News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Scissor Statements: Sort by Controversial. Parent comment

Re:Scissor Statements: Sort by Controversial by DrScientist on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @11:03AM (#21193044)
Hmm.. reread the full thread again. I think the mistake here is my lack of clarity about the word 'rights'.

My point was there is no such thing as an inalienable rights. 'Rights' are a negotiated social contract - so it makes no sense to say they are not negotiable!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scissor Statements: Sort by Controversial by mlevental on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @12:13PM (#21193836)
>negotiated social contract

the bill of rights was ratified December 15, 1791. in what sense is it still being negotiated?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scissor Statements: Sort by Controversial by mannykannot on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @01:03PM (#21194387)
That's basically what the supreme court does. The words remain the same, but the interpretation makes all the difference. Even strict constructionists have to negotiate the acceptance of their view.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scissor Statements: Sort by Controversial by DrScientist on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @01:09PM (#21194462)
Excellent point.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scissor Statements: Sort by Controversial by DrScientist on Tuesday October 08, 2019 @12:49PM (#21194238)
I'm not an expert on the US system, but I believe ratification implies some sort of agreement.

I also believe there is an amendment process - ie it has changed over time and each of those changes is through some sort of democratic process...

So the debate and negotiation still goes on, even if it changes slowly.

[ Parent | on HN ]