One of the best ways to use your children to annoy liberals is to have a lot of them.
Since liberals place a premium on tolerance, the loving and charitable thing to do is help them develop it. Note here that, unbeknownst to many, tolerance involves enduring something considered to be a negative. We don't tolerate a fine meal or a nice car, for instance; we relish such things. But we might have to tolerate bad weather, a cold or Nancy Pelosi. Now, since liberals actually perceive a great many positive things to be negative, placing them in situations wherein they may cultivate tolerance is not difficult.
One under-appreciated vehicle through which to do this is your children. You can use your kids to annoy liberals, but I don't mean in the way liberals annoy other people with theirs. Liberals, by not civilizing their children, breed brats who bounce balls in supermarkets, play hide-and-go-seek in restaurants, keep the makers of psychotropic medication in business and sometimes chant "Yes, we can!" No, the techniques in question here are far different.
One of the best ways to use your children in this regard is to have a lot of them. Liberals, being generally misinformed and detached from reality, don't know that the Western world faces a population implosion, and the exercise of fecundity isn't a choice they appreciate. You know, if they see a gaggle of boys and girls following someone mother-goose style, they think carbon footprints, Malthusian nightmares and about how the "wrong" people are breeding.
And think about the fun you could have. For example, a nice touch would be to sport a bumper sticker saying, "My seven kids can beat up your one Ritalin-addled C-student." Also, when the size of your family is raised in conversation, you can casually mention how the Bible instructs us to be fruitful and multiply. Judeo-Christian references move a liberal like nothing else.
How you raise your children matters, too. Make sure they not only play with toy guns but that they do it publicly. And it helps if they audibly say things such as "Bang, bang, you're dead!" Liberals view this the way a normal person would view the exposure of a child to pornography. This is especially effective with the subspecies of liberals known as the suburban soccer mom.
You see, liberals hate guns. They feel guns are scary. They feel that guns "teach violence" (that violence has to be taught is a notion I debunked irrefutably, undeniably and completely here). They just plain feel. They seem to worry that letting their son play with guns will turn him into a murderer even though they never wonder if allowing him to play with trains will turn him into a conductor.
To ensure this technique has maximum impact, you must choose the correct toy guns. Vintage is the word, because the guns you find in stores today look like they were designed by Michael Jackson's effeminate twin. They sometimes come in Barbie doll colors and, at best, have at least a little red piece at the end of the barrel. This toy-land abomination arose because undisciplined liberal children started pointing realistic-looking toy guns at police officers. Somehow liberals don't view this as Darwinian natural selection.
As an example of this technique, I'll relate a story involving someone I know. This father had given his sons some truly cool-looking toy guns from his youth, and one day he and his family ventured down to the community pool bearing these arms. When all the liberals' non-sex stereotyped, wearing-a-feminine-straightjacket sons saw these symbols of authentic boyhood, their eyes got wide; exclamations such as "wow" could be heard. This also has the very positive effect of confirming in deprived liberal children's minds that their parents really are dorks. Oh, and you don't have to worry about further alienating them from their (probably divorced, perhaps same-sex) parents/guardians. Unless liberal children can be reformed, they will push the old folks into a nursing home first chance they get no matter what you do.
I also should mention that you needn't fear liberals' self-righteous, didactic proclamations. Should they choose to say something to you, it only provides you the opportunity to put the icing on the cake. If, for instance, they say, "I'm really surprised you give your son toy guns to play with" just respond, "Well, let's be realistic. He's still a bit too young to have a real one." This upsets liberals intensely.
The next technique I'll mention involves something I witnessed just recently. I was in a certain very popular and expansive food store and saw a father with two young boys, about two and three years old. He had them in harnesses affixed to something akin to a leash, which he held firmly so they couldn't run amok. This wasn't too uncommon years ago, back in those brutal, uncompassionate days when people hated children so much that they allowed spanking and disallowed abortion.
Yet liberals don't like such things. They bristle at the idea of treating children "like animals" even though they believe we're just highly-evolved apes. Letting your child run around someone else's establishment like an animal is okay, though.
Lastly, if a liberal asks you why you have so many kids, you can just explain how survival of the fittest ensures that the right members of a species breed and inherit the Earth. And be sure to follow up with, "Besides, every time I have another child, there's one more person in this world to pray for you."
Now, some may wonder why anyone would suggest using children to annoy liberals. Well, we must properly train the young in the way they should go. Just as importantly, we should always deal with people on their own level.
“…tolerance involves enduring something considered to be a negative.”
Very good! That’s quotable. I like your examples as applied to children, but it could be applied to most anything liberal. Thinking of your common cold example, while I was taking my pill for high blood pressure, I wondered if there is a pill for the liberal agenda. I suppose the only thing we have is our knowledge of things that are right, our voice, and the voting booth.
Is this supposed to be funny?
As it turns out, having a lot of kids happens to be a great way to produce liberals, not annoy them.
All it takes for sheltered and ignorant offspring of people who heed some Biblical injunctions (be fruitful and multiply) while brazenly disregarding others (stone rebellious children to death) is to have one direct experience with the liberating power of Reason. If the experience takes root, it will only be a matter of time before the twisted logic of Biblical conservatism falls away like the weights in the 12th chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews.
The logic behind this essay nicely captures why conservatism is being relegated to the margins of American political discourse. In stead of offering smart ideas, simpletons like Selwyn Duke are so frustrated by their political and cultural irrelevancy that their only contribution to the public sphere is motivated by a desire to “annoy liberals.” There are so many stupid comments in this essay that I feel compelled to respond to some of them in turn…
“liberals actually perceive a great many positive things to be negative”
- Whether or not something is “positive” has very much to do with individual experience and interpretation. Nothing is inherently positive or negative. It depends on your point of view.
“You can use your kids to annoy liberals”
- As soon as your kids find out that their parents used them as tools for their own narrow-minded revenge games, they will become much less likely to go along with the plan. I would invite readers to do a cursory survey of the dismal retention rates among conservative Christians.
“Liberals, by not civilizing their children, breed brats”
- I agree with the author on this one, except that liberals are not the only kind of parents who breed brats; any parent who does not civilize their children breeds brats. Why are liberals singled out here??
“Liberals, being generally misinformed and detached from reality, don’t know that the Western world faces a population implosion”
- The inaccuracy of this statement is remarkable, but not as remarkable as the spirit of total ignorance that informed it. Overpopulation is a well-documented feature of our times, and to suggest otherwise raises the question of who, in fact, is “detached from reality.”
“sport a bumper sticker saying, ‘My seven kids can beat up your one Ritalin-addled C-student.’”
- This attitude could not be farther from the spirit of Jesus Christ. This is typical of why Biblical conservatives are so widely discredited. Oh, and violence, as the author correctly points out, does not have to be taught. It only has to be imitated.
“Judeo-Christian references move a liberal like nothing else”
- If only they moved those who purport to follow them…
“Make sure they not only play with toy guns but that they do it publicly. And it helps if they audibly say things such as ‘Bang, bang, you’re dead!’”
- Thou shalt not kill. How about teaching that to your children?
“They seem to worry that letting their son play with guns will turn him into a murderer even though they never wonder if allowing him to play with trains will turn him into a conductor.”
- Let’s see… Gun, murderer; train, conductor. Train, useful; gun, destructive (always). No, playing with the gun won’t necessarily turn the kid into a murderer. But if he likes it a lot, as he may like the train a lot, he might be more inclined to “nurture his relationship” with either guns or trains. What the hell kind of world is this author advocating?
“undisciplined liberal children started pointing realistic-looking toy guns at police officers”
- Isn’t this whole bit premised on the assertion that “liberal parents” don’t let their kids play with guns? Sure it wasn’t the conservative parents’ kids pointing guns at cops, since they seem to be the only ones who are allowed to “play” with them?
“all the liberals’ non-sex stereotyped, wearing-a-feminine-straightjacket sons saw these symbols of authentic boyhood”
- I detect a little bit of sexual repression here. It’s a common theme among Biblical conservatives. Psych 101.
“very positive effect of confirming in deprived liberal children’s minds that their parents really are dorks”
- Wow. Just pray – since that’s what you do – that your son never reads anything by Immanuel Kant. He’ll find out that it’s actually you who is the dork.
“back in those brutal, uncompassionate days when people hated children so much that they allowed spanking and disallowed abortion.”
- Again, witness the advocation of violence and the legislation of morality. Conservatives of this breed will continue to be powerless and disreputable.
“They bristle at the idea of treating children “like animals” even though they believe we’re just highly-evolved apes”
- First part’s true. Unfortunately, there’s an eerie similiarity between the notion of “using your kids to annoy” and the kind of power dynamics that inform degrading treatment of children. (I think most children would be rightly offended and scared if they read this article).
- No one believes people are highly-evolved apes. But lots of people concede that scientific evidence supports the idea that humans and apes share genetic ancestry. Big, important difference.
“if a liberal asks you why you have so many kids, you can just explain how survival of the fittest ensures that the right members of a species breed and inherit the Earth”
- This is the kind of disingenuous appeal that your children will come to reject. When they see you try to pull off such logical contortions, they will understand why no one (except Buchanan, Limbaugh, and Savage) takes their father seriously.
“Besides, every time I have another child, there’s one more person in this world to pray for you.”
- Don’t use ‘praying for you’ as a cover for your clear and excessive disdain for the very same people you just spent so much time deriding. Your frivolous offspring will gladly join forces with political liberals, who neither want nor need his prayers.
“we should always deal with people on their own level”
- Cute. Kids are on the same level as liberals. Nevermind all of the data that show a clear corellation between one’s level of education and their tendency to favor liberal politics.
Selwyn Duke, if he has any children, may very well lose some of them, if not all, to liberalism. Once they are able to comprehend the depths of their father’s ignorance and the severe lack of grace with which he demonstrated it, they will turn to Reason, begin thinking for themselves, reject Biblical conservatism, and almost definitely vote Democrat. Thanks, Duke, for your front line work on ensuring Republican marginality for years to come!
Looks Mr. Duke accomplished what he set out for.
DCNorthwest,
Where to start… Do you really think you refuted the author by engaging in your very own version of ad hominem? Does a “clever” comeback constitute a manifestion of the superior intellect of liberals? Your smug arrogance only proves how impressed you are with yourself.
***population implosion – “The inaccuracy of this statement is remarkable, but not as remarkable as the spirit of total ignorance that informed it. Overpopulation is a well-documented feature of our times…” Read what you quoted, DCNorthwest. The author is quite correct about the reproductive rates of the western world.
***Judeo-Christian references move a liberal like nothing else – “If only they moved those who purport to follow them…” Hmm. Sounds like a stereotype, which is the product of a limited mind. Also sounds like religious bigotry. And, of course, it is nothing more than an assertion unsupported by fact. Your dazzling intellect on display once again.
*** – “I detect a little bit of sexual repression here. It’s a common theme among Biblical conservatives.” Another idiotic, unsupported, bigoted statement from the “superior mind.”
*** “Again, witness the advocation of violence and the legislation of morality.” All laws legislate morality. Explain why is your moral perspective superior to the author’s.
**** “Nevermind all of the data that show a clear corellation between one’s level of education and their tendency to favor liberal politics.” Yes, clearly demonstrated in your inane post. You know, spelling “correlation” might be a good start to proving your intellectual prowess. And we all know that people who are educated are also smart, don’t we?
From MIB: “Everywhere I look nothing but undeveloped, unevolved, barely conscious pond scum, totally convinced of their own superiority as they scurry about their short, pointless lives.” Sounds like a liberal to me.
Mountain Man,
You are right. I was swept up by my own sense of intellectual prowess and moral superiority.
I made a lot of assertions that are unsupportable and arrogant.
I’m still trying to figure out how to respond to the ideas advanced by Duke in his post without reverting to smugness.
I’m not that impressed with myself, but I do think that it’s worth trying to contribute to the debate of political ideas in a productive way, and I’m only starting to do things like post comments to articles in the public sphere.
So, I appreciate you taking the time to point out my errors. Obviously my previous response does not help move the debate about ideas forward.
What I’m really interested in is how people who base their political ideology on Biblical conservatism can justify advocating practices like ‘using your kids to annoy liberals.’ I realize it was (partly?) done in jest, but it still seems troubling to me to read what appears to be support for pestering political opponents, as opposed to simply advancing ideas on their merit.
I also realize that responses like mine do just that – pester without merit – and so fit nicely into the stereotype of liberals as feeling intellectually superior and arrogant. I don’t think playing into that steretype does anything but reinforce barriers between political perspectives. So next time, I promise, I’ll try hard to avoid that and to show respect.
Here are some thoughts in response to your post…
1) No, clever comebacks do not constitute a manifestation of the superior intellect of liberals. It is merely self-gratifying and I agree with you that it’s annoying and counter-productive.
2) In regards to population figures, my understanding is that global population increases over the last century have increased dramatically and are projected to continue along a similar trend. The US Census Bereau has some info on this. (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.html)
On that basis, it seems like a bad idea to encourage people to have lots of kids.
3) Applications of the term ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ do, as you imply, tend to reinforce stereotypes. I will try to avoid that in the future. I would like to raise questions in regards to the poor record that defenders of Christianity have had in terms of ‘practicing what they preach,’ but I suppose a similiar ethical case can be mounted against defenders of non-Christian ideas, too.
4) Conservative Christians have carved out a political niche in regards to ‘family values’ and related sexual issues. When I read James Dobson, for example, I encounter so much language about sex and sexual perversions that it makes me think that the level of concentration on sexual issues indicates an unhealthy fixation on sex. My response was pretty idiotic and bigoted, but it might be supportable. That is, if you agree with Freud.
5) All laws legislate morality. I suppose my moral perspective is not necessarily superior to the author’s. I should have framed my response in terms of a conservative eagerness, in respect to abortion, to legislate what appears to me as a matter of personal morality. I know this is not a great distinction, but as a general rule it doesn’t seem right that the federal government should make laws about individual behavior that doesn’t harm anyone else. Granted, there are serious objections to this view, not to mention many problematic implications for liberal policies.
6) People who are educated are not necessarily smart. But there is a correlation (I always have trouble with spelling that word…) between education level and liberal politics. This proves nothing in the way of smartness, I agree.
Believe it or not, I’m interested in talking about ideas. In a very serious way, I’m glad to see that taking cynical jabs at the author only discredits me and my comments. I want to help liberalism earn a better reputation, so this is a first step toward that end. I also want conservatism to earn a better reputation, because I like a lot of conservative ideas; but the author’s post seemed to me to symbolize the least desirable tendencies of conservatism. Ironically, I did exactly the same for liberalism.
I look forward to being a part of the discussion on this website; I like it a lot. I promise to be more respectful and less idiotic in the future. Let’s talk about ideas!
DCNorthwest,
Your response was gracious and thoughtful. I admit, it also was surprising, given that I hit back hard. I reacted this way because many of those who come here from the Left tend to hurl out a bunch of leftist talking points as if they were undisputed fact.
Since you have expressed a desire to dialogue, I will engage you on those terms.
I am unfamiliar with the phrase ‘Biblical conservatism” as a political position. If you mean “Biblical literalism,” that is worldview which includes holding fast the historic teachings of the Bible. If you mean Christian conservative, that is a person who is both a social conservative and a fiscal conservative.
I can only surmise, but it seems to me the author is not suggesting an active manipulation of children to advance an ideology, but rather, is pointing out how living one’s life in a regular, traditional, sensible way is likely to upset and offend liberals. That’s my take.
Regarding your point (2), I restate that the author was referring to the western world, i.e., post-industrial nations as opposed to third world, undeveloped nations. In the former, the birth rate is decreasing. In the latter, the birth rate is increasing.
(3) “…poor record that defenders of Christianity have had in terms of ‘practicing what they preach…” This is a throw-away line that is frequently trotted out when criticizing people of faith. A handful of well-worn examples (Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, etc.) are paraded out as if infrequent missteps are representative of the thoughts and actions of every Christian. This is intellectually vapid.
Christians wrote the book on compassion, helping the poor, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and building homes for the homeless. They labor anonymously, and have for centuries, giving sacrifically of their time, money, and talent. They have done so without seeking publicity or credit (“Don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing…” look it up). Hospitals, colleges, soup kitchens, homeless shelters by the thousands.
Sometimes they make mistakes. Granted. But the only way you know that they failed to live up to their faith is because that faith exists to be compared to. One cannot be a hypocrite without a standard to be compared to. Unlike many of the Left, who eschew standards and reject morality. There are no hypocrites where there is no standard.
continued – - – >
(continued)
(4) “…unhealthy fixation on sex…” This seems so totally ironic to me. If anyone is obsessed with sex, it is the left. The average person couldn’t care less about who sleeps with who, or what goes on in the privacy of one’s bedroom. But the Left wants to force the issue. Gay apologists, for example, are on a crusade with a religious fervor that would put the evangelistic efforts of Billy Graham to shame.
Sex is all they want to talk about. They want sex on TV, sex in schools, sex everywhere. They want everyone to know exactly what they do, how they do it, and with whom. It is the left who passes laws about sex, they write the textbooks about sex, they march in the demonstrations, do the parades, and put “celebrate diversity” bumper stickers on their cars.
And if anyone so much as utters a peep in opposition, shazaam, down comes the guillotine. Haters, bigots, homophobes, repressed, every epithet in the book is hurled at them. But somehow you think that conservatives are obsessed about sex? What a hoot!
5) “…but as a general rule it doesn’t seem right that the federal government should make laws about individual behavior that doesn’t harm anyone else…” OK, fine, that is a actually a Libertarian position, but the thing is, it is an imposition of morality nonetheless. It’s just a different one. The crux of the matter is that it is always a choice between different moralities. So I ask again, why your morality and not someone else’s?
6) Why do more educated people tend toward liberalism? Because they are products of a left-leaning educational system which rewards ideological conformity.
I would conclude based on your posts that you believe in a caricature of conservatives and religious people. Your only information about us is obtained from your side. It is noble of you to actually come here to find out for yourself, and I applaud that.
I think the best question you could ask is, “What do conservatives really believe?” If you want to ask it, I will answer.
“Nevermind all of the data that show a clear corellation between one’s level of education and their tendency to favor liberal politics.”
Quite true. People who failed to graduate from high school traditionally favor Democratic candidates and liberal policies. People with no college education, who are most likely to be members of labor unions, are astronomically more likely to favor Democratic candidates and liberal policies. And ethnic minorities like Hispanics and blacks, who are more likely than average to have not completed high school or attended college, favor Democratic candidates by between 70 and 90 percent. I guess you’re in good company. In addition, statistics now show that people unable to comprehend humor and sarcasm are most likely to be liberal reactionaries.
First to Mr Mulligan, then to Mountain Man…
About the education issue…
a) The information that I have shows that people with low levels of education typically don’t pay much attention to politics. They may still join labor unions and vote Democratic, if they vote at all.
b) studies have shown that a large majority of journalists working for major news outlets lean to the left. This supports the ‘liberal media’ meme. Professional journalism requires higher education, so there is a connection, if only a weak one.
c) Mountain Man may take issue with your point since he has argued that most people who get higher educations are products of systems that reward (leftist) ideological conformity. But he can speak to that…
Interesting that there are statistics about a connection between slow wit and being reactionary. I can’t say that my initial post wasn’t reactionary – it was nothing if not that. But if Duke’s post was intended to be humorous, I admit that I am unable to comprehend his delivery of it. I’ll take my lumps on this one…
Back to Mountain Man…
One thing that’s being reinforced here might be the risks involved with misusing labels.
“Biblical conservatism” is a term I made up to describe Duke, the original author. I realize it’s not a standard designation, and it might be only narrowly applicable. I’m familiar with distinctions between Biblical literalism – I was raised by a fundamentalist Baptist – and Christian conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, etc. I suppose it’s better to stick with the more standard terms for our discussion.
The author’s original idea – to annoy liberals with one’s children – still seems troubling. What may be “regular, traditional, and sensible” to one person may seem a bit odd to another. I think it’s odd to teach your children to play murder (bang your dead!) with fake guns. But I agree that the author would most likely not explicitly propose that parents actively manipulate their children in advance of an ideology. However, as one who was raised in an ideological environment, I had the sense growing up that the restrictions shaping my encounters with the ‘world’ were very much motivated by a concern for reinforcing, and perhaps advancing, an ideology. This probably explains my own visceral reaction to the original post. Either way, children do not seem like the kind of things that we should be ‘using’ to ‘annoy people.’ As I am learning very quickly, it’s better to try to have stronger ideas, and avoid the antagonism altogether.
I also understand the fallacy of using the Bakkers and Haggards as some sort of evidence that Christianity is flawed. Any idea can be misused, so I’m in no way committed to the notion that the mistakes of some individuals should be an indictment on the entire faith. Problems arise, from both the left and the right ends of the spectrum, in proportion to one’s degree of certainty that ‘they are right.’ Certitude – not any particular faith or political persuasion – is to be approached with skepticism. So I want to make clear that, although I may have given the initial impression, I really don’t think that Christian principles are disqualified by their misusers.
For the same reason, we could be careful about how we apply the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ more broadly. We could have an informative discussion about the sources of sexual fixation in our society, and I would argue that it is neither the sole domain of the right nor of the left. Some on the left, I agree, do force the issue. It annoys me, too. But we should be careful when we say “they want sex on TV and sex everywhere” that we be clear who ‘they’ refers to. I don’t think the entire Left is obsessed with sex any more than I think the entire Right is obsessed with sex. It seems obvious to me that some groups in our society are vocal about the issue – gay pride from the left and sex-is-sinful from the right – but neither of these groups should be allowed to define the whole.
I don’t like the sex on TV, but I wonder if it doesn’t have more substantive roots in our commercial media culture, where whatever sells is what airs. Here is where we find an interesting convergence of free-market conservatism (the government shouldn’t tell business what not to sell), first amendment advocates (sex as ‘free speech), and yes, political liberals (tolerant sexual culture). But the presense of a conservative voice at this table indicates that responsibility for our sexual media culture should not be placed entirely on the shoulders of ‘the Left.’
My own experience, with James Dobson and very conservative Christianity (for over 20 years) has lead me to the belief that sex is very repressed, in general, among certain sectors of conservative Christianity, and as a result, it pops up in weird ways in weird places. Both ‘sides’ care about the issue very much.
To the question of whose morality should inform policy we have to turn to the entire canon of Western political theory. I do not intend to stake a claim here. Even if we could agree that American public morality should be guided by Scriptural principles, the difficulties with arriving at shared interpretations of the same text have been with us ever since the idea that people could read the Bible for themselves led to the Reformation. During the Civil War, for example, both the North and the South supported their causes with Scripture, although with very different interpretations.
Education and liberalism. For the sake of (civil) argument, let’s grant that people who go through university are products of a system that rewards ideological conformity. A premise we could probably both agree on is that people should not be products of systems that reward ideological conformity. So a good follow up question would ask how many ways are people molded in accordance with an ideology? Certainly it cannot only occur in liberal universities; I spent three years at one of the country’s most conservative Christian colleges, and I can assure you that if there was ever an institution that rewarded conformity, that was it. The problem is conformity, regardless of where or for what it is encouraged.
Secular universities tend to be places where ideas can be exchanged in an environment of freedom. Yes, people do learn to see world issues through multiple perspectives. This just happens to track better with the inclusionary tendencies of liberalism than with more traditionally-motivated conservatism. What we want is for people to be open to new ideas and information, without any coersion that they accept or reject them. But we want openness.
Duke’s rhetoric reflects more of the Anne Coulter approach to conservatism that is antagonistic and seems less open. I responded in kind, and the whole exchange was disgraceful and certainly not conducted in a spirit of openness. But I actually have an interest in advancing many conservative ideas, and Duke’s approach seems counter productive. I think the ideas in his post don’t serve true conservatism very well. I would have been smarter to criticize his ideas a concerned conservative, not an angry liberal.
In regards to ‘what conservatives believe,’ I know about Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative,” I know about Bill Buckley and the National Review, I know about Herbert Hoover, and the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution, and Andrew Carnegie, and Edmud Burke… not to say that I “know” what conservatives believe, but I’m pretty familiar with some of it. I visit this website often in order to better understand.
Thanks again for your response.
“I think it’s odd to teach your children to play murder (bang your dead!) with fake guns.” I think it is odd to force children to play with gender-neutral, politically correct, ecologically sustainable toys to avoid offending leftist zealots.
“Problems arise, from both the left and the right ends of the spectrum, in proportion to one’s degree of certainty that ‘they are right.’ Certitude – not any particular faith or political persuasion – is to be approached with skepticism.” No, being pursuaded of the correctness of one’s beliefs is absolutely natural. What is wrong is when people are afraid to express their opinions, beliefs, and religious positions because of possible backlash from the “tolerant” left. Right and wrong is not so hard to discern. The grey areas are not so big. Being grounded in your beliefs and committed to your core principles is a good thing. It used to be called “backbone.”
“I don’t think the entire Left is obsessed with sex any more than I think the entire Right is obsessed with sex.” I would call that a backpedal. At first you were convinced that conservatives are obsessed with sex. Now everyone is. But you still hold fast to the “repressed” status of conservatives (without evidence, of course). So I will make an unsubtantiated assertion of my one. Conservatives are particularly well adjusted sexually, because they are certain about who they can have sex with, when, and how much. There is no ambiguity when one chooses to live within the moral rules they believe in.
“Even if we could agree that American public morality should be guided by Scriptural principles…” I did not suggest that public morality be guided by such. Aside from that, it isn’t hard to determine what Scripture says. I think the problem is that people DO understand Scripture, they just don’t like what it says. Again, some view of morality (whatever moral position that might be) will govern what society believes is wrong or right. That gets expressed in our laws, our beliefs, and our behavior. No getting around it. If there isn’t an unchangeable standard of behavior, there is no way to determine what is moral. Everyone decides for themselves, and chaos ensues. Is there any doubt that society is in chaos?
Regarding colleges. At a Christian college, you know what ideology you’re going to get. But public colleges and many private universities tout themselves as diverse and open to all viewpoints. The fact that they are not is what is relevant. “Inclusionary tendencies” is a misnomer. Leftists, and their institutions of higher learning, are tolerant of all things except ideological diversity. Leftism required lock-step conformity. Any deviation invites scorched-earth tactics. Joe Liebermann, anyone?
“Anne Coulter approach…” Coulter is simply responding in kind to the sort of rhetoric that has characterized leftism for decades. She is slash and burn, yes. But she is also devastatingly incisive and logical. In the interest of diversity, I’m sure you want her to continue to speak, right?
I only asked you if you wanted to know what conservatives (at least this conservative) believe because it is apparent in your writing that you do not know. That’s all.
Mountain Man
I really appreciate your responses. The exchange is enjoyable.
We’ve demonstrated that people have different ideas about what’s ‘odd.’ Gender-neutral toys do seem weird. I’m curious, though, is it the ecologically sustainable toy that you find peculiar, or the concept of ecological sustainability itself?
“Being persuaded of the correctness of one’s beliefs is absolutely natural.”
- I suppose it is. But certainly you don’t think that human behavior should be governed by what is natural for us, do you? It’s also quite natural for me to be selfish, greedy, and spiteful, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try to restrain these impulses. One of the contributions of the Enlightenment to intellectual pursuits was the notion that we should call into question how it is that we can say that we ‘know’ something. We both would probably prefer if people were persuaded more of a) the imperative bestowed upon us by facts, information, and their passage through a process of reason than b) that their beliefs just are correct.
- I am trying to choose a), as it appears you are as well.
- Would you rather that people who see issues from perspectives different from yours remain committed to those perspectives, or be open to changing them in light of new information? If I was more intent on having backbone than on reconsidering my own beliefs, I would not have made the concessions I have made since my original response. Do you see there being a place for skepticism in regards to one’s own beliefs?
Right and wrong is easy to discern when one believes in the existence of an “unchangeable standard of behavior,” as you described it. Would you agree that different contexts can play a role in shaping what is right or wrong? For example, is lying always wrong, or would it be right to lie to the Nazis about the location of your family?
In regards to who is or isn’t obsessed with sex, I did indeed backpedal quickly and gladly. It should be clear by now that I am not trying to maintain consistency with my original post. In the spirit on examining my own beliefs, I give myself the room to change my mind and retract statements. This seems fair. In this sense, I would not claim that ‘conservatives are obsessed with sex.’ I would say, however, that some conservatives and some liberals are obsessed with sex. Some people just are obsessed with sex. I was wrong to frame it as a problem only for ‘conservatives.’ As far as evidence is concerned, there is experiential evidence, anectodal evidence, etc., (the kind that is rejected) but empirical evidence is hard to produce. Doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that can be empirically supported anyway. I’m content to see it as a matter of opinion, based on the experiences I have had and the situations that I have seen. If I were presented with compelling evidence to the contrary, I would gladly change my view. But for the sake of clarity, my view is that sexual obsession is a cultural phenomenon, not a ‘conservative’ or a ‘liberal’ one. But in terms of the public advocacy of sexual purity as drawn from Scripture, the hypocrisy and irony is greater when advocates of ‘sexual purity’ have their own trouble with teen pregnancy (Palin), homosexuality (Haggard), child molestation (very few Catholic priests), and adultery (Gingrich). Sexual repression is diffrerent from sexual obsession. The outliers I just mentioned are examples of repression, while aggressively public homosexuals are examples of obsession. My original point was that ‘Biblical conservatives’ tend to repress their sexuality. Leftist liberals tend to be too assertive about theirs.
Your assertion that people do understand what Scripture says, and that it isn’t hard to determine, doesn’t account for the countless interpretational variations that have shaped a multitude of different Christian denominations, all favoring their own interpretation. People have been disagreeing about what the Scriptures say for a very long time, and it seems like an oversimplification to assert that everyone actually understands it the same, but they have just chosen to not like it. I think disagreements about what Scriptures say are numerous and very often legitimate, since it does seem hard to know the position of any text in which people perceive – correctly or not – contradictory messages.
In terms of politics, America is a pluralistic, democratic republic. I do want Anne Coulter to continue to speak, yes. I want Selwyn Duke to continue to speak. One question that comes to mind is whether or not certain kinds of discourse are better or worse for actually advancing ideas. My sense is that Couter’s, Duke’s (in this post), and my own (first response) quality of discourse only build resentment and do not facilitate a productive exchange of ideas. This does not mean I think they should be silenced. I do think we, as politically interested individuals and groups, would do well to nurture a kind of discourse that relies not only on ‘devastating logic,’ but also a sense of mutual respect, wherever it might be able to flourish. Mike Huckabee’s show is a great example of this.
Not only did I attend one of the country’s most conservative Christian colleges (in the southern end of the Bible belt), but I am presently attending on of the country’s most liberal colleges (in the Pacific Northwest). I think this constitutes a unique perspective on what conservative and liberal colleges are like. Here’s the kicker… I didn’t know anything about conservative political theory until I studied it at the uber-liberal school. But wait. It was by taking these courses in political theory that my appreciation for conservatism in fact grew substantially. While you may be inclined to say that “it’s no wonder this guy doesn’t know anything about conservatism,” at least appreciate my broader point that leftist universities do facilitate a variety of ideological viewpoints. Having said that, I would like to underscore the fact that my experience at a leftist college has led me to appreciate and understand conservatism exponentially more than I did while I was at the conservative college.
In closing, I want to again emphasize the trouble with using the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ in broad senses, such as “conservatives are well adusted sexually,” or “liberals have inclusionary tendencies.” It seems more right to say that “many conservatives…” or “some liberals…”, since not there are many kinds of conservatives and many kinds of liberals.
I would welcome your thoughts about what it means for you to be a conservative, as well as your continued input on where I may be seeing things wrongly.
DCNorthwest,
“But certainly you don’t think that human behavior should be governed by what is natural for us, do you? It’s also quite natural for me to be selfish, greedy, and spiteful, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try to restrain these impulses.” The fact that I believe I’m right does not require an impulse to restrain. It is not a character flaw. If I’m shown to be wrong, I change my mind. But my character did not improve. Greed and selfishness are sins, not crimes. Only God can deal with sin.
Reason is only a tool, uselful at times, but it also fails us. Reason relies on mental processes built upon the very characteristics (naturalness, greed, narcissim, etc) that you just impugned. There is no particular intrinsic virtue to arriving at a conclusion using reason.
“If I was more intent on having backbone than on reconsidering my own beliefs…” it’s not either/or. Truth is not up for vote. If I know something to be true, no matter how arrived at, and I stand for that truth without compromise, no matter what the “majority” happens to believe, that is backbone. It has nothing to do with being open-minded about the possibility of being mistaken. What we are talking about here is principles, core beliefs, the things that are not up for negotiation.
Example: In some places in Nevada, prostitution is legal. I believe that prostitution is wrong. Always. Everywhere. If I lived in Nevada, should I change my beliefs to conform to the prevailing wisdom? Example 2: At one time the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was legal. I happen to believe that slavery is wrong. If I were living at that time, should I have supported slavery?
“Would you agree that different contexts can play a role in shaping what is right or wrong? For example, is lying always wrong, or would it be right to lie to the Nazis about the location of your family?” Context does not change morality. If morality can be changed, it is not morality. Presenting hypotheticals with potential moral ambiguities does not change that.
Regarding hypocrisy, Palin is a particularly bad example. Palin’s daughter is a free moral agent making her own choices. Palin’s daughter is a product of the public school system, which taught her comprehensive sexual education. If there is hypocrisy, it is from those who continue to preach that their version of sex ed must be tuaght in schools.
“Christian denominations, all favoring their own interpretation.” First, the various denominations generally all agree on the central teachings of the Bible, differing only on minor points of practice, government, and cultural influences. Those that differ on the central teachings cannot rightly be regarded as Christian. Second, you have spent quite a bit of time giving credence to being willing to change in the light of new information. Are you retracting that in view of your judgment regarding the variety of churches doing that very thing?
Third, everyone has different tastes regarding what kind of church suits them (contemporary worship vs. hymns, eldership vs. deacons, central authority vs. autonomous local congregations, etc). I would find it very strange if there was only a one-size-fits-all church. Fourth, while churches teach according to their understanding, I wasn’t talking about churches, I was talking about people. People can read and judge for themselves. It ain’t that hard.
Regarding liberal universities, I was making a general statement. Of course there are exceptions. I am happy for you that your experience was otherwise.
Regarding my positions as a conservative, perhaps it would serve you well to use this website’s search engine to look up “Mountain Man.” Here are a couple of places to start: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/02/23/theft-by-government/
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/27/answers-to-life%E2%80%99s-questions-part-3/
You’ll find that I have posted numerous times. It may be too much to read it all. But I am happy to restate major principles if you require.
Mountain Man
I looked through the posts from one of the links in your last comment. You are an enthusiastic debater!
I want to clarify this matter of context and morality. You have argued that ‘morality doesn’t change,’ but I think the word ‘morality’ is too vague, since there are many different opinions (right or wrong) about what it means. In terms of ‘right actions’ and ‘wrong actions,’ my argument is that an action that is ‘wrong’ in one situation may be ‘right’ in another situation, so that leads me to believe that morality is not context-independent. You raised the context of legality, and to that I would agree with you that what is legal (prostitution or slavery) is not necessarily right. As you know, there are many, many other kinds of contexts other than legality. In this sense, hypotheticals with potential moral ambiguities do, in fact, highlight the difficulties with trying to maintain a single standard for right and wrong in all situations. Even though one of the Ten Commandments instructs us not to kill, we still do it under certain circumstances. Killing is wrong in some contexts and right in others. There is no universally applicable ‘moral’ standard that can be applied to killing, and I think this helps us understand the problems with oversimplifying the moral code.
One thing that has emerged in reading your posts is that you seem to think that ‘morality’ is a simple issue. It may be simple for you, but there’s no reason to think that just because it’s simple for you then it should necessarily be simple for everybody else. I will say more about this in a bit…
But first, some general thoughts…
Logical consistency is something very few people maintain. I definitely include myself here, so it doesn’t seem honorable for me to point out someone else’s logical shortcomings when I have plenty of my own. But what I can do is look for errors in thought patterns, deductions, inductions, etc., wherever possible, regardless of their source. Anyone who critiques the ideas of someone else opens themself up to criticism of the same kind, so that they make themselves vulnerable to being guilty of the very same errors they point out elsewhere.
Having said that, I must take issue with your approach to logic and reasoning. After a few days of reading your comments, both here and from other posts, it has become clear to me that you have a starting point for debate that provides you with no way of knowing when you’re mistaken about certain matters. Here’s what I have in mind…
If you start here: “There is no particular intrinsic virtue to arriving at a conclusion using reason.”
You allow yourself to make assertions like: “If morality can be changed, it is not morality,” while also claiming that “Morality is uniquely individual…” [from 6/27/07].
And you end up here: “What we are talking about here is principles, core beliefs, the things that are not up for negotiation.”
This seems very problematic. It seems like principles and beliefs are the very kinds of things that should be up for negotiation – reasoned negotiation, that is – so that fallacious principles or untenable beliefs can be adjusted.
By shutting the door to further introspection, you completely close yourself off from ever being able to know if you’re wrong. Defiant certitude is the easy way. Reasoned negotiation is the difficult way.
I’m not impressed by peoples’ ability to speak to a host of political and theoretical issues when they do not accept from the outset that they might be wrong about a lot of things. If their starting point is, “Reason should not guide our decision-making process; morality is absolute, unchanging, and self-evident; people are unable to improve their character (only God can do that); if I think I know something is true, then the matter is settled, I know it’s true and won’t change no matter what,” then not only is there no debate, but there is also very little chance that someone who holds these views would make much progress in terms of continually refining their belief system. It is a recipe for intellectual stagnation.
Jihadists are ‘grounded in their beliefs and committed to their core principles,’ which is the very reason why a popular prescription among some conservatives for dealing with them in large numbers involves the use of force; these people simply can’t be dealt with.
Consider the possibility that those who are the most self-assured about the rightness of their beliefs are the very same ones who cannot be negotiated with.
If by enthusiastic you mean that I don’t readily suffer fools, you are probably right. I gladly debate those who disagree, but I won’t contenance thoughtless people.
“…there are many different opinions (right or wrong) about what it means.” That’s true, but that doesn’t change the fact that morality itself cannot change, by definition. If morality is changeable, subjective, or negotiable, it ceases to be morality, by definition. “Thou shalt not kill” is a moral precept that is not hard to understand. Therefore, I shall not kill. What governments do, or soldiers, or prison officials when they carry out the death penalty, those are separate matters. But murder is always wrong. Therefore, I do not murder.
“…you have a starting point for debate that provides you with no way of knowing when you’re mistaken about certain matters.” You cleverly shift my words into something I did not say. When I said, “There is no particular intrinsic virtue to arriving at a conclusion using reason,” notice I did not say that reason has no value. I qualified it in terms of the foibles and limitations of individual minds. Reason is simply a logical process, based on one or more premises, used to arrive at a conclusion. If those premises are faulty, even flawless logic will yield a faulty conclusion. This ought to be fairly obvious.
You quoted me as saying that morality is uniquely individual, which is quite correct in context. The full quote: “Morality is uniquely individual, but morals can be expressed corporately, (i.e., in societies, governments, and corporations). However, only individuals can be immoral or moral. Governments and businesses are simply tools that express the morality of the individuals who hold power within them.” So, the context is that only people can behave morally, governments and corporations cannot, for they are not moral agents (people who can choose right and wrong). Context is everything, isn’t it?
“It seems like principles and beliefs are the very kinds of things that should be up for negotiation – reasoned negotiation…” It’s problematic that I will not compromise my core beliefs? What compromise could there be with evil? Someone bent on murdering me, maybe I should say, “Hey, let’s sit down and discuss this. Would you accept maybe just cutting off my leg instead of killing me?”
If a person will compromise their core beliefs, then that person has no core beliefs. You are committed to reason. Will you compromise on reason and allow a little bit of irrationality? So then you are only mostly reasonable? How hard-and-fast are you regarding murder? Will you murder given the right circumstances? How about cheating on your wife? Lying on your tax return? After all, there could be mitigating benefits that outweigh the small compromise, right?
I haven’t shut the door on introspection. Because I know I am a fallible human being, and painfully aware of this fact, I have established relationships with men I respect who have permission to call me down at any time. You are not one of those people. You might try to suggest to me that it’s ok to keep the wrong change given to me by the store clerk, but stealing is always wrong. You have no moral authority to insist otherwise.
Especially since your morality is negotiable. That means that tomorrow your morality might be different. Some clever person my employ flawless logic with you that justifies behavior that was unacceptable the day before. And you think my unwillingness to compromise my core beliefs is a problem? Really?
I submit to you that I would rather negotiate with a person who I know is honest, trustworthy, and means what he says. I know that such a conversation will be productive. “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” I will only obtaining sharpening from those who are wiser than me, more moral, and overflowing with virtue.
But moral relativists, who could trust them? Who would enter into a business arrangement with them? Who would trust them with their lives?
I resent being compared with a jihadist. Murders, women abusers, haters. That’s what holding on to core values means to you? I thought you were a thinking person, I guess I was wrong.
Dude, chill.
I’m not comparing you to jihadists, I’m comparing your commitment to your beliefs to the jihadists’ commitment to their beliefs. It’s fundamentalist certitude that I’m pointing out, not you individually.
And we’re both thinking people. Come on. I appreciate that you don’t readily suffer fools or ‘contenance’ thoughtless people, and only want to sharpen your iron with those who are wiser, more moral, and overflowing with virtue, but dude, you’ve been writing a lot these past couple of days, so I know you don’t really think I’m not a thinking person. I’m trying to avoid personal insults, you should try, too. On the other hand, I also realize that it’s kind of gratifying to take a jab at a liberal, so I don’t really mind that much. I know it’s fun. But I’m more interested in the comparison of ideas, say, the idea of morality…
‘Morality itself cannot change, by definition,’ you say. I would be very interested in reading what you have to say about what you mean when you use the word ‘morality.’ I think you’re using a very broad term to refer to very specific kinds of actions. What is it about morality that makes it unchangeable?
Should we make a distinction between the ‘unchangeability of moral obligation’ and the ‘changeability of moral structure’?
Do you think a distinction can be drawn between action ‘tokens’ and action ‘types,’ that is, the act of killing someone at a specific time and place (token) versus capital punishment in general, murder in general, over time, etc. (types)? It seems to me that the very reason we have different classifications for types of killing is because killing is wrong in some situations, and we call that ‘murder,’ while killing is right in some situations, and we call that ‘capital punishment.’ The act of lying, I think, is wrong in most situations, but is right in some situations, say, in order to protect a child from a kidnapper. But you must realize that I’m talking about very specific instances of lying and killing; it would be a mistake to jump from saying that someone who thinks this way about specific action tokens necessarily does so for all action types, and so that person is therefore untrustworthy or morally irresponsible. In speaking only of act tokens of lying and killing, nothing has been said about act types such as doing business or abiding by the laws of marriage. Although claiming that what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in terms of specific act tokens at specific times appears to establish a more general principle of ‘moral relativism’ to act types, it does not establish that, so there is no good reason to think that this principle will necessarily lead to dishonesty in business or infidelity in marriage. Quite the contrary, and this is the broader point, namely, that each situation (each act token) demands awareness, vigilance, thoughtfulness, and a sensitivity to the complexities of life’s situations; automatic aherence to simplistic prescriptions for types of actions may prohibit an individual from fulfilling their moral obligations in regards to certain action tokens. I would argue that human relations would improve if people approached ‘morality’ with this type of hightened sensitivity.
You have framed morality as a matter of core belief that must not be compromised or be determined in any way by contextual demands. All I’m trying to point out is that life is so complicated that it requires us to be careful, and being careful means making sure we’re not behaving as moral automatons, but as attentive persons attuned to life’s complexities, responding to them in a spirit of humility and thoughtfulness.
It isn’t problematic that you won’t compromise your core beliefs, say, in that situation where someone wanted to kill you (though I’m not sure what your core belief in this situation would be), but I do think it would be problematic if you weren’t willing to subject your core beliefs to critical self-analysis at the theoretical level, say, to consider whether they might call for refinement. This is what I’m saying certitude prevents.
In regard, then, to reason, while I don’t think it should be held up as the final arbiter for human behavior, I do think it’s a good place to start. It helps us appreciate crucial distinctions. Perhaps you could explain to me, for instance, how you see the distinction between ‘intrinsic virtue’ and ‘value.’ More specifically, do all actions have moral value? If they do, would we be able to attribute a value judgement to the use of reason? Would the use of reason then have ‘intrinsic virtue’?
I am not ‘committed to reason’ in the sense that you’re using it. The use of reason does not equal for me what your ‘core beliefs’ equal for you. While I do see it as a useful methodology, it doesn’t make sense to treat it as some sort of all-encompassing, obligatory moral principle. Therefore I will allow for some irrationality, and only seek to be mostly reasonable, and though I’m very hard-and-fast regarding murder, I’m not very hard-and-fast regarding killing, as I explained earlier. But I am committed to abiding, as well as I can, by the guidelines of reason and logical argumentation when engaged in philosophical debate.
To rely on others – to whom you grant permission, of course – to ‘call you down at any time,’ is not to engage in introspection. My question is, do you ever call your own self down? Awareness of one’s fallibility is not the same as taking action to curb its effects.
And about quoting you out of context, sorry about that. But no, context isn’t everything, to answer your question. When I say that some actions are right or wrong depending on their context, I’m thinking of ‘context’ as roughly synonymous with ‘temporal-spatial situation.’ Quoting somebody ‘out of context,’ unfortunate as it is, is more of a literary situation.
Oh, I see, getting compared to jihadists is a COMPLIMENT. My bad. Here I got all upset because I thought jihadists are murderers, when they’re really just committed to their ideals. Admirable, really. Role models. You’re right, I shouldn’t be offended at all.
For some reason you value only your brand of introspection. I suppose because I don’t walk around all day wondering if murder is really wrong, or if lying is ok if the Nazis are coming for my family, then I’m not introspective enough for you. OK, fine. You win.
Perhaps you do not understand the nature of deception: If you’re deceived, you don’t know it. No amount of introspection will change that.
It seems your real problem is that there are so many grey areas, so many points of view, so many interpretations and opinions out there, they all apparently should receive equal weight and equal consideration. Certitude, on the other hand, is viewed with suspicion. No one can be so sure about things. That isn’t nuanced, it isn’t open-minded, it isn’t LIBERAL.
However, a real thinking person, a truly evolved personality, apparently makes judgments about nothing, accepts everything, and can be pursuaded about anything. Except certitude, of course.
Ironically, you have constructed for yourself a certitude of your own, colored by your own preconceptions, tailored to your worldview, and just as tightly held on to as mine. You too are just like jihadists.
Mr. Duke,
Here is what concerns me. If you are using your children to deliberately annoy people, it will not be long before your kids (or the children of people who take your advice) notice that you (or those childrens’ parents) enjoy annoying people. This will lead two one of two scenarios, both fraught with difficulty: (1) they will grow up thinking that deliberately annoying people is meritorious behavior, or (2) they will grow up believing that it is incumbent upon them to try to become a better person than their anti-social parents, and that they may have to alienate themselves from them in the process.
So, I suggest this instead: since you are a thinker, why not initiate discussions with your kids about what you feel are the merits of conservative philosophy. They may ultimately agree with you, or not. Good luck.
Mountain Man
Don’t you think it’s kind of funny, as I do, that after all your bluster about not being like jihadists, you turn right around and agree that to hold tightly to one’s beliefs, as you acknowledge that you do, is to be ‘just like jihadists’?
Would an observer’s ridicule, directed toward Mountain Man, be justified, when after all I’ve said about avoiding moral certitude, the best response you can muster is that I’ve constructed a certitude of my own, and that to have this certitude is bad, since it’s ‘just like the jihadists’? Has there ever been a more blatant self-indictment?
Let me be clear: I am not certain that my views are the best, and I do not hold to them tightly. That’s why I subject them to critical analysis, both from you and from myself. I could be wrong that moral certitude is dangerous. If I can make any contribution to this exchange, let it be this: one can either allow for the possibility that they might be mistaken, or not. One can either view the subjection of beliefs to revision as a virtue, or not. One can either view self-criticism as an indicator of intellectual maturity, or not. One can either close the door to thoughtful consideration, or leave it open.
No, being compared to jihadists is not a compliment, really, or you wouldn’t have tried to attach the comparison onto me. Hell, I may actually be just like a Jihadist – I’ll look into it. You, however, flatly reject the comparison, and will not look into it. You’re offended by the comparison because you are certain that your fundamentalism is very different from that kind of fundamentalism.
Which makes your comment about the nature of deception all the more ironic; one really doesn’t know when they’re deceived. Descartes’ contribution on this front is worth revisiting. Introspection, as Descartes demonstrated, happens to be the very thing that helps you figure out if you’re being deceived. It has nothing to do with different ‘brands of introspection,’ as you suggest; introspection just is what it is. It’s not surprising that you’re so resistant to the idea. It’s heavy stuff.
Anyhow, it’s quite clear from your paragraph about what my ‘real problem’ is that you are nowhere close to understanding my arguments about certitude versus flexibility. Your missing the point may have more to do with my inability to state my thoughts clearly than with your inability to grasp them. One thing I can say, however, is that people who are really interested in learning – more than in defending – rarely have trouble understanding what is under discussion. They want to know.
1) I said nothing about giving consideration to the ‘many interpretations and opinions out there.’ If you want to understand what I meant, you wouldn’t make up stuff like that.
2) Nor would you have interpreted my statements as asserting that a ‘real thinking person makes judgements about nothing and accepts everything.’ That’s pretty much the opposite of what I wrote. Read what I wrote, not what you want me to have written.
3) My exact words were: “I’m very hard and fast regarding murder, but not very hard and fast regarding killing.” You imply that I think people “should walk around all day wondering if murder is really wrong.” Do you have any appreciation for the difference between ‘murder’ and ‘killing’? Did you notice that I drew the distinction?
Thanks again for your comments. They are definitely helping me sharpen my iron.
DCNorthwest,
I apply your standard to you, sarcasm fully engaged, and you miss it completely. Your world view, full of moral judgments, is only different from mine in particulars, not application. Irony is often lost on the ironic.
“I do not hold them tightly.” Now that is funny. 20 comments in and your fighting for your rhetorical life, and you are not holding them tightly? More irony.
What is clear from your paragraphs is that you have come nowhere near understanding what I mean when I talk about the meaning of being a person of principle, knowing one’s weaknesses and strengths, and recognizing that one must rely on others to point out where one might be fooling one’s self. This all is a bad thing somehow. Instead, you thow out perjoratives like “fundamentalist,” engage in the logical fallacy of appealing to authority (Descartes) to convince yourself that you can figure out if you are deceived or not. Apparently, no one else is needed. Fine for you, not for me. I don’t trust myself.
I figured that sooner or later the veneer of civility would disappear from your presentation. Reading conprehension dissolves, tangents develop, and suddenly, here we are at an impasse.
It was fun, but not anymore.
Losing is never fun.
Everything I’ve come to expect from a leftist.
[...] Intellectual Conservative: This father had given his sons some truly cool-looking toy guns from his youth, and one day he and his family ventured down to the community pool bearing these arms. When all the liberals’ non-sex stereotyped, wearing-a-feminine-straightjacket sons saw these symbols of authentic boyhood, their eyes got wide; exclamations such as “wow” could be heard. This also has the very positive effect of confirming in deprived liberal children’s minds that their parents really are dorks. Oh, and you don’t have to worry about further alienating them from their (probably divorced, perhaps same-sex) parents/guardians. Unless liberal children can be reformed, they will push the old folks into a nursing home first chance they get no matter what you do. [...]