Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
It is my opinion that your opinion is not the opinion of society.
It is also a fact that your opinion is not the opinion of society.
In this particular case, my opinion is also fact.
|
By your definition, it takes a majority. Here's your majority:
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/t...t-act-poll.htm
The American Civil Liberties Union, also known as the ACLU, has criticized many legal aspects of the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism. How much do you trust the ACLU to balance the need to protect Americans from terrorist attacks in the U.S. with the need to protect basic civil liberties for Americans — a great deal, a moderate amount, not much, or not at all?
Great deal Moderate amount Not much Not at all No opinion
2004 Feb 16-17 11 32 29 24 4
|
Excuse the bad formatting, original poll on link. Great deal + Moderate=43. Not much+not at all = 53. A majority.
Quote:
Once again, simply because you say the ACLU is doing more harm than good doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself. You posted "proof" of your opinion, but in reality those links only demonstrated that the ACLU defends people and policies with which you personally disagree.
So what? Why is that harmful to society? Because you disagree with the ACLU's defense? Nonsense. That is simply harmful to your opinion of how society should be. The ACLU may be harmful to your opinion of a better society, but that does not make the ACLU harmful to society. Perhaps your opinion is what is harmful to society, in which case, the ACLU is the benefactor.
|
By your reasoning, there can be no proof of anything's impact on society. By your logic, showing statistics for the genocide of Jews during Nazi Germany is not proof of that society's evil, because some people might not feel that killing Jews is bad.
I would assume the majority of society agrees that NAMBLA is bad, the other cases are more judgement based. If my opinion of a better society IS a better society, then the ACLU is harmful. Again, using your reasoning we can make NO judgement basis about the effects of anything on anything dealing with society, because nobody knows for certain.
Here is a quote of yours from a different thread:
Quote:
To answer your question simply, because hate is displeasing.
If someone kills someone to obtain money, they are convicted of murder but the motivation is the same as the motivation of many people: to obtain wealth. There is nothing displeasing about the motivation. The act is displeasing and they are punished for it.
If someone kills someone because that person is gay/black/white/etc, they are convicted of murder AND the motivation is divergent from society's accepted standards. The act is displeasing and the motivation is displeasing, and they are punished for both.
|
You have no proof for any of that, by your very reasoning. You are discussing what YOU think is society's beliefs. YOU state that hate is displeasing. YOU state that killing someone because they are gay/black/white/etc is a displeasing motivation.
Quote:
|
Post something which validates your opinion, or accept the fact that your opinion is not society's opinion.
|
I did that above. Your whole premise seems to be that people cannot state any society judgements because they are individuals, and not self-contained societies. You might be correct, but your assumption is worthless, because it eliminates any potential for debate. Or, if we use your earlier definition of society (a majority of people) there should be opinion polls on every subject to discuss it's relevance. And any opinion that isn't backed up by a majority opinion is worthless.
Quote:
|
And lastly, advocation of illegal acts is a fairly common form of free speech practiced by millions of people, such as those who oppose abortion and those who favor drug use. Your opinion that the advocation of illegal acts should be limited is contrary to the very principles of the Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of the United States of America. Since you oppose this aspect of the Constitution, and it is this aspect in which you find fault in the ACLU, it becomes apparent that the ACLU defends the Constitution and is therefore a defender of the United States of America. You are free to oppose that because of people and organizations like the ACLU who defend your right to oppose the Constitution.
|
You are disproved by legal precedent, inciting riots is not protected speech. Also, Charles Manson is serving a lengthy criminal sentence for murder, yet he just told others to kill-he killed nobody. It is you who seem to lack understanding of constitutional law, as avocation of certain illegal acts IS limited. All you stated after in relation to that assumption is invalid.