask, and a question that shouldn't be asked.

Having read Jefferson's letters, I imagine that he wouldn't give a shit in the first place.  Not that he'd be able to say so publicly, of course.

But you are correct.  Simple fact is, Gay marriage is a 9th amendment issue and a 14th amendment issue, and a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why the constitution is BOTH a living document and a statement of intent.  It doesn't have to be one or the other, and the assumption that it DOES is what's distorted American politics since the 1930s.

[Junkenstein]

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

They made a film of the UK version. Was pretty popular. "E" or something.

Bad joke. I was referring to "V for Vendetta"

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

They made a film of the UK version. Was pretty popular. "E" or something.

Bad joke. I was referring to "V for Vendetta"

Oh, sorry.  Didn't catch it.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I view the founders as some sort of anchor that we're tethered to.  Were they perfect in real life?  Of course not.  But that myth of perfection, of total wisdom, is what keeps us from wandering too far afield.  Of course, we cheerfully ignore the awful shit like the bits they wrote about slavery...Which we probably SHOULD ignore for this purpose, those sections having been amended out.

Because as hilarious as the push-pull concerning the "founders' intent", and despite the horrible reality, the simple fact of the matter is, without the constitution, we'd be a theocracy by now.  No matter how bad things are, no matter how fucking funny it gets, it would be 50 times worse without the check on popular opinion imposed by the document.

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

Most certainly. Having a document spelling out how the government functions is a very important thing. But I think we can still have them as an anchor and be able to recognize that asking what they would think about, say gay marriage, is a ridiculous thing to ask, and a question that shouldn't be asked.

Having read Jefferson's letters, I imagine that he wouldn't give a shit in the first place.  Not that he'd be able to say so publicly, of course.

But you are correct.  Simple fact is, Gay marriage is a 9th amendment issue and a 14th amendment issue, and a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why the constitution is BOTH a living document and a statement of intent.  It doesn't have to be one or the other, and the assumption that it DOES is what's distorted American politics since the 1930s.

Yeah, there's definitely some sort of belief that the Constitution is a quantum particle. It's both things until a particular issue comes up and then it magically chooses one or the other. Of course, it's still both but the emphasis depends on where you fall on an issue.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I view the founders as some sort of anchor that we're tethered to.  Were they perfect in real life?  Of course not.  But that myth of perfection, of total wisdom, is what keeps us from wandering too far afield.  Of course, we cheerfully ignore the awful shit like the bits they wrote about slavery...Which we probably SHOULD ignore for this purpose, those sections having been amended out.

Because as hilarious as the push-pull concerning the "founders' intent", and despite the horrible reality, the simple fact of the matter is, without the constitution, we'd be a theocracy by now.  No matter how bad things are, no matter how fucking funny it gets, it would be 50 times worse without the check on popular opinion imposed by the document.

Just imagine the results of populism unchecked in, say, 2003-2007.

Most certainly. Having a document spelling out how the government functions is a very important thing. But I think we can still have them as an anchor and be able to recognize that asking what they would think about, say gay marriage, is a ridiculous thing to ask, and a question that shouldn't be asked.

Having read Jefferson's letters, I imagine that he wouldn't give a shit in the first place.  Not that he'd be able to say so publicly, of course.

But you are correct.  Simple fact is, Gay marriage is a 9th amendment issue and a 14th amendment issue, and a PERFECT EXAMPLE of why the constitution is BOTH a living document and a statement of intent.  It doesn't have to be one or the other, and the assumption that it DOES is what's distorted American politics since the 1930s.

Yeah, there's definitely some sort of belief that the Constitution is a quantum particle. It's both things until a particular issue comes up and then it magically chooses one or the other. Of course, it's still both but the emphasis depends on where you fall on an issue.

This is where the funny stuff is.  In the constitution's history, the only change made to LIMIT rights was amendment XVIII.  And we see how well THAT worked.  So when assholes start hollering that we need an amendment to keep the Gays from marrying or to abolish the 2nd amendment, I just start laughing.  Assholes, one and all...Because the LAST thing ANYONE actually wants is for the constitution to be used as a means of oppression.

By "anyone", I mean "Anyone other than Pat Robertson and his crowd", of course.