A hero is only as great as the villains he defeats. Same goes for the ACLU .
Is that really what you believe? What if there is no villain? You're acting incredibly simplistic. Where did you get your morality -- from watching movies?
A hero is only as great as the villains he defeats. Same goes for the ACLU .
Guess Martin Luther King, Jr. was full of shit because there are still racists.
King beat the shit out of Jim Crow, though. He but off more than he could chew, but he chewed more than any other private citizen (ie not politician) in American history.
You know, if we're going to argue as to whether the ACLU should or shouldn't go after higher profile free speech cases, can we at least use an example where it is a cut-and-dry example of free speech being squelched instead of the case of the Mohammad film maker who violated his probation agreement in the process of making, distributing, and promoting his film?
I mean, really, I can't blame the ACLU for not going after that case because, even if hypothetically the probation violation was used as an excuse to go after him, he did legitimately violate it and the only charges brought against him were for violating the agreement. A much better example of a worthwile case for the ACLU to take on would be someone who did not break any laws or probation agreements in the course of making his/her controversial, yet protected, statements.
A hero is only as great as the villains he defeats. Same goes for the ACLU .
Guess Martin Luther King, Jr. was full of shit because there are still racists.
King beat the shit out of Jim Crow, though. He but off more than he could chew, but he chewed more than any other private citizen (ie not politician) in American history.
I am really interested in why the court ruled the way it did for CU. Also why the ACLU supports that. Usually I can see the rationality in decisions, but this time I'm not so sure. Can you link me to the ACLU's info about it?
Well, I can't fault their logic once again. They support freedom of speech and think that any campaign finance reform should be treated as a separate issue. That's... fair.
I don't know about that, as a decade ago I hated them on the principle that they opposed things I supported. But I have found them to be very, very principled.
They're not partisan, that's for sure. They always fall on the side of civil liberties.
There's no such thing as ideologically vs pragmatically, really, it's just the lack of reconciliation of the two aspects. Citizens United is objectively bad. While you could say that in an ideal society where people play the long game and are fully educated about their own self interest as it relates to the long term interests of society, they're not and will never be so it's entirely moot.
There's no such thing as ideologically vs pragmatically
Do you mean that as a general statement, or only in this context?
I was thinking primarily in this context, but I think it probably applies generally. Pragmatism and ideology are just two aspects of reality. It ought to be possible to reconcile the two.
I'm prepared for the screaming of philosophy majors to follow. :-P
Are you one of those cute little gnomes who thinks philosophy is a real science? That's sweet.
That is a really weird way to take what I said.
Being less cryptic will yield better results in the future.
Dude... bro... you need to stop writing agendas into everything. I ask a question, you responded. I thought it was a slightly interesting if strange theory. You then get weird.
Are you one of those cute little gnomes who thinks philosophy is a real science? That's sweet.
You know science is a branch of philosophy, right?
Sure. So is religion. Alchemy, too.
No, seriously. Like, you can empirically quantify and test the validity of thought systems as an extension of logical systems. Philosophy is science. It's not just thinking.
All of math derives from philosophy. Bertram Russell proved this (or started to) in the Principia Mathematica.
Comments
I mean, really, I can't blame the ACLU for not going after that case because, even if hypothetically the probation violation was used as an excuse to go after him, he did legitimately violate it and the only charges brought against him were for violating the agreement. A much better example of a worthwile case for the ACLU to take on would be someone who did not break any laws or probation agreements in the course of making his/her controversial, yet protected, statements.
They're not partisan, that's for sure. They always fall on the side of civil liberties.
Ideologically, I'm completely fine with Citizen's United, though pragmatically it is troubling.
I'm prepared for the screaming of philosophy majors to follow. :-P
All of math derives from philosophy. Bertram Russell proved this (or started to) in the Principia Mathematica.