The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. And as far as I can tell Einstein never said it but it’s always attributed to Einstein
I guess you don’t see it too much these days (outside of maybe yearbooks or collections of inspirational quotes), but Frost’s “I took the one less traveled by,/And that has made all the difference.”
If you read the rest of the poem the narrator explicitly states in several different ways that the roads are pretty much the same. So the narrator is saying that by later on saying the roads are different he’ll be retroactively be justifying his choice or just not telling the truth about it.
Even after rereading the poem I had to read the Wikipedia analysis section to be convinced you are right. It’s a very subtle poem, which, honestly, just makes it better.
I always thought the confusion came from just seeing the last two lines out of context, because the poem itself has descriptions like “Then took the other, just as fair”, “Had worn them really about the same”, and “both that morning equally lay”. It seemed like Frost was really hammering home the equality, considering 15% (3/20) of the lines are talking about the similarities.
That’s the thing. Being just as fair doesn’t necessarily imply it’s equally travelled. Even being worn the same doesn’t necessarily mean equally traveled, although it strongly implies it. I think the final line is so certain that it overrides the earlier lines and implies to the unwary reader that these similar paths actually were differently travelled.
I don’t expect self contradiction in a story / poem. So that certainty of there being a difference overrides all.
It’s only after reading the author’s intentions that I know for sure that the contradiction was intended and that was actually the point of the poem.
As I said before, this makes me like the poem even more now.
Well technically, we’re a constitutional monarchy with the King of Canada as our nominal head of state. Gosh. Though I wouldn’t mind opening that discussion.
Especially when you consider that it was coined to refer to literally impossible action. It's not meant to be about self-reliance or whatever, it's something that cannot be done.
It’s just people saying it wrong, like “bone apple tea” instead of " bon appetit". It’s supposed to be “I couldn’t care less”. But I mean come on, these are the same people who searched for “Michael Jackson Billy’s Jeans” so often on YouTube that it became a recommended search term. Lol.
I actually love this one, because it's technically correct but not in the way people who use it mean, so you can turn it around easily.
Yes, you did get cancer for a reason. Because you insisted on maintaining your suntan every winter. Or perhaps merely because you pissed off the wrong banana.
Ok, I’m not saying you need to agree with the principle, but the grammar clearly states that the citizens get guns because the government has a military (which is the well-regulated militia).
Again, not starting a debate on if that’s good or bad, just grammar.
No, the “well-regulated militia” actually referred to a desire to have all able-bodied men of military age to commonly have most of the skills needed to fight in a war in case of a draft, such as marksmanship and survival skills, as well as already owning most of the necessary equipment.
What’s important to note is that the US had a very small standing military for most of its history. It relied on being able to conscript a large number of recruits whenever a war started, and sent them home whenever the war was over. This requires a lot of the citizenry to already know most of the skills they’d need to raise an army quickly.
A “well regulated militia” had a different meaning back then. Also, there’s a comma in the middle of the amendment that means the first phrase is only a clarification. The second clause stands on its own.
I just attended a lecture about this specific comma today. It was there as a rhetorical pause, not to separate clauses. A great example of how ambiguity in punctuation can cause thousands of deaths.
Textualism and originalism
A group of linguistics scholars describe developments in the field of corpus linguistics, which did not exist when District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago were decided, that have allowed for a new understanding of the language used in the Second Amendment. Researchers in American and English history have digitally compiled thousands of Founding-era texts, making it possible, for the first time, to search and examine specific terms and usage from the period. The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century. The scholars write that, consistent with that meaning, Founding-era voters would have understood the right to be subject to regulation.
The resulting evidence demonstrates that “keep and bear arms” had a “collective, militaristic meaning” in the late 18th century.
And what is this even supposed to mean in a way that would contradict the originalist viewpoint? The definition of “militia” in the period is already understood to mean all able-bodied men that are suitable for military conscription. And by extension, a “well-regulated” meant said militia having proper equipment and knowledge of how to use said equipment. Quoting this changes nothing.
Also a side note: you should look at some of the arguments above the one you quoted in this link. There were 2 based on the State of New York discriminating against people, particularly racial minorities and LGBTQ individuals, which have the most need for the ability to defend themselves
Add comment