zlacker

but i didn't make a qualitative judgment nor take a side. i said you can base a reasonable position on the constitution, as one of many potential starting points.

negative qualitative judgments like yours don't really add to the discussion, because the apparent objective is to tear down rather than build. why not try reasoning to a positive position instead?

>>clairi+(OP)
Because I’ve already walked the path you laid out 20 years ago. I’ve read the letters of the Founders too. That you insist it be used as a basis is a bias I can build things without.

Paraphrasing Jefferson, we should bin the Constitution every 19 years. But Madison felt the future owed the past, so we teach our kids to abide a dead man’s idea of a proper political framework. Paraphrasing Jefferson again; the dead do not rule the living. Paraphrasing Hume then; commit the Constitution to the flames.

From my reference frame you need me to import a specific philosophy when understanding of physical laws are all that’s needed to build.

I’m not being qualitative; there is no theory of science, no quantity of evidence the Constitution is responsible for engineering anything. Plenty of evidence people built together before it existed. From my reference frame you’re demanding more work than necessary to solve human problems.

You’re qualifying my behavior as negative because you’re not getting what you want, but the Constitution does not include a provision to provide you that. shrug

>>waitTh+O9
let me put it plainly then: you're being evasive because you don't want to be vulnerable. the nihilism you've thrown up is a shield you wield to avoid taking a stance on anything, lest you be attacked for it.

but it doesn't work, see? so might as well stand for something, rather than nothing, if that strategy doesn't make you invulnerable anyway.

>>clairi+Eb
Nihilism to me is using conformity to a philosophy as excuse to defer real effort.

We put American tradition for profit making before the distribution of insulin; oh well if people can’t afford it <- there, see; nihilism in your system. Indifference to action because your philosophy would not allow it. A convenient scapegoat.

Your unwavering devotion to a specific form of parliamentary procedure hurts people in need.

From the start I suggest alternatives, you deflect exploring them, and repeat what you showed up with; I don’t think I’m the inflexible mind stuck in one modal. Such a patronizing ass; sorry child, none of those alternatives will do, come let me explain the Bill of Rights again.

I’m plenty vulnerable with friends and family. I’m not about to take the pop psych view of an air gapped stranger to heart; reads like you just pulled that out of a glossary of psych terms and do not understand there is an entire diagnostic criteria required to make such a conclusion. Par for the course on social media.

This conversation is over.