Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 SO what you are saying is the ACLU fights the fights they can win not the fights worth fighting? I'm saying the ACLU is more consistent than you seem to think, and it would help if people like you didn't lie about what kinds of cases they do and do not support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixote Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Merlyn, That was completely uncalled for - you may support the actions of the ACLU and view their championing of causes as being consistent, but that is from your viewpoint - others don't see it that way and to call someone a liar for giving their opinion is uncalled for. Quixote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctmom Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Lawyer question: If the mother has "full custody" of this child, does the father have any rights to sue on the child's behalf? Does he have any say in her education? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Ed, although you were asking about a comment that someone else made, I will give my own answer. I think that for the ACLU to pursue a case, they have to believe it is a "fight worth fighting" AND that there is some chance of winning -- not a guarantee but at least some chance. I suspect that is true for just about every legal advocacy organization in the country, whether it be on the right, left, or center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Sctmom, I am a bit baffled by that issue as well. I would have thought the answer to that question was generally No, but there this guy is, bringing the lawsuit. On the other hand, in this case it would be an issue under California law, which has its own peculiarities like every other state (only more so), and I don't know enough about California law to answer it. It also may be an issue of divorce law, which I do not really WANT to know much about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 That was completely uncalled for - you may support the actions of the ACLU and view their championing of causes as being consistent, but that is from your viewpoint - others don't see it that way and to call someone a liar for giving their opinion is uncalled for. I wasn't calling him a liar due to his opinion, I called him a liar for making false statements about facts, e.g. "what's the deal with not allowing Christmas trees or creshes on government property but saying nothing about a menorah in the same location?" If he's referring to the Allegheny decision, the ACLU sued over *both* a creche and a menorah, and the supreme court decided that the first was unlawful and the second wasn't: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/alle_v_aclu.html Making factually wrong statements (about an organization he clearly dislikes) is called "lying". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebillie Posted July 16, 2002 Author Share Posted July 16, 2002 'Making factually wrong statements (about an organization he clearly dislikes) is called "lying".' Well, until prior knowledge and intent are established, this is should initially be called being mistaken. Fairness, courtesy and truth all demand it. Jumping right into calling a mistake a lie is in itself a kind of falsehood, I think, and a tactic that really should be avoided. That said, when the ACLU has been disparaged, apparently that's ok - but when one of the disparagers is taken to task, that's not? (BTW - are there really folks out there who think the ACLU has done NO good?) I really don't get these rules of engagement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Being mistaken? The word dujour is "misspoke" something which our politicians, who never lie, often do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Merlyn_LeRoy, When one intentionally makes a false statement (i.e., knowingly misrepresents the truth), one is lying. This much we can agree on as being true. When one unintentionally makes a false statement, the truth is misrepresented, but one is NOT guilty of lying. In other word's, deception must be one's motivation if he/she is to be labeled a liar. I'm not sure what to make of your post. Since it is fairly obvious that Mr. Mori did NOT intend to deceive anyone, your intentional misrepresentation of his character seems to indicate that you are in fact guilty of your very own accusation. Just an observation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 Rooster, I am curious how you can delve the intentions of either Mr. Mori or Merlyn. Any clues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 As a matter of fact, I cannot attest with absolute certainty that Mr. Mori did not intentionally try to deceive anyone. Yet, I can make this observation. Based on his numerous prior posts, it is not consistent with his character to lie. If the facts were misrepresented, Mr. Mori has not given anyone any reason to believe it was intentional. This trust should have been extended to him as a matter of simple courtesy. As for Merlyn's post, it is rather self-incriminating. He is not interested in courtesy or any other part of the Scout Law, his goal seems to be singular - win the debate at all costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now