DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => Living Room => Topic started by: SeraphimLabs on July 06, 2014, 01:39 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us/politics/a-period-is-questioned-in-the-declaration-of-independence.html?_r=2
Just got linked to this.
The original document is very badly faded and worn, time has not been kind to it even with modern preservation techniques.
However there are some scholars that say the punctuation has been transcribed incorrectly in most circulating reprints of its text. Changing that one little dot makes a pretty significant impact on how the document would be read, and what it could mean.
It would be of course that it is in the line relating to how the government gets its power from the people it governs.
-
I don't see this ending well.
“The logic of the sentence moves from the value of individual rights to the importance of government as a tool for protecting those rights,” Ms. Allen said. “You lose that connection when the period gets added.”
-
The Founding Fathers probably wouldn't have been overly concerned about something that tiny. They would have had sufficient faith in each other and the citizenry to understand the intent behind the document and interpret it in that light.
But they weren't actively seeking ways to get around it like later manifestations of the US government apparently are. :-\
-
I disagree that this would have a significant impact on the meaning of the document. Either way, with or without the period after "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", it's clear that those rights are inherent, that the role of government is to secure those rights, and a government which does not do so is subject to replacement.
I don't read a different meaning with or without the period. Maybe someone can better explain to me how removing the period would change the interpretation.
-
It's a fascinating idea that an old transcript could have an error that gets passed down through the years -- and a fascinating idea that a punctuation change could make a dramatic difference.
On closer inspection, however, it looks like just that -- a cool idea that's too tempting to pass up, even if it doesn't amount to anything.
Period or not -- i don't see any change at all in meaning -- which is still very much in the eye of the beholder.
Whether there is a period in that spot or not is purely stylistic -- i see no way to credibly argue that it changes any meaning or even any emphasis.
-
On closer inspection, however, it looks like just that -- a cool idea that's too tempting to pass up, even if it doesn't amount to anything.
-mouser
Yeah...I had a "Bircher" neighbor (his characterization, not mine) that could go on and on about that one. He had a bunch of other "proof" things aren't all that they seem to be with the Declaration or Constitution. Or the Bible either for that matter. Too bad he passed away before the National Treasure movies came out. He would have loved those.
And since we're on the subject, I can't wait from someone to rediscover and reopen the "unalienable" vs "inalienable rights" debate.
Why did Jefferson say "inalienable" whereas others referred to these rights as "unalienable?"
This one comes up every ten or so years in conspiracy and self-taught 'expert' historical 'research' circles.
Those who have done genuine research have long ago concluded that the two spellings were commonplace and interchangeable during the times in question, with writers of the period often switching arbitrarily between the two. Sometimes within the same document or letter.
That doesn't stop some people from reading a whole bit of drama into it despite the overwhelming evidence that clearly establishes either spelling meant the same thing to the framers of the Declaration and Constitution - and that "correct" American-English spelling and punctuation was still very far from being standardized in the 1700s.
It wasn't until well after Webster that word spellings finally started to settle down in the late 1800s. And most scholars of the American language will agree that punctuation usage varied widely until the advent of The Chicago Manual of Style was published in 1906.
-
I think it is amusing though that a fuss would be made about it now with the government giving so much scrutiny to every possibility of a way to increase how much authority they have.
Tinfoil hats, but its straight out of 1984. Make a little tweak to history, and suddenly the implications mean that you can do this much more that previously wasn't allowed.
-
Ok but also let me remind everyone that we try to avoid talking politics on the forum, so let's try to avoid generic political debates here.
-
I don't think there is a 2nd way to interpret the document, if you consider the context and the events that followed it. It meant only 1 thing.
And if it had been a simple 3 word document, stating merely "F**K You England" it still could not have been interpreted any differently.
It is not a legal document that holds any bearing on modern life in the US. You can't go to court over any perceived violation of rights, citing the Declaration of Independence as granting you any. Nor can it grant the US government any extra authority.
It's just the old declaration of war that lead to the founding of the US. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
It's just the old declaration of war that lead to the founding of the US. Nothing more, nothing less.
-app103
This. :Thmbsup:
(And a helluva good read too!)
-
Tinfoil hats, but its straight out of 1984. Make a little tweak to history, and suddenly the implications mean that you can do this much more that previously wasn't allowed.
-SeraphimLabs
+1 it being Tinfoil Hat.
It wouldn't fly here. Which is why any attempt at a power grab goes out of its way to avoid any mention of the Constitution or similar documents. All such power grabs (to date) have been justified using 'technical' legal arguments or very narrow and "nuanced" interpretations of provisions in the US Code.
The absolute last thing any of the endorsers of our current 'security' rules want to raise is a constitutional debate on the absolute legality of such measures. Because that is an argument they cannot win, no matter how hard they try to twist the Constitution to allow what they're doing.
And furthermore, they know it - as does everyone else. 8)
-
The thing I really find amazing about the Declaration of Independence is how it still resonates today.
The language in that document is a masterpiece of writing style. And the topics it discusses are still as important today as they were back then.
Like I said, it's a good read. :)
-
It's a fascinating idea that an old transcript could have an error that gets passed down through the years -- and a fascinating idea that a punctuation change could make a dramatic difference.
...
-mouser
Refer: Illuminated script (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=16974.msg325632#msg325632).
-
As others have noted, I can't see how the presence or absence of that punctuation has any real effect on the meaning.
I don't think that there's any doubt about where the heads of the founders were at - folks like Jefferson and Franklin, who wrote it, or Madison who wrote much of the Constitution were very much interested in the (classical) liberal ideology, as in the writing of JS Mill. Their philosophy was all about the sovereignty of the individual, and were not of a communitarian bent.
You might not like that, you might think that we've learned better since then, but the body of writing from these guys is pretty clear, and it's nutty to believe that a single punctuation mark, whose impact escapes most of us anyway, should be taken to contradict all that.
-
but the body of writing from these guys is pretty clear,
-CWuestefeld
Excellent point. :Thmbsup:
We have library shelves of original writing, and large collections of personal letters, from several of these gentlemen. So it's not as if much imagination or scholarly debate is needed to grasp where they were coming from.
-
Excellent point. :Thmbsup:
-40hz
"The error, according to Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., concerns a period that appears right after the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the transcript, but almost certainly not, she maintains, on the badly faded parchment original. "
So maybe it's a "very bad point"?
:P
-
The thing that cracks me up is many people think the section that goes
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...
is part of the Constitution. They think the Constitution was written to guarantee individual rights rather than delineating the governmental setup. I tell them if the purpose of the document was to proclaim individual rights the "Bill of Rights" would not be amendments. They would be right near the start like in the Declaration. Unfortunately for us the Constitution is the document that binds, not the DOI. Joe Sixpack has heard the "self evident" part so often he just thinks that's what keeps the cops in check. :)
-
The thing that cracks me up is many people...
-MilesAhead
I don't understand why we celebrate Independence Day as the birth of the USA. All this holiday marks is when we started trying to break away from England. But we weren't successful with becoming independent for several more years, and the form that our country now takes wasn't solidified until the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
In a sense, the Constitution was written to guarantee individual rights. The reason that stuff is relegated to the BoR is that the individual rights was so fundamental a foundation, that it was simply assumed. The Constitution documents a limited set of powers that the people cede to the government; obviously it therefore guarantees anything not mentioned therein to the people - they never gave away those rights!
There was a fair amount of controversy over the BoR, not because anyone disagreed with its intent, but because there was a fear that (even with the 9th Amendment trying to explain the situation) the list would be taken to be inclusive, and the government would just start doing things that the list doesn't explicitly forbid. And this is exactly what has happened.
-
As others have noted, I can't see how the presence or absence of that punctuation has any real effect on the meaning.
I don't think that there's any doubt about where the heads of the founders were at - folks like Jefferson and Franklin, who wrote it, or Madison who wrote much of the Constitution were very much interested in the (classical) liberal ideology, as in the writing of JS Mill. Their philosophy was all about the sovereignty of the individual, and were not of a communitarian bent.
You might not like that, you might think that we've learned better since then, but the body of writing from these guys is pretty clear, and it's nutty to believe that a single punctuation mark, whose impact escapes most of us anyway, should be taken to contradict all that.
-CWuestefeld
While many people can actually read and understand, there is a segment of the population that reads and invents. e.g. You say ABC, and they'll say that you said XYZ. I'm sure you've run across them before. They read what they want to.
Given how the entire SOPA/PIPA/etc. thing went -- i.e. people scream, it gets trashed, a new version with a different name comes out -- I think we can reasonably expect a new magical redefinition of the "living document" to emerge.
So, while I'd agree with you that it certainly is nutty... I fully expect at some point in the future for this to become an issue with a new "interpretation"... because war is peace.
-
The thing that cracks me up is many people...
-MilesAhead
I don't understand why we celebrate Independence Day as the birth of the USA. All this holiday marks is when we started trying to break away from England. But we weren't successful with becoming independent for several more years, and the form that our country now takes wasn't solidified until the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
In a sense, the Constitution was written to guarantee individual rights. The reason that stuff is relegated to the BoR is that the individual rights was so fundamental a foundation, that it was simply assumed. The Constitution documents a limited set of powers that the people cede to the government; obviously it therefore guarantees anything not mentioned therein to the people - they never gave away those rights!
There was a fair amount of controversy over the BoR, not because anyone disagreed with its intent, but because there was a fear that (even with the 9th Amendment trying to explain the situation) the list would be taken to be inclusive, and the government would just start doing things that the list doesn't explicitly forbid. And this is exactly what has happened.
-CWuestefeld
My brother and I were discussing exactly this the other day. Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. It assumes that people would continue to appreciate the significance of what happened prior to the revolution which all of human history tells me is absolutely impossible. The suggestion that the same people who work so hard to bypass the amendments which are there wouldn't do worse if they were absent doesn't pass the giggle test.
That isn't to say I think it's an adequate approach. It was always a kludge to compensate for the fact the US Constitution should have started from the Anti Federalist position in the first place, focusing most of the document on a general, and extremely broad, description of inherent individual rights. The government's authority would then be described in very specific terms with the ability for the people, but not the government without explicit and direct authorization by the people, to authorize additional powers through the amendment process.
WRT the original premise of the thread, if changing a punctuation mark in that document changes your interpretation, it really just means you aren't familiar with the relevant history. That's understandable if your background comes primarily from our public school system. I went to a pretty good public school and they never mentioned George Mason or The Virginia Declaration Of Rights.
-
WRT the original premise of the thread, if changing a punctuation mark in that document changes your interpretation, it really just means you aren't familiar with the relevant history.
-Vurbal
True enough, but history and science are often much like broad, sprawling markets -- people shop around for what they want. Evidence is like dirt -- trodden on and ignored. I certainly wouldn't put it past people, like, oh perhaps a constitutional law professor, to conveniently reinterpret for broader government power despite knowing the history.
That's understandable if your background comes primarily from our public school system. I went to a pretty good public school and they never mentioned George Mason or The Virginia Declaration Of Rights.
-Vurbal
Hahaha! :) It's amazing what gets left out of education, but predictable - things that actually matter. :)
-
The other most popular Constitutional Misconception I think is that therein is stipulated something about The Two Party System(tm) The totally contrived effect of the two currently dominant political parties haranguing. In the subconscious Joe Sixpack must be converting a vague memory of a legislature with two bodies, House and Senate, into this channel of thinking. Like the commercial that tells you it's two, two, two mints in one we get the crap that if there's a Democrat and a Republican this is all inclusive. Reading it is more fun for seeing what's not there at times. :)
-
I certainly wouldn't put it past people, like, oh perhaps a constitutional law professor, to conveniently reinterpret for broader government power despite knowing the history.
-Renegade
But it's not the Constitution. It's an old formal declaration of war that predates the Constitution. It holds no bearing on how things are run today. It can neither grant any rights to citizens nor any power to the government...at all.
Any reinterpretation at this point, based on a single punctuation mark, would be equal to you discovering an old baby picture of yourself which leads you to believe you had slightly less/more hair on your head, when you were born, than you originally thought. How life changing would that be for you?
-
WRT the original premise of the thread, if changing a punctuation mark in that document changes your interpretation, it really just means you aren't familiar with the relevant history.
-Vurbal
True enough, but history and science are often much like broad, sprawling markets -- people shop around for what they want. Evidence is like dirt -- trodden on and ignored. I certainly wouldn't put it past people, like, oh perhaps a constitutional law professor, to conveniently reinterpret for broader government power despite knowing the history.
-Renegade
Exactly why I've concluded the Constitution is inevitably in need of a rewrite. In the context of the times, the Constitution was a brilliant first try. Fundamentally, though, we are running into the same problems the colonists faced from the British government at the time. John Adams made the same argument prior to the US Revolution that we are making now. The specifics differed, and there was no formal document whatsoever to argue from. Still, his position was essentially that the colonies didn't answer to Parliament based on the long established historical tradition that colonies answered directly to the king.
It was an admirable first try (I'm not counting the Articles of Confederation) but ultimately built on the same shaky foundation of assumptions which had already failed so spectacularly. There are only 2 assumptions you can truly rely on WRT government. The first is that people, in government or otherwise, can be relied on to consistently interpret the rules in any manner, and to any degree necessary to do whatever they already wanted to.
The second, and perhaps even more important for maintaining actual democracy, is the real world Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. If the economy isn't democratic, meaning actual capitalism with real competition and choice, the government isn't either. So long as we don't have meaningful property ownership/disposition and privacy protections (just off the top of my head - there are others of course), capitalism exists only in theory.
It's nothing specific to the British then or Americans today. It's just people. They could be from any place at any time and the results would ultimately be the same.
-
I certainly wouldn't put it past people, like, oh perhaps a constitutional law professor, to conveniently reinterpret for broader government power despite knowing the history.
-Renegade
But it's not the Constitution. It's an old formal declaration of war that predates the Constitution. It holds no bearing on how things are run today. It can neither grant any rights to citizens nor any power to the government...at all.
Any reinterpretation at this point, based on a single punctuation mark, would be equal to you discovering an old baby picture of yourself which leads you to believe you had slightly less/more hair on your head, when you were born, than you originally thought. How life changing would that be for you?
-app103
But it doesn't matter.
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
The psychopaths out there will read anything and come up with anything. That it is the declaration of independence doesn't matter -- it is good enough that it was written in the same century by the same basic group as the fellows who wrote the Constitution. Logic doesn't matter. Reason is irrelevant. The psychopaths follow the same basic patterns all the time. They grasp at straws and bray like donkeys until they get their way. We see this regularly. The entire SOPA/PIPA/etc. thing was a good example. The same nutjobs came back with the same nonsense again. They latch onto anything remotely related to any issue and pursue it until they get it. They don't take no for an answer. This will be the same basic deal because it's "close enough".
Exactly why I've concluded the Constitution is inevitably in need of a rewrite.
-Vurbal
That would scare the b'jeez out of me given the mindset of the freaks in power that do everything for our "safety".
It was an admirable first try (I'm not counting the Articles of Confederation) but ultimately built on the same shaky foundation of assumptions which had already failed so spectacularly. There are only 2 assumptions you can truly rely on WRT government. The first is that people, in government or otherwise, can be relied on to consistently interpret the rules in any manner, and to any degree necessary to do whatever they already wanted to.
-Vurbal
Sadly. :(
The second, and perhaps even more important for maintaining actual democracy, is the real world Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. If the economy isn't democratic, meaning actual capitalism with real competition and choice, the government isn't either.
-Vurbal
Pretty much.
So long as we don't have meaningful property ownership/disposition and privacy protections (just off the top of my head - there are others of course), capitalism exists only in theory.
-Vurbal
Which is exactly why I every now and then blurt out that property tax is theft/slavery. You are forced to work to pay the "tax" and if you don't, they steal your home. If it isn't forced labour (partial slavery), it is a slow exercise of eminent domain, and therefore theft.
Property tax destroys any security you have in having a place to live. This is not really a debateable point. It's a simple statement of fact.
Any "costs" or fees associated with any services need to be permanently divorced from property in order for people to have actual security in their property. Until then, any talk of "property rights" is just disingenous banter.
(Please note that I am not talking about corporations as "persons". I mean natural humans.)
Property represents the fruits of past labours. The confiscation of it is nothing short than retroactive slavery (theft).
It's nothing specific to the British then or Americans today. It's just people. They could be from any place at any time and the results would ultimately be the same.
-Vurbal
The Anglo-world does have common law, which is arguably somewhat unique to it. But you also have somewhat similar things happening in other places, e.g. Ireland (Brehon law, hat tip to tomos) and Somalia (Xeer). i.e. Ad hoc rules created as new cases came up.
But yeah... the same problems arise all over.
-
That would scare the b'jeez out of me given the mindset of the freaks in power that do everything for our "safety".
-Renegade
Don't misunderstand me. I don't mean the government needs to rewrite it. I'm referring to the next time we get enough of the mentally numb masses to pull their thumbs out of their asses and do something democratic. That's always the end of the cycles we're talking about. OTOH the quicker the government runs things into the ground, the better our odds people will stand up and do something meaningful.
I'm not really even saying I think it's going to be the end result this time around. We have further to fall before I see it as viable. I just figure those of us who are already 10 steps ahead should focus on the long game. Everything else is just dwelling on the problem.
-
But it doesn't matter.
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
The psychopaths out there will read anything and come up with anything. That it is the declaration of independence doesn't matter -- it is good enough that it was written in the same century by the same basic group as the fellows who wrote the Constitution. Logic doesn't matter. Reason is irrelevant. The psychopaths follow the same basic patterns all the time. They grasp at straws and bray like donkeys until they get their way. We see this regularly. The entire SOPA/PIPA/etc. thing was a good example. The same nutjobs came back with the same nonsense again. They latch onto anything remotely related to any issue and pursue it until they get it. They don't take no for an answer. This will be the same basic deal because it's "close enough".
-Renegade
But why bother with the Declaration of Independence, which predates the founding of this country, when there are so many better documents to mess with that have much greater potential for accomplishing so much, in the way of a psychopathic power grab? Why not attack the Constitution itself, and reveal it as a complete fraud, and produce a document declaring your family as the rightful royal heirs to the crown of the USA, as willed to your family by the childless George Washington himself, this country's first King? Then march your gun nut psychopathic patriot army right into Washington DC, kick the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court off your brand new property, put yourself in charge of everything, and either shoot or lock up anyone that disagrees with you (without a trial), and make everyone live by your psychopathic rules?
If you are going to distort history and use its historical documents to do it, might as well go all the way with your psychopathic distortions. You would have a better chance of success messing with the Constitution and the last will & testament of George Washington to do it, than a punctuation mark in the Declaration of Independence. ;)
-
But it doesn't matter.
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
The psychopaths out there will read anything and come up with anything. That it is the declaration of independence doesn't matter -- it is good enough that it was written in the same century by the same basic group as the fellows who wrote the Constitution. Logic doesn't matter. Reason is irrelevant. The psychopaths follow the same basic patterns all the time. They grasp at straws and bray like donkeys until they get their way. We see this regularly. The entire SOPA/PIPA/etc. thing was a good example. The same nutjobs came back with the same nonsense again. They latch onto anything remotely related to any issue and pursue it until they get it. They don't take no for an answer. This will be the same basic deal because it's "close enough".
-Renegade
But why bother with the Declaration of Independence, which predates the founding of this country, when there are so many better documents to mess with that have much greater potential for accomplishing so much, in the way of a psychopathic power grab? Why not attack the Constitution itself, and reveal it as a complete fraud, and produce a document declaring your family as the rightful royal heirs to the crown of the USA, as willed to your family by the childless George Washington himself, this country's first King? Then march your gun nut psychopathic patriot army right into Washington DC, kick the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court off your brand new property, put yourself in charge of everything, and either shoot or lock up anyone that disagrees with you (without a trial), and make everyone live by your psychopathic rules?
If you are going to distort history and use its historical documents to do it, might as well go all the way with your psychopathic distortions. You would have a better chance of success messing with the Constitution and the last will & testament of George Washington to do it, than a punctuation mark in the Declaration of Independence. ;)
-app103
You're trying to be rational. Stop.
They're not rational (in the sense that you or I would normally ascribe to "rational" - but which is not to say there isn't a method to their madness).
Ever listen to Congressional debates (or parliamentary debates, etc.)?
In my car, the radio station that gets the best reception and that isn't just complete crap runs Parliament House all the time, so I listen to quite a fair bit of what the nutjobs have to say.
Very little of it is remotely rational. It's overwhelmingly emotional appeals and drivel with a truckload of lies mixed in for good measure. And whenever they're not screaming at each other with lies & emotional appeals, they're having a nice big circle-jerk about one thing or another, and patting each other on the back for the wonderful jobs they all do.
Quite literally, the majority of speeches I hear eventually get around to "think of the children". Really. Mining tax? Think of the children. Veterans affairs? Think of the children. Carbon tax? Think of the children. Janitors in government buildings? Think of the children. All of those are actual debates & speeches over the last little while in Parliament House where... wait for it... everyone was asked to "think of the children".
Just so that you don't think I'm making this up...
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Ffd08384e-4628-4d04-b897-ef2eac7c98e8%2F0021%22
So do not come into this place, Senator Wong, with your hypocrisy and tell us about intergenerational burden, when you left our children and our grandchildren with an enormous debt and deficit disaster.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2Fd1c77497-38f3-4411-ace9-fd69e2e4f785%2F0184%22
Renewable energy technologies are doing well, not only as a new innovative form of industry but also in providing a benefit to the environment, to the community, to our children and to future generations.
...
There I was reminded about future generations and about the importance of these bills in creating a sustainable future for our young people and for their children to come.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F6f9f953f-268b-4ac0-8ad4-08ce06f942d0%2F0262%22
My only comment on the debate is that the hard work of the Abbott government in fixing the financial mess that our government finds itself in because of the previous government will mean that those leaving us will live a better future—their future lives will be better, as will be those of their children and grandchildren.
But, it's not just Down Under...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg79938/html/CHRG-113hhrg79938.htm
I have included a picture of Russell with his two children
at the end of my testimony and the reason I've done that is, I
think it is important for all of us, when I read the Suicide
Data Report, the one thing that is missing in this Suicide Data
Report are the names of the individuals, the names of the
families, the names of the loved ones that are affected and
impacted by these tragic deaths. And I think it is important
for all of us to remember that.
For another example of "the children":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-tracy/uk-porn-filters-are-censo_b_5564553.html
This January, under government pressure, many of the United Kingdom’s internet service providers (ISPs) — together providing over 90 percent of the country’s home broadband connections — turned on “porn filters” for all of their customers, requiring them to actively turn off the filters to view any content deemed unsuitable. Prime Minister David Cameron pushed the program through under the guise of protecting the “innocence of children,” but as warned by opponents of Internet regulation, the filters are now blocking large amounts of clean content.
Hmm... ain't quite working out like it was advertised, eh? 8)
You're never going to "win" a debate against that kind of lunacy by trying to be sane or rational. Logic and reason have nothing to do with anything there.
It's better to look at the reality distortion field that they exist in, see "how they rationalise" and then use that distorted lens to project where things will end up.
-
One convenient thing about being autistic is that crap has never worked on me. Even as a teenager, Ronald "The Great Communicator" Reagan just seemed like a doddering old half wit because all I paid attention to was the actual words. Now that speeches, press conferences, debates, and the like are available in transcript form almost in real time it's not even an issue.
Even the average moron on the street is harder to fool that way. Too bad the average idiot is also to lazy to read what they can watch on TV. It didn't get the nickname Idiot Box for nothing.
-
You're trying to be rational. Stop.
-Renegade
Wait...what? You thought that was rational? :o
I am not too sure how I should interpret that. :-\
Too bad the average idiot is also to lazy to read what they can watch on TV. It didn't get the nickname Idiot Box for nothing.
-Vurbal
But why bother to watch the BS on TV when someone else's even worse interpretation of it can be summed up in a 480x360 graphic on Facebook, complete with a sentence or two of misspelled text & bad grammar, and a link to a site of questionable validity, built by a mentally ill individual that very likely has an entire tinfoil wardrobe? And you don't even have to Google it to see if they are talking out of their ass or not, before liking it and resharing it, to spread it's BS message to your friends & family, who most are likely to be just as uneducated, gullible, & lazy.
Of course that won't remove all of those people from the world, that actually have a brain and know how to use it, but you can just quickly block or unfriend them when they correct your BS, so that nobody else will know just how stupid and lazy you really are. ;)
-
You're trying to be rational. Stop.
-Renegade
Wait...what? You thought that was rational? :o
I am not too sure how I should interpret that. :-\
-app103
Hahahaa! :D
I mean your facetiousness and bit at the end:
You would have a better chance of success messing with the Constitution and the last will & testament of George Washington to do it, than a punctuation mark in the Declaration of Independence.
While the silliness is fun, the last part there is quite sober. In fact, exactly that is happening if you watch the news or listen to a few academics and pundits. I know you're being facetious and poking fun at a few things, but the kind of insanity that you're pointing out is happening, although in a different flavour.
I kid thee not.
WARNING - HAS AUDIO AUTOPLAY
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/big-question-constitution-out-of-date.htm
The Constitution is the foundational document of U.S. governance. In some corners, though, it's considered outmoded. Is the Constitution really out of date?
http://voices.yahoo.com/is-constitution-out-date-743981.html
Is the Constitution Out of Date?
http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-constitution-outdated-and-too-vague-for-the-united-states-today
Americans across the country can all agree that the United States runs on the same set of rules, the Constitution. When the Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, it was written as a guideline to follow for the American people. The Founding Founders drafted and edited a document that was relevant for the times and would distinguish the United States from the country it broke away from. In the year 2012, the Constitution appears too vague for many Americans and politicians use its vagueness to fit their political agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all
Let’s Give Up on the Constitution
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1121972?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103954119741
Does the Constitution Mean What It Always Meant?
etc. etc. etc.
Why not attack the Constitution itself... You would have a better chance of success messing with the Constitution...than a punctuation mark in the Declaration of Independence. ;)
-app103
It's already underway. Has been for a long time. ;)
Rights take forever + a day to get recognised, but they can disappear in the blink of an eye.
-
Here we go again.
This thread started out focused on an interesting new academic debate about whether there was scientific evidence of a mis-transcription and its ramifications.
And now has very predictably drifted into yet another discussion of politics.
Can we please try to keep the rants about government in the basement so they stop taking over threads?
And if you absolutely cannot stop yourself from posting about politics in a thread -- just make your point and move on -- it's not fair to the rest of us when these threads become just one or two people arguing (or more often agreeing) back and forth over and over about off-tangent political points that have nothing to do with original topic.
I'm not saying these political topics are not important things for citizens to discuss -- and i'm not saying you aren't providing useful information -- but I am saying that they should not make up such a high percentage of the posts on this forum. And it's especially harmful when such posts drown out the conversations that otherwise could be taking place.
Please.
-
Coincidentally, I just saw this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/10/a-fictitious-provision-of-the-mexican-constitution-uncovered-35-years-later/). Apparently the Mexican government have been using, while considering cases, a non-existent "provision" of their Constitution.
DHS officers and the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) within DHS have relied on provisions of the Mexican Constitution that either never existed or do not say what DHS claims they say. In Saldana’s case and in others, DHS has relied on the proposition that Article 314 of the Constitution of Mexico provides that...
At oral argument, however, the government conceded that Article 314 of the Constitution of Mexico does not exist and never did.
-
And it's especially harmful when such posts drown out the conversations that otherwise could be taking place.
-mouser
@M - Not that I'm disagreeing...but exactly which conversations are those that "could be taking place" that are being crowded out?
From what I've seemed to notice, about the only time an active and robust discussion starts taking place around here is when some legal or political consideration becomes part of the dialog. Which makes sense since you can only say so much amount about a tech topic before it's either exhausted or you start splitting hairs over details or arguing over brands. :huh:
Have you been getting complaints? :huh:
-
Here we go again.
This thread started out focused on an interesting new academic debate about whether there was scientific evidence of a mis-transcription and its ramifications.
And now has very predictably drifted into yet another discussion of politics.
Can we please try to keep the rants about government in the basement so they stop taking over threads?
And if you absolutely cannot stop yourself from posting about politics in a thread -- just make your point and move on -- it's not fair to the rest of us when these threads become just one or two people arguing (or more often agreeing) back and forth over and over about off-tangent political points that have nothing to do with original topic.
I'm not saying these political topics are not important things for citizens to discuss -- and i'm not saying you aren't providing useful information -- but I am saying that they should not make up such a high percentage of the posts on this forum. And it's especially harmful when such posts drown out the conversations that otherwise could be taking place.
Please.
-mouser
As I am the usual culprit...
I think you're mistaking some intentions here.
I'm not coming down on any political side.
I am coming down on "politics" though. As I've illustrated above in a few links, you can see how opposing sides use "for the children" to advance their arguments.
If anything, I'm apolitical, or anti-political if you will. I've made a quick/superficial case for politics being completely irrational, with evidence.
The original article has little to do with technology or science. The closest it gets is here:
And there, some manuscript experts say, existing high-resolution images show little evidence of a period.
I have not made any comment towards or against any interpretation of the period/comma.
I have made comments on how any interpretation of it will be abused.
I also made comments on reinterpretations. I've not tried to come down on any "side" other than the side of people losing recognised rights.
But, I'll drop that line of discussion.
Any further comments I make will be limited to comment on the linguistics or grammar of the content. I am more than qualified for that in a professional sense.
-
The original point of contention is here:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
From here:
...the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government...
We can see that the dash and capitalisation have no significant effect on the structure as the author wrote. i.e. The author had no clear intention for the dash and initial capitalisation.
So we cannot conclude anything from the capitalisation of the 't' here:
" — T"
Whether or not " — T" begins a new sentence is not knowable. Period.
The question then shifts to the author's use of the dash, "—".
However, this is unlikely to yield anything useful in isolation.
A more prudent look would be to examine writings prior to the time and see how the dash is used as punctuation.
The document is not an isolated event -- it took place during a specific time. Language evolves and changes over time, and we can only expect that the author was educated and practiced the typical conventions (or perhaps an untypicial convention) of that time.
That question is best left to language scholars with a solid linguistic understanding of the written language of the time.
But it doesn't matter as any interpretation will still be abused by the psychotic politicians in our time! :P ;D (I lied above! :P But I do hope to have amused someone out there!)