Sunday, October 08, 2006

Petey Said it. I Believe it. That Settles it.

You will have noticed that moonbats regularly try to lure me into an argument. Occasionally I relent and try to speak truth to their cognitive powerlessness, but it is almost always a mistake. Even though I prevail in every argument, the opponent never realizes it, so there’s no sense of satisfaction anyway.

Now, when I say that “I prevail in every argument,” that undoubtedly sounds arrogant. However, that would be a mistaken impression. For example, T. Jefferson famously asserted that it was self-evident that human beings were created by God and that God intended for them to have certain nonnegotiable rights. The purpose of government was to protect these natural rights, not to invent new ones, much less to take rights away because some neo-Marxists thought it would be a good idea. For example, government must protect and nurture the institution of marriage, because marriage is obviously anterior to government. It is not the government’s job to invent or sanction new and unnatural ways to be married.

It doesn’t sound to me like Jefferson was open to argument. If a modern day moonbat were to counter, “dude, if you just let people do what they want, they’ll do bad stuff,” the only response can be that Jefferson and the founding mooonbat share irreconcilable visions of God, of the nature of human beings, and of the purpose of government.

Take “discrimination,” for example. “Discrimination” is just another way of saying “generalization,” and to think--let alone philosophize--is to generalize. One cannot think without generalizing.

Naturally, some discrimination will be unfair, but I do not believe it is the job of the federal government to monitor it, except perhaps with regard to race (although even then, I believe that anti-discrimination laws have had a net negative impact on both society and the intended beneficiaries, as they tend to reduce them to victim status, create a new industry for corrupt lawyers, and diminish the importance of moral suasion and of shaming in bringing about positive social change).

For example, conservatives are obviously the targets of widespread discrimination in the news media and academia. In newsrooms, the ratio of liberal to conservative often approaches 25-1, and the typical humanities department in an elite university is over 90% leftist. But do I therefore believe that the federal government should get involved in forcing looniversities to hire more conservatives? No, not at all, because it would fly in the face of my first principle, which is that liberty is among the highest goods, even though flawed human beings are bound to do bad and stupid things with it. To say that one is opposed to anti-discriminaton laws is hardly equivalent to saying that one is in favor of discrimination toward this or that group.

Imagine if the federal government had gotten involved in forcing universities and the media to have a 50-50 split between leftist and classically liberal conservatives. Rather than helping the conservative movement, it probably would have stifled it. There would be no talk radio, no Rush Limbaugh, no National Review, no vibrant intellectual counterrevolution to leftist orthodoxy. As the leftist domination of elite universities and MSM is allowed to play itself out, I believe we will see--we are seeing--that these institutions will increasingly be regarded as the jokes that they are. That is certainly how I see them. I cannot imagine paying a penny to subscribe to a silly paper like the L.A. Times, let alone over $100,000 to send my son to be brainwashed at an elite university. It’s just a matter of time before the secret is out.

Back to the matter of why Petey is always right. Why do human beings even have “philosophies” to begin with? What are they looking for? What purpose do they serve? And why are some philosophies so much more adequate than others?

Human beings are, as Bion put it, epistemophilic. That is, we are born with an innate drive for meaning that is no less built into us than our drives to eat and reproduce. I can see it in my son, who is almost 18 months old. He is constantly studying, focussing intently, trying to make connections, attempting to make sense of things, trying to figure out what makes women tick, etc. And when he does make a connection, one can see that it brings great pleasure and satisfaction.

What makes us human--some of us anyway--is that we never lose this drive to deepen our understanding of reality. For although reality is real and external to us, it is also accurate to say that meaning occurs in the evolving transitional space between our neurology and the external world. That space can be very deep or it can be very shallow. But everything happens in that space--love, beauty, wisdom, etc.

As Michael Polanyi expressed it, when humans search for meaning, they are actually guided by an invisible gradient of deepening coherence within that space. The world is full of “particulars,” of loose ends and bits of disconnected information. The deeper philosophy will be the one that connects the most fragments into a unified whole. Therefore reality is both “present” and hidden from us, depending on our skill in pulling it all together.

And it is an art or a skill, not just another piece of information that can be passed from mind to mind. This is a critical point. One reason there is no purpose in arguing with a moonbat is that I cannot simply show someone what I see, any more more than Mozart could simply show you what he perceives in musical space (this is for pedagogic purposes only, not to compare myself to Mozart). One must first develop the skill in order to access the reality in question.

Take psychotherapy, for example. A great psychoanalyst, say, ShrinkWrapped, in listening to a patient’s free associations, will literally “see” a whole world of meaning that only exists in disconnected “bits” for the patient. One of the purposes of therapy will be to help the patient bring these bits together into a meaningful whole. Isn’t this also the task of the great historian--to take the literally infinite jumble of historical facts, and convert them into a deep, coherent, and satisfying vision? Isn’t this what Karl Marx did, or secular leftists do, only in a preposterously shallow way that appeals to moonbats but is repellant to the deep and thoughtful?

But can you argue with a neo-Marxist moonbat? No, you cannot, because it is a matter of competing visions. I can see the Marxist vision perfectly well, because it is so on the surface of reality. But I know of no Marxist who can truly share my vision, for if they did, they would be “converted.” They may think they get it, but they only understand the words. You know the story--folly to the geeks, a stumbling block to the clueless, and all that. Truth cannot be told so as to be understood and not believed, said Blake.

Again, do not be confused by the word "conversion," because I believe this goes a long way toward explaining the obvious hostility in our culture war. As Mitchell writes, “When opposing frameworks are so different that adherents of one cannot speak intelligibly to adherents of the other, the possibility of one partisan convincing another of the superiority of his position is slight. But even when persuasion becomes impossible, conversion remains viable."

In other words, all one can do is attempt to expose the poverty the opponent's position, and “to stimulate interest for [one’s] own richer perspectives; trusting that once an opponent has caught a glimpse of these, he cannot fail to sense a new mental satisfaction, which will attract him further and finally draw him over to its own grounds” (Polanyi).

Thus, in the final analysis, I am not looking for arguments but for converts--not to my particular point of view, but simply to a more encompassing vision of reality. I cannot give this vision directly, but I know for a fact that by sharing it and giving people the opportunity to “dwell” in it, they can be, in their own way “converted” to their own vision. I have received enough letters of thanks from former liberals to know that "conversion" is not too strong a word. Again, not to belabor the point, but it is not a conversion to "Gagdad Bobism," but to their own personal vision that begins to see the greater spiritual depth in things.

Back to arguing with moonbats. The reason they are powerless to persuade me is that there is simply no way I am ever going to revert to a philosophy that is so paltry and unsatisfying compared to my present one. It’s just not going to happen, any more than I would give up my wife for a watermelon.

Frankly I'd rather kiss a goat.



Or maybe a pig.

44 Comments:

Anonymous Zhombre said...

Like Louis Armstrong said about jazz, if you have ask what it is, you'll never know.

10/08/2006 08:53:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Excellent point. And as Dizzy Gillespie said about Louis, "no him, no me." Which is how I feel about my spiritual superiors who were kind enough to share their profound visions, so that I might dwell in them and thus be converted myself.

10/08/2006 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger PSGInfinity said...

..."there is simply no way I am ever going to revert to a philosophy that is so paltry and unsatisfying compared to my present one. It’s just not going to happen, any more than I would give up my wife for a watermelon."

Ooohhh, that's gonna leave a mark.

10/08/2006 09:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Jaan of Argghh! said...

I believe this blog exemplifies the exhortation from Christ that, "you are the salt of the earth".

When younger, I thought salt was all about preserving, that by upholding moral absolutes and Truth, I was helping to preserve my world.

This is still true, but in regard to my horizontal relationships, salt can be a tantalizing, satisfying flavor that delights a hungry palate. It enhances ordinary alimentary needs, raising the palate above mere nourishment of the flesh, or it can be a drawing agent that causes thirst, (as any good pizza joint knows about salty pizza selling more beer!)

But to talk about salt almost seems so pedestrian. It's overused in our foods to the point of making it indiscernable, and underused in our institutes of learning. You almost have to be forced into a fast to be able to taste it again and appreciate its value. Conservatives had been fasting a long time before Rush and LGF and others came on the scene.

Here's to a good thirst for tasty fare! That's why I'm here. Salty pizza and good beer to wash it down.

10/08/2006 09:34:00 AM  
Blogger Alan said...

Great analogy Jan.

When Jesus used that metaphor, salt was one of THE MOST valuable commodities - essential for life, in fact. People died without it.

Is this blog the only salt...not IMHO...but it is among the saltiest ;-)

10/08/2006 09:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Ben usn (ret) said...

Outstanding post, Bob!
We can't win an arguement with moonbats, but we can plant seeds of truth.
Those seeds may take root, if there is any fertile ground to be found,
and if they are watered, and if they are exposed to light.
Sometimes a moonbat may begin to see, once they notice that the cat is out of the bag (H/T to Fergus and Booger).
As you have noted before, Bob, MB's make up new definitions for words. They speak a different, relative language which is always changing to fit their vision.
What they think, see, hear, write and read is an illusion that they accept as reality.
Only the enticement of the Son-flower seeds of Truth and Life have a chance of breaking through the brambles of deceit and death.
There is a Cosmic beauty that flows from the Truth, that puts deceit to shame,
Once a moonbat sees it, (s)he is never the same;
There is a song of Life,
That enraptures and makes clear,
Once a moonbat hears it,
Death shrivels up in fear.


.

10/08/2006 09:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

Sheesh. Can't even spell muh own name right.

10/08/2006 10:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Will said...

>>The reason they are powerless to persuade me is that there is simply no way I am ever going to revert to a philosophy that is so paltry and unsatisfying compared to my present one.<<

I think most people would regard their 20s as a time of unbridled freedom (well, maybe somewhat bridled but still pretty liberated and carefree). You know, a time when their physical youthfulness allowed them a certain scope, s larger stage to play on than the one they must deal with in their later years.

I most humbly say that if I were to find myself back in my 20's, it would be tantamount to being shackled and blindfolded - no liberation in it, no freedom. Just a return to a lower mode of consciousness. It would be like having a lobotomy, like Hal the Computer having his higher circuits excised.

Say, has anyone considered the meta-symbolic implications of conservatives now being identified with the color red (as in "red states"), which has been traditionally considered the "revolutionary" color? And lefty types now being identified with the color blue, traditionally the "conservative" color? Yes, I know it was a screw-up that the colors were assigned thus, but still . . . this is how it came down, this is how it is in the world of primary colors and their meta-impact on the current paradigm clash. Or as I would put it, the conflict between Good and Evil.

10/08/2006 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It's all about preserving the redical spiritual vision of the founders.

10/08/2006 10:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

Say, has anyone considered the meta-symbolic implications of conservatives now being identified with the color red (as in "red states"), which has been traditionally considered the "revolutionary" color?

Whew! I thought I was the only one. I assigned Deep Meaning to it, but kept it to myself since, after trotting it out as an idea and hearing nothing but crickets, I decided it was best to let sleeping colours lie.

Who'd a thunk that being a Conservative-- rebelling against rebellion-- would become the edgy, exciting, radical and outrageous point of view that all the cool kids are touting?

10/08/2006 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger Surafel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/08/2006 12:02:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

We are just so . . .redical chic.

10/08/2006 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger Surafel said...

I'm so flattered that you would write a post about me. You dance around the issue of who you're talking about, but deep down, I know it is me.

And seeing as how I asked what your definition of openly gay was, I guess I'll never know.

Of course why you have decided not to answer it, when I have posted numerous arguments directly responding to your claims, trying to answer your questions, beats me.

Damn my looniness!

10/08/2006 12:04:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

These (same) visions of Johanna kept me up past the dawn . . .

10/08/2006 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger Alan said...

Sorry Joan for misremembering your name.

Being from Canada, Conservatives are always blue and Liberals are red. I've shocked myself on more than one election here in the US looking at the results backwards.

10/08/2006 12:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

For those who don't know (and why would you?), Surafel is a real-life diarrheist at moonbat central, dailykos, where he told all his dopey friends that Gagdad Bob is a mean homophobe because he doesn't like the idea of leftist wacktivists attacking the Boy Scouts and asking the federal government to force them to have openly gay scout leaders. Naturally, disagreeing with such a policy makes you "Fred Phelps" in their little minds.

10/08/2006 12:33:00 PM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Speaking of the unidirectionality of maturational time, can anyone imagine--in the absence of organic brain damage--any soul who appreciates, say, Dr. Sanity, ShrinkWrapped, American Thinker, American Digest, etc., and then abandoning them upon joyously discovering the moral, spiritual and intellectual depths of dailykos?

In short, that arrow of maturation runs in only one direction. It is why trolls such as Surafel cannot help hanging out here, for they know something is happening, even if they have no idea what it is.

10/08/2006 01:00:00 PM  
Blogger Surafel said...

You gagdad bob are a disappointment. What are you scared of? Why do you delete my posts? What is it that you don't want people seeing?
Huh?

Why have my comments on this post mysteriously disappeared? I'd like to think that you aren't deleting them. I'd also like to think that when I come on again I might find my comments. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit.

10/08/2006 01:25:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Surafel--

I will allow you to put up the link if you edit your piece to plainly indicate that you are in no way implying that I or conservatives in general are "homophobic," that we simply have a philosophical disagreement on the role of the federal government, and that you did not intend your piece to provoke those kinds of ugly slurs among commenters.

10/08/2006 01:26:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Hey all- great post and comments today! I am in the process of garage sale, moving, going through old papers and came across a paper I wrote in 1994 for my Arabs and Muslims class about Muslim Influence in Ethiopia. Basically, I wrote a crappy paper regurgitating the historical timeline of Ethiopia and it's crusade against Muslim influence.

The funny part about the paper is my grade of a B+ and the teacher's comment, "Your paper tr...(can't read word) the history of Ethiopian development, but little correlation is made between 20th century developments and Islam, especially the recent rise of Islamic Fundamentalism."

Umm, okay, let's get this straight a 20 year old Jewish female is supposed to write about the horrors of Islamic "developments" in this poor country and still get a good grade from her middle-aged Egyptian Muslim male teacher! I also saved a pamplet from the Simon Weisenthal center that had a cover with Hamas on front saying "Why do they hate us?" This is all from 1994! Is this really such a new phenomenon?

10/08/2006 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Surafel said...

Actually I'm just going to post the disclaimer.

I apologize that my comments or the comments of others were not explicit enough or left room for the use of such terms.

But I'd still like the response (the proof, the definition, etc.) that I asked for. If I can apologize, you can answer the question right?

10/08/2006 02:18:00 PM  
Anonymous stu said...

Damn, I guess I missed all the excitement. Ugly slurs? Were they creative at least?

It's a little absurd that Surafel thinks Bob's posts are directed at him specifically.

Most leftists think the world revolves around them. The deep structural narcissism that is inherent in their beliefs is shocking at times. It's so blatant and undisguised.

I'm truly amazed that people actually experience their lives in the way that Surafel experiences his. It's even harder to believe that I used to be in the same place.

Whatever else it is, psycho-spiritual development is definitely a journey from an entirely self-focused perspective to more encompassing, wider levels of perspective.

Will, if traditional conservitism is red and leftist progressivism is blue, than I suggest purple for classical liberalism / neoconservatism.

Royalty, magic, mystery and purpose.

We are the purple state.




Say, has anyone considered the meta-symbolic implications of conservatives now being identified with the color red (as in "red states"), which has been traditionally considered the "revolutionary" color? And lefty types now being identified with the color blue, traditionally the "conservative" color?

10/08/2006 02:25:00 PM  
Anonymous stu said...

Damn, I guess I missed all the excitement. Ugly slurs? Were they creative at least?

It's a little absurd that Surafel thinks Bob's posts are directed at him specifically.

Most leftists think the world revolves around them. The deep structural narcissism that is inherent in their beliefs is shocking at times. It's so blatant and undisguised.

I'm truly amazed that people actually experience their lives in the way that Surafel experiences his. It's even harder to believe that I used to be in the same place.

Whatever else it is, psycho-spiritual development is definitely a journey from an entirely self-focused perspective to more encompassing, wider levels of perspective.

Will, if traditional conservitism is red and leftist progressivism is blue, than I suggest purple for classical liberalism / neoconservatism.

Royalty, magic, mystery and purpose.

We are the purple state.




Say, has anyone considered the meta-symbolic implications of conservatives now being identified with the color red (as in "red states"), which has been traditionally considered the "revolutionary" color? And lefty types now being identified with the color blue, traditionally the "conservative" color?

10/08/2006 02:25:00 PM  
Anonymous stu said...

I HATE COMMENT MODERATION.

PLEASE BEHAVE MOONBATS!!!

10/08/2006 02:28:00 PM  
Blogger Surafel said...

There were two questions:

1. The proof that I asked for in the comment meant for the two of us.

2. The second question is "What is your definition of 'openly gay'?" This is the question you have avoided constantly. My initial purpose was to understand why you think openly gay men cannot be boy scout leaders or teachers. Your definition of "openly gay" is key to why you think the way you do in regards to this issue.

Let me repeat myself. My question is: What do you think being "openly gay" means?

I have held up my end, hold up yours. Should I post the link again or can you just approve one of the earlier comments with the link?

10/08/2006 02:44:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

What is the question? And why are you asking it? Please, try to be clear and concise. Two sentences should do it.

10/08/2006 02:44:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Surafel--

In reference to the left's assault on the Boy Scouts, you asked me,

"What is your definition of 'openly gay'?"

My answer: Whatever the Boy Scouts deems it to be. I trust them to make that determination in the same way they always have throughout their existence.

10/08/2006 02:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Joan of Argghh! said...

Surafel, the one-note wonder, keeps throwing out a question that is not to the point of the discussion, demanding an answer, demanding attention,and sucking up bandwidth. He's insincere, no matter what else he proclaims, because he doesn't really care what Bob's answer will be.

He has his *amazing!* comeback already arranged, his flaming, magnificent, brilliant insight. Like the kid in, "The Christmas Story" he dreams of an, "A++++++++" from his peers back at Kos. It consumes him. He's wriggling in his seat. It's what he wants for Kosmas.

Bob, all-wise in his response, deftly denies Surafel his heart's desire....cuz he knows that he'd only shoot his eye out.

10/08/2006 03:02:00 PM  
Blogger Surafel said...

A vague answer, and not necessarily in the direction I was headed, but I guess I will accept that.

One last thing, and for the sake of both of us, I will never bother you again.

Here is a scenario:

A man teaches a class of 5th graders. He does not discuss sexuality, his, let alone anyone else's. He works at a public institution where guidance counselors deal with such questions. On the weekend, you, as a principal, happen to run across him holding hands with another man, and overall displaying the PDA typical to a couple. As a principal, would you personally want to fire him?

Let's cut the bull. No psycho-analysis, no discussion about liberty or equality. No personal attacks, no hyperbole, no generalizations. I want your personal opinion. These are the facts. My question is more than two sentences, but I am confident that you are intelligent enough to follow along. My intentions? To understand your personal opinion. Plain and simple. I'm curious.

Humor me with a response.

10/08/2006 03:17:00 PM  
Blogger Surafel said...

I will not consider you a homophobe if you answer no. Nor do I currently consider you a homophobe. I don't believe you hate gays or are afraid of them. I don't intend my question to imply that, and no one should assume that is my intention.

I am asking for your opinion.

In fact, here is my response. I don't think there is anything wrong with this situation. I wouldn't fire the teacher. But I would let him know what I saw. I would tell him to remember and to respect the wishes or beliefs of others. I would tell him that his sexuality is a topic of discussion in or out of the classroom. It is a private matter, and he should keep it that way. Do you agree with me?

Will you answer now?

10/08/2006 03:40:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

No, absolutely not. To even ask the question is an indication of how thoroughly you misunderstand my position as a classical liberal.

10/08/2006 03:42:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

By the way, I wouldn't even let the teacher know what I had seen, remind him to respect the wishes and beliefs of others, or tell him that his sexuality is not topic of discussion in or out of the classroom, assuming that he had behaved in a thoroghly professional manner in the classroom up to that point.

Do your boneheaded friends at dailykos know that you are to the right of me on this issue?

10/08/2006 03:50:00 PM  
Blogger Surafel said...

So then for you it wouldn't be an issue.

10/08/2006 03:54:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Of course not. I judge people by their behavior, not by their private thoughts. I leave that to God. Leftists are the ones who judge thoughts--i.e., advancing hate crime legislation or habitually attributing motives to conservatives instead of simply judging the merits of the policy.

I will send you a free copy of my book if you write a diary on dailykos passionately defending the Boy Scouts right to discriminate against openly gay scout leaders, and no one calls you a homophobe (or something similar).

10/08/2006 04:04:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Amazing the kind of hatred the Left projects onto others.



Hmmmm, neo Marxist, I like it!



"Truth cannot be told so as to be understood and not believed"

I have literally been with people who, when deep truths were explained to them and understood by them, literally withdrew psychically. It was visually observable, the shock and pain at the moment of realization, and the door slamming shut.
I've often wondered why some would choose to live in that hell of their own making after having been shown a door to freedom.

10/08/2006 04:09:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

More on left wing Sexual McCarthyism

10/08/2006 04:13:00 PM  
Blogger gumshoe1 said...

surafel -


you're so incredibly
"educated",you can't
ask your question in two
concise sentences,
and then,*wait* for the other person to answer.

no wonder the people over a kos have trouble forming ideas.

they're to busy shouting
DIALECTIC!!! at each other to have a conversation.

10/08/2006 05:28:00 PM  
Anonymous tsebring said...

Hello all; some words about Conversion:

Though I sometimes think Ann Coulter goes overboard with the shrill tone of her commentary, I think she is right on the money when she calls leftism "a Godless Church", hence the title of her latest book. It would seem that Marx's attempt to establish an ideology with no theology has instead resulted in a kind of grotesquely mutated theology; kind of like the way Elves were mutated into Orcs in Middle Earth. Leftists deny that they have any belief system, yet they betray their true colors when they continually deny what stares them right in the face (Islamofascists want to kill us, Ahmadinijad and Kim are dangerous, etc.).

It is then that we see the reality of Coulter's concept in the flesh; Leftism is a religion. It has churches (universities), saints (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Rousseau, Kant, Marcuse), rituals (candlelight vigils on the anniversery of John Lennon's death),crusades (Million Moron Marches, U2 and Dixie Chicks concerts), televangelists (Dan Rather, Rosie O'Donnell, Paul Begala), high clergy (Bill and Hillary, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi), avatars (Jimmy Carter, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez),sacrifices (contributions to MoveOn and George Soros), sacred sites (the Grassy Knoll, Roswell, UN headquarters), sacred texts (The Communist Manifesto, anything by Al Franken or Herbert Marcuse), sacred music (John Lennon, Neil Young, Country Joe & the Fish, Bruce Springsteen, Gil-Scott Heron, Rage Against the Machine), demons(Dick Cheyney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Denny Hastert, Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito), and a devil (George Bush).

There is simply no convicing someone mired in this non-religious religion that there is a better and higher way, for, to them, no way is higher than theirs. Bob, you are right when you say that conversion is the only way out of such a mess. It takes an event like 9/11 or the Holocaust to convert many (though the fact that many leftists deny both of these suggests that there truly is a point of no return).

A certain Saul of Tarsus remained stubbornly stuck in his rightness despite several attempts by God to convince him otherwise; God's solution was to knock him off his donkey and blind him for three days, then follow it up with a vision of seven heavens (you might say he was knocked off his ass onto his ass :):)) In other words, revelation that leads to true conversion must come from outside, and sometimes in extreme ways. It is not always deliberate seekers who recieve revelation; God often chooses the least likely candidates, such as the not-too-bright apostles or the slow-of-speech Moses. This is not to dismiss being a seeker of truth and revelation, but a reminder that truth often comes to us when we least expect it, and feel least ready or worthy to recieve it. But God always had the least success with those that were the most convinced that they were right and everyone else was wrong.

Postmodernists will of course say that this is precisely what is wrong with religious people, and that because they believe in nothing, they are immune to the charge of self-righteousness. However, when you attempt to engage them, you soon see that they are absolutely convinced of the rightness of their position that there is no higher truth, and that, ironically, they are more self-righteous than any religious person you will ever meet, hence the futility of engaging them in debate.

10/08/2006 07:14:00 PM  
Anonymous tsebring said...

Hey Bob, looks like your son is trying out for the Italian WC soccer team :):)

10/08/2006 07:22:00 PM  
Blogger Belloq said...

I already gave Deep Thought this request, but I need all the help I can get.

Can you come to my Christmas party this year and convert all my beloved moonbat friends? I'm surrounded, out numbered, and weak from a fifteen year Rope-a-Dope.

Please convert them, or I'll have to put them down like sick dogs.

10/08/2006 07:55:00 PM  
Anonymous feeblemind said...

The moonbats won't be persuaded and few will be converted. So where are we heading? Can such diametrically opposed beliefs as exist between left and right coexist in the same country indefinitely?

10/09/2006 04:14:00 PM  
Blogger Cardozo Bozo said...

"Jefferson famously asserted that it was self-evident that human beings were created by God and that God intended for them to have certain nonnegotiable rights. The purpose of government was to protect these natural rights, not to invent new ones, much less to take rights away because some neo-Marxists thought it would be a good idea. For example, government must protect and nurture the institution of marriage, because marriage is obviously anterior to government. It is not the government’s job to invent or sanction new and unnatural ways to be married."

I realize this comment is introductory to, and a bit of a throw-away line for, your main argument, but there appears to be a bit of conflict with the theme expressed here and your next post.

How are we to evolve, as a culture, in our understanding of inalienable rights and the institution of marriage, if we cannot experiment with them?

For better or for worse government and the institution of marriage have become symbiotic. For one to evolve they must both evolve, or they must part ways entirely. And if neither evolve, then they will stagnate and will both be surpassed by some institution(s) which are more fit at serving the needs of humanity.

Personally I don't think that gay marriage will be net-harmful to society, but I could be wrong about that. The only thing I am sure of is that there seems to be a lot of gay couples in long-term relationships who want to be married, and until we let them get married we won't know what the consequences are.

The foundation of science is liberty, but we must have liberty to experiment in our social forms just as much as in our laboratories if we are to progress as a society. It is not enough to conquer the material sciences.

Fear not. If gay marriage really is harmful to society, we will learn from that harm and move on; on the other hand, if it is not harmful, than allowing the experiment to move forward promises the possibility of a lifetime of improved health and happiness to many American couples and their families. That seems like a worthy risk worth taking, does it not?

As for the Federal Gov't, I don't believe they are 'sanctioning' anything, but merely allowing the experiment to move forward. As I mentioned above, the laws of the land (in tax, inheritance, rights to children, power to decide, and many more) are inextricably tied to the civil and religious institutions of marriage. For better or for worse they must move forward, or back, or remain stagnant, as one.

10/10/2006 12:42:00 PM  
Blogger confusedforeigner said...

"For example, conservatives are obviously the targets of widespread discrimination in the news media and academia."

The media? Oh you poor misunderstood Republicans you.

Oh yes, the Rupert Murdochs, Tiny Rowlands etc etc etc of this world are all known leftists who are studiously pushing against neoliberal economics and US hegemony.

And Rupert particularly is clearly very harsh on Israel.

Jeeebus, you couldn't make this stuff up. You need help Dr Bob. Paranoia is abroad.

10/12/2006 08:07:00 PM  
Blogger TOR Hershman said...

Flushy Hershman hasn't and CAN NOT lose an arugument, it is IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flushy_superstar/

10/25/2006 08:41:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home