We (the US) put a high bar on it because the Crown was using it as a way to attack political enemies and we didn’t want to follow suit. It is such a high bar in this country that it is effectively dead law, as nobody has been tried for it since soon after WWII, and very very few people have been convicted, and of those several had their convictions overturned.
The current administration does, however, throw the term around against its political enemies quite a bit, as have people in general pretty much throughout history.
The Constitution put a pretty high bar on a lot of things. They put an enormous thumb on the scale of the status quo, which benefits some and harms a lot of others. Especially since the proponents of the status quo get to now put their hands on their hearts and say "gosh, I'd like to fix that injustice, but the holy Constitution means I just can't."
I’ve had a sand collection for many years. I keep small vials on my shelf. From the Namib desert, to the slope of Mt Fuji, to Alaskan tundra. It’s a fun way to catalog places I’ve been.
> I'm an antitheist but the Bible (gospels) put it well "The student is not above his master" [translation mine] - which means if you follow said master you have to share responsibility for his doings or the doings of the gang as a whole.
If you're talking about Matthew 10, I think you read that bible passage exactly backward. Jesus was saying not to worry about any persecution caused by following him, because the responsibility is not yours. They are really persecuting him, "the master", and if you just keep doing what he says you will come out on top, even if you are killed, and they will get theirs in the end.
(Not that I agree. As an atheist, it feels coercive. But that's clearly what Matthew 10 is saying)
> Except that if a student wants to learn without using them
My son, who is a freshman at a major university in NYC, when he said to his freshman English professor that he wanted to write his papers without using AI, was told that this was "too advanced for a freshman English class" and that using AI was a requirement.
I don't understand what they think it is they're teaching? Will we teach kids to "read" by taking a photo of their bedtime story and hitting a button next?
One of the teaching methods is "look at the context, like pictures, and guess what the word is". One example I remember was thinking "pony" is "horse" due to association without being able to sound it out.
I've still got a phantom child on my Apple account because when I tried to create a child's account many years ago for my son it somehow messed up and used the current year instead of his birth year. Support said too bad, no possible way to fix that. So I had to create another account for my real son, and while he grew up and moved out, my phantom son still lives with us for another nine years until it is old enough that I can delete it.
The AM-100/L we used at work until about 1988 did not have any memory protection. It was a pain in the rear trying to develop on it while it was being used in production, as you could easily lock up the entire machine and shut everybody down for five minutes while it rebooted. But our current ERP system is still derived from a Windows port of a DOS port of the original system I built in Pascal on that AM.
We've still got the old machine sitting in a dusty storage room. Last time I tried to fire it up, which was probably more than twenty years ago, it wouldn't boot due to bad RAM. I called the company to see if I could get any documentation on it, as ours was long gone, but they told me they had no interest in helping.
It seems like you are making a different point than the other posters. If the majority of a group does not follow an etiquette standard, it is reasonable to say that the group does not hold that standard. Your point that if any group holds an etiquette standard, then that standard exists is true, but is more tangential to the other point that a rebuttal of it.
That might be true for things like laws, but manners and customs are not strictly enforced by any central authority, at least these days, but rather by how culture/generation changes. It is possible that if nobody follows the same etiquette anymore, it means it is outdated and no longer exists. That is the entire point of progress.
At one point in time, it was considered bad etiquette to interact with people of color, but over time, society changed for the better. That etiquette literally doesn't exist anymore. That doesn't mean people are "getting away with" not following a "rule" these days. But rather customs/morals/etiquette are transitory and prone to changes, and one must understand what is and what isn't actual etiquette instead of just following all outdated "rules".
That's also fundamentally different from something like a law, where the ethical thing to do is that you should still follow it even if others are "getting away" with it.
reply