RoR: Forum

I'm not defending the ACLU here, but this what you get when you have "public" education.

Post 1

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 3:15am

Dear Kurt,

The ACLU is eagernessly working to undermine the American values and Law. You may be interested in this:

Report on the ACLU by discoverthenetwork.org.

"Discover the network" is self-described as "a guide to the political left." Their visual maps are pretty revealing.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/22, 3:24am)

Post 2

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 4:39am

Joel wrote:

Their visual maps are pretty revealing.

Ouch! People say my charts cause nightmares. If so, their charts lead to a living hell.

Post 3

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 5:04am

Mr. Setzer, we may agree that it's not a very aesthetic chart.

You need to double click on the name of a selected organization (or individual), and the corresponding network "first neighbours" will appear.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/22, 5:07am)

Post 4

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 5:12am

"The lawsuit alleges the books' removal violates students' rights to a free press and that the volumes were removed without due process."

Pretty much tells you all you need to know about the ACLU's understanding of civil liberties. They're so fucked-up now, that they simply must be placed on the side of enemies of freedom, rather than defenders of it. ("With 'friends' like this, who needs enemies.") Just when I think I'm sick enough of the right-wing in America, the Left evidently doesn't want to be outdone in the offensiveness-to-liberty-and-common-sense dept. The ACLU does really essentially epitomize the intellectual standards and "honesty" of the Left these days -- basically acting like any good commie front-organization would. I knew from very early on in my interest in politics that the ACLU were no good. Some groups/organizations simply haven't the honesty to name and describe themselves accurately. Imagine some front group from the far right or far left calling itself the American Constitutional Rights League, consistently defending kooky right- (or left-)favoring interpretations. And that's exactly what the ACLU does -- hence their dishonest evasions regarding the Second Amendment, property rights, and, now, this. (Contrast that with the lesser dishonesty of an organization calling itself "Citizens for Distributive Justice". Still dishonest, but at least the labeling tells you up front what to expect from them.)

That's the basic problem with the ACLU: its lack of principles and integrity and its false labeling -- i.e., its essential dishonesty.

Post 5

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 6:32am

Now that I look at it, my title suggests that I found this a sudden surprise, which is not really the case. However, I did not think they were quite that obtuse with their ideas as this. This one just doesn't even begin to be defensible.

Post 6

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 6:47am

Chis Cathcart wrote:

That's the basic problem with the ACLU: its lack of principles and integrity and its false labeling -- i.e., its essential dishonesty.

I see this in many so-called "freethought" discussion lists and local groups. For whatever reason, a large percentage of these people lean left toward collectivism and other dishonesties despite their proper rejection of religion. Why that happens still puzzles me. I quit a local freethought group after arguing on its discussion list against one of its board members who had the audacity to call insurgents in Iraq "freedom fighters." Such nonsense shows a darker agenda cloaked in rational terms like "activism for church-state separation." That particular group had a nebulous mission statement that allowed such crankiness into its ranks.

The organization called American Atheists at least focuses on a fairly narrow mission of maintaining separation of church and state and defending the rights of atheists. Even they have started to annoy me with their occasional magazine articles riddled with leftist propaganda. I think I will not renew my subscription next year. I should dissolve my Objectivist club's affiliation with them as well. I thought it might generate some leads to new members, but that has not happened.

Post 7

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 8:57am

The only thing that suprises me is how the ACLU's anti-freedom agenda is actually new to some people.

As for their rejection of religion, what else do you call worshiping the collective?

Post 8

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:42am

Worshiping the collective is the gateway to state worship. History demonstrates what comes next!

Post 9

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:45am

To me, the only entity worth worshipping is the ultimate source of truth.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/22, 9:49am)

Post 10

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:50am

Joel wrote:

To me, the only entity worth worshipping is the ultimate source of truth.

Which, to you, is ... ?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/22, 9:51am)

Post 11

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 9:55am

Luke, I bet you guess it ;-)

Don't you love truth?

Joel Català

Post 12

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 10:35am

Joel, if your answer is "God" then it begs two questions:

What motivates you to participate in a site dedicated to an atheistic philosophy?
What is God?

Post 13

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 10:48am

Joel often attacks Objectivism and Rand with a very poor understanding of the philosophy. If you think Objectivism is a good philosophy, you are just branded a "Randroid" by Joel.

He believes the central concept of the Christian Bible is human freedom.

He believes in ghosts, a god, and all sorts of supernatural ghools and goblins.

He believes the best form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy.

He often never gives a reasoned critique of Objectivism instead gives only broad generalizations and meaningless abstractions. And he never offers an alternative to Objectivism other than religion.

At some point, I wonder when people will finally realize this guy is a troll, is not interested in any kind of intellectual discourse, and he deserves no further attention.

Time to stop feeding the troll.

Post 14

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 11:13am

John wrote:

At some point, I wonder when people will finally realize this guy is a troll, is not interested in any kind of intellectual discourse, and he deserves no further attention.

Time to stop feeding the troll.

Thank you for bringing these facts into focus for me, John. I shall immediately implement your worthy suggestion.

Post 15

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 1:00pm

Mr. Armaos performed despicable ad hominems and applied Inquisitiorial procedures as libelous attack against me.

This message's function is directed to develop my public defense.

Joel often attacks Objectivism and Rand with a very poor understanding of the philosophy.

Thats your opinion. Fact and opinion should not be conflated to construct a rational argument.

If you think Objectivism is a good philosophy, you are just branded a "Randroid" by Joel.

Wrong: I typically attack wrong ideas, not wronged people.

He believes the central concept of the Christian Bible is human freedom.

Not exact. Is one of the main concepts, not the central. (Laterally, I think that Christianity is wrong.)

He believes in ghosts, a god, and all sorts of supernatural ghools and goblins.

Ridiculous and dishonest rant.

In his inquisitorial quest, Mr. Armaos won't be able to find a quote of mine in where I write anyithing about "ghosts", "ghools" or "goblins."

He believes the best form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy.

Wrong. I think the best form of goverment is Minarchy, I like Constitutional Minarchic Monarchy, and also support the form of Constitutional Minarchic Republic. The key aspect is natural (negative) Law, the basis of all sound Constitutions.

He often never gives a reasoned critique of Objectivism instead gives only broad generalizations and meaningless abstractions. And he never offers an alternative to Objectivism other than religion.

I see Mr. Armaos is obsessed with attacking me.

Mr. Armaos won't be able to find won't be able to find a quote of mine in where I say generic "religion" is the alternative to Objectivism.

Mr. Armaos typically precludes rational discussion when somebody does not agree with him. That's an immoral character trait.

I identify his methods; in respect to me, I see what his goal is. The Inquisition worked in this way.

Joel Català

Post 16

Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 6:24pm

I orginally wrote about Joel:

He believes the central concept of the Christian Bible is human freedom.

To which Joel claims:

Not exact. Is one of the main concepts, not the central. (Laterally, I think that Christianity is wrong.)

Yet Joel wrote in the following thread post 3: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1400.shtml

human freedom is a central Biblical concept

Hmmmmm......

I orginally wrote about Joel:

He believes the best form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy.

To which Joel responded:

Wrong. I think the best form of goverment is Minarchy, I like Constitutional Minarchic Monarchy

Ah yes, a Constitutional Minarchic Monarchy. How fallacious of me to say you advocate merely a Constitutional Monarchy. Huge difference I see. God save the King right?

Post 17

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 4:03am

Mr. Armaos needs to learn how to read. Otherwise, his censorship skills will become greatly impaired.

He states:

I orginally wrote about Joel:
He believes the central concept of the Christian Bible is human freedom.
To which Joel claims:
Not exact. Is one of the main concepts, not the central. (Laterally, I think that Christianity is wrong.)
Yet Joel wrote in the following thread post 3: http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1400.shtml
human freedom is a central Biblical concept
Hmmmmm......

Perhaps he thinks he is a smart guy, but Mr. Armaos did not see the difference between my original "a central Biblical concept" and his falsely attributed "the central Biblical concept."

By the way: the central Biblical concept is the existence of the Creator.

Then Mr. Armaos added, about me --why should a "pro-freedom" guy care about me?:

I orginally wrote about Joel:
He believes the best form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy.
To which Joel responded:
Wrong. I think the best form of goverment is Minarchy, I like Constitutional Minarchic Monarchy

Ah yes, a Constitutional Minarchic Monarchy.

How fallacious of me to say you advocate merely a Constitutional Monarchy. Huge difference I see.

Indeed, it is fallacious, because there are anti-freedom constitutions, and anti-freedom monarchies.

But my embrace of minarchy involves an embrace of the values of classical liberalism.

As I wrote the "minarchy" word is the key point. All the readers familiar with the concept of minarchy will see mi point.

Mr. Armaos willfully omited this key word from his libelous process.

God save the King right?

Mr. Armaos is blinded by his obsession with my explicit Theism. Emotionalism impairs judgement.

It is evident now that Mr. Armaos' libelous case against me has been harmed by his ignorance and prejudice.

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/23, 4:18am)

Post 18

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 5:48am

John,
You're feeding the troll.

Post 19

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 7:04am