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.
Is this the part that has you confused and befuddled?
"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?"
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
How is anyone going to believe what you're saying when you don't even know what the 1 and 2 amendments say? Your "claimed" knowledge shows me something though.
Yes! Great point!
We have always known that the scumbag leftists at the ACLU do nothing more than push the ultra-liberal agenda of the Democrat Party, but the ACLU's total indifference to the 2nd Amendmen ("shall not be infringed") is glaring.
Then why has the 14th only been used to advance Federal government domination and the causes of the left?
Because the people who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment were, for whatever reason, unwilling to actually make clear what was and was not supposed to be prohibitted thereby.
Consider the First Amendment and the issues of libel, slander, etc. The First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..." didn't need to define any exceptions for such things, because they don't fall under Congress' jurisdiction. The only thing that might have fallen under Congress' jurisdiction which might have tweaked the First Amendment would have been interstate advertising (which would have existed even in 1789, though not nearly to the extent it does today). Even there, Congress' action would be primarily to ensure that someone who advertises a product for 10 cents actually delivers it for that price, rather than concerning itself with the advertisement per se.
The application of "First-Amendment" freedoms against the states, however, poses new wrinkles. Since states are, it would seem, not to be forbidden from enforcing laws against libel and slander, it becomes necessary to have exceptions to freedom of the press/speech/etc. Unfortunately, nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment gives any clue as to what those exceptions are or should be.
It is truly unfortunate that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment didn't bother to specify specifically what states were and were not forbidden from doing. Perhaps they couldn't agree on it, so everyone involved figured that they'd write something vague and hope courts decided things their way later on. Unfortunately, that sort of legislative laziness nearly always causes problems down the road.
------------------------------------
They specified very broadly on purpose. As per the 9th, the 'enumeration' of specific rights is not necessary. --- "Life, liberty, and property" pretty well covers ALL areas where states "shall not make or enforce any law", without constitutional due process.
The problems down the road came from socialistic programs that disapprove of so much freedom. -- In their view, -- we must must sacrifice individual liberties for the social 'good', -- for community goals & safety.
The 'moral majority' in CA views that 'safety' to be in banning guns. Incredibly, some here at FR agree. -
So lancey, whats your clever answer to my 'fallacy', above?
Yep, I'm with the others. Is there anything behind this, or is it just a lazy, easy, cheap shot so you can feel you don't have to think about the article?
Deliver, retract, or be discounted.
Dan
I'll suggest two reasons:
1) Leftists (Europe and USA) are anti-establishmentarians. The establishment is founded on Western philosophy, thus the Leftists
reject and oppose Western philosophy. (mostly they don't realize it because they are largely over-schooled illiterates.)
2) Mass migration of Muslims into major Western societies. France in particular has a very large immigrant Muslim population.
Your number two goes to further increase the evidence on my side of the balance. Yes. Death Glorifying Islamics hidden amongst relatively peaceful Muslims. Also intentional? The preponderance of evidence seems to indicate "yes" there too.
43 posted on 5/4/02 4:14 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by Always Right
Your point is solid, and I have no "clever answer" for it. I agree with you.
Yep, I'm with the others. Is there anything behind this, or is it just a lazy, easy, cheap shot so you can feel you don't have to think about the article?
I agreed with mlo, and posted my own 'fallacy', [see 51], which proves the point. It has not been rationally rebutted. --- Can you comment?
--- "Deliver, retract, or be discounted".
With the others how? With being rude jerks? They haven't said anything except to insult me with unfounded comments, and they don't even know what it is I have to criticize. Sometimes you people amaze me, there are such nasty people on FR.
I said something about the article and I said I would explain. The proper response is to discuss the article and the comments on it. It was not to insult each other. You guys ought to be ashamed.
The 'aclu' point was made by the articles author, not me. -- You are playing dumb on my 'fallacy' because you can't rationally answer the questions.
There was a thread the other day which touched on how it is so difficult to find a "libertarian" with a sense of humor, and how most "libertarians" seem to be nothing more than bitter, embarrassed, disenfranchised Democrats. One poster said he never met a happy "libertarian".
You come off like a case in point.
Anyway, since you seem to think that you asked me questions, would you kindly rephrase them? I can't find on the thread where you asked me anything. Thanks.
Regards,
LH
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.