If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Jobs are in the city, but that doesn't mean much production is happening. Jobs in the city are primarily consuming and distribution to consume, and it is increasingly so the more "developed", the more densely urban, a city becomes.

Monetary and other government policies dictate whether people flock towards or away from cities/the hinterlands. As money is generated in the city (not wealth), and wealth is funneled to the cities, and government programs are all most available in the cities, people must follow the wealth to the cities - if they want money and services. Life in the city appears easier. But cities require vast distribution systems just to get the necessary basics to the city. I was just reading an article the other day about the constantly ongoing tunneling projects to bring water to NYC from hundreds of miles away. Cities aren't sustainable as they aren't remotely productive.

However: Excluding the water thing, vertical farming may begin to fix part of the problem, and "clean" industries can also. But water is a big problem. Like, big. Given that most large cities are near the ocean, efficient desalinization should be a pressing endeavor, but it doesn't seem to be.

I still disagree. You're defining "real" production as something that provides tactile goods, something that requires hard labor. Cities may not produce things like water or cotton, but they produce extensive networks of developed technologies (telecommunications, cybernetics, health care, etc.) as well various industrial technologies that are "real."

These products may not make a city sustainable, but I wouldn't want to live in a place without them. If cities consume vast amounts of energy and resources, it's only because they're the epicenters of modernized production.

Has the bill of rights ever been amended?

The actual words haven't changed, but popular response to them obviously has, and it has resulted in drastic controversies. We haven't changed the words because we bestow upon them a kind of sacred constancy. That will probably fade over time, and it should.

 

[Dak]

I still disagree. You're defining "real" production as something that provides tactile goods, something that requires hard labor. Cities may not produce things like water or cotton, but they produce extensive networks of developed technologies (telecommunications, cybernetics, health care, etc.) as well various industrial technologies that are "real."

These products may not make a city sustainable, but I wouldn't want to live in a place without them. If cities consume vast amounts of energy and resources, it's only because they're the epicenters of modernized production.

I am privileging raw materials and necessary goods. Luxuries are nice, but they don't require dense urban areas, but dense urban areas do require a massive area to syphon from.

 

[CiG]

The actual words haven't changed, but popular response to them obviously has, and it has resulted in drastic controversies. We haven't changed the words because we bestow upon them a kind of sacred constancy. That will probably fade over time, and it should.

So that would be a no then, also no it shouldn't fade, the bill of rights is exactly what makes America a great country.

Amyway, your response was quite vapid, if I say I'm going to stab you with a knife and you say that'd be unlawful would it make sense to say well laws change, they're not holy texts or should I just follow the law?

 

[Einherjar86]

The amendments themselves are changes - that's why we call them "amendments." That doesn't preclude them from being subject to further amendments.

If you were going to stab me I wouldn't remind you of the law. I'd probably call you a maniac, an asshole, a fucking idiot... any number of derogatory remarks. Then I'd probably fight back.

None of that changes the malleability of the law or its constantly changing state. Your appeals to the greatness of America and the superiority of the Bill of Rights are the most vapid things I'm finding on this thread. Quit it with the condescension and try not being a prick.

 

[CiG]

How am I being a condescending prick?
By disagreeing with you?

I said, what if I say I'm going to stab you.

 

[CiG]

I happen to have great respect for the bill of rights and one of my goals has always been to migrate, if that somehow upsets you or something, keep it to yourself.

 

[Mort Divine]

This Constitution worship is weird.

 

[Einherjar86]

So that would be a no then

...

Amyway, your response was quite vapid

I don't need to be told that the words not changing is a "no" in your book. I also don't appreciate being told my response is vapid when all I've done is challenge your patriotism with a notion of adaptive legal systems. There's nothing vapid in that, and you'd do well to learn that no legal precedent is absolute.

If you want to move here, that's great. You don't need to shit on the people who already live here just because they feel a responsibility to question their country's values.

 

[CiG]

The Constitution has changed by leaps and bounds since it was first crafted. We perceive certain elements as unchangeable because that's where our values lie; but the Constitution is a legal document, not a sacred tablet. It's subject to change.

I was calling this vapid and I stand by it, in the context of the comment by me that you were replying to, saying the constitution changes as rebut to me saying banning guns would be unconstitutional is exactly as useless a response as I displayed with my knife/law example.

I really don't care about appealing to your phoney outrage, nobody is shitting on you, get over yourself.

This Constitution worship is weird.

Coming from someone that thinks standing up for free speech is a fetish I'm not surprised, though it's not worship and the very fact that you'd try to undermine me by implying a religiosity is pretty sad.

Especially ironic coming from a pro-Communist Feminist.

 

[Dak]

I find myself torn on this because while I find many of the rights granted in this country to be good policy, I don't find them to be good policy because they are policy, nor is the country itself special at this juncture for having them. Since people like Mort benefit from free speech insofar as they denigrate it, may as well take it from them, no?

 

[Einherjar86]

I was calling this vapid and I stand by it, in the context of the comment by me that you were replying to, saying the constitution changes as rebut to me saying banning guns would be unconstitutional is exactly as useless a response as I displayed with my knife/law example.

I will stand by this statement:

I find myself torn on this because while I find many of the rights granted in this country to be good policy, I don't find them to be good policy because they are policy, nor is the country itself special at this juncture for having them.

Fetishizing the Constitution "because it's the Constitution" is weak, and making the point that the Constitution can change isn't a "useless response." It's the perfect response to the kind of absolutism you're indulging in. With regard to your hypothetical knife scenario, I'll repeat Dak - "many of the rights granted in this country are good policy"; but that doesn't mean I need to elevate them to the level of sacred text.

 

[CiG]

No, I'd to the death defend his right to insult my defending of free speech.
If that's what you were implying?

Well, I'm not fetishizing or elevating to holy text at all, that's just your grade school attempt at delegitimizing my opinions.
I don't think the constitution is absolute, I think banning all guns is unconstitutional.

 

[Einherjar86]

Saying "banning guns in unconstitutional" is a vapid statement, and for the following reasons:

If you don't believe in the comment beyond the Constitution, then you're simply aligning firearm ownership with a legal right, which is entirely subject to change (or "amendment"). If you do believe in the comment beyond the Constitution, then you're appealing to constitutionality as an argument; and this doesn't get you anywhere except that it's supported by current law. And, as I've already said multiple times, laws can change.

All I was trying to say to your original comment was that the appeal to constitutionality doesn't really do anything for your argument. You then went on to point out that the Second Amendment hasn't changed since it was instituted. This is beside the point.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Free speech is racist. White gun ownership is a mechanism of the White Supremacist Power Structure. Every gun in the hands of white male is a burning crucifix in the yard of an African American. Interracial burglary, homicide and rape have to be understood from the frame of White racism in America. Resisting these perfectly just reactions to White racism, is, itself an attempt to reassert white supremacy.

 

[CiG]

What are the requirements to amend the bill of rights?

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Seems to me that saying banning guns would be unconstitutional is a perfectly fine and not vapid opinion within the context of the requirements to even begin to amend it.

Though given the rising popularity of views like Mort's, maybe one day it will all go to shit.
Because honestly it's extremely first world to sneer at free speech the way he does, which is also ironic considering he seems to think he's on the side of minorities.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Basically, Cassetteisgod, the left don't care about reality and they're pretty damn irrational and neurotic. If you've noticed, fuck all of what they talk about is stuff like starvation rates in the third world, it's all symbolic bullshit to do with the West. India doesn't need to sort its shit out, but Sweden needs more black people in their horticultural societies etc.

 

[CiG]

Campaigning against gender roles/tropes in gaming but not expending one ounce of energy dissecting the romance novel industry? Sure, I'm familiar with the inconsistencies.

By the way, who said this?

Free speech is racist. White gun ownership is a mechanism of the White Supremacist Power Structure. Every gun in the hands of white male is a burning crucifix in the yard of an African American. Interracial burglary, homicide and rape have to be understood from the frame of White racism in America. Resisting these perfectly just reactions to White racism, is, itself an attempt to reassert white supremacy.

 

[Dak]

NRx has provided an excellent critique of modern progressivism in all it's nodes by way of Moldbug's Puritan/Protestant descendancy theory. The same reason fundamentalists go door to door in nice neighborhoods is the same reason SJWs love social media slacktivism.

 

[CiG]

Because they can be for the minorities without being around them?

 

[Dak]

Being holier than thou requires being seen by other holy people. Pulls on the strings that tie into preaching to the choir and NMA (not my ass).