= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Praising the Constitution - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (53)
This debate is about whether the constitution is dead paper. If you just define the constitution as a document who obviously says the right thing and then you will never come to the conclusion that it's broken.
I don't know what you mean with HN.
Mostly. But (as I already said) what actually provoked it is a book saying not only "the constitution is a dead letter" but "and that's a really bad thing that we should fix" -- and in that context, if we find some bit of the constitution that's allegedly being ignored, it's then worth asking whether it's better ignored or not ignored.
I don't think anyone here is doing that.
I mean that at the time I was writing that, attempts to view HN pages were frequently timing out for me, and my first attempt at posting that comment resulted in an endlessly spinning please-wait animation, so I tried again. I wasn't certain whether my first attempt might belatedly succeed, leaving two copies of my comment.
It turns out that there was some large-scale network problem in the eastern US around then.
Of course that's a worthwhile question, but it's different from the question of whether it's ignored.
Good to see we're in agreement again. (I didn't at any point say that the two questions are the same.)