The article relates to whether democracy is an inherent good with inherent political authority, or derives its authority from something else (I argue the latter). Based on how I use means vs. ends for instance, I would say that economic development, higher literacy, better health outcomes, and robust human rights protections are inherently good. Yet I wouldn't say the same for democracy, which is only useful to the extent it is able to produce those goods.

Summary: The article reviews the main defenses made on behalf of democracy and argues that they are insufficient to provide it with inherent political authority. Instead, reason, which creates and shapes the moral principles of the social contract, has authority. And it’s these reason-based moral principles that must be reflected in our laws.

While these moral principles would often require democratic rule due to the outcomes of democratic regimes, to the extent that moral principles and democracy conflict, we should side with those moral principles. As a consequence, the article then argues that courts should recognize natural rights and become more active in striking down arbitrary laws like interest group legislation.

Any comments, questions, or critiques would be much appreciated!

Everything is always a mean to some end. And in turn those ends are usually means for something else. Democracy can be conceptualized as a value when framed as a form of structuring political authority or simply a tool for enacting a form of popular political authority. Distinguishing between means and ends conflates issues that are far more complex and dynamic.

>But causing harm and being malevolent are not the same thing

My bad, I typed i.e. instead of e.g., I was just making an example.

>Arguably doing evil would be malevolence + causing (or actively trying to cause) harm

I don't agree, and I see no reason to agree with you. You can define evil in that way, but I see no reason why I would define evil in that way. On top of that, morality isn't even necessarily about good and evil. You can just as easily say it's about right and wrong, or good and bad. My main point is that you have failed to provide any conclusive proof to define morality in the way you want. This isn't semantic, because most philosophers and even just the general populace don't agree with your definition. Especially in philosophy, I haven't heard anyone advocate for a theory that says "morality is good and evil, which is benevolence and malevolence", and yet again, I see no reason to all of sudden agree with your definition of morality when you've provided no good reason for me to.

We lose the ability to naturally discern subtle differences in consonant and vowel sounds beyond an age, but it is totally incorrect to suggest you can't "learn" them later.

If you're simply trying to discern the sounds in a language you can become arbitrarily good at the task (as in, your ability to discern the sounds used in a language scale with time spent invested practicing it, up until well after you exceed the capacity of a typical native).

The issue is that most foreign language learners never spend that amount of time and often learn to speak before they learn to listen/understand. This causes them to permanently ingrain their incorrect pronunciation. What everyone else is left with is the illusion that complete 2nd language acquisition is impossible, but this is just wrong.

They're not talking about a critical period for learning second language, but for a first language.

We have a few case studies of extreme neglect where children were kept alive but never spoken to or around by their caregivers. These children do not learn any language, and after a certain point (the critical period) they don't seem to be able to ever truly learn a language anymore. "Genie" being one of the most well-studied cases. She was kept restricted on a potty chair for 13 years, in a dark bedroom away from the rest of her family. She was fed, but that was about it. She was eventually rescued, but was never able to master English grammar. She knew some words, and could somewhat use them to communicate, but was never able to convey more complex ideas.

What you are talking about is a so called "sensitive period." It is easier to learn a second language earlier in life, but not impossible to do so later.

To your point, but different:

In my experience, I think it's a little less "huh, must be a thing where they're from!" and usually a little more "they know better, so it's a waste of time to correct" (unless the error is egregious or a popular annoyance like "alot" - see: reddit "grammar nazis"). This applies to the internet in particular, which is rife with mistyping and lazy typing for non-formal discussion, and in an age where autocorrect can actually make something you've said incorrect or nonsensical.

Eg: I'd assume "they won't accept nothing" is an editing error, and that you typed something out ("they'll accept nothing" or "they won't accept anything") but went back to edit your phrasing and forgot to correct agreement in the process. As quirks or little things like that increase, I'd assume you're not a native speaker whether or not I see your face.

Alternate example: I should have typed out that "Eg:" above as "E.g.," but people aren't going to take the time to correct that. They pooosssibly would if I had typed E.G.

Also in my experience, in person, native speakers will correct each other until they hear someone say that it's a peculiarity from their childhood or hometown. E.g. ^((maybe I'll try to write it correctly when I use it, now...)^) I have a friend who pronounces something oddly and uniquely. This friend has been corrected, but they have said it was always like that for them growing up. Now it has become accepted that "it's just how it is" for them with that particular pronunciation.

I think you're absolutely right about the impact of social knowledge and vernacular language on whether or not someone's considered native level. That speaks to the "personal knowledge" point in the linked article

"Why does an existentialist advocate free choice? For we all are ruled by the pleasures of those very same choices."

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

This is ridiculous. Learning languages is just a grind and it's a skill in itself. You are right that the more languages you learn the faster you get at acquiring new one.

It's super fun though, and i think it's a critical part about learning and understanding other cultures.

[removed]

I think it means to speak, understand, read, AND write. OR WAIT, it could by a very simple definition mean just to 'understand' it...

Sounds like you’re confusing your own personal experience with fact. It’s not that hard to keep learning a language as an adult. People do it all the time every day

Good point, I don't think I'll ever forget the time a French man told me my pronunciation of "thank you very much" sounded more like "thank you, beautiful neck" 🥲

I don't think he/she is devaluing language learned later in life. I think he/she is just stating that the approach and mechanism of learning changes over time. I agree with that point. I know that I learn nearly everything (language or otherwise) differently now than I did when I was a child.

Agreed on all points. That loss of abilities that you mention is a definite challenge. That just means that a person has to work harder and smarter to learn new languages later. But, as you pointed out, it is far less likely that they can gain native fluency and pronunciation - at least in a language with sounds that are not found in one's own language.

And regarding making mistakes... I have found that the most embarrassing mistakes I've made in other languages have cemented in my mind the correct way of saying things far more efficiently than any other method. In other words, if any of you are hesitant to make a mistake in another language, fear not - let the mistakes fly and the blushing commence.

As a native Arabic speaker, I find that the sound and shape of Arabic words make the meanings they describe incredibly vivid. There is an element of iconicity in this relationship that I don't experience with other languages like English, French, or Spanish.

In general I think this is true, it largely comes down to learning styles, effort you put in, and willingness to practice even if you're afraid of making a mistake.

One notable exception - children are born able to discern differences between many sounds, even the most subtly different. We lose the ability to make any of those discernments that don't help us in whatever language(s) we are exposed to in the first few years of life. I don't think it's possible to relearn those, which can present an obstacle in mastering another language that needs them, particularly in terms of pronunciation.

A strong understanding of syntax, semantics, and rhetoric to start.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.