You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
By having an excessively open mind, you risk the possibility of your brains fall
For example, the ACLU is the poster child of an excessively open mind. They once filed a law suit on behalf of NAMBLA. Now, if that isn't evidence that their brains fell out, I don't know what is ;)
The ACLU tries to protect the American's civil rights. how noble. I mean, it would be great if they tried to eliminate any restrictions on weapon use. after all, Americans do have the right to bear arms, correct? so what's wrong if a mentally ill person gets his hands on an AK-47? he's an American and he has rights.
here's the truth people, we have rights, but we also have common sense.
NAMBLA issue: They posted information on their site on how to successfully molest little boys. as a result, many NAMBLA members were molesting little boys. the courts arrested those responsible for this website and the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the courts saying that it was a violation on their rights to free speech. Common sense people, we should not be teaching and encouraging others to molest little boys.
NAZI issue: The National Socialist Party of America (Neo-Nazis) wanted to march down a street filled with holocaust survivors. Now, nazis were allowed to march anywhere they wanted once they filled out the right paper work, but the courts had refused to let them march down this particular street because the people who lived there were HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS. These were little old people who witnessed their parents get shot right before them. They saw people starving on the ground and getting gassed or thrown into ovens. The Neo-Nazis would have caused an outbreak of PTSD. Not to mention that younger Jewish Americans were ready to fight back and not let them complete their march. But the ACLU lacked common sense and decided to defend the National Socialists' free speech right. The Nazis got their permit and then decided to back down on the last second when they realized how many Jews were ready to kick their ass.
there are about a thousand other cases like this. it is organizations like the ACLU that make philosophers weep (Plato). They seem to lack common sense. These people are against searching for bombs in subways and airlines. Do they remember 9/11 at all? The Constitution doesn't say "these rights are written as concrete and apply to everything that could possibly happen. even if we're all about to die, these rights still stand". No, the Constitution is meant to be interpreted differently. especially when it comes to people who's lives are at stake.
No Americans do not have the right to bear arms. The second amendment is one of contested and widely interpreted section of the bill of rights. The text is very vague and many people interpret, including the ACLU, many legal scholars, and myself, the second amendment to specifically refer to militias, not individuals.
Regarding the NAMBLA case, the suit was a wrongful death suit over a single case of child rape, not "many" as a result of NAMBLA. I personally find NAMBLA offensive, but I don't see how they are not allowed to post a guide talking about how to molest children, but other people can post guides on illicit activities.
The ACLU is not "teaching and encouraging others to molest little boys." NABLA is, which many people including myself find disgusting. But just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. We also shouldn't be teaching our children that it is okay to eat unhealthy foods and not exercise, but McDonalds is perfectly within its free speech right to air commercials encourage kids to eat their 'food.'
Arguing that what the Neo-Nazis wanted to do is morally reprehensible is pointless. It obviously shows a complete lack of compassion and empathy. But just because people find your speech offensive, does not mean that you should be prevented from saying it. The ACLU does not "lack common sense," it lacks an irreverence of constitutional rights.
"No, the Constitution is meant to be interpreted differently. especially when it comes to people who's lives are at stake."
I think you need to give the constitution another read, and do a bit of research on the philosophy of rights as held by the framers of the constitution. You do not understand the meaning of civil rights if you think they can be taken away under any circumstances.
The phrase common sense does not mean anything. There is no objective opinion of what is common sense and isn't. The phrase just means something that you think is very true and obvious. Racists might argue that it is common sense that whites are superior, but I don't think many people would agree.
Common sense is a subjective thing. It is not objective. Which is why people fight over what they consider to be a "nice" society.
As far as racism, think of how many times you have heard of someone playing their "race card" and saying to yourself, "That wasn't racist." racism is exactly what you said it was, "whites are superior." But currently the word is given another meaning. For example, if you say, "I would be more afraid if I were in a dark alley and a black man was following me than if a white man was following me." That's not racist. You never stated that whites are better than blacks. You just stated that statistically blacks are prone to crime. Whether that statistic is true or false is irrelevant. Racism on the other hand is an absolute. It states that all whites are superior to blacks.
I agree that racism is the belief of racial superiority, but regarding the hypothetical situation you described, while it may not be racist to be more afraid of a black man, it still shows prejudice and is morally reprehensible.
I don't think that it is reprehensible at all to use common sense. Prejudice, maybe. But think about it, if you were in a dark alley and you had a choice as to who was behind you, would you chose a black man or a white man?
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.
I'll break it down yet again:
You need an army/militia to exist securely in the world as a nation/state. We were a british colony. The militia that protected us, the english army, became our enemy when we declared independence. When that happened, the english army began confiscating guns so the colonists couldn't start a rebellion. If our citizens weren't armed our revolution would have failed.
I know it's hard to swallow, but the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that the American people can overthrow the government if it ever were to become tyrannical.
That is the only reason.
edit for clarity, a "well regulated militia" means a trained army as opposed to an unregulated militia which would be random citizens with guns.
"You need an army/militia to exist securely in the world as a nation/state. We were a british colony. The militia that protected us, the english army, became our enemy when we declared independence. When that happened, the english army began confiscating guns so the colonists couldn't start a rebellion. If our citizens weren't armed our revolution would have failed."
I am aware of the history. We have an army now, so why do we need a militia?
"I know it's hard to swallow, but the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that the American people can overthrow the government if it ever were to become tyrannical."
You realize you just contradicted yourself right? You said earlier the 2nd amendment was created during the revolution to insure America's independent which I agree with. But then you say that the purpose to overthrow a tyrannical American, not British government. I disagree that this is the purpose. The purpose was specifically to overthrow the British and maintain an army to protect the country. The temporary purpose was fulfilled, and we now have the army to protect the country.
Even if you think that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is overthrow the American government if it becomes tyrannical, explain to me how a random group of citizens with guns are supposed to stand a chance against the technological and organizational might of the US army, navy, and air force. If the government becomes tyrannical to the point where democracy cannot function, there is nothing we can do to reign it back.
Unlike revolutions in third world countries, the government has the power to scramble fighter plans and decimate infantry with incredible ease. No amount of rebels would stand a chance against the technical prowess of the government.
No that was very effective. But that was possible in the environment of Vietname, but not in the sprawling urban and suburban landscapes of the United States.
There isn't enough woodland areas to hide enough rebels to actually overthrow the government. And military technology has somewhat advanced since Vietnam. I'm not sure what evidence I would be able to find as it has never happened, we're just speculating.
That is possible, but A) I think historically not many if any soldiers defected to the rebels and B) I don't think it would make it a difference anyway.
But again we are both just speculating we don't really have any evidence
"Are you saying that Bush's war against terror was effective"
Haha that was a good attempt. No I don't, but I don't think you can really compare our hypothetical situation with the type of terrorism we are talking about. They have significant differences such as motivation, location, and philosophy.
The ideological opposition of the people most Americans have come to define as terrorists is that America is an imperialist nation that meddles in the worlds affairs. One of the primary reason for Bush's failed 'War on Terror' is that you do not make people stop hating you for meddling in the world by essentially meddling in the world. Additionally the geopolitical and topographical characteristics of the middle east make terrorists very effective.
However, I feel that with a group of rebels in the United States, these factors would not be an issue and the force of the government would be enough to crush the rebels with relative. If you look at the civil war and consider the south 'rebels fleeing a tyrannical government (in their minds),' then you can see that even with the country split almost evenly, the United States emerged victorious, albeit a close victory. Assuming that the rebels would have far less power than half the states and taking into account modern military technology to which only the government has access to, I think a modern day rebellion wouldn't stand a chance.
I was unclear in the first response, apparently. We all know when the bill of rights was created. I was trying to show the lessons learned from the revolutionary war, and the reasons used by founding fathers to create this specific amendment in their limited government model of ruling.
A "well regulated militia" is an army. A unregulated militia is people with guns. Do you get it? Regulated means trained in this sense. Try not to think too much in the terms we use now, just understand the meaning of the words. The document was made in 18th century so I doubt they could foresee cruise missiles, yes.
You seem to forget that these people WERE British. Our country was a British colony. Overthrowing the British WAS overthrowing the legal government. You HAVE to think in this context or you can't understand the document.
Your final paragraph seems to epitomize the attitude that got America stuck in Iraq to me. Yeah, what could those peasants do indeed, I mean they only live there. You also mean the army not government. The government is made of people who have lives that would be quite affected by this revolution in their own homes. I'd suggest reading more about the American revolution in general. It really does provide the best context for why our constitution and bill of rights are the way they are.
The problem with the second amendment is how vague it is. It does not specify governmental or non-governmental militia. It is very unclear and I am not the only one who finds it so as you seem to think according to your previous post.
In reference to Iraq, I already discussed that with joecavalry in a sub-thread. First of I'm not sure how my attitude epitomizes how we got stuck in Iraq when I have always been completely opposed to war both philosophically and pragmatically. There is a huge difference between an entire colony mobilizing against the mother colony an entire ocean away, and a country trying to stamp out hidden terror cells in a country where they didn't really exist prior to the invasion. I don't think comparing the American revolution and the Iraq war is a valid comparison as I stated to joecavalry.
The reasons America won the revolutionary war had nothing to do with how strong and brave Americans are as the patriotic nonsense goes. Despite the fact that we think America is the center of the universe, Britain had other colonies. While America was a profitable colony, Britain had many other colonies to manage including straining relations with France and an Imperial race with the rest of Europe. France also played a huge role in the revolutionary war by providing much needed support. Additionally due to the long distance between England and America, Great Britain had a severe mobilization disadvantage along with a supply disadvantage that comes with being an "invading" country. It was these factors combined with the wealth, education, and organization of American colonists that led to Britain's loss of the colonies.
None of the beneficial factors for the rebels that colonists or Iraqi insurgents enjoyed would be experienced by an attempted overthrow of the American government by American citizens. Even the topography of America would prove a disadvantage for the rebels. If most of the military, navy, and air force were committed to fighting the rebellion, even if most of the population were against them, due to the lack of advantages for the rebels and the severe technological gap, I just cannot fathom how the rebels could emerge victorious. If it really came down it, the government could strategically use nuclear bombs to annihilate the rebel armies.
"There is a huge difference between an entire colony mobilizing against the mother colony an entire ocean away, and a country trying to stamp out hidden terror cells in a country where they didn't really exist prior to the invasion."
Yeah, one was a revolution. One is an occupation. You're describing counter-insurgency. I was talking about the attitude power has towards the masses. The comparison was meant as a commentary on the attitude of the occupier on the masses when those roles have been defined by the kind of paradigm shifts we are talking about, nothing more.
I am not stating the reasons America won, only the ones the 4th amendment is in the bill of rights. Modern interpretations of the law are not the original intent, but are a result of it.
I partially agree with your sentiment. I don't think many (if any) people are fans of NAMBLA or Nazis. And I agree that they sometimes back the wrong horse for what they believe is a greater good.
My favorite example is their position on SPAM. They object to bipartisan efforts to penalize it. When you object to a topic that Democrats and Republicans can agree on, you really have to take a second look at your philosophy.
However, the one thing I definitely agree with ACLU on is their belief in the rule of law. It's a slippy slope to say courts should use "common sense" in order to "legalize" the prosecution of organizations like NAMBLA and Nazis. If these people truly present a tangible harm to society (which I believe they do), then a law should be crafted through our Democratic process to address it.
While an open mind is extremely valuable and important, a mind that is excessively open is unable to form its own opinions and hold true to a set of values and beliefs.
I do not agree with NAMBLA in any way. I agree that these nitwits deserve a fair trial in any court. Being homosexual myself I am shamed by their actions and most especially that they are arrogant enough to march in all our parades. Disgusting, utterly disgusting. It's no wonder straight people think what they do at times. Yes, they has brainz...shamefully, they don't use them.
the ACLU wasn't giving them a fair trial, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the courts because NAMBLA had allowed a step by step process on how to molest little boys on their website (which was then used to molest little boys). members were arrested and the ACLU decided to file a lawsuit saying that their rights to free speech were violated. apparently, telling people how to molest little boys is a free speech right, but i think this country should also have some common sense on what's appropriate and what's not. Plato would have wanted this.
I never would have thought I would see someone be criticized solely for having an open mind. While many conservatives dislike the ACLU because they perceive it as godless and liberal, their goals are rather noble. The exists to protect the civil rights of all Americans afforded them by the constitution. Because of their adherence to this goal, they have defended the rights of such socially despised groups as Neo-nazis and NAMBLA. With the former, they defended their right to have peaceful protests. With the latter, they argued that they are not liable in a wrongful death suit of the rape and murder of a child, just because the murderer had once visited NAMBLA's website. The thing that I think is really admirable about the ACLU is that they will fight tooth and nail for your rights even if they dislike you, and even if the majority of society dislikes you. By ensuring the protection of hated minorities, they provide the vital role of ensuring minority rights.
Furthermore what I really respect is that they defend people no matter the cost. In the case of Neo-nazis they were arguing for their free speech rights that other groups else have. The ACLU lost about a third of its membership and much of its funding. While the ACLU may vehemently and rightly disagree with the Neo-nazi's intolerance, they will fight for their right to say it even at their own detriment. Only allowing socially favored groups to have rights leads to fascism.
I completely disagree that being too open-minded is a mind thing. Being open minded is what allows to live in a cooperative and functioning society and focusing on being more tolerant toward everyone is the only way we can create a better America and a better world.
No, what I said was "an excessively open mind." The point is that people with an excessively open mind usually don't use common sense. The rule of thumb is that if you see something as an absolute, then it is probably wrong. Things are usually shades of gray; not totally, and purely, black and white.
"The point is that people with an excessively open mind usually don't use common sense."
That is an unsubstantiated generalization.
You said an excessively open mind is bad and the ACLU is too open minded. I took a stance against both points, and you responded to neither of my responses. Do you actually debate on this site or do you just make ridiculous debates and respond with pointless statements and non sequiturs?
The ACLU is one of the few legal/political/activist organizations that puts its money where it's mouth is. The Constitution doesn't make exceptions for people we personally dislike.
Definitely. I really love that the ACLU will defend people's right to free speech while publicly disagreeing with what they are saying. It is funny how many people yell "I have free speech" whenever someone criticizes them, but don't support free speech rights of people whom they criticize.
if anything is wrong then we shouldn't defend it what NAMBLA did or supported with wrong intension wasn't correct at all and if any org. raises its voice against that then its for agood cause .....
