Growing Misery Among Girls, Young Women

[Adelaide]

Warning

FYI - this goes for everyone - discuss the topic. Last warning.

If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.

[Captain Obvious]

Women are a targeted demographic for a lot of special interests because they have a lot of untapped power.

They need to think more for themselves and not at the bidding of special interests trying to control them and use the leverage they have for their best interests, not someone else's.

[Dr. Who]

I don't doubt the effects of atomization. I've mentioned them many times before but atomization has nothing to do with civilization per se but a particular civilization: our own. It is a distinctly modern and a distinctly liberal phenomenon. The inhabitant of a 16th Century hamlet or town, for example, was not alienated. No, those answers lie in our relatively recent past.

The elevation of the individual above the group is central to the the American Constitution, its common law and its history. It is atomized by design.

[Ethereal]

The elevation of the individual above the group is central to the the American Constitution, its common law and its history. It is atomized by design.

Terms like "the people", "general welfare", "common defense" and "more perfect union" would seem to suggest otherwise...

[Just AnotherPerson]

Warning

Stop bickering. Stop attacking each other. Neither of you is the topic of this thread.

If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.

I know I am not allowed to question a mod. I don't mind that you gave me a warning. But in all honesty, it is not bickering. I was sticking up for a person for a good reason. I am quite disappointed that although there were mods posting in this thread that a warning would be given to me for bickering but a thread ban was not give to the person who told a potentially suicidal person to go off themselves. I am very disappointed. If it were my forum and I seen a person do that to another person I would have forum banned them.

Maybe there is the chance that you didn't see those posts. But I am not sure about that,since you were also posting in the thread. I may get forum banned for questioning a mod, and if I do, I accept it with honors. But it is sad that a person can say what Cletus did to another human being and no one step in and say something. What is this world coming to where that kind of behavior is acceptable. But behavior like mine is not. Behavior where a person stands up for what is right is frowned upon. This is not normal in any way. I am disappointed.

[Dr. Who]

Terms like "the people", "general welfare", "common defense" and "more perfect union" would seem to suggest otherwise...

That's its fatal inconsistency. It speaks of one thing, but fundamentally endorses another. An unfortunate result of the grand compromise. Despite its nationalist packaging, it is underpinned with the protection of the individual rights above all others which undoubtedly leads to the confusion about America's identity. It truly makes the life of a SCOTUS justice difficult.

An interesting discussion on this point here:
T[t]here are two different approaches to the Constitution, the republican one and the democratic one. They're each based on different conceptions of "We the People." If you take "We the People" as a group, and you're concerned with "We the People" governing, then the only way that the will of the people can govern is by majority rule. So then anything that gets in the way of majority rule is suspect and potentially illegitimate. Which includes judges getting in the way. Judges are not accountable, they're not elected, and if they get in the way of the will of the people there is something wrong there. That's the democratic Constitution.If you take "We the People" as individuals, as I believe the Declaration of Independence does, then the purpose of government, according to the Declaration, is to secure the rights of "We the People," each and every one of us. Then government is the servant of the people, and the function of judges—who are also servants of the people—is to fairly adjudicate disputes between members of the sovereign people and their servants. People as a group yields completely different judges than people as individuals. "We the People" as individuals yields a republican Constitution and in the book I maintain that the Constitution we have is a republican Constitution.


https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/...t-constitution

[Chris]

The elevation of the individual above the group is central to the the American Constitution, its common law and its history. It is atomized by design.

Terms like "the people", "general welfare", "common defense" and "more perfect union" would seem to suggest otherwise...

That's its fatal inconsistency. It speaks of one thing, but fundamentally endorses another. An unfortunate result of the grand compromise. Despite its nationalist packaging, it is underpinned with the protection of the individual rights above all others which undoubtedly leads to the confusion about America's identity. It truly makes the life of a SCOTUS justice difficult.

An interesting discussion on this point here:
T[t]here are two different approaches to the Constitution, the republican one and the democratic one. They're each based on different conceptions of "We the People." If you take "We the People" as a group, and you're concerned with "We the People" governing, then the only way that the will of the people can govern is by majority rule. So then anything that gets in the way of majority rule is suspect and potentially illegitimate. Which includes judges getting in the way. Judges are not accountable, they're not elected, and if they get in the way of the will of the people there is something wrong there. That's the democratic Constitution.If you take "We the People" as individuals, as I believe the Declaration of Independence does, then the purpose of government, according to the Declaration, is to secure the rights of "We the People," each and every one of us. Then government is the servant of the people, and the function of judges—who are also servants of the people—is to fairly adjudicate disputes between members of the sovereign people and their servants. People as a group yields completely different judges than people as individuals. "We the People" as individuals yields a republican Constitution and in the book I maintain that the Constitution we have is a republican Constitution.


https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/...t-constitution

It's not a flaw but done by design.

It's based on a simple line from the Declaration: "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."

The idea is that the government must treat all people equally before the law. Thus you see rights framed as the rights of the people in the Bill of Rights. And general welfare and common defense in the body of the Constitution. The government must treat and protect all the same.

The idea is also that that is for the purpose of leaving the individual free to pursue happiness as he or she sees fit. That's Enlightened individualism. It leads naturally to different individuals achieving more than others. It's a natural Pareto distribution, the old 80/20 rule that the work and reward will fall to 20%, recursively, and thus, because we're all different, you get unequal outcomes.

The only way you can achieve equal outcomes is to treat people unequally before the law. The contradiction is not in the Constitution but your desire for equal outcomes.

[Ethereal]

That's its fatal inconsistency. It speaks of one thing, but fundamentally endorses another. An unfortunate result of the grand compromise. Despite its nationalist packaging, it is underpinned with the protection of the individual rights above all others which undoubtedly leads to the confusion about America's identity. It truly makes the life of a SCOTUS justice difficult.

An interesting discussion on this point here:
T[t]here are two different approaches to the Constitution, the republican one and the democratic one. They're each based on different conceptions of "We the People." If you take "We the People" as a group, and you're concerned with "We the People" governing, then the only way that the will of the people can govern is by majority rule. So then anything that gets in the way of majority rule is suspect and potentially illegitimate. Which includes judges getting in the way. Judges are not accountable, they're not elected, and if they get in the way of the will of the people there is something wrong there. That's the democratic Constitution.If you take "We the People" as individuals, as I believe the Declaration of Independence does, then the purpose of government, according to the Declaration, is to secure the rights of "We the People," each and every one of us. Then government is the servant of the people, and the function of judges—who are also servants of the people—is to fairly adjudicate disputes between members of the sovereign people and their servants. People as a group yields completely different judges than people as individuals. "We the People" as individuals yields a republican Constitution and in the book I maintain that the Constitution we have is a republican Constitution.


https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/...t-constitution

It's only inconsistent if you assume there is some kind of dichotomy between the individual and the group. But you cannot have one without the other. Groups are made up of individuals and individuals exist within the larger context of their groups. The real problem with the constitution is that "the people" aren't a coherent group with a unified set of core interests and values.

[Mister D]

The elevation of the individual above the group is central to the the American Constitution, its common law and its history. It is atomized by design.

Atomization is a sociological phenomenon common to the modern (read Western) world. That liberal social theory underlies the US Constitution and BOR should be obvious since they're based on liberal principles. The anonymous, state administered social programs you are so fond of would be inconceivable in a society that wasn't deeply fractured and where the primary, non-political ties between men have not been weakened.

[The Xl]

Thanks for sharing that. It took a lot of courage, especially knowing that some members will try to use it against you.

Mental illness, depression, suicidal tendencies, etc, statistically tend to impact those who are more intelligent and have higher IQ's, as opposed to the dull. It would explain why it is so casually dismissed by some.