The constitution is about 19 pages long. Here’s a pdf
Did you read the entire thing?
I doubt that, but OK.
Yeps. One of my electives at uni was the history of the US constitution law for non-legal majors. I had to take 2 history classes for my degree and I thought it would be an interesting subject. Not only read it also had it read to me by my professor. He was a retired JAG officer and militant ACLU supporter.
I guess we need to know what people consider long. The full document is longer than the Declaration of Independence , which I know a lot better. I can’t remember having to read the Constitution in school, just the preamble and a couple of amendments. This doesn’t excuse my ignorance though. Thanks for providing the whole document.
Compared to most constitutions on the planet, it’s considered a short one.
I just looked it up and it seems that the German constitution has more than 350 pages. But the first 20 sections contain the most important and almost unchangeable foundaries.
My five year old’s Fancy Nancy books are more than 19 pages.
For a book, remarkably short.
For a news article, quite long.
For a legal document, who reads those anyways?
Damn, that is pretty short. I’m not American but I had always just automatically assumed it would have to be hundreds of pages. No clue why, of course, just some subconscious bias.
Reading it and going over the contents is also a part of standard US high school curriculum. It’s a graduation requirement. At least, it was when I graduated high school in California in the 90’s.
Yeah I kind of doubt that was a real requirement then and not something your social studies teacher mandated. It’s definitely not the case now or anywhere outside of the state afaik
In my experience, the two things that seem to surprise conservatives I’ve talked to are: the constitution is less than 20 pages long, it’s on my phone, and we could read it together in about 30 min (no takers so far), and that there are living redwood trees in California older than Jesus. I don’t know why the second one surprises them so much, but it’s one that seems to consistently elicit surprise.
Old trees are such a treasure. It’s a shame that despite their strength they can also be fragile. My house has chestnut floors, easy to find in 1927, but then a blight wipes out 90% of the population. And not to mention us humans but we don’t need to constantly talk about that, except to say it should be our goal to help these things grow for millenia.
Maybe if they made it a podcast chaired by a bald angry man.
There was a quote attributed to Lao Tzu I saw on tiktok the other day, and I was pretty damn sure it was nowhere in the Tao Te Ching, but I was curious if there was some weird translation out there I wasn’t aware of.
The conversation went EXACTLY like this. Like down to the word.
If you look into the original sources, it gets confusing pretty quickly. There’s a bunch of other sources (e.g. the zhuangzi) that assign quotes to Lao Tzu, but they’re probably made up.
However, Lao Tzu probably didn’t write the Tao Te Ching, so 🤷♂️.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi
Basically, by making shit up and saying Lao Tzu said it, tiktok is continuing a long Chinese tradition.
If only people would respond with respectful “I doubt that, but ok”.
These days, such a response is as scarce as an honest politician.
I doubt that, but OK.
As a machine language model, it was a pretty easy read I will say.
One of my favorite things to do with chat gpt is having it rewrite things as Trump. I wasn’t interested in rereading the constitution a second ago, but it’s going to be tremendous, you wouldn’t believe how great it’s going to be
Ad hominem if it was a debate
Ad hominem? How so?
Well, actually the context is unknown at least for me so I supposed it was a debate. If you instead of attacking someone arguments attack the person it is ad hominen
How is it ad hominem to ask if they have read the constitution? Here’s the video at https://youtu.be/YVDJqipoohc. Watch from the 50 second mark. The question is on topic and asked as a follow up. Why would you assume the worst without even knowing the context?
Are you . . . confidently incorrect?
I dont want to see a 6m video just to prove or not prove a point. I said IF it was a debate and in a quick look it doesnt look like a debate just an interview
No need to watch the whole video. Watch from the 50 second mark. Will only take 20 seconds from there.
Even if this was a debate, how is this ad hominem? This being an interview or a debate has nothing to do with it being ad hominem, does it?
You can interview someone and say “you are an idiot for giving that answer.” Is this fine because it’s an interview, not a debate?
The context that I supposed was that they were debating and then he said that, atacking the people instead of the argument makes it ad hominem but I was wrong, it was not that context
Pretty sure that would just be a fight.
Thats why I said if it was
