Reality Sets In

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

I can read you liberals like a book. And my pal Mr. Goldberg says it a lot better than I.


Are you certain about that?

By Jonah Goldberg


Have you heard the news? Belief is bad

Pick up an eggheady book review, an essay in Time magazine or listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio for very long and you'll soon hear someone explain that real conviction - dogmatism! - is dangerous. Andrew Sullivan, in his new book "The Conservative Soul," declares a jihad on certainty, by which he means the certainty of fundamentalist "Christianists" - the allusion to Islamists is deliberate. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait proclaims that liberalism is the anti-dogmatic ideology. Sam Harris, a leading proselytizer for atheism, has declared a one-man crusade on religious certainty. Intellectual historian J.P. Diggins writes in the latest issue of The American Interest that there's a war afoot for "the soul of the American Republic" between the forces of skepticism and infallibility. And so on.

----------------------------------------

"Eggheady" -- well, we know where good old Jonah is heading, don't we?
The "anti-intellectual-intellectual". His basic premise is that "all Liberals hate certainty. Then he EQUATES Dogmatism with "certainity". Not equivalent, not the same. reject his basic premises -- and he has no argument. These guys sometimes set up this false "equivalent" crap -- then run with it.

---------------------------------------------


Much of this stems from the popularity of Bush hatred these days. Bush's alleged "messianic certainty" - to use Sen. Barack Obama's words - is dangerous and evil in the eyes of supposedly meek and nuanced liberals.

--------------------------------------------------------

Another false premise -- and he knows it. The idea that distrust of "messianic certainty" is connected to "Bush hatred" is pure hogwash -- H.L. Mencken didn't know Bush -- did he?

--------------------------------------------------------------

The rot, not surprisingly, has reached Hollywood. For example, in "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," George Lucas caved to the fashionable anti-absolutism that comes with Bush hatred by having a young Obi-Wan Kenobi proclaim, "Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes!" Translation: Only evil people see the world as black-and-white. This signaled that Lucas's descent into hackery was complete, since it was Lucas himself who originally explained that the entire universe is divided into light and dark sides.
Longtime New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis captured the thought nicely a few years ago when he said that a primary lesson of his entire career was that "certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity in people who are sure they are right, like Osama bin Laden and John Ashcroft."

-----------------------------------------------------------

"The rot" -- nothing like a well thought out, subtle, nuanced presentation. Use highly charged words to rile people up -- so they do not notice you are leading them to false conclusions based on flawed premises and false equivalencies.

----------------------------------------------

Whenever I hear people say such things, I like to ask them, "Are you sure about that?" When they say yes, which they always do, I follow up by asking, "No, no: Are you really, really certain that certainty is bad?" At some point even the irony-deficient get the joke.

But they still don't understand that the joke is on them. Virtually every hero in human history has been driven by certainty, by the courage of their convictions. Sir Thomas More and Socrates chose certain death, pun intended, over uncertain life. Martin Luther King Jr. - to pick liberalism's most iconic hero - was hardly plagued with doubt about the rightness of his cause. A Rosa Parks charged with today's reigning moral imperative not to be too sure of herself might not have sat at the front of the bus. An FDR certain that certainty is the enemy of decency and humanity might have declined to declare total war on Nazism for fear of becoming as bad as his enemy.

--------------------------------------------------

"Martin Luther King Jr. - to pick liberalism's most iconic hero" - are you really sure of that assumption, Jonah? Again making a false connnection between certainity and dogmatism. Between being sure -- and never being willing to change. Against having basic moral principles that you live by, and having set ideas about OTHER people. Moral certainity guides YOUR LIFE. Dogmatism means YOU believe -- and want to force others to believe, because it's the ONLY WAY to believe. In addition, to be dogmatic means not ever allowing different thoughts to enter your mind. In fact, truly dogmatic people often confuse the spiritual and physical -- closing their minds to the possibility of change, rejecting the very concept of growth. Those who supported slavery as a "natural state for the negro" were dogmatic. No amount of information could change those minds. It was only living with that change that did cause some to change, or adapt to new circumstances.

-----------------------------------------------

The fact is that unless you know where you stand, it's unlikely you'll have the courage to understand where someone else is coming from.
Obviously, there's more than a grain of truth to the view that closed-mindedness is bad. Immunity to new facts and a smug confidence that you couldn't possibly be wrong are serious character flaws and the source of grave mistakes. Yes, of course, dogmatism can be very bad, if the dogma in question is bad. But, as Chesterton teaches, a dogmatic conviction can also be morally praiseworthy and socially valuable. If you doubt that, let us now commence the war on the certainty that murder is wrong, that racism is bad and that a parent's love should be unconditional.

----------------------------------------------------

Here we have a clear view of the "anti-intellectual-intellectual" -- by the way, didn't anyone tell him Chesterton is a Catholic, writing as a Roman Catholic, promoting a Roman Catholic view -- in a Protestant nation where "Papists" were persecuted for years. There is an agenda there.

-------------------------------------------------------

This ultimately is my problem with the anti-certainty chorus; they aren't offended by conviction per se, but by convictions they do not hold. Jean-Paul Sartre famously wrote that "hell is other people." Well, for the new "liberal" champions of skepticism and philosophical humility, hell is the certainty of other people. "Closed-minded" has come to mean "people who disagree with me." (This is a corollary to the popular tendency of defining "diversity" as a bunch of people who look different but think alike). So, for example, pro-lifers have an unshakable "dogmatic" and "faith-based" certainty that abortion is wrong. But, we are told, pro-choicers are merely open-minded and realists. People who are certain gay marriage is good are "enlightened" people, while those whose convictions point elsewhere are zealots.

------------------------------------------------

Throw in an unnecessary referance to Sartre -- just to show he's well read. Hmmm, was Jonah dismissed as a lightweight by his peers? Could be. Anyway, that's not the point. People who want to extend freedom and equality are often looked on as "enlightened". People who want to deny freedom, close down society, and not deal with the reality in front of them are usually seen as "dogmatic". They refuse to evaluate situations based on the actual facts of the matter -- but, like the extended marriage rights issue, on a "Holy Book" that not all people accept. That's the official reason. There may well be others, but they are rarely mentioned at length. They also draw the conclusion the it would destroy "traditional marriage" (whatever that means) with no facts to back that up. currently, marriage is being "destroyed" -- fewer young folks are getting married -- that may be one reason for the falling divorce rates.
Dogmatic often means setting policy for ALL on the basis of unproven belief. It also means setting laws for others who do not believe as you do -- just "because".

----------------------------------------------------------



In other words, certainty has become code among the intellectual priesthood for people and ideas that can be dismissed out of hand. That's what is so offensive about this fashionable nonsense: It breeds the very closed-mindedness it pretends to fight.

------------------------------------------------------------


Once again a truly faulty conclusion preceeded by flawed premises. That;s not "thinking" -- that's just a piece of poorly written propaganda. In fact, you should be insulted that he patronized you so, that he didn;'t give it more thought, that he thought you so "easy"

Sigh.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel like a 'hero'.


See eleanor and Delija? I have you pegged, you are normal liberals and you cannot help but ridicule people with strong convictions and 'certainty'. Sorry, but your moral relativism is the EASY way.



Tom

No Tom, your "hero's" have you pegged -- they think you will believe any rot. Don't forget to read between the lines.

Can you say "sophistry"??

[Delija]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

See eleanor and Delija? I have you pegged, you are normal liberals and you cannot help but ridicule people with strong convictions and 'certainty'. Sorry, but your moral relativism is the EASY way.

1: Please define "liberal".
2: Nice cut and paste (for a change). Ever have any thoughts of your own?

Peace,
D.

[tec]

Originally Posted by Delija

1: Please define "liberal".
2: Nice cut and paste (for a change). Ever have any thoughts of your own?

Peace,
D.

Good Lord, do you know how many times I have clicked on a link posted by D, responding to funnygun that says this?????

It ain't gounna happen!

[Delija]

Originally Posted by tec

Good Lord, do you know how many times I have clicked on a link posted by D, responding to funnygun that says this?????

It ain't gounna happen!

No, but it's fun to ask anyway!
Although, anything is possible....at least that's what they say.

Peace,
D.

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by eleanor

No Tom, your "hero's" have you pegged -- they think you will believe any rot. Don't forget to read between the lines.

Can you say "sophistry"??

Poignant Irony Alert....Thanks for pointing out the truth in my post.




Have you heard the news? Belief is bad

Pick up an eggheady book review, an essay in Time magazine or listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio for very long and you'll soon hear someone explain that real conviction - dogmatism! - is dangerous. Andrew Sullivan, in his new book "The Conservative Soul," declares a jihad on certainty, by which he means the certainty of fundamentalist "Christianists" - the allusion to Islamists is deliberate. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait proclaims that liberalism is the anti-dogmatic ideology. Sam Harris, a leading proselytizer for atheism, has declared a one-man crusade on religious certainty. Intellectual historian J.P. Diggins writes in the latest issue of The American Interest that there's a war afoot for "the soul of the American Republic" between the forces of skepticism and infallibility. And so on.

Originally Posted by eleanor

"Eggheady" -- well, we know where good old Jonah is heading, don't we?
The "anti-intellectual-intellectual". His basic premise is that "all Liberals hate certainty. Then he EQUATES Dogmatism with "certainity". Not equivalent, not the same. reject his basic premises -- and he has no argument. These guys sometimes set up this false "equivalent" crap -- then run with it.

That's funny eleanor. I thought "equate" and "equivelent" mean the same

equate - to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent.....

Must you attempt to create new word definitions to create a phony "false premise" charge? Accept the premise, it fits you.


You obviously do not like the point of this article. Liberals equate certainty with dogmatic-like conviction and attack them for it....classic and false straw man logic. Dogmatism is bad and strength of conviction is good so Liberal pundits, as shown, falsely equate dogmatism to certainty of conviction. That is why you instinctively jumped in to proclaim some "false equivalent crap"......sophistry....




You aren't very "meek and nuanced" Eleanor, get with the dogmatic liberal program.....








Tom

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Poignant Irony Alert....Thanks for pointing out the truth in my post.




Have you heard the news? Belief is bad

Pick up an eggheady book review, an essay in Time magazine or listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio for very long and you'll soon hear someone explain that real conviction - dogmatism! - is dangerous. Andrew Sullivan, in his new book "The Conservative Soul," declares a jihad on certainty, by which he means the certainty of fundamentalist "Christianists" - the allusion to Islamists is deliberate. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait proclaims that liberalism is the anti-dogmatic ideology. Sam Harris, a leading proselytizer for atheism, has declared a one-man crusade on religious certainty. Intellectual historian J.P. Diggins writes in the latest issue of The American Interest that there's a war afoot for "the soul of the American Republic" between the forces of skepticism and infallibility. And so on.


That's funny eleanor. I thought "equate" and "equivelent" mean the same

equate - to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent.....

Must you attempt to create new word definitions to create a phony "false premise" charge? Accept the premise, it fits you.


You obviously do not like the point of this article. Liberals equate certainty with dogmatic-like conviction and attack them for it....classic and false straw man logic. Dogmatism is bad and strength of conviction is good so Liberal pundits, as shown, falsely equate dogmatism to certainty of conviction. That is why you instinctively jumped in to proclaim some "false equivalent crap"......sophistry....




You aren't very "meek and nuanced" Eleanor, get with the dogmatic liberal program.....








Tom

Yes Tom, equate and equivalent (sorry for the misspelling --how did I know you would point it out?) do mean the same thing -- please re-read my sentence. If it is not clear --- I'll rewrite it for you. You see, Dogmatism and certainity are NOT equivalent. You cannot equate them -- they are NOT the same. When poor Jonah attempts to set up that false equivalence -- his entire argument falls apart.

as an example: "You are dogmatic, that's one thing I'm certain of. However, if you were to open your mind to an idea or two, then I would not be quite as certain -- since you might be less dogmatic." The problem there is that DOGMA is well beyond "certain". Dogma is the bedrock belief of a religion, or a philosophy. When it becomes a part of DOGMA, that "all Democrats who do not think exactly as we do are 'bad', or 'evil', or 'traitors'." -- well, that's a part of a very rigid set of beliefs. The kinds of things you live your life by. If that's the case, what use is it to attempt to have a dialogue with you? No facts can affect DOGMA. No statistics, no votes, no experience can have any effect on DOGMA.

In other words -- when folks say there is no use talking to you -- they are right.

Like your peerless leader, "bi-partisan" appears to translate to "think like me".

It seens you were not too clear on what I was saying. That's o.k. -- I accustomed to it.

It's not about not liking the point of the article, it's that the point is untrue, incorrect, poorly thought out, and based on false premises -- otherwise it's just fine.

No, when attempting to talk to folks who make a point of misunderstanding what is written -- I'm not meek and mild.

By the way, how do you know what "liberals" say -- all you seem to resd are "attack articles" from the right. They are not credible witnesses when it comes to "discussing" the "liberals".

In addition, I hoped you would have realized by now that I'm well to the left of most "liberals".

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by NewXD40fun

Poignant Irony Alert....Thanks for pointing out the truth in my post.




Have you heard the news? Belief is bad

Pick up an eggheady book review, an essay in Time magazine or listen to a thumb-suck session on National Public Radio for very long and you'll soon hear someone explain that real conviction - dogmatism! - is dangerous. Andrew Sullivan, in his new book "The Conservative Soul," declares a jihad on certainty, by which he means the certainty of fundamentalist "Christianists" - the allusion to Islamists is deliberate. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait proclaims that liberalism is the anti-dogmatic ideology. Sam Harris, a leading proselytizer for atheism, has declared a one-man crusade on religious certainty. Intellectual historian J.P. Diggins writes in the latest issue of The American Interest that there's a war afoot for "the soul of the American Republic" between the forces of skepticism and infallibility. And so on.


That's funny eleanor. I thought "equate" and "equivelent" mean the same

equate - to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent.....

Must you attempt to create new word definitions to create a phony "false premise" charge? Accept the premise, it fits you.


You obviously do not like the point of this article. Liberals equate certainty with dogmatic-like conviction and attack them for it....classic and false straw man logic. Dogmatism is bad and strength of conviction is good so Liberal pundits, as shown, falsely equate dogmatism to certainty of conviction. That is why you instinctively jumped in to proclaim some "false equivalent crap"......sophistry....




You aren't very "meek and nuanced" Eleanor, get with the dogmatic liberal program.....








Tom

Yes Tom, equate and equivalent (sorry for the misspelling --how did I know you would point it out?) do mean the same thing -- please re-read my sentence. If it is not clear --- I'll rewrite it for you. You see, Dogmatism and certainity are NOT equivalent. You cannot equate them -- they are NOT the same. When poor Jonah attempts to set up that false equivalence -- his entire argument falls apart.

as an example: "You are dogmatic, that's one thing I'm certain of. However, if you were to open your mind to an idea or two, then I would not be quite as certain -- since you might be less dogmatic." The problem there is that DOGMA is well beyond "certain". Dogma is the bedrock belief of a religion, or a philosophy. When it becomes a part of DOGMA, that "all Democrats who do not think exactly as we do are 'bad', or 'evil', or 'traitors'." -- well, that's a part of a very rigid set of beliefs. The kinds of things you live your life by. If that's the case, what use is it to attempt to have a dialogue with you? No facts can affect DOGMA. No statistics, no votes, no experience can have any effect on DOGMA.

In other words -- when folks say there is no use talking to you -- they are right.

Like your peerless leader, "bi-partisan" appears to translate to "think like me".

It seens you were not too clear on what I was saying. That's o.k. -- I accustomed to it.

It's not about not liking the point of the article, it's that the point is untrue, incorrect, poorly thought out, and based on false premises -- otherwise it's just fine.

No, when attempting to talk to folks who make a point of misunderstanding what is written -- I'm not meek and mild.

By the way, how do you know what "liberals" say -- all you seem to resd are "attack articles" from the right. They are not credible witnesses when it comes to "discussing" the "liberals".

In addition, I hoped you would have realized by now that I'm well to the left of most "liberals".

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by eleanor

Yes Tom, equate and equivalent (sorry for the misspelling --how did I know you would point it out?) do mean the same thing -- please re-read my sentence. If it is not clear --- I'll rewrite it for you. You see, Dogmatism and certainity are NOT equivalent. You cannot equate them -- they are NOT the same. When poor Jonah attempts to set up that false equivalence -- his entire argument falls apart.

Nope, you got it wrong again. No "false premise" was set up. And of course they are not the same.

Mr. Goldberg postulates that liberals try to equate certainty with dogmatism, and he proves it, quite well I might add.

I am certain about it.




Tom

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Zinji

As someone who minored in Journalism and went to school with a lot of these types, I can tell you that's exactly what they're doing.

As someone who MAJORED in journalism, and then went to an Ivy League University (Columbia) for graduate work in journalism, I can tell you that that is exactly what does NOT happen at publications like the Washington Post.

Peace,
D.

[NewXD40fun]

Originally Posted by Delija

As someone who MAJORED in journalism, and then went to an Ivy League University (Columbia) for graduate work in journalism, I can tell you that that is exactly what does NOT happen at publications like the Washington Post.

Peace,
D.

You sure sound absolutely certain about that Delija, even though you know nothing about working at the Washington Post. Are you a Sith?



Tom