MonDie

If a man can have it too, is it really feminine?

An if/then would be clearer, but it's clearly a because/therefore. Regardless, falsifying the premise calls the conclusion into question. They clearly thought the premise was true, and their judgment arguably supersedes ours. However they were judging the state of affairs in 1789, not 2015. By denying this point, you deny half the amendment, junking it as though superfluous rubbish. Falsifying the premise doesn't falsify the conclusion, but it does call it into question. 1) It can be read as an argument. Suppose you're told, "The garbage being full, take it out." If it's actually empty, you should not obey anyway, but inform your fallible boss, who then reconsiders. 2) As we can see from amendments I and IV additionally, a right is often established with the statement that it must not be "abridged", "infringed", or "violated", thus the operative clause establishes a right. Why a right cannot be revoked should be elaborated.

Wait, hold on here. The prefatory clause supposedly justifies the operative clause, and it makes a testable claim. Whether or not all rights must be given supporting reasons, these ones were. If that claim is false, then the reasoning is erroneous. Indeed, the very amendment could be interpreted as conditional. Sort of like... "Your dog being hungry, you should feed it." What if my dog isn't hungry?

If they're really the same distance, then my best 2-mile times are: 12:50 13:30 13:35 13:35 13:40 13:40 13:45

I could argue that murder is natural. Chimps murder eachother. Humans murder eachother. Should murder be a right? Why or why not?

It's a G Pad. It has a GPS.

If it isn't necessary to the security of a free state, does that invalidate the amendment? If some justification is given for maintaining that right, and the justification can be undercut, is it really a fundamental right?

Actually, my interpretation is closer to the original meaning, the meaning it had until this happened... https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago Your interpretation is actually only five years old. Arguably its original purpose was to restrict federal law from interfering with state-level militias, not to guarantee each citizen the right to their own gun (and to carry it wherever they go).

Actually, after reading that, I would guess that Google maps is calculating the distance from coordinates, in which case it might not handle curved roads well, particularly short neighborhood roads where the offset is irrelevant. The accelerometer is interesting, but about as expensive, and the method you propose is more complicated. I'm still only a noob scripter.

Thinking the television or radio is talking to you is a symptom of psychosis.

Alternatives would still be nice. It looks like I'll only get one that goes up to 1,000 feet (< 1/5 mile) for a under twenty dollars. I suppose I could just reset it and keep going.

Apparently they call it a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor's_wheel A simpler version is the "trundle wheel". Thank you so much!

I've been using Google maps to route and measure my course. I've been doing a two mile lap with my best time as 13 minutes 30 seconds. Recently I did a one mile course, jogging it in 5:20, and now I just jogged it twice in 12:50. Obviously Google maps isn't accurate. A cost effective approach might be to buy a 1-mile length wire, but the length might not be precise and it would probably get dragged off the sidewalk as I go around. Any other ideas? Thanks!

Shall I also show you what ydoaPs and swansot have uncovered in the other thread? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

It specifically says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". They could have just said "the right to keep and bear arms", but they didn't.

That's interesting in that it describes the militia(s) as belonging to the states. One wonders whether the second amendment is actually a restriction on the federal government specifically. Meanwhile the supreme court has been using it to justify overturning state-level regulations. Articles I and II https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Pseudoscience aside, the duplicity of consciousness is fascinating. People with dissociative identity disorder, who exhibit what are sometimes called the "compartmentalizing" dissociative symptoms, usually also experience the detachment dissociative symptoms, depersonalization and derealization. Depersonalization typically refers to experiencing the world in third person, as though watching oneself, while derealization refers to perceiving the world as dream-like. It would be interesting if these related symptoms could provide insight into how consciousness becomes integrated. For example, -- and this is just my own interpretation of it -- but I happened upon this research paper: hierarchical clustering of brain activity during human nonrapid eye movement sleep sleep Of course that's NREM, whereas REM is where we dream.

AFAIK science can't explain causality, but it can decipher causes, and the causes of consciousness are no different.

Oh %$^&ing 4576 I give up.

No, I don't assemble, you don't assemble, we assemble. I purchase, but we run the market. I vote, but we elect politicians. A more accurate phrasing might be partaking in unlawful assembly. If I had an individual right to assemble, I could arguably force others to assemble with me, and force venues to permit my assemblies. The reality is that assembling is done in concert, and needs the consent of all involved. One might argue that the same reasoning is already being applied to bearing arms. After all, I can't bear arms in your bank without your permission. Some being disciplined doesn't make it well regulated, they're still included regardless of discipline level. You don't need to own a gun yourself to practice shooting. In fact, the gun range is arguably the only place where you should be practicing. It doesn't matter how you define "militia" as much as how you define "well regulated militia". The amendment doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms to any militia. It states as its purpose, in the prefatory clause, to respect the necessity of a well regulated militia. As I have pointed out, guaranteeing everybody the right to keep and bear their own arms is completely overdoing it, which is why I am questioning that interpretation.

Exactly, you assemble with the others, not on your own. To say this right can't be interpreted collectively is absurd. Likewise you can keep arms with the others, as opposed to on your own. This may be true for many rights, such as those assigned in amendments VI and VII, but the rights of amendments I, II, and IV are assigned to "the people". The bill of rights must not be refering to that militia then, because that militia wouldn't be well regulated.

I'm looking back at post #816, and I'm starting to doubt the supreme court's argument against a collective rights interpretation. The other rights assigned to "the people" are - "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (A-I) - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". (A-IV) Assembling isn't something you can do as an individual. One person cannot assemble with himself. Assembling is done collectively. Petitioning is also something that is, if not done by many people, done for the benefit of the people in whole. Amendment IV can also be interpreted collectively. It only applies to individuals because it specifies things which often belong to individuals (houses, papers, one's own person). If we interpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" collectively, the "keeping" (or storage) of arms could be done by many individuals in concert rather than by each individual. Amendments VI and VII refer to a "right", but within a context, when you are "the accused". The right to keep and bear arms is given no context, so what are we to assume regarding the right to bear (i.e. to carry) arms? Should we assume the right of each individual to carry a gun wherever they go, to the movie theater, to the bank? Certainly not. Perhaps this is a right possessed by the people, not by each person. Also, on this matter, comparisons to free speech perhaps aren't apt since speech is assigned as a "freedom" rather than a "right". "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" Furthermore, unlike carrying a gun, speech is generally more about the what than the where. My discussion with Overtone further highlights the strangeness of an individual rights interpretation. The prefatory clause states the purpose as the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. It would be ludicrously over-reaching to conclude that, for this end, we must allow every person to keep and bear a gun regardless of whether they're currently in a (well-regulated) militia. The operative clause follows from the prefatory clause more cleanly when we give a collective rights interpretation. I do not agree with the reasons given by the courts favoring an individual rights interpretation. Here it is again. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Firsly, that doesn't make sense. Secondly, Satan isn't stuck in hell apart from God, for he talks to God in The Bible. Thirdly, you are positing more beyond free will. You are positing that (a) Satan was given free will and (b) Satan was given the ability to surrender his own freedom and thereby eternally damn himself. You now have to explain why God had to give both of these capabilities to Satan even though it contradicted his omnibenevolent nature.

True it's specific to Abrahamic religion, but I think a more refined version could prove more broadly that: If an omniscient and good (or omnibenevolent) being is the source of all things, then eternal evil (or eternal torture) is iimpossible, even if free will is for some reason necessary.

meh, old music.