Yes.

> May I ask where you received your education pertaining to the Constitution?

From a constitutional law course taught by a professor with a JD from Harvard.

Again, rights of a minority are individual rights. But it's disingeneous to say that the constitution PROTECTS individual rights in general. It does not. It protects a small subset of individual rights that are most relevant when someone is in a political/racial/religious minority. Calling these rights minority rights is more accurate than calling them indvidual rights. In addition to minority rights, the consitutiton also provides a mechanism for ensuring other individual rights -- both de facto and de jure -- are protected.

Most of the founding fathers considered freedom from unreasonable taxation a plausible individual right. The Constitution doesn't provide explicit protections against that; instead, it provides self-governance.

Here is how I viewed this exchange:

OP: 5 is a positive number.

You: 5 is a number.

Me. That's stupid. It's more accurate to say it's a positive number, why are you correcting OP?

You: But positive numbers are numbers!

Me: Yeah duh I'm done here.

Individual is more specific and accurate than minority.

This would be more accurate:

OP: The square root of a positive number is a number so the square root of a positive number times another number means it also a number.

ME: The square root of a positive number is not just number, it's a positive number.

OP: So what.

ME: It means we can conclude even more... It means the square root of a positive number times a number is the sign of the non square root number.