czstar

First class has only a few seats so that isn’t a solution for everyone. It wasn’t just rich people who flew under regulation. My family wasn’t rich when we flew in the 70s. Also, the experience of flying in the 70s being much better than today isn’t all about seat size. I think the experience under regulation was sufficiently better than it is today that I wish we would go back to regulation.

Under regulation flying was so much more enjoyable than it is today. Yes, prices have come down but I’d prefer to go back to regulation. I’d be better for the mental health of the flying public.

Taking the phrase literally you are correct. As it is used in common speech saying “that makes no sense” indicates more a person’s position on a topic. I generally take it to mean that the person saying this is indicating how strongly they feel about the opposing position. Or that they can’t comprehend how an opposing position can be held.

I think Donald Trump is a man lacking any redeeming qualities. He is self serving, a liar, incurious, a charlatan, etc. He was right to pull out of Afghanistan and he was right about German dependence on Russian resources and he was right about European NATO members needing to pay more for defense.

Humans prefer to have barriers to completing a task removed. No clicks is much better than one click and privacy is almost completely dead. Privacy will slowly die unless there are major changes legally and culturally. It’s worthy to fight against the loss of privacy. I think it will be a losing fight though.

In the U.S. a lot of emotions surrounding this topic come from racist policies/perceptions of the past. It’s hard to have an open conversation about this topic without someone resorting to name calling.

Can a severely intellectually disabled person learn calculus? It’s clear that not everyone has the same cognitive capabilities or potential. This is obvious. Your response is what I alluded to with my remark comparing talking about this topic to burning a Koran in Mecca. People get too emotional and throw out reason and logic.

Can an intellectually disabled person learn calculus? Some people are so intellectually disabled they can’t even learn to use a bathroom properly. It is clear that not everyone can learn any topic.

Some people just aren’t capable of learning advanced concepts. It is obvious that this is so but saying this in higher education circles is akin to burning a Koran in Mecca.

I agree that the system is in need of reforms. I’m nit insightful enough to know what those reforms should be but I definitely agree that things are amiss.

EDIT: I understand your position. It makes sense. There is nothing objectionable with it. Below is what I see where the essence of the divergence of views on this topic come from. Have a great day!

Three highly intelligent and very knowledgeable members of the Court wrote an opinion on why Roe should not be overturned. Their eloquence and reasoning are far greater than mine. You should read what they wrote to see the legal basis of their position. It was not some right made out of thin air as in your Dairy Queen example.

Now 6 members of the court who are equally intelligent and knowledgeable wrote an opinion on why Roe should be overturned. Their eloquence and reasoning are far greater than mine. I read parts of their decision. I disagree with their reasoning. Herein lies the problem.

Human language lacks mathematical precision (I’m a mathematician and not a lawyer) and so we end up in a situation where equally smart, knowledgeable people have completely different conclusions about the same set of statements. This in itself is a cause of chaos.

In what I’ve written to you I have avoided saying things like, “there is no legal basis for overturning Roe”. Clearly there is a legal basis for doing so. Clearly there is a legal basis for not doing so. What I concentrate on are the consequences for this decision. I think the unintended consequences will be dire. Personally I think the Constitution needs to be rewritten. What worked in 1800 isn’t necessarily workable in 2022 in a much larger country with a much larger population.

The statements in the U.S. Constitution collectively have quite a few logical consequences. The 5 axioms of Euclidean Geometry lead to a vast array of theorems (logical consequences). The Court’s job is to navigate the logical consequences of the statements in the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution says nothing about a Department of the Air Force. Should it be legal to have a Department of the Air Force? The Constitution mentions “War Department”. It says nothing about a Department of Defense. Should that be legal? Well, the courts would throw out any challenge to the constitutionality of the Department of the Air Force because of the logical deductions of the statements in the Constitution.

Repeat the process for all statements in the Constitution and after 200 years you get a vast collection of legal opinions and judgments.

The primary role of the court is to preserve rights. It’s job is to make sure laws aren’t enforced that violate established rights. It’s job is to tell governments at all levels that certain laws passed are illegal because they violate rights. Imagine a city saying that burning a Koran is illegal and a crime punishable by death. I very much hope the Court would step in and say that law is illegal. I think you don’t understand the historical role the court has played. It does more than preserve or expand rights but that is one of its primary functions.

EDIT: Let me be more precise. The purpose of the Court is to clarify rights. It’s job is to decide what exactly is meant by “equal protection”, “freedom of speech”, etc.

Thank you for your response.

Euclidean geometry is a vast subject with many theorems. Those theorems are logical consequences of the 5 axioms of Euclidean geometry. Just 5 statements are the basis for a large number of logical consequences. Imagine then how many logical consequences are possible from the many statements of the U.S. Constitution.

There is no explicit right to an abortion stated in the U.S. Constitution but courts 50 years ago said that this healthcare procedure can’t be completely outlawed. They enshrined it as a right. It has been a right for 50 years. Now it is not. I talked with a conservative justice on a state Supreme Court many years ago. He told me that the legal basis for Roe had slowly been established by precedents over the years. He did not say whether or not he agreed with those precedents. I’m just pointing out that the expansion of the rights of women to an abortion was not without a well reasoned path. Sort like how after enough theorems one can see that then sum of the degrees of a triangle is 180 degrees.

There have been historical variations in laws between states. Slavery is the quintessential example of this and it led to the Civil War. If there is too much variation on the legal protections between the states this can lead to chaos. The Court should be in the business to equalizing rights across the nation and not diminishing them. The Court is in the process of trying to equalize the rights to guns across the nation. While I oppose the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment most people have it should be equalized across the nation. This is particularly true since travel is so much easier now than in the past.

We will soon live in a country where an act is legal in one city and a death penalty offense in another. The last time that happened we ended up in a civil war. I don’t believe we will end up with a civil war over abortion but I can see liberal states telling Texas to go ahead an secede when Texas declares their right to do so (as they have done at various times over the past 40 years).

The Court’s action is extremely divisive and I don’t think state legislatures should have to right to limit medical procedures. Let’s assume we both agree that at conception the embryo is a human being with all the accompanying rights. I don’t think state legislatures should able to force a person to risk their life to save that embryo. Should legislatures have to the right to force me to donate blood to someone or donate a kidney to save someone? I think not. Legislatures should not have the right to force women to risk their lives to save an unborn child.

We disagree strongly on this issue. We disagree on the role of the Court. There are major power imbalances with regard to the power distribution among the states. These structural problems are coming to the fore due to results like overturning abortion. Such is my view.

I hope you have a good day too. I will read any response you make but won’t respond further. I doubt you will convince me my position is wrong and I doubt I’ll convince you but it is fruitful to read other peoples’ opinions.