Critical or literary analysis does not require something supernatural sounding like “extra-sensory perception.”
It requires logic. Your analysis and interpretation, in my view, was a leap that Evel Knievel wouldn’t have attempted.
We, as a whole people, are not equally “blessed.”
John’s use of the word “blessed” means “living under the US Constitution”. The notion that we all have equal resources is neither stated nor implied.
If John was going to make a statement that we all can do the things he mentioned under the constitution, we as in all american people, he is incorrect. If John was going to make a statement that we all can do the things he mentioned under the constitution, we as in all american people, he is incorrect. The current system does not insure domestic tranquility for all Americans, it does not promote general Welfare for all Americans, nor does it secure all Blessings of Liberty to all Americans.
Indeed? Please state the specific laws that permit the legal authorities to discriminate between individuals.
I meant does the constitution accurately serve all Americans as it states. The answer is objectively no, and I’m happy to provide examples.
They wouldn't be relevant. The Constitution does not outline SERVICES. It outlines the relationship between the government and its people. In the same vein as before, please state what parts of the Constitution explicitly permit such discrimination.
Appreciate the agreement, but if we’re going to argue about the validity of my statement, I’d much more appreciate a valid argument in response. Saying something “is the way it has been for _____ years, and I doubt it will change any time soon” is rather vaporous.
Yet it is true. The fact that you consider it “vaporous” is not relevant. Even in a perfectly equitable society vis a vis opportunity, individuals would make choices which would impact their ability to function in society differently. Some would still be born into families that were rich, or that which had more prestige than others. Not everyone is born with the same ability to achieve academically, for that matter. Thus, vaporous as it may be, it not only will not change, it CAN NOT change. We are simply not all the same.
I could use the same model to argue almost anything, and therefore the use of this method is negated. “White men have been in charge for hundreds of years of human history, and I doubt it will change any time soon.”
You could, but that would be an invalid use of the statement. I am pointing out that there are situational and genetic discrepancies in society, you’re making a point of history.
Thank you for sharing your experience and identity. I appreciate you being open about it with me. I am also sorry to hear you’ve had plenty of incidents like I mentioned. Can you tell me what about John’s sentiments you agree with so we can discuss?
John’s original thesis was that the Constitution is an anti-authoritarian document. He’s correct. He’s also correct that holding to a strict reading of the Constitution would be be a powerful inoculation against authoritarianism. It is, in fact, a libertarian document.
Further, you seem to be confusing outcomes with opportunities. If outcomes are not equitable, it is not true that opportunities are not equitable. The goal of the Constitution is to establish that opportunities are equitable. What people do with those opportunities is another matter entirely.
I believe that his sentiments of “focusing on your own success,” aren’t useful if it is true that groups of people are prevented from succeeding.
How are “groups of people” prevented from succeeding? What laws prevent them from succeeding?
In response to #1: Best on who’s terms? Many countries would disagree with this, simply on cultural or historical contexts.
DOesn’t matter. BEST can be objectively defined as one which grants to the individual the highest level of self-determination whilst still enabling a civil society.
In response to #2: Speculation is rarely a good form of proving a point. The British said the exact same thing after we won the war. ;)
The point there was simply to remind one not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
My statement is about the present…I’m saying that a world where we can all safely and undeniably “focus on our own success” is not a reality in which we live. I agree with you…it is an objective. But we won’t reach that objective by doing what we want.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm. So, we have to lose freedom to have a world where we can “safely and undeniably focus on our own success?
Count me out.
I don’t really understand the reference to Obama becoming president. Can you explain more how this relates to my saying that John’s statements about the state of our American society is more fantasy than reality? I never thought it to be fantasy that a black man could get elected…
Glad to hear it. You seemed to be taking the position that the system was so “broken” that there were impossibilities that exist for certain of its citizens. I would disagree.
Imperfect is a nicer way to look at it. It lets us take the responsibility off our shoulders because it says that somebody else built it imperfectly.
Or, that nothing made my man can ever be perfect.
What improvements would you like to see?
Several, but they generally aren’t addressable by law. I’d like to see an end to legacy admissions at institutions of higher learning. I’d like to see analytics applied to solve the problem of race-conscious criminal sentencing. I’d like to see a Manhattan Project to solve the problem of crappy schools in poorer neighborhoods, and if anyone says “but this is the way we’ve always done it” throw them overboard.
That’s actually John’s point when he refers to Identity Politics. The system (don’t think “party” here. Think the centralization of power) is using these as tools to pit ourselves (yes, both “parties”) against each other.
Based on your response, did you assume I meant “republicans” when I say “they.”
Of course. Whenever anyone mentions “race” today, it’s to take a cheap potshot at one political party.