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.
Man, it is hard to believe you are such a dunce. -- And, I can only guess you think you're being humorous. Weird fella .
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.
Post #51 is addressed to you. Read. -- In it are three question marks. -- Can you answer those questions? -- I'll bet no.
And you feel yourself to be in a position to lecture on logic?
Ay yi yi.
Dan
Your closing irrelevant quotation of makes me think that you too did not read my entire three-sentence (I correct myself) posting. I made no claim whatever; I just asked whoosits to put up or shut up.
Dan
--- "Deliver, retract, or be discounted". #56
Yo, general! I love that statement. That's beautiful!
Fine, -- if you can't understand my point, or mlos, we have nothing to discuss. -- Leaving your 'put up shut up' remark as just a mindless general comment.
The article very rightly criticizes what passes for thinking in the press. He is absolutely correct in pointing out that they engage in "bad thinking" and illogic, and they do it on a daily basis. Most of us here at FR would agree that liberals don't know how to think. The problem I pointed out was that the article then went on to use some examples and engaged in some of the very same "bad thinking" the press does!
Example 1: The author discusses the decision on virtual child pornography and relates that to CFR. He starts by pointing out that editorialists defended the decision, stating the reason that even offensive speech deserves protection. Then he points out that the same papers argued for CFR. But he omits the reasoning behind the papers position on CFR and claims they are hypocrital. They may be, but the accusation goes to motive and an honest analysis of their position that DOESN'T use "bad thinking" must take into account the reasoning behind the paper's position on CFR. Do they acknowledge that CFR violates the 1st Ammendment but support it anyway? Then he'd be right, they are hypocritcal. More likely, they don't think that at all and believe (rationalize if you prefer) CFR doesn't infringe on the 1st. In which case it would be wrong, but wouldn't be hypocritical. In refusing to deal with it and defining his opponents views in his own terms to make a point the author engages in "bad thinking".
Example 2: The author says the press is hypocritical for being on opposite sides of two 1st Ammendment issues. Yet the author himself is guilt of precisely the same offense. In a previous article, which he cited in this one, he argues against the Supreme Court's decision on virtual child porn, yet it is clear from the context of this article that he believes CFR is wrong because it is a 1st Ammendment violation. That is exactly the same hypocrisy he accuses the press of, he's just on the other side of each issue.
Example 3: He again falls in the same "bad thinking" trap on the cloning issue. He says people that think using cloning to produce a baby is wrong also think using cloning to produce embryos for stem cells is OK. These are in fact two different things, and it's easy to see that if such a person believed a cellular embryo did not equate to a baby, how they could come to these seperate conclusions (again, since I know this is a sensitive subject and some of you fly off the handle easily, this isn't about whether any embryo IS a baby, it's about the process of analyzing what people think). So how does he make his case for "bad thinking"? By redefining the terms and attributing beliefs to his opponents that they don't have. He says, "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." But nobody says it is right to kill a baby for parts. The people who support therapeutic cloning don't believe harvesting an embryo is "killing a baby". They could be wrong about that, but it's what they think, and the author dishonestly uses terms that distort their views in order to make his point. That is very "bad thinking".
Example 4: The last example I'll cite is so blatant I wonder that he couldn't see the irony of it when he wrote it. He says, "But clear, logical thinking requires the ability to make distinctions." Very true, and he goes on to make the distinction between being pro-life and pro-death penalty, "It is wrong to kill an innocent person. It may not be wrong for the state to kill someone who is guilty." Exactly so. And right after making that point he says, "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?" Where he ignores his own requirement to "make distinctions" and again uses loaded terms to describe his opponents views. Most pro-choicers probably don't consider abortion to be executing a baby, and they consider it a distinction that the baby exists inside another person. An honest analysis of their views deals with these facts directly, it doesn't distort them or ignore them.
Now he's entitled to his political views, as are all of us. This is a good piece of political persuasion. But it poses as a lesson on logic and good thinking and it is certainly NOT that.
You know the crowd. They're the same ones who classify "patriarchy," "phallocentrism," and "logocentrism" as among the various proclaimed evils of the West.
So, not only is logic not taught to people anymore, but antilogic is the order of the day. People are taught to abhor logic, just as they are not taught to think for themselves.
It is amazing the number of mutually contradictory views people have now, and also amazing how many people have views and beliefs that are contradictory of one another, had they bothered to think it through (which they don't, since it isn't on TV).
Q. "Why are FR's states 'rights' advocates so zealous for the 10th Amendment, but so indifferent to states violating the Second Amendment?"
A. FR's 'states rights' advocates (likely, most freepers) are always vigilant about states which attempt to pass more gun laws. There are threads about these issues all the time, and I never see "indifference". In fact, I see a lot of disgust and outrage over any new attempts at gun control legislation and a lot of activism to back it up. Where you been?
So the very premise of your question is senseless and, I might add, has the smell of weasel to it.
Q."Aren't they in the same Constitution?"
A. Yes, they are in the same Constitution.
I'm not your bunky, & I doubt we will 'go' anywhere.
Q. "Why are FR's states 'rights' advocates so zealous for the 10th Amendment, but so indifferent to states violating the Second Amendment?"
A. FR's 'states rights' advocates (likely, most freepers) are always vigilant about states which attempt to pass more gun laws. There are threads about these issues all the time, and I never see "indifference".
I've been on recent posts with texasforever, cultural jihad, roscoe, [you even posted there, if memory serves] texaggie, and dugway duke [right now]. ALL of these states rights advocates have said that states can regulate guns as they please, regardless of the 2nds protections, -- which only applies to the feds. -- And, - they tell me to move out if I don't like a states gun control. -- Thats MORE than indifference, in my book.
In fact, I see a lot of disgust and outrage over any new attempts at gun control legislation and a lot of activism to back it up. Where you been? So the very premise of your question is senseless and, I might add, has the smell of weasel to it.
The smell is coming from you states 'rights' polecats, not us constitutionalists.-------------------
Q."Aren't they in the same Constitution?"
A. Yes, they are in the same Constitution.
Thanks, then you must admit it's pretty weird, a 'logical inversion' even, -- to support one, and deny the other.
Exactly what "party line" am I voicing on this thread?
"I've been on recent posts with texasforever, cultural jihad, roscoe, [you even posted there, if memory serves] texaggie, and dugway duke [right now]. ALL of these states rights advocates have said that states can regulate guns as they please, regardless of the 2nds protections, -- which only applies to the feds. -- And, - they tell me to move out if I don't like a states gun control. -- Thats MORE than indifference, in my book."
Not that I don't trust 'tpaine' or anything, but do you freepers contend "that states can regulate guns as they please"? Thank you.
(By the way, there is no freeper called 'texaggie'.)
1988 Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.As John Adams explained:1990 Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph. (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony. (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
I believe the founding fathers felt that the Bill of Rights was a list of prohibitions on the federal government. I believe they feared most of all, an overpowering federal govenment. And, I believe they were correct in this fear. I don't believe they felt the BoRs was in anyway applicable to the states. If, it was otherwise, then why did they write similar provisions within their states constitutions? If the BoR was supreme, then these prohibitions in the state consitituions were redundant. Doesn't make sense.
In addition, just think how much mischief has been caused by the federal government in applying the BoRs to the states.
I have made that argument yes. The founders wanted the power of government to be as close to the people as possible. If a state population elects their representatives that are on record as in favor of gun control then they have given their "consent". The fact is that the California State Constitution does not mention anything at all about guns. I read it last night. The Federal constitution does require a "republican form of government in each state" it also provides for all citizens of every state to have access to the Federal court system to air their grievances. I made a mistake on the exact wording of the 2nd amendment and it seems quite clear to me that it is the most crystal clear amendment of all of them. It is a blanket prohibition on infringement of the right to bear arms. However, the 14th amendment, supposedly ratified to make sure the BOR applied to all states, left a MAJOR out for those states that wish to use it.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Under that “due process of law” language lies the defense for a state to regulate anything at all as long as there is a legal framework in place to challenge it in court. The 14th amendment took the clear language of the 2nd amendment and added a loophole for the states like California to drive a truck through.
You see, the brillance of the founding fathers was in creating a system that diminished the rewards of conflict. Since each state would be allowed discretion in regulating these issues, then it was no longer important who controlled the federal government. This removed the necessity of political conflict, at least at the federal level. There is much to be said for that.
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.