Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Brickleberried t1_iszofpt wrote

Reply to comment by sontow3 in D.C. Council Prepares To Vote On Overhaul Of Criminal Code by LocalBearEnthusiast

I'll use your "words have no meaning" stance and interpret your entire comment to wholly agree with me because I interpret all those words you used with completely new meanings that they've never had before just so I can come to that conclusion.

This is a fun game.

1

sontow3 t1_it08nhs wrote

Again, why do you think you are the one who gets to decide the meaning of the words in our Constitution? For more than 200 years, our society has agreed that the Supreme Court is the body that decides the meaning of the words in our Constitution. They don't decide the words that go in the Constitution, but they do decide what they mean. And then our laws have to abide by the meaning they pick.

Again, given that we've let them decide the meaning of the words in the Constitution for more than 200 years, why do you think we should instead let you decide?

Edited to add, since you've misscharacterized or missunderstood me. Words have the meanings that humans assign them. They do not have independent objective meanings. In common usage, their meaning is decided by, well, common usage - and then somewhat codified by dictionary authors. But for lots of specific uses - scientific, legal, academic, etc., it is normal to define key terms - i.e. to say "for the purpose of this document, x, y, and z words will be defined as meaning _____, _____, and ____, as opposed to their common usage.

As a society, we have for more than 200 years agreed that the words in the Constitution are not to be assigned definitions based on each individual's perception of their common usage (which changes over time and differs from region to region and person to person), but instead that the Supreme Court will determine the meaning of the words and combination of words in the Constitution.

Perhaps you understand that and you're arguing in bad faith. Perhaps you don't. I don't know.

1

Brickleberried t1_it0a23f wrote

I'll use your "words have no meaning" stance and interpret your entire comment to wholly agree with me because I interpret all those words you used with completely new meanings that they've never had before just so I can come to that conclusion.

This is a fun game.

1

sontow3 t1_it0w2dg wrote

So you're arguing in bad faith. Kudos to you, you wasted time on the internet today, learned nothing even when provided the opportunity, didn't rethink any previously held but ill-founded stances, and looked like an idiot to anyone who bothered to read what you wrote (all 3 of them, perhaps).

You're kinda useless, huh?

1

Brickleberried t1_it4xxz5 wrote

I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm using your own argument. If you think it's in bad faith, then that's very telling of your own argument.

I'm literally just reading the words in the Constitution with their well-known, standard definitions.

1

sontow3 t1_it5yjz8 wrote

Again, I did not argue that words have no meaning, and I already said that words have the meaning humans assign them. Sometimes that meaning comes from common use (although still not as defined by you), but for many specific documents a specific entity chooses the definitions. That's true of academic, legal, scientific, and other documents. In the case of the Constitution, our society has for more than 200 years assigned the Supreme Court the authority to pick the definitions that apply for the words in the Constitution.

Now, I have no doubt you'll continue to reject that - and likely respond in bad faith once again, because this notion challenges your personal yet deeply held notion that you, of all people, know what the words in the Constitution mean and should be able to define them for all of society, even though the bulk of our society has for 200 years agreed that the Supreme Court gets to define those words.

But I encourage you to consider how we would possibly have a meaningful Constitution if everyone, in every Court battle, was allowed to say "I believe that, according to the definitions I think we should use, the Constitution means _________."

0

Brickleberried t1_it9tzwi wrote

So you're saying that the Supreme Court can say that "crimes" actually means "bunnies", and you're telling me that I'm just supposed to accept that as the actual meaning of the word "crimes" in the Constitution and that it's intellectually dishonest/egotistical for me to say that "crimes" just means something like "illegal acts".

1

sontow3 t1_itamzdi wrote

What's intellectually dishonest is for you to resort to straw men arguments like the idea that the Supreme Court would decide that "crimes" means "bunnies." But I think you knew that.

0

Brickleberried t1_itaqmxk wrote

You're the one saying that "all crimes" doesn't mean "all crimes" and that I should just be happy with that, so if it doesn't mean "crimes", why shouldn't it mean "bunnies"?

1

sontow3 t1_itasezb wrote

Again, you're being dishonest. I never said you should be happy about anything. I said that our society has for more than 200 years agreed that the Supreme Court gets to define the words in the Constitution for the purpose of using the Constitution, not you. So far, your only response is "but I want to define the words in the Constitution because I think I know what they mean better than the Supreme Court!!!!" But you haven't even once attempted to explain why you think anyone else would accept your definitions rather than accepting the Supreme Court's definitions.

And if you think each individual should get to define the words in the Constitution for themself, you haven't explained how we'll ever be able to resolve any legal dispute with each person picking their own definitions as they choose.

Honestly I think you've come to understand that your point of view is stupid but you don't want to admit (to yourself, I don't care and you don't know me anyway), that you've been stupid, so you just keep flailing here.

0

Brickleberried t1_itawi97 wrote

So like I said, you're saying that if the Supreme Court defines "all crimes" to mean "all bunnies", we should all just accept it. If the Supreme Court says that the Constitution actually allows for 10-year presidential terms instead of 4-year terms, you're saying that it's intellectually dishonest for me to accurately point out that the Constitution says 4-year terms and that the Supreme Court's opinion is wrong.

I think we should let "all crimes" mean "all crimes" because that's literally the words being used. Now, maybe you can see the words "crimes with punishments of >= 6 months" somewhere in the Constitution, but I don't. Perhaps you can point me to where in the Constitution it says that.

What the Supreme Court says the Constitution says is not the same thing as what the Constitution says.

1

sontow3 t1_itayenp wrote

Does repeating "wah wah, I should get to define what the Constitution says, not the Supreme Court, listen to me! listen to me!" make you feel good?

Well, nobody's going to care what you say the Constitution says anyway. And nobody should.

0

Brickleberried t1_itdxnm2 wrote

So you think the Supreme Court can say "4 years" means "10 years", and I'm wrong to say that the Constitution says otherwise?

1

sontow3 t1_itfiijx wrote

You can say whatever you want. But you're wrong to think that you, and not the Supreme Court, should get to pick the definitions used for reading the Constitution. And you're absolutely wacky if you think the rest of us are going to go along with what a blowhard like you says as opposed to what the Supreme Court says.

0

Brickleberried t1_ith19k6 wrote

I think you're all absolutely whacky if you think that the Supreme Court should get to decide that 4=10, and that everybody who says, "No, 4=4," is a blowhard.

It's fucking stupid, and you're drinking that Kool-Aid with gusto.

1

sontow3 t1_ithiesc wrote

1.) The Supreme Court has never done that nor has it done anything like that - that's why our society keeps accepting its decisions.

2.) What's fucking stupid is that in like 50 comments the only "solution" you've been able to propose to your imagined problem is that all of society accept your interpretation of the Constitution, as if you should be our un-elected dictator. Sorry, the rest of us just don't have any respect for you, let alone want you to be the one who gets to decide for the rest of us what the Constitution means. We'll let the Supreme Court keep doing that, thank you very much.

0

Brickleberried t1_itjm03k wrote

> 1.) The Supreme Court has never done that nor has it done anything like that - that's why our society keeps accepting its decisions.

Except they did when they said "all crimes" doesn't mean "all crimes" and ignored "well-regulated militia".

> 2.) What's fucking stupid is that in like 50 comments the only "solution" you've been able to propose to your imagined problem is that all of society accept your interpretation of the Constitution, as if you should be our un-elected dictator. Sorry, the rest of us just don't have any respect for you, let alone want you to be the one who gets to decide for the rest of us what the Constitution means. We'll let the Supreme Court keep doing that, thank you very much.

What's stupid is that you think the Supreme Court can use whatever definition they fucking want without regard to what the words actually mean, and that you think I'm the crazy one for thinking that that's crazy.

Your interpretation is fucking nuts. Just admit it.

1

sontow3 t1_itkc5z3 wrote

All these comments and your only message is "wah wah wah, I don't like something the Supreme Court decided and I think I should get to decide how the Constitution applies for everyone in the entire country! wah wah wah."

0

Brickleberried t1_itldkmn wrote

All of your comments are "the Supreme Court can be as corrupt and stupid as possible, and you can't point it out".

1