I have frequently (and rather pompously) declared myself to be a Seeker Of Truth. I emphasize that title with capital letters because I regard seeking the truth to be every bit as noble as other appellations such as, Chaplain, Professor, Doctor, Senator or even Dump Manager. (I claim solidarity with all workers in the profession of Waste Management, as we suffer similar scorn by society: our work is vital, yet society does not regard it as nice. But, someone needs to do it.)
Truth Seeking is scorned by true-believers. The pursuit of Truth requires an objective evaluation of facts. This is impossible for one who is invested deeply in an ideology, which by definition is a system of doctrines based on beliefs. It seems many TB's feel the need to loudly proclaim their moral superiority. I regard this impulse as equivalent to whistling in the dark. TB's almost always express fear - fear of eternal punishment, fear of dangerous slippery slopes, Socialism, terrorism, strangers, change, loss of traditional values, etc.
Debating with someone under the sway of ideology is futile, especially if you are invested in a competing set of doctrines. This is one of the reasons that dinner parties are less interesting these days. Conversation has devolved to an assertion of beliefs rather than an exchange of honest information. Listening once meant trying to keep an open mind, but no one listens anymore, except to listen for opportunities to hijack the discussion. (When not talking, the ideologue suffers the lame and inaccurate assertions of others, waiting for the critical pause and then launches a nuanced verbal attack.) No one seems to change their minds about anything.
It seems that when you become a TB and you decide what you truly believe in – whether it is Global Warming, Illegal Immigration, Progressive Taxation or Abortion (just to name a few) – you unshakably believe only those assertions of fact that agree with your baseline position. All other “facts” are suspect. You question their validity because of the alleged bias of person who utters them, or the junk science that discovered them, on and on. Faced with incontrovertible evidence, you will still find a way to stick to your root beliefs. The shrinks have a name for it they call it "Cognitive dissonance".
In conversations with others, I have often been scoffed at as a fuzzy thinking fence sitter, a flip-flopper and probably worse. My interlocutors must have felt it is an intellectual defect not to have a bear-hug on a firmly-held conviction. To me, it seems nearly impossible to find the Truth in the haystack of factoids, rumors and disinformation.
I have never claimed to be the smartest guy in the room (except when I am alone with the cats) but I privately (perhaps pompously) considered myself intellectually superior to smarter guys who did not realize that no issue is completely black or white. There are at least two sides to every issue. There are no absolute truths.
Right wingers will use the 5th Commandment of the Christian Bible to argue that killing is wrong, but they only mean it in the context of abortion. These same believers will giddily approve the use of tax money to subsidize the production of weapons of mass destruction because it creates jobs. But, where is that fine print in the Bible that allows situational exceptions to the injunction against killing?
Left wingers would like to remove all vestiges of human tribal inclination. We are the world, they claim. All resources belong to all men equally. They would demolish state boundaries and distribute the wealth to everyone. Yet without the competitive spirit of Capitalism there would be no wealth to distribute.
These contradictions do not bother the True Believer.
Things are getting worse for Truth Seekers. Negative political ads are nothing new, but recently the tack seems to have taken the direction towards the "low road." There was a time when a smear ad would exaggerate the opponent's position, or take a quote out of context. But the recent Romney TV ad deceptively shows Obama quoting a statement from the McCain campaign, as if it had been Obama's statement.
I think this is beneath contempt and would not consider voting for Mitt Romney unless he apologizes and fires the staff member(s) responsible for the ad. Romney is more susceptible to negative ads than most polititians, since he can be honestly quoted to reveal his changeable positions. True Believing conservatives already consider Mitt to be a shape-shifting, flip-flopping RINO (Republican in name only). Now, he has alienated
Seekers of Truth.
Things are getting worse for Truth Seekers. Negative political ads are nothing new, but recently the tack seems to have taken the direction towards the "low road." There was a time when a smear ad would exaggerate the opponent's position, or take a quote out of context. But the recent Romney TV ad deceptively shows Obama quoting a statement from the McCain campaign, as if it had been Obama's statement.
I think this is beneath contempt and would not consider voting for Mitt Romney unless he apologizes and fires the staff member(s) responsible for the ad. Romney is more susceptible to negative ads than most polititians, since he can be honestly quoted to reveal his changeable positions. True Believing conservatives already consider Mitt to be a shape-shifting, flip-flopping RINO (Republican in name only). Now, he has alienated
Seekers of Truth.
17 comments:
Welcome back from your technology-force hiatus, oh wise one.
One mini-deception is enough to send the truth seeker packing? Come on! You are therefore going to vote for the one with a wheelbarrow full?
Your arguments are just so much sophistry ... word-smithed to elevate you above the political fray. In my book, situational morality (it's OK to kill an innocent baby but not OK to fry a heinous mass killer ... please note the adjectives used here) means amorality ... are you guilty of same?
It's not a "mini" when you try to fool the people with outright lies about your opponent. You claim the moral high ground - just how much lying is "OK" with you. You ducked my argument about supporting businesses that build mass killing devices, you sneaky sophist. I support the death penalty for heinous mass killers. I do not believe in killing all innocent babies, only the ones that no one wants.
Minideception, huh. How about when you use the word "baby" when you are referring to a fetus or even just a newly fertilized egg? This tactic of misuse of languafe is used by zealots to prevent people of a range of views from finding common ground (e.g., both sides would like to reduce abortions) in order to impose their extreme views on the majority.
No, no DEN you're a sophist!! Na-na-na-nana! And Rick wants to use language only in his left-handed way. Abortions are declining (much to the chagrin of Planned Parenthood) due mainly to ultrasound imaging where potential parents can see that their "fetus" really is a human baby.
So now you imply Planned Parenthood wants more abortions. That's like saying the Fire Dept wants more fires. Ultrasound, Really? Not because of sex educations or easy-on condoms?
According to its latest annual report, clinics affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) performed 305,310 abortions in 2007, an all-time record for the nation’s largest abortion provider. While the number of abortions in the U.S. has dropped nearly every year since the 1990 peak of 1.6 million, they have consistently been on the increase at PPFA. In fact, they have nearly doubled in the last 10 years from 165,174 in 1997.
Today, Planned Parenthood is responsible for more than a quarter of all abortions performed annually in the United States. While Planned Parenthood tries to minimize the centrality of abortion to its mission, the 2007–08 report clearly shows that the promotion and performance of abortion remains at the core of Planned Parenthood’s business and mission.
Ooops! Mr. Truth Seeker
Thus, given the same logic, the data "prove" that the US Forestry Service is dedicated to the starting and expansion of destructive wildfires.
If you really care about life, why are you not railing against landmines and bullets? Why aren't you housing the homeless and feeding soup to the toothless?
If the Forstry Service got paid incrementally more for each new forest fire, they might well start some. There you go again ... killing a Taliban terrorist is not the same as sticking scissors into the brain of an unborn baby. You suffer from the classic liberal (un)ethical syndrome of undifferentiated moral equivalency.
(I thought you were feeding and housing the homeless of Wellesley?)
Is it possible that Planned Parenthood is doing more abortions because other providers are dropping this service because of the dangers posed by hard-core, pro-life advocates? Does that show in your statistics? Also, a fetus is not a baby by definition, no matter how many times you repeat it. Nor does a fertilized egg look much like a baby for several months, when most abortions occur.
OK Rick ... let's get our semantics straight. Since it is half-way down the birth canal when it get the scissors to the cranium, can we call it a "fetaby"? Also how about "Planned Unparenthood"?
Let me see if I understand you, George. Are you only opposed to late-term abortions, i.e., intact dilation and extraction, not abortions in general? If so, I share your concerns with this procedure. However, "fetababy" is just silly. I prefer "babus."
OK, then let me ask you this Rick ... since you, as opposed to The Barry, are against killing full-term babuses ... How about 8-month ones? 7-month ones? 6-month ones? 5-month ones (still viable)? In other words, at what point does this blob of protoplasm become human?
Well, I think that viability is generally agreed to be around 21 weeks, after which abortions are restricted to those cases in which the mother's life is in imminent danger. So philosophically, I differ with hardline pro-life (another deceptive term) advocates who automatically choose the fetus over the mother, whereas, I choose the mother based on a medical assessment of the dangers of the pregnancy to her life. It's not perfect, I admit, but makes more sense than an unbendable rule that chooses a fetus over its mother.
Feel free to jump in anywhere, Mr. Truth Seeker.
I have always held that the mother is the sole judge and jury as to the necessity for abortion unto the 25th trimester. George would have us believe that most procedures are performed by sissor-wielding, brain vacuuming butchers. Yet he cares not a fig for the millions of starving, abused and diseased full-term unfortunates.
On the other hand, DEN rivals Boy's Town in his expansive (and anonymous) generosity toward the starving, abused and diseased unaborted toddlers.
Globe Santa is my main charity. 100% of contributions go to help needy Boston families. (I gave more to Globe Santa than General Electric Corp. paid in US federal taxes last year. Anonymously, of course)
Post a Comment