To answer your question, absolutely not.
Thatâs because theyâre listed in the Preamble to The Constitution, which the First Amendment is a part of.
âWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our PosterityâŚâ
1 Like
Right, thatâs the âmotivating statementâ so to speak; how are they responsibilities?
(btw, the law generally ignores that fluff. for instance, it doesnât matter that patents were allowed in order to âpromote the progress of the arts and useful sciences,â it just matters that they are a power of the federal government. if you managed to prove that patents stall progress in the arts and sciences, it would mean exactly nothing unless you could get the Constitution amended.)
1 Like
When I first read the email I spent a couple minutes staring at my keyboard trying to figure out how autocorrect could have caused this, just because I couldnât believe anyone would say that to a person- especially if youâre trying to get them to work for you.
21 Likes
Youâre correct, in a lop-sided way. The First Amendment has no place in this discussion to begin with.
Just stop.
I get what youâre trying to say, but even if it was somehow proven that this wasnât intended to be a gendered or racial slur (which is a stretch imho), itâs still a really dumb, hateful, indefensible thing to say. ofek@ can defend him or herself.
13 Likes
How are they responsibilties? Theyâre cultural values and ideals that were intended to suffuse the culture and society of the United States. The preamble is literally stating that the entire reason for the Constitutionâs existence is to promote those values.
That said, if the only responsibilities you feel are valid are those mandated by law, you have a highly unusual worldview.
I approached this poorly, and would retract my statement if I were that kind of person.
My actual point was that the First Amendment is only a restriction on what the federal government can do, and thus completely irrelevant to this discussion unless one believes that questionable speech should be banned by same. Since it isnât, the First is still irrelevant as far as immediate cause is concerned.
The Amendments arenât meant to be cultural landmarks, despite, yes, embodying values and ideals, as you say. It just bugs me when people extend them to be such. Itâs an issue of mine.
Added: Since I view them, rightly, as restrictions on federal government, and not just good ideas, I cringe when people say they come with responsibilities. It just smacks a bit of âif you donât behave yourself, weâll turn this thing into an autocracy.â I wouldnât say Iâm a libertarian, but, look, the restrictions were put there for a reason.
3 Likes
I agree it was a really dumb, hateful thing to say - I said as much.
And no, Iâm afraid they canât defend themselves in this instance, as they are not part of this particular discussion and not present to face the accusations leveled against them.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with playing âDevilâs Advocateâ that I am aware of, and I do not understand why my doing so should be offensive to anyone. If the editor is guilty of the acts they are accused of, the evidence will bear that out. I have no personal stake in whether Mr. Beschizzaâs accusations end up being true or not - all I care about is that our discussions of this topic remain as logical, unbiased, and fair as possible.
Logic doesnât care about emotions, it merely cares about fact. If you can find fault with my logic, please present it. If not, then we have nothing more to discuss in this capacity.
4 Likes
Donât know about Glitch, but I am. Because it is racist. As in âyouâre not allowed to do this because youâre not of the right colourâ. How much more racist can you get? So either itâs OK for everyone to use the word, or for no one.
8 Likes
Iâve been called a whore for asking for payment before, and Iâm whiteâŚI think the âwhoreâ comment is quite enough to get this $#%^$& fired. He might be racist, he might notâŚbut heâs obviously not fit to be in polite society.
Oh, and Dr Lee has a new fan. I really like her take on getting science education into places it traditionally hasnât been seen as important.
12 Likes
retchdog, it was a similar annoyance of my own that caused me to bring the 1st up to begin with. I get so tired of seeing people who ought to know better cite it when theyâre publishing hateful, unsubstantiated things⌠I agree that it has no place here. I was projecting onto others when I brought it up. If I understand you clearly, we actually agree on the fundamentals, and I apologize for my heated rhetoric.
2 Likes
Hey, I started a discussion by asking âwhat the fuck are you talking about?â, so I really didnât deserve any better. 
It does seem we actually agree, so, hey thatâs cool. I am also sorry for my part in the mishegas.
1 Like
Dear Ofek,
your communication with Dr. Danielle Lee came to my attention through an on line blog.
Your choice of words was very poor. Perhaps among your peers it is a normal way to communicate, but in the academic world it is considered unworthy.
I suggest you will demonstrate a higher level of eloquence when contacting potential bloggers in the future.
Kind regards
5 Likes
He wonât have to. He was quickly canned by Biology Online.
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about34647.html
9 Likes
Jesus, that site is terrible.
I guess the first red flag is the dash in the URL, plus the fact that itâs an .org for no reason at all.
But looking at the siteâs actual content, it feels like a cheap excuse to spray as many ads as possible across generic, poorly written âbiologyâ content.
Dare I say⌠whoring?
8 Likes
one actively used within that same subculture
Which subculture would that be? Can you put a name to it?
It seems this argument is akin to one saying that discrimination against, say, Muslims isnât racist, because Islam isnât a race. I trust that I donât have to give chapter and verse on why that is specious.
The fact remains that third parties donât get to decide what is insulting about an insult, only the insulted party gets to decide that. If you were previously unaware that âurbanâ was a not-uncommon euphemism for âblackâ, this does not mean that Ofek was unaware of it â indeed, choosing to make a play on the word âurbanâ indicates that he was all too aware â and it is improbable to the point of absurdity that Lee is unaware of it, and that that is what she is reacting to as much as being called a plain âwhoreâ.
2 Likes
Can we all just agree that calling someone a âwhoreâ in a business email correspondence is wildly inappropriate, period? Does it even matter what the meaning of the other words were, or were not, beyond that?
25 Likes
Does logic have a part to play in an emotional argument? If it does, it seems you have miscast logic as the lead when it should be a supporting actor.
5 Likes
That is your opinion, and youâre entitled to it : )
