A teleological argument that assumes truth is contingent upon a specific worldview would indeed be flawed, because it would make truth an artifact of a given perspective rather than something independent of it.
A scorpion, not knowing how to swim, asked a frog to carry it across the river. “Do I look like a fool?” said the frog. “You’d sting me if I let you on my back!”
“Be logical,” said the scorpion. “If I stung you I’d certainly drown myself.”
“That’s true,” the frog acknowledged. “Climb aboard, then!” But no sooner than they were halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the frog, and they both began to thrash and drown. “Why on earth did you do that?” the frog said morosely. “Now we’re both going to die.”
“I can’t help it,” said the scorpion. “It’s my nature.”
[2] The second amendment is a constitutional right. A textualist right wing Supreme Court would outlaw any restriction or regulation on firearms whatsoever. That would be entirely consitutional.
[3] There is no contradiction to the logic you describe. There is constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. Even the supporters of the outcomes of Roe vs Wade admit it was a lousy opinion (e.g. Ruth Bader Ginsburg: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...).
If you want to create the right to an abortion, pass a law. If you want to repeal or modify the second amendment, persuade your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment. An actual, activist right wing court could find most of the federal government unconstitutional, using the same logic Alito used in Roe vs Wade.
There are something like 3000 regulations on firearms in the US which the court has found to be consitutional which is debatable. Most of the Federal goverment, especially regulatory agencies are probably unconstitutional. Social security is probably unconstitutional, as it should be relegated to the states. RICO laws are unconstitutional.
If you create rights by judicial fiat, don't be surprised when they are removed by judicical fiat.
[1] It benefited the rich and powerful is what you mean. The fact that donations went more toward Democrats than Republicans doesn't change that. So rich people are trying to control the center left side of politics...this isn't news.
[2] The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a modern construct, it became in vogue during the 1980s and 1990s when the NRA and gun manufacturers aligned in right wing politics. The individual right to bear arms in all circumstances didn't exist until then.
[3] There is definitely a contradiction in preventing states from regulating gun control rights (preventing the killing of other people) and enabling states to regulate abortion for the purported purpose of preventing the killing of other people.
[1] I don't know how that's the republican's fault. Again, it's the constitution.
[2] This is entirely incorrect. Garry Wills, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government, Simon and Schuster, 1999, p. 252. ("Until recently, the Second Amendment was a little-visited area of the Constitution. A two thousand-page commentary on the Constitution put out by the Library of Congress in 1973 has copious annotation for most clauses, but less than a page and a half for the Second Amendment.")
The Tommy guns and explosives used during the gangster wars of the prohibition were almost entirely legally obtained (some were imported from Ireland in exchange for liquor). As a lawyer, what you are saying is literally the opposite of the truth. Until the 1980s, gun rights were understood to be a state's rights issue, and most limitations on the federal level (like in the Dredd Scott decision) were based around the rights of black former slaves to own guns.
[3] There is only a contradiction if you assume that the supreme court only exists to prevent the death of people and the unborn, rather than to enforce the constitution. If there was a constitutional amendment that said that every citizen had to go and kill a Mexican every Wednesday afternoon, it would be the job of the supreme court to enforce that constitutional provision until it was repealed.
The Supreme Court doesn't exist to impose your political views, it exists to impose the constitution. The constitution often produces outcomes that are not in synergy with each other or a broader overall purpose. That is the problem of the legislature and the constitution, not the court.
From the UK branch which also is in severe trouble[0]
Jay Ersapah, the boss of Financial Risk Management at SVB’s UK branch, launched initiatives such as the company’s first month-long Pride campaign and a new blog emphasizing mental health awareness for LGBTQ+ youth.
“The phrase ‘you can’t be what you can’t see’ resonates with me,’” Ersapah was quoted as saying on the company website.
“As a queer person of color and a first-generation immigrant from a working-class background, there were not many role models for me to ‘see’ growing up.”
Her efforts as the company’s European LGBTQIA+ Employee Resource Group co-chair earned her a spot on SVB’s “outstanding LGBT+ Role Model Lists 2022,” a list shared in a company post just four months before the bank was shut down by federal authorities over liquidity fears.
This is part of why the bank appealed to funders and startups. These positions are just marketing to better reach their target customer base, as far as I see them.
Because people are only allowed to be their job? How is the fact that they also have other passions outside of their job mean they must have been a terrible employee.
If I had a major fuckup at my job and then someone dug up how my job talked about me running a board game group at lunch at work, would you be pulling quotes about how my love of Illimat and The Crew was a sign that my company was negligent?
I mean would you say the same of S.B.F of FTX who was playing league of legends while on the clock?
If everything were running smoothly there would be no reason to look. But if mistakes are getting made while on the job, could it be because an individual is doing more than the job description?
So if a Boeing plane is shot down in Iran, it would make sense to say "Iranians shoot down American plane"? During the Iran/Iraq war would have made sense to say "American missiles hit American planes in Iraq"?
Would it make sense for the AP to report that? No, of course not.
Could it make sense for someone to communicate that idea? Sure, absolutely.
Does it make sense to say the sentence you wrote? It really depends on who is saying what, and in which context!
My main point was: this looks like it was a misunderstanding (which, unless the source was fabricated, or just lying to the journalist, it was). I was presenting a hypothetical context in which that misunderstanding could arise.
NASA's budget peaked in 1964–66 when it consumed roughly 4% of all federal spending. The agency was building up to the first Moon landing and the Apollo program was a top national priority, consuming more than half of NASA's budget and driving NASA's workforce to more than 34,000 employees and 375,000 contractors from industry and academia.
OK I checked. NASA budget in 1965 was indeed just 60 billion, which is like only 8% of not even GDP but U.S. federal budget. Chump change, shame on you SpaceX for not landing on the Moon yet.
I'm not necessarily asking you, but I'm taking your message as an opportunity to ask if anyone knows of an extension that does the opposite?
I have pretty bad astigmatism, and I cannot read pages with dark background. There used to be an extension I used for this purpose, but it stopped working several years ago, and I have suffered ever since. Going into developer mode to play around with the stylesheet works, but is a huge hassle.
Yes, let's assassinate a world leader of the country with the most nukes in the world based on unfounded claims of election interference and a hack.
Do you have any idea what America did in Russia in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union? The 1996 election in Russia which was majorly "interfered" with by Clinton: https://archive.is/R7i5u, not to mention the fact that most Russian hacking activities are done using NSA backdoors which were leaked?
I'm surprised and disappointed to see such flagrant ivory tower imperialism on HN.
I agree completely that assasination, beyond moral abhorrence, would work out as well as most U.S. foreign policy - horrifically. The last foreign policy success I'm aware of was the Marshall plan.
I think it's a mistake to minimize Russian influence, when it suffices to compare the unmitigated disaster of U.S. actions - both government and private sector, and at enormous scale - in post-Soviet Russia.
Your cited article is interesting but does not support your assertion of major interference IMO. Policy maneuvers for political purposes are the norm for all countries right or wrong.
Really? A government saying that they would ensure no "negative stories would come out", literally puppetting international institutions to pay out money - billions - for an election campaign, sent US Government agents to be embedded into the Yeltsin campaign right as he was violating every law on the books and calling in favours from the mafia and oligarchs, and very likely also used intelligence agencies to help, all of that isn't major interference?
I have a family member affected by those "targeted ads" and can tell you this is hardly comparable to news agencies writing favorably or not about someone. Some people are seriously fucked up because of this. Just look what happened on January 6th.
For the record, I think that both are elections interference. But there's a far cry behind publishing fake news and advertising it to some demographics and fuelling IMF money into campaigns by the billions and embedding foreign advisors into a criminal election campaign.
A teleological argument that assumes truth is contingent upon a specific worldview would indeed be flawed, because it would make truth an artifact of a given perspective rather than something independent of it.