Posted on 05/03/2002 9:35:57 PM PDT by Caleb1411
"'Logic!' said the Professor half to himself. 'Why don't they teach logic at these schools?'" Professor Digory in C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was complaining about the fatuous reasoning of the children in the novel who did not believe in the existence of Narnia.
Today the problem is not just that logic is untaught. Many people, including some of the most well-schooled, do not believe in logic. How else to explain the almost comically bad thinking that passes for policy analysis of some of the most important issues of our day?
When the Supreme Court legalized "virtual" child pornography (see "Images have consequences," May 4), many of the nation's most prominent newspapers defended the decision. Portraying themselves as First Amendment fundamentalists, they editorialized that even the most offensive speech deserves protection; otherwise, all of our freedoms are in jeopardy.
And yet, nearly every newspaper that took this position also pushed for a campaign-restrictions bill that would limit political speech.
Do they believe the founders of the nation, when they drew up the Bill of Rights, intended to protect computer simulations of adults having sex with little children—and not protect American citizens expressing their political opinions in the course of electing their representatives?
And even if liberal journalists reject the "original intent" approach to constitutional interpretation, if we need to protect all speech no matter how offensive, then shouldn't this apply to speech that they find offensive, namely that of special-interest groups, lobbyists, and grassroots activists?
Or consider the cloning debate. Most everyone agrees that using cloning to produce a human baby is wrong and should be banned by law. But many people, including influential scientific groups, believe that "therapeutic" cloning, producing embryos whose stem cells and other genetic material can be used to treat disease, should be allowed.
In other words, it is wrong to use cloning technology to produce a living baby. But it is right to use cloning technology to produce a baby that is killed for its spare parts.
Surely, therapeutic cloning is more of a moral problem than reproductive cloning. The latter is wrong too, since it violates God's design in the natural order, which ordains reproduction by means of sex, an arrangement that results in the family, the offices of husband and wife, father and mother. But a cloned child would not be a soulless monster, just the twin of some adult, and would be entitled to all the rights and value of any other human being.
But to clone a child and to deny his rights and value by not letting him grow up, instead using him as a macabre medicine for sick adults—surely this is even more problematic morally. Indeed, a major reason why reproductive cloning is immoral is that it requires the production of scores of embryos before one actually "takes," with the other embryos then being destroyed.
Of course, conservatives are often accused of being similarly contradictory. How can you be against abortion, goes one charge, but be in favor of the death penalty?
But clear, logical thinking requires the ability to make distinctions. It is wrong to kill an innocent person. It may not be wrong for the state to kill someone who is guilty. A baby in the womb is not the moral equivalent of a convicted serial killer or an al-Queda terrorist.
The contradiction is really on the other side. How can you oppose the death penalty, but be in favor of abortion? How can you be against executing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who murdered 168 innocent men, women, and little children, but be for executing, without trial, a baby who isn't even born yet and who hasn't hurt anybody?
Fallacies like these litter the field of public-policy discourse. Why is the American Civil Liberties Union so zealous for the First Amendment, but so indifferent to the Second Amendment? Aren't they in the same Constitution?
How can public-school teachers get away with saying that standardized tests encourage rote memorization and "teaching to the test" when the tests they are complaining about involve reading paragraphs, answering questions about them, and doing math problems, measuring reading and math comprehension, but not rote memory at all? And why is the ability to memorize a bad thing? Why do those who believe in euthanasia think suffering merits the death penalty? Hasn't it always been more despicable to kill a sick, helpless person than someone who can fight back? Don't sick people need to be cared for, not exterminated?
Mental clarity is generally a prerequisite for moral clarity. And being able to recognize bad thinking is necessary for citizens in a free society—otherwise, they will not remain free very much longer, but be at the mercy of the spin doctors and the demagogues.
"Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures." -- Samuel Adams, as quoted in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TIMOTHY JOE EMERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANGELO DIVISION, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598, April 7, 1999, Decided
It is important to understand that it is the author of this article that is talking about what people believe. He's talking about other people's flawed reasoning, so to illustrate their flaws he needs to use their actual reasoning, not his own distortions of it. That is the biggest problem with the article and I should have made that point a little clearer.
It is ironic that you are making these arguments on a thread about the sad state of logical education. I have said for many years that rhetoric is not taught in schools anymore, because it is being used against us. Your polemics are a living example.
You have consistantly used classical "straw man," "special pleading," "ad homenim," components to support your contentions. Perhaps this is by satiric design, as this is a thread ostensibly about logic.
Of course, we both know that your fatal error was posting the Cruikshank et al. citation. It is glaringly obvious you don't want to divulge your source for this particular example of "special pleading." Obviously, you know divulging the source would discount much of your argument. The source may not be ACLU, but it is obviously from a similar site such as the Violence Policy Center. It does not matter at this point; you have consistantly evaded the question.
I don't need to engage in any sophomoric "deal-making" with you. Your evasions have already impeached you.
Your original reference to the ACLU is unsupportable.
What a surprise.
Nonsense. The notion that Congress has not prevented states from resticting such assumes that they want to do so. What if a state wants to let citizens buy machine guns, silencers or even (gasp) 15 round magazines? Roscoe, I read you all the time. You are a jackboot butt kissing buffoon. You remind me of Jews in Germany who had silly uniforms and saved their own sorry butts by turning in their neighbors because the "authorities" patted their little heads for doing "the right thing". You are no better than the useful idiots of communist regimes. In short, you are the enemy of free people.
There's no Second Amendment requirement that a state allow or prohibit any of those things.
Hey, braintrust, where did I say there was? I said:
. The notion that Congress has not prevented states from resticting such assumes that they want to do so. What if a state wants to let citizens buy machine guns, silencers or even (gasp) 15 round magazines?
That prerogative has been pre-empted by the feds, correct?
Another strawman, smug ass reply from you though, eh?
Pursuant to the Second Amendment?
And it will, ad nausium...
FReegards
good post above, BTW
When has the ACLU ever taken the position that the Second Amendment is a restriction on Congress?
You've come up empty handed.
Nooo...
In violation of, genius.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.