I was not critiquing the article I just believe that "logic" applied" to public policy does not work. It is "logical" for some to see the court ruling as a threat to the 1st amendment but it is just as "logical" to see the decision as a validation of Child pornography. There are examples each side can use to validate their "logic" the court used movies,"lol". The fact is, law for example, is not a logical construct. A law implies force and it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. While that is true is it "logical" to not pass a law on those grounds? No because that is like saying a hammer is good when used by a carpenter but bad when used by an angry husband so therefore hammers cannot be manufactured.
I agree. One can argue all day long with a dedicated proponent of an opposing view and get nowhere, because the logic one uses, and the facts one chooses to cite to support one's position are pre-selected to arrive at the preferred conclusion. Whereas, in the larger picture, the conclusions are actually arrived at well in advance of any proferred logical argument or adduced facts -- based on the world view one subscribes to. And that world view is the result of many extra-logical factors, such as worldly experience, intuition, peer opinions, religous/mystical experiences, upbringing and inherited psychological temperament. Besides, which is easier, to convince a life-long liberal to change his opinions 180 degrees, or to convince an apathetic conservative to get out and vote?
I am through arguing with the ideological captives of cultural marxism, although sometimes I will post a sarcastic reply to an exceptionally stupid comment, just to burn a liberal's a**, or for the benefit of uninformed lurkers who may take a liberal comment at face value if left unchallenged.
I think some would decry the ruling not so much as a threat to the First Amendment, but as an unwarranted, unethical, legislation-by-the-judiciary extension of it. That notwithstanding, Veith's larger point seems in this instance to be, how can First Amendment champions grant free-speech freedom to pornographers (simulators or no) while denying the the identical freedom to citizen groups who want their voices to be heard in the electoral process?
The fact is, law for example, is not a logical construct. A law implies force and it can be dangerous in the wrong hands. While that is true is it "logical" to not pass a law on those grounds? No because that is like saying a hammer is good when used by a carpenter but bad when used by an angry husband so therefore hammers cannot be manufactured.
Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like the Second Amendment-abridging arguments of the likes of Chuck Schumer.
Maybe logic will have to yield to ethics or "natural law". . . and then we'll really see some superheated rhetoric.
I'll pick this thread up tomorrow; I need a little sleep before my 5 a.m. wake-up call.