How’s this for perfect timing? The day after I wrote a post about weenies, Politico.com posted a news item that demonstrates the weenie mentality in action:
In a sign that the nutrition space is as defensive as ever, Nina Teicholz, an author who has publicly criticized the science behind the government’s low-fat dietary advice, was recently bumped from a nutrition science panel after being confirmed by the National Food Policy Conference. The panel instead will include Maureen Storey, president and CEO of the Alliance for Potato Research and Education. The event is set to take place in Washington next month.
Teicholz, of course, is the author of the terrific book The Big Fat Surprise, which presents a detailed history of how we ended up with our current dietary advice. So why the heck would she be disinvited from a panel on food policy?
Teicholz said she was disinvited after other panelists said they wouldn’t participate with her.
I see. And who are the other panelists?
Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, will speak on the panel, along with Barbara Millen, the former chairwoman of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and Angie Tagtow, executive director of the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Wootan said that “concerns were raised about Teicholz’s credibility, given the significant inaccuracies in her work.”
Um … as opposed to CSPI’s dead-on-accurate description of trans fats as safe and coconut oil as dangerous back when they were harassing restaurants and movie theaters into switching to trans fats? Or the USDA’s dead-on-accurate description of cholesterol in eggs as a contributor to heart disease? (Maybe my memory is getting faulty in my old age … didn’t both organizations have to reverse those positions?)
If Teicholz doesn’t present credible arguments, then the non-weenie approach would be to welcome her onto the panel and point out where she’s wrong. But of course, this isn’t about credibility. It’s about avoiding a debate against a woman who would kick their asses all over the stage.
But hey, that’s part of the weenie mentality: they hate having to debate people who don’t agree with them. That’s why they demand “safe spaces” where they can’t be challenged. That’s why they accuse people who disagree with them of creating a “hostile environment” as a strategy for stifling dissent. That’s why they’d rather attack the messenger than debate what the messenger has to say.
The Big Question is: if they’re convinced they’re right, why are they so afraid of debate? Why don’t they just stand up and vigorously argue in favor of their positions instead of trying to silence the opposition?
That’s the topic of this post. We’ll be venturing into the political/cultural realm again, so consider this your trigger warning. If you haven’t retreated to your safe space by the beginning of the next paragraph, don’t complain to me if you read something here that annoys you.
Still here? Okay, then.
The brief answer to the “why do weenies hate debates?” question is: their beliefs aren’t based on facts or logic, so they’re scared @#$%less of being challenged by logical people armed with facts … not because we might change their minds (we won’t) but because we might change the minds of other people listening.
Now for the expanded answer.
You may have heard the saying you cannot reason people out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Sooner or later, logical people discover that for themselves – because they end up in debates with illogical people and are stunned to see indisputable facts bounce harmlessly off their brains like little rubber bullets. Apparently it’s always been that way. Even Aristotle explained that some people form their beliefs based on logic and facts, while others form their beliefs based on emotions. Logic and facts have no effect on the emotional thinkers, Aristotle explained.
In a lovely little book titled Explaining Postmodernism, philosophy professor Stephen Hicks wrote about the intellectual heritage of objectivists vs. subjectivists — that is, logical types vs. emotional types.
Objectivism traces its modern roots to the Enlightenment thinkers, most of whom were British: Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes (not British), John Locke and Adam Smith. Their works emphasized rationalism, the scientific method and individual freedom. Thomas Jefferson, to name one stellar example, was deeply influenced by Locke. To quote professor Hicks:
Individualism and science are thus consequences of an epistemology of reason. Individualism applied to politics yields liberal democracy … individualism applied to economics yields free markets and capitalism.
Subjectivism, by contrast, began as reaction against the Enlightenment thinkers — ironically, in part to save religious faith from the onslaught of rationality. Its proponents were mostly German: Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Georg W.F. Hegel, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (not German), Martin Heidegger, and of course Karl Marx. They specifically rejected reason and logic in favor of subjectivism.
Simply put, an objectivist thinks like this: If it’s true, I’ll believe it. A subjectivist, however, thinks like this: If I believe it, it’s true. Or the flipside: If I don’t believe it, it’s not true. If you’ve ever debated a nitwit subjectivist, you may have had the experience of offering some objectively true fact, only to be treated to a reply of “Well, I just don’t believe that.” Oh, okay, that settles it, then.
As Hicks explains, objectivists and subjectivists also have very different ideas when it comes to the function of language. Objectivists view words, ideas, logic, debates, etc., as tools we use to discover the truth. But subjectivists (a.k.a. post-modernists) view language as a weapon to be wielded in the battle for dominance. Therefore, what you say doesn’t have to be true. It merely has to be effective in battle. (There is no “true” after all, except what you believe.) Or as Hicks summarizes the subjectivist strategy when it comes to words, if you can’t debate your opponent on the facts, change the argument by calling him a racist instead.
Hicks explains these differences in the two mindsets to answer a question he poses near the beginning of the book:
A related puzzle is explaining why postmodernists — particularly among those postmodernists most involved with the practical applications of postmodernist ideas, or putting postmodernist ideas into actual practice in their classrooms and in faculty meetings — are the most likely to be hostile to dissent and debate, the most likely to engage in ad hominem argument and name-calling, the most likely to enact politically-correct authoritarian measures, and the most likely to use anger and rage as argumentative tactics.
Whether it is Stanley Fish calling all opponents of affirmative action bigots and lumping them in with the Ku Klux Klan, or whether it is Andrea Dworkin’s male-bashing in the form of calling all heterosexual males rapists, the rhetoric is very often harsh and bitter. So the puzzling question is: Why is it that among the far Left — which has traditionally promoted itself as the only true champion of civility, tolerance, and fair play — that we find those habits least practiced and even denounced?
Hmmm, doesn’t that sound just like college administrators promoting the weenification of students by demanding triggers warnings, safe spaces and speech codes?
Hicks doesn’t claim subjectivists never attempt to cite facts or offer what they consider persuasive arguments. Of course they will. Those are verbal weapons they’re happy to wield in battle. The difference is that they’re just as happy to ignore facts and logic when it suits them. That’s why they cherry-pick their evidence. They’re not interested in weighing the evidence to reach a conclusion; they’re only interested in selecting the weapons that support their cause.
Look at the vegan zealots who show up here now and then. They’ll happily post a link to some weak study showing an association between meat and this-or-that disease. But if I reply with links to studies where the association is exactly the opposite, or point out all the confounding variables, facts and logic become little rubber bullets bouncing off their brains. Then they’ll yell “murderer!” and (if we’re lucky) go away.
Another lovely little book I’d recommend to anyone who wants to understand the weenie mindset is Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer. (Sadly, it’s just as relevant now as when it was written in 1951.) In a nutshell, here’s how Hoffer describes what he calls true believers:
- They often have low self-esteem and are typically frustrated with their own lives or the world in general.
- Fanaticism appeals to them because it provides a sense of idealism, identity and certainty.
- They value the collective more than the individual and believe individuals should be willing to sacrifice themselves for the collective good.
- They believe that by imposing their beliefs, they can bring about a better future.
- They can ignore or rationalize away all contrary evidence, as well as logical inconsistencies in their own beliefs.
- They consider anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs an enemy and want to silence those who disagree.
Here are some direct quotes from Hoffer:
They can feel free only by diminishing the freedom of others, self-confident only by spreading fear and dependence among others, and rich only by making others poor.
It is the true believer’s ability to shut his eyes and stop his ears to facts which in his own mind deserve never to be seen nor heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy.
The explosive component in the contemporary scene is not the clamor of the masses but the self-righteous claims of a multitude of graduates from schools and universities. This army of scribes is clamoring for a society in which planning, regulation, and supervision are paramount and the prerogative of the educated.
Sounds just like The Anointed, doesn’t it? It also sounds eerily like the loony-left fringe on college campuses.
So of course the weenies want to stifle debate. In their weenified minds, words are not tools we use to discover the truth. Words are weapons, and if other people are allowed to wield those weapons freely, by gosh, the wrong side might win. People in the audience might be swayed to abandon the “correct” position. They might decide The Anointed got it all wrong about saturated fat and cholesterol and salt and red meat and whole grains. Heck, they might decide The Anointed were wrong about all kinds of things.
That’s why Teicholz was disinvited. It’s also why so many colleges – the supposed centers of free and open inquiry — have become such a joke.
If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
Almost all people, including you and I, do not abide by logic in all spheres of our lives. Show me a person who uses exclusively logic to make all decisions and I will show you an android with silky smooth vulcanized rubber skin. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that people in general are bad at reasoning, and will often have cognitive dissonance in one sector or another.
Behavioural economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics is a whole field devoted to showing that people don’t use logic to make purchasing decisions, and are affected even by things as simple as showing them words associated with old age (they end up walking slower).
To believe there are two classes of people “logical” and “emotional” is flat out ridiculous. In my time working in the field of public health, I’ve witness highly intelligent people who have multiple papers to their name exhibit strange superstitions about the stock market or their love life. I’ve seen street-smart people who have managed to earn a lot of money using their intelligence and their knowledge of the human mind make stupid decisions about business and their friends.
We are ALL fallible. We are all human. Often when people are “logical” it’s typically because they’ve had the right kind of background in a field such as mathematics or computer science (whether by informal or formal means) to overcome certain natural built-in hueristics that trip up normal folk.
Everyone is blind to something. It is arrogant to believe yourself immune to human frailty.
Yes, we all make logical decisions and emotional decisions to some degree. But the degree varies wildly, and suggesting that we’re all equally prone to making emotional decisions is illogical.
I don’t think people become logical thinkers because they’re trained in mathematics or programming. I think logical people are naturally more attracted to mathematics and programming.
Speaking of androids..did you hear about Microsofts AI bot gone awry…
Tay AI twitter failure
Wow. Looks like Microsoft has some holes in the security.
As it was in the Big Inning, is now and ever will be.
Oh no, the blindness isn’t necessarily equal or equivalent. Looking back at my post I realize I might have insinuated it.
But most people are suffering from some kind of confirmation bias. The VAST majority of people (80-90%) of the population has serious trouble with Bayesian probability, including trained scientists and doctors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability . Understanding Bayesian probability doesn’t come intuitively to even highly intelligent people, and probably requires some kind of study to understand.
Most people believe they are above average in most things. Many people who are experts in one field, believe they are experts in another.
And often people make the logical error that if P–>Q therefore Q–>P always.
Why is it we are so poor with logic? Because, as people in this forum emphasizes, we were not evolved for the current environment. We evolved in a very different world, therefore it should not surprise us that our brains are not evolved for the modern world.
Look at the timeline of human history. How long was it until we understood logic and how to reason? How long had humans been around until the Greeks formalized some rules that look trivial to us? We take these things for granted. No. It doesn’t come naturally to the majority of people.
That was the takeaway from Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) as well: even highly intelligent people can succumb to confirmation bias. The authors (very intelligent people) recount their own examples of confirmation bias, among many others.
To me, the main difference is that logical types are more likely to reason themselves into a position in the first place and also more likely to reason themselves out of it when presented with contrary evidence.
I think that’s a great point Tom.
Another factor that might come into play is physical differences in people. I come from a family where pretty much everyone in my extended family is overweight. I personally found switching from low fat to low carb to be a Godsend. I can’t imagine going back to low fat. Yet, there are people I know who eat low fat or low fat/high fruit (which just causes my blood sugar to shoot through the roof) and are able to maintain their weight and (ostensibly) be happy and healthy. If I try to “convert” someone who eats high carb and yet experiences no effects (at least to them), it’s going to be impossible to do so. Similarly, since I know how I react to high carb, no one would be able to convince me to eat high carb. So, I think that’s one more issue.
I do think when it comes to setting nutritional policy for millions of people, though, this process should be open and have a variety of people with conflicting ideas. Or they could just hire a bunch of Swiss bankers, who seem to have gotten it 100% right:
https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?language=ENG&source=ulg&format=PDF&document_id=1053247551&serialid=MFT6JQWS%2b4FvvuMDBUQ7v9g4cGa84%2fgpv8mURvaRWdQ%3d
May sound a lot like the anointed, but also sounds exactly like every religion.
That would depend. If religious people want to prevent you from hearing contrary opinions, if they want to impose their beliefs on you, then I’d agree. But I have several deeply religious friends who 1) happily hang around with me despite knowing I’m not religious, 2) make no effort whatsoever to convert me, and 3) consider religious faith (or lack thereof) a strictly person decision. So they don’t fit the description of either The Anointed or the True Believer.
Do they impose their beliefs on their children? Would they impose their beliefs on society if there was no separation of church and state?
I appreciate the favor. I claim lefties are less logical, and you say to yourself, “I’ve got to help Tom prove his point. I’ll pretend to lean left and then jump in there and make some totally illogical arguments.”
So thanks for that.
On the off-chance you’re actually so illogical that you posed those questions in all seriousness, read the description of my religious friends again and try to grasp it this time.
That’s a pretty disappointing response. I’ll elaborate: I think religious people don’t impose their beliefs on others because usually it’s not socially acceptable to do so. But it is socially acceptable to impose them on your kids. Go on, ask your religious friends if they take their kids to church.
And don’t forget about the religious right who DO want to impose their beliefs. Do they qualify as True Believers? Or does that not fit into your narrative about the left?
Ah, so you were being serious. Okay, I’ll give the logical answers … which of course will bounce off your brain like little rubber bullets.
Here’s what’s going on in your illogical mind: you want to believe religious people are True Believers who would impose their beliefs on us given the chance — because that’s what you FEEEEEL! So you’re twisting your brain into shapes that will allow you to support that belief, despite the total lack of evidence. My religious friends hang out with me, invite our family to Thanksgiving dinner, etc., despite knowing we’re not religious. They have never, ever tried to convert me. So clearly they’re quite comfortable around non-religious people.
And yet, in your mind, they would jump at the chance to force me into Christianity if only it were socially acceptable. Sorry, but that’s beyond illogical. It’s moronic. People with that kind of True Believer mentality don’t hang out and share good times with people whose beliefs are contrary to their own. So whether you can squeeze it into your illogical brain or not, the truth of the matter is that they’re deeply religious, they consider it an entirely personal matter, they have no problem being emotionally close with people who don’t share their faith, and they have zero interest in imposing that faith on others.
Yes, religious people take their kids to church. That’s not “imposing” beliefs on them any more than I’m “imposing” my beliefs on my children by NOT taking them to church. I’m not religious, they know I’m not religious, and because we live an area with many religious people, they’ve asked why I’m not religious. So I’ve explained it to them. Is that “imposing” my beliefs? Do atheists “impose” their beliefs on their children by telling them they don’t believe in God? Do leftists “impose” their beliefs on their kids when they explain why they think ObamaCare is a wunnerful, wunnerful idea? Do parents who don’t like guns “impose” their beliefs on kids by refusing to buy them violent shoot-em-up video games? Don’t be an idiot. Any halfway decent parent shares his or her values with the kiddies. That’s not “imposing” anything. That’s being a parent. The True Believers are those who would happily impose their values on other people’s kids.
As for the religious right, yes, there are some who want to mandate that all kids pray in school, or that creationism is taught alongside evolution in schools. That is an attempt to impose their beliefs on others, and that makes them True Believers. But I know plenty of religious people, and not one of them wants to mandate prayer in schools or creationism being taught in schools. Like I said, they consider religious faith an entirely personal issue. So unless you can give me plenty of clear examples, I’ll maintain my opinion that “the religious right who DO want to impose their beliefs” is mostly a boogie-man who only exists in the minds of lefties. The religious-right people I know simply want to be left alone.
I’ve noticed that you’re quite insular; you seem to see the world through your tiny little state of Tennessee, without seeing the big picture. Think of all the religious folk around the world, and tell me if any might just qualify as True Believers. Let’s see… why don’t I just send you to wikipedia so you can see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists. Now tell me (please do, as this is the entire point I am trying to make), how much of all that is correlated to the political left? Or the political right? Or any political affiliation at all? For crying out loud, in your own country, churches are tax-exempt!
To spell it out: You are insinuating that political left ideology CAUSES these weenies. I disagree with you; correlation is not causation. This is really the only point I am trying to make. I am not FEEEEELING anything.
Ha Ha Ha.
I’d been atheist/agnostic since 8th grade, when a nun made me aware I didn’t “believe,” at least not in the fashion of our Catholic upbringing. It wasn’t until several years later that my atheist faith began losing much of its certitude. I ended up joining the Lutheran church on the day that The Oldest Son was confirmed, whose birth had initiated the beginning of the end of said certitude.
So really, my children imposed their beliefs on me.
I have, however, insisted on imposing my economic beliefs on them, and they are totally brainwashed.
And speaking of imposing beliefs, at Easter service this past Sunday, it was noted in the bulletin that the hosts served on the left side of the altar during communion would be GLUTEN-FREE! Imagine that — the very foundation of both civilization and Christianity; the “Staff of Life” — has succumbed to the Paleo jihad.
Winning.
Cheers!
Zealots…when theyre not busy posting weak studies, theyre out scaring the bejeezus out of peaceful church attendees.. An isolated incident I’m sure, but ..
http://nypost.com/2016/03/27/protesters-disrupt-easter-mass-at-st-pats-frighten-worshipers/
I dont even wanna post this other news article I saw but heres a quote:
“If you can keep an extra tooth brush or extra towels for guests, why not a pack of pads at least?” Suggesting that men who dont have certain feminine care products on hand are women shaming.
True Believers in action.
I’m sorry, but who keeps a toothbrush for guests? That sounds unhygienic to me. And people who brush their teeth do it every day.
If you want me to buy you a toothbrush, I’m not cheap, but send me an email first and include any other hygiene product your improvidence has seen you forget to pack.
“Teicholz said she was disinvited after other panelists said they wouldn’t participate with her”.
If I were in charge, I would make a rule that anyone who takes that position should automatically be disqualified for the post. Maybe that’s a bit emotional of me; a more objective policy would perhaps be to ignore the statement completely. If they wish to resign, that’s their choice.
My thoughts exactly. Invite the panelists you believe have something to add to the discussion. If anyone refuses to share the stage with another panelist, that’s their decision.
“Even Aristotle explained that some people form their beliefs based on logic and facts, while others form their beliefs based on emotions”.
Even Aristotle was sometimes given to adopting positions that can’t be logically supported. Like his belief that all “barbarians” (i.e. non-speakers of Greek) were fit only to be slaves.
I think a slight improvement on Aristotle’s statement is that we all begin by forming our beliefs based mostly on emotion, and some of us gradually learn to form beliefs based on logic and facts. I doubt whether anyone has ever become entirely logical in his beliefs, and I’m not sure such a person would be entirely human (as we understand it) if he could. It can be disturbing to realize that, under all our eductaion and logic, lurks a whole substratum of beliefs we acquired by the age of (say) six or so. It’s much harder to change, or even challenge, those – largely because we mostly don’t even know they are there.
But I very much agree that the battle for civilization is very much a matter of getting people to think objectively.
Yes, I should clarify: we all make logical decisions to some degree and emotional decisions to some degree. But the differences in degree can be huge. It’s the desire to shout down or silence contrary opinions that makes a person a full-blown weenie.
Yeah, changing my diet to a more natural (less processed) one was kick started by emotion. It “just felt right” to eat what my grandparents would have been able to eat in their day. Later on after reading up on a lot of older literature (pre 1970’s nutrition books are fascinating), I got some facts and figures that backed up what I believed to be right.
Thank you Tom for hitting the nail on the head again
Thank for reading.
Well said, Tom!
Weenie thinking is all around us as the Quadrennial Mass Hysteria Outbreak (QMHO), also known as the Presidential race, is upon us.
The insanity of the charges being slung along and between party lines is simply incredible. People are willing to think anything is true about an opposing candidate, and are impervious to negative info about their own.
Rational thought, on a nationwide basis, has ground to a halt. Nina Teicholz is one more piece of collateral damage in this sea of madness.
I think getting bumped from that National Food Policy Conference is actually a good sign. It means they’re running scared. It means they KNOW they can’t run the same old game, and get away with it, in front of a committed and enterprising journalist.
It’s not like the old days when Keys was able to freeze out Yudkin. The internet changed all that. Good ideas can overcome bad press and character assassination… but only if the Good are very, very crafty. After all, the bad guys invented back stabbing, it’s what they do.
Wear it as a badge of honor, Nina! That panel’s not good enough for you. Go where you’ll be heard!!
As a history buff, I know outrageous, wildly exaggerated and slanderous claims about political opponents are as old as the nation itself. It’s still disgusting, though.
The decentralization of information is definitely a threat to the weenies who want to control what others read and hear.
Almost all people, including you and I, do not abide by logic in all spheres of our lives. Show me a person who uses exclusively logic to make all decisions and I will show you an android with silky smooth vulcanized rubber skin. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that people in general are bad at reasoning, and will often have cognitive dissonance in one sector or another.
Behavioural economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics is a whole field devoted to showing that people don’t use logic to make purchasing decisions, and are affected even by things as simple as showing them words associated with old age (they end up walking slower).
To believe there are two classes of people “logical” and “emotional” is flat out ridiculous. In my time working in the field of public health, I’ve witness highly intelligent people who have multiple papers to their name exhibit strange superstitions about the stock market or their love life. I’ve seen street-smart people who have managed to earn a lot of money using their intelligence and their knowledge of the human mind make stupid decisions about business and their friends.
We are ALL fallible. We are all human. Often when people are “logical” it’s typically because they’ve had the right kind of background in a field such as mathematics or computer science (whether by informal or formal means) to overcome certain natural built-in hueristics that trip up normal folk.
Everyone is blind to something. It is arrogant to believe yourself immune to human frailty.
Yes, we all make logical decisions and emotional decisions to some degree. But the degree varies wildly, and suggesting that we’re all equally prone to making emotional decisions is illogical.
I don’t think people become logical thinkers because they’re trained in mathematics or programming. I think logical people are naturally more attracted to mathematics and programming.
Speaking of androids..did you hear about Microsofts AI bot gone awry…
Tay AI twitter failure
Wow. Looks like Microsoft has some holes in the security.
Oh no, the blindness isn’t necessarily equal or equivalent. Looking back at my post I realize I might have insinuated it.
But most people are suffering from some kind of confirmation bias. The VAST majority of people (80-90%) of the population has serious trouble with Bayesian probability, including trained scientists and doctors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability . Understanding Bayesian probability doesn’t come intuitively to even highly intelligent people, and probably requires some kind of study to understand.
Most people believe they are above average in most things. Many people who are experts in one field, believe they are experts in another.
And often people make the logical error that if P–>Q therefore Q–>P always.
Why is it we are so poor with logic? Because, as people in this forum emphasizes, we were not evolved for the current environment. We evolved in a very different world, therefore it should not surprise us that our brains are not evolved for the modern world.
Look at the timeline of human history. How long was it until we understood logic and how to reason? How long had humans been around until the Greeks formalized some rules that look trivial to us? We take these things for granted. No. It doesn’t come naturally to the majority of people.
That was the takeaway from Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) as well: even highly intelligent people can succumb to confirmation bias. The authors (very intelligent people) recount their own examples of confirmation bias, among many others.
To me, the main difference is that logical types are more likely to reason themselves into a position in the first place and also more likely to reason themselves out of it when presented with contrary evidence.
I think that’s a great point Tom.
Another factor that might come into play is physical differences in people. I come from a family where pretty much everyone in my extended family is overweight. I personally found switching from low fat to low carb to be a Godsend. I can’t imagine going back to low fat. Yet, there are people I know who eat low fat or low fat/high fruit (which just causes my blood sugar to shoot through the roof) and are able to maintain their weight and (ostensibly) be happy and healthy. If I try to “convert” someone who eats high carb and yet experiences no effects (at least to them), it’s going to be impossible to do so. Similarly, since I know how I react to high carb, no one would be able to convince me to eat high carb. So, I think that’s one more issue.
I do think when it comes to setting nutritional policy for millions of people, though, this process should be open and have a variety of people with conflicting ideas. Or they could just hire a bunch of Swiss bankers, who seem to have gotten it 100% right:
https://doc.research-and-analytics.csfb.com/docView?language=ENG&source=ulg&format=PDF&document_id=1053247551&serialid=MFT6JQWS%2b4FvvuMDBUQ7v9g4cGa84%2fgpv8mURvaRWdQ%3d
May sound a lot like the anointed, but also sounds exactly like every religion.
That would depend. If religious people want to prevent you from hearing contrary opinions, if they want to impose their beliefs on you, then I’d agree. But I have several deeply religious friends who 1) happily hang around with me despite knowing I’m not religious, 2) make no effort whatsoever to convert me, and 3) consider religious faith (or lack thereof) a strictly person decision. So they don’t fit the description of either The Anointed or the True Believer.
Do they impose their beliefs on their children? Would they impose their beliefs on society if there was no separation of church and state?
I appreciate the favor. I claim lefties are less logical, and you say to yourself, “I’ve got to help Tom prove his point. I’ll pretend to lean left and then jump in there and make some totally illogical arguments.”
So thanks for that.
On the off-chance you’re actually so illogical that you posed those questions in all seriousness, read the description of my religious friends again and try to grasp it this time.
That’s a pretty disappointing response. I’ll elaborate: I think religious people don’t impose their beliefs on others because usually it’s not socially acceptable to do so. But it is socially acceptable to impose them on your kids. Go on, ask your religious friends if they take their kids to church.
And don’t forget about the religious right who DO want to impose their beliefs. Do they qualify as True Believers? Or does that not fit into your narrative about the left?
Ah, so you were being serious. Okay, I’ll give the logical answers … which of course will bounce off your brain like little rubber bullets.
Here’s what’s going on in your illogical mind: you want to believe religious people are True Believers who would impose their beliefs on us given the chance — because that’s what you FEEEEEL! So you’re twisting your brain into shapes that will allow you to support that belief, despite the total lack of evidence. My religious friends hang out with me, invite our family to Thanksgiving dinner, etc., despite knowing we’re not religious. They have never, ever tried to convert me. So clearly they’re quite comfortable around non-religious people.
And yet, in your mind, they would jump at the chance to force me into Christianity if only it were socially acceptable. Sorry, but that’s beyond illogical. It’s moronic. People with that kind of True Believer mentality don’t hang out and share good times with people whose beliefs are contrary to their own. So whether you can squeeze it into your illogical brain or not, the truth of the matter is that they’re deeply religious, they consider it an entirely personal matter, they have no problem being emotionally close with people who don’t share their faith, and they have zero interest in imposing that faith on others.
Yes, religious people take their kids to church. That’s not “imposing” beliefs on them any more than I’m “imposing” my beliefs on my children by NOT taking them to church. I’m not religious, they know I’m not religious, and because we live an area with many religious people, they’ve asked why I’m not religious. So I’ve explained it to them. Is that “imposing” my beliefs? Do atheists “impose” their beliefs on their children by telling them they don’t believe in God? Do leftists “impose” their beliefs on their kids when they explain why they think ObamaCare is a wunnerful, wunnerful idea? Do parents who don’t like guns “impose” their beliefs on kids by refusing to buy them violent shoot-em-up video games? Don’t be an idiot. Any halfway decent parent shares his or her values with the kiddies. That’s not “imposing” anything. That’s being a parent. The True Believers are those who would happily impose their values on other people’s kids.
As for the religious right, yes, there are some who want to mandate that all kids pray in school, or that creationism is taught alongside evolution in schools. That is an attempt to impose their beliefs on others, and that makes them True Believers. But I know plenty of religious people, and not one of them wants to mandate prayer in schools or creationism being taught in schools. Like I said, they consider religious faith an entirely personal issue. So unless you can give me plenty of clear examples, I’ll maintain my opinion that “the religious right who DO want to impose their beliefs” is mostly a boogie-man who only exists in the minds of lefties. The religious-right people I know simply want to be left alone.
I’ve noticed that you’re quite insular; you seem to see the world through your tiny little state of Tennessee, without seeing the big picture. Think of all the religious folk around the world, and tell me if any might just qualify as True Believers. Let’s see… why don’t I just send you to wikipedia so you can see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists. Now tell me (please do, as this is the entire point I am trying to make), how much of all that is correlated to the political left? Or the political right? Or any political affiliation at all? For crying out loud, in your own country, churches are tax-exempt!
To spell it out: You are insinuating that political left ideology CAUSES these weenies. I disagree with you; correlation is not causation. This is really the only point I am trying to make. I am not FEEEEELING anything.
I see … so you can point to a Wikipedia article that names African and Middle Eastern countries where atheists are legally discriminated against, and this of course proves that religious people in America would happily force everyone into Christianity if only it were socially acceptable. Good grief, if I paid you to pretend to be an illogical leftie and show up here making illogical arguments, you couldn’t do it any better.
If you interpreted my post to mean that leftie ideology causes people to become irrational, you need a course in remedial reading and comprehension. Irrational people are attracted to ideologies that fit their irrational beliefs, not the other way around.
And yes, you are FEEEELING something. You don’t like religious people, so your brain is desperately searching for a reason to justify what you feel. “By gosh,” says your brain, “those awful people would probably force us all into Christianity if they could. Now, how can I support that belief in spite of no actual evidence? Hmmm … hey, look! There are African and Middle Eastern countries that discriminate against atheists! Yes, that supports my opinion that religious people in America are True Believer nut-jobs who want to impose their faith on everyone!”
That’s one of the most illogical arguments I’ve ever seen. Can’t say I’m surprised you find it compelling.
Yes, there are religious true believers in the world who would happily impose their faith on others. Most of them have names like Achmed or Muhammed. That has zero bearing on religious Christians in the west. There are also True Believer movements which have nothing to do with religion or even specifically reject religion. The measure of a True Believer personality isn’t what they believe; it’s the desire to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Churches aren’t taxed in America because the Founders were intelligent enough to understand that the power to tax is the power to control. They didn’t want religion controlled by the state. Meanwhile, I have a leftie friend who thinks the federal government should strip the Catholic Church of its tax-exempt status unless the Church agrees to allow priests to marry and also allow women to become priests. So who’s the True Believer nut-job trying to force his beliefs on others in that equation? The guy isn’t even Catholic, but wants to dictate what Catholic religious policy should be.
Ha Ha Ha.
I’d been atheist/agnostic since 8th grade, when a nun made me aware I didn’t “believe,” at least not in the fashion of our Catholic upbringing. It wasn’t until several years later that my atheist faith began losing much of its certitude. I ended up joining the Lutheran church on the day that The Oldest Son was confirmed, whose birth had initiated the beginning of the end of said certitude.
So really, my children imposed their beliefs on me.
I have, however, insisted on imposing my economic beliefs on them, and they are totally brainwashed.
And speaking of imposing beliefs, at Easter service this past Sunday, it was noted in the bulletin that the hosts served on the left side of the altar during communion would be GLUTEN-FREE! Imagine that — the very foundation of both civilization and Christianity; the “Staff of Life” — has succumbed to the Paleo jihad.
Winning.
Cheers!
Zealots…when theyre not busy posting weak studies, theyre out scaring the bejeezus out of peaceful church attendees.. An isolated incident I’m sure, but ..
http://nypost.com/2016/03/27/protesters-disrupt-easter-mass-at-st-pats-frighten-worshipers/
I dont even wanna post this other news article I saw but heres a quote:
“If you can keep an extra tooth brush or extra towels for guests, why not a pack of pads at least?” Suggesting that men who dont have certain feminine care products on hand are women shaming.
True Believers in action.
I’m sorry, but who keeps a toothbrush for guests? That sounds unhygienic to me. And people who brush their teeth do it every day.
If you want me to buy you a toothbrush, I’m not cheap, but send me an email first and include any other hygiene product your improvidence has seen you forget to pack.
“Teicholz said she was disinvited after other panelists said they wouldn’t participate with her”.
If I were in charge, I would make a rule that anyone who takes that position should automatically be disqualified for the post. Maybe that’s a bit emotional of me; a more objective policy would perhaps be to ignore the statement completely. If they wish to resign, that’s their choice.
My thoughts exactly. Invite the panelists you believe have something to add to the discussion. If anyone refuses to share the stage with another panelist, that’s their decision.
“Even Aristotle explained that some people form their beliefs based on logic and facts, while others form their beliefs based on emotions”.
Even Aristotle was sometimes given to adopting positions that can’t be logically supported. Like his belief that all “barbarians” (i.e. non-speakers of Greek) were fit only to be slaves.
I think a slight improvement on Aristotle’s statement is that we all begin by forming our beliefs based mostly on emotion, and some of us gradually learn to form beliefs based on logic and facts. I doubt whether anyone has ever become entirely logical in his beliefs, and I’m not sure such a person would be entirely human (as we understand it) if he could. It can be disturbing to realize that, under all our eductaion and logic, lurks a whole substratum of beliefs we acquired by the age of (say) six or so. It’s much harder to change, or even challenge, those – largely because we mostly don’t even know they are there.
But I very much agree that the battle for civilization is very much a matter of getting people to think objectively.
Yes, I should clarify: we all make logical decisions to some degree and emotional decisions to some degree. But the differences in degree can be huge. It’s the desire to shout down or silence contrary opinions that makes a person a full-blown weenie.
Yeah, changing my diet to a more natural (less processed) one was kick started by emotion. It “just felt right” to eat what my grandparents would have been able to eat in their day. Later on after reading up on a lot of older literature (pre 1970’s nutrition books are fascinating), I got some facts and figures that backed up what I believed to be right.
Thank you Tom for hitting the nail on the head again
Thank for reading.
Well said, Tom!
Weenie thinking is all around us as the Quadrennial Mass Hysteria Outbreak (QMHO), also known as the Presidential race, is upon us.
The insanity of the charges being slung along and between party lines is simply incredible. People are willing to think anything is true about an opposing candidate, and are impervious to negative info about their own.
Rational thought, on a nationwide basis, has ground to a halt. Nina Teicholz is one more piece of collateral damage in this sea of madness.
I think getting bumped from that National Food Policy Conference is actually a good sign. It means they’re running scared. It means they KNOW they can’t run the same old game, and get away with it, in front of a committed and enterprising journalist.
It’s not like the old days when Keys was able to freeze out Yudkin. The internet changed all that. Good ideas can overcome bad press and character assassination… but only if the Good are very, very crafty. After all, the bad guys invented back stabbing, it’s what they do.
Wear it as a badge of honor, Nina! That panel’s not good enough for you. Go where you’ll be heard!!
As a history buff, I know outrageous, wildly exaggerated and slanderous claims about political opponents are as old as the nation itself. It’s still disgusting, though.
The decentralization of information is definitely a threat to the weenies who want to control what others read and hear.
It’s funny how most nutritionists seem to be fat! Teicholz’ replacements are walking billboards for metabolic syndrome and carb-poisoning. I love the Internet.
My only complaint about is the hicks books, is terrible and attack 3 of the most brilliant genius of the human history using the same argument how is accused they. But I understand the point “none of us is perfect logical but this is not excuse to punch people”.
P.s: sorry for the bad English, is not my favorite language.
Another great rant, Tom! Thanks for putting down in writing what I’ve wanted to myself. And for introducing me to a couple of sources I hadn’t know before (especially the Hicks book that I look forward to reading).
It’s somewhat amusing to hear all the folks (on the “moderate left” especially) wonder how this PC-run-amok has developed on campuses. There’s no self-awareness that this was the logical (inevitable?) progression (no pun intended) of the modern Progressive mindset, that has been developing for decades. You can see it in these people on the nutrition panel, as you’ve pointed out, and you can see it in the academics who have directly created this monster. So many people want to shout, “I told you so!”
To be fair, there are plenty of people on the moderate left who are disgusted with the anti-free-speech movement on campuses. Kirstin Powers (a Democrat who worked for Bill Clinton) wrote an excellent diatribe against political correctness run amok in her book “The Silencing.”
One of the best books I ever read.
I don’t have any trouble with logical thinking, if standardized tests are any indication, but I’ve found that when making any life-affecting decision I need to go with my instincts. You could say instincts are emotion; maybe they’re unconscious logic at work. At any rate, I’ve learned after trial and error to pay close attention to my gut reaction to situations.
I find strictly logical people just as exasperating as strictly emotional ones. You need a mix to function properly. IMO.
Ms. Teicholz should not have been excluded from the panel. She has much to add. I suspect that those who ganged up on her–think high school “mean girls” writ large–are afraid to confront the truth when it threatens their cozy sinecures.
I have nothing against following gut instincts at times. The illogical people who annoy me are those who adopt the “if I believe it, it’s true” attitude — especially if they want to stifle debate and/or impose their illogical beliefs on others.
It’s funny how most nutritionists seem to be fat! Teicholz’ replacements are walking billboards for metabolic syndrome and carb-poisoning. I love the Internet.
My only complaint about is the hicks books, is terrible and attack 3 of the most brilliant genius of the human history using the same argument how is accused they. But I understand the point “none of us is perfect logical but this is not excuse to punch people”.
P.s: sorry for the bad English, is not my favorite language.
Only a subjectivist would point to the Left as being less rational/pragmatic/scientific than the Right in the U.S. But yeah, I’m sure building a wall will solve all our problems and yeah, sure, Mexico will pay for it…
Well, that depends on your definition of “right.” If you mean small-government/libertarian conservatives (as opposed to religious conservatives), they are far more logical as a group than leftists. Leftists believe in Santa Claus. They think the federal government can pass something called “The Affordable Care Act” and it will magically make health care affordable instead of, say, doubling many people’s premiums while raising their deductibles. Lefties think we can spend trillions of dollars on new programs and somehow pay for it all just by taxing “the rich.” Leftists think we can tax the snot out of corporations without sending jobs overseas. Lefties think we can jack up the minimum wage and employers will just eat the cost instead of letting people or go or raising prices to the point where the increase in wage is meaningless. Lefties think if the government bans Happy Meals, kids won’t go to McDonald’s and won’t get fat. Lefties believe if we force restaurants to put calorie counts on menus, people will eat less and lose weight. The list of their illogical beliefs goes on and on.
But back to the point of the post, if you can find examples of small-government conservatives on campuses trying to institute speech codes, demanding “safe spaces” where their views can’t be challenged, etc., please link to them.
What about ‘christian’ schools banning gays, unwed mothers. women who have had an abortion and women who “may” be pregnant? I realise that these may not be ‘small government conservatives’ (but they are sure conservative). The banning of such students is, of course, consistent with a particular emotional response and is, effectively, ensuring people who the church does not agree with cannot be on campus to – possibly – challenge the belief system of those students on campus (who are not gay, mothers etc) or make those students realise there are different views in the world. Check out ‘Title IX waivers’
I’m not saying your points on speech codes etc are wrong, but its not a total one way street.
Although your straw man arguments in the first para are a bit disappointing given your blogs focus on evidence. You have taken your particular emotional response to a policy and then claimed that, because you have that point of view, any other position is illogical. Issues such as minimum wages have occupied economists for years and years and none of them can point to a definite answer; I’m amazed you think you can.
“..I’m sure building a wall will solve all our problems and yeah, sure, Mexico will pay for it..”
Who ever said it would solve all problems?
It would at least help remedy some problems .. like that of illegal immigration and inflow of narcotics. The US has a $58billion trade imbalance with Mexico.. a ‘wall’ is estimated to be around $10billion..a small trade-off..
Did you have a better solution..besides electing a corrupt and/or clueless politician that will keep the perpetual Washington machine in motion?
Building a wall won’t make a damn bit of difference. And if you think Mexico will pay for it, hahahahaha, your idiocy is so great I’m surprised you can tie your shoes. First, take the wall in Juarez. There are hundreds of tunnels under it. You can build a wall but you can’t stop the tunneling (and yeah sure the wall will stop narcotics getting through! Holy crap are you naive.). Second, there are actually more Mexican immigrants leaving the U.S. than entering. So your stupid wall could, ironically, do the opposite of what you hope. Third, the wall would have zero effect on the trade imbalance. Trade goes to and from Mexico through legal channels. Your mistake is thinking any solution would be better than electing a corrupt politician that will keep the perpetual Washington machine in motion. There certainly are better solutions. However, there are also solutions that are much worse…like electing the second coming of Benito Mussolini except infinitely stupider.
Check your history. Mussolini was a socialist journalist before he entered politics. He first endeared himself to the public after taking control by engaging in massive public-works “stimulus” programs — you know, just like any “right-wing” politician would. Before WWII, Mussolini and FDR exchanged letters of admiration for each other’s economic programs, and Mussolini had many fans among the American “progressives.” Labeling both Mussolini and Hitler (leader of the National SOCIALIST Party) as “right-wing” has been a triumph of revisionist history.
Those are the facts … which will bounce off your brain like little rubber bullets.
Lol the hate is strong with this one…
I never said the wall would completely stop anything. I recognize nothing is foolproof..thats why I used the phrase ‘help remedy’.
You misunderstand why the trade imbalance has been mentioned and how it relates to paying for the wall..so it seems you havent been paying attention to whats actually been said in that regard.
As far as its effectiveness..well, I dont think you understand the magnitude and scope of the proposed wall. Look at Israel’s wall to get an idea…
Also, you might not know that it’s not just a wall..it’s a multi-pronged approach that includes a proposed tripling of the number of ICE officers.
I think you assume Trump is a moron that doesnt know how to build, thats not aware of possible tunneling, and that he became a world class billionare business man through dumb luck.
You say a wall wont make a difference but later you state it could potentially stop illegal immigrants that supposedly are wanting to leave the US…? So which is it?
I do not think “any solution would be better than electing a corrupt politician”.. I specifically think Trump would be the better solution. I do not believe or trust that any other politician (republican or dem) will put America’s best interest in mind, and/or that they have a clue on how to do it…except for Trump.
“There certainly are better solutions..” Ok..so where/what are they? This is the second time Im asking..
I realize these are big words to tiny effect, but: Trump is declaring, more or less, that if Mexico is not reinforcing, patrolling and enforcing their side of the border, and they are not, then they are violating treaty obligations with the US. If they are in violation of those treaties, then we can violate, say, NAFTA, and impose an excise on them.
I don’t think you understand, but this is how adults enforce conformity with law since nations don’t have mommies and daddies.
It’s a US shorthand to call the illegal immigrants “Mexicans” but most of them are in fact Central or South American. Nevertheless, Mexico is responsible for law on its territory, including over foreign nationals, and they can be held to it.
Another great rant, Tom! Thanks for putting down in writing what I’ve wanted to myself. And for introducing me to a couple of sources I hadn’t know before (especially the Hicks book that I look forward to reading).
It’s somewhat amusing to hear all the folks (on the “moderate left” especially) wonder how this PC-run-amok has developed on campuses. There’s no self-awareness that this was the logical (inevitable?) progression (no pun intended) of the modern Progressive mindset, that has been developing for decades. You can see it in these people on the nutrition panel, as you’ve pointed out, and you can see it in the academics who have directly created this monster. So many people want to shout, “I told you so!”
To be fair, there are plenty of people on the moderate left who are disgusted with the anti-free-speech movement on campuses. Kirstin Powers (a Democrat who worked for Bill Clinton) wrote an excellent diatribe against political correctness run amok in her book “The Silencing.”
One of the best books I ever read.
“given the significant inaccuracies in her work.””
According to what OBJECTIVE standard? Climate and nutrition seem to be impervious to government “science” nowadays.
I recently attended a workshop on nutrition and cooking (that, but don’t quote me on this, seems to receive gov. funds) blabbers about the usual fat-is-bad-grain-is-good narrative. Two weeks ago we made balck bean tortillas. I ate 3 (I’m a very active guy) and felt completely lethargic afterwards. According to the fitbit calculator, I ate over 300g of carbs, well over the 200 I usually eat.
I like Ben Shapiro’s take on how to answer someone who says you’re a racist. In the video he said to call your opponent an a-hole because they are labeling you a racist without evidence.
There is no way to convince someone that you don’t hate him or her. You can convince him or her, however, that your opposition is a liar and a hater. When a leftist calls a conservative racist, the conservative tendency is to defend yourself by explaining why you aren’t racist. This is a losing battle. In fact, you’ve lost the argument the minute you engage in it. The proper response to a charge of racism is not, “I’m not a racist. Never have been. I have black friends, black bosses, black employees.” You’ve already given away the store by dignifying the charge with a response. The proper response to a charge that you beat your wife is not to explain that you don’t beat your wife and are in fact an ardent feminist: it’s to point out that throwing around accusations without evidence makes your opponent a piece of garbage. The truth is that your opponent, who labels you a racist without evidence, is the actual racist: it is he who waters down the term racism until it is meaningless by labeling any argument with which he disagrees racist.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/system/files/field/ebook_pdf/how_to_debate_leftists_and_destroy_them.pdf
Yup, calling you a racist is a tactic intended to change the argument, exactly as Professor Hicks explains.
“you may have had the experience of offering some objectively true fact, only to be treated to a reply of “Well, I just don’t believe that.” Oh, okay, that settles it, then.”
Oh yes I have. A while back I was discussing the ecological impact of San Francisco’s damming of part of Yosemite National Park for their water supply.
A person disagreed with me claiming that the dam was build before Yosemite was a National Park. He could not believe that these wonderful, ecologically green citizens could build a huge dam in an existing national park. I replied it was a NP before it was dammed. “Well, that’s just your opinion”, was the reply. ?!?!? It’s a fact or it isn’t right? Look it up. Read what John Muir said about it. Congress had to pass a special act in 1913 (the Raker Act) to permit the damming inside the park. Nope, none of these facts mattered. He wasn’t going to listen.
“That’s just your opinion.” Now THAT is hilarious.
Would have been better if they replied “Well, that’s just your dam opinion”..
But seriously, where can I get some dam bait?
I thought everyone knew the dam was built by the Hetch Hetchy Indians under Chief O’Shaughnessy.
Sorry, folks, I just canna resist:
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/08/a-dam-good-letter-2703788.html
I don’t have any trouble with logical thinking, if standardized tests are any indication, but I’ve found that when making any life-affecting decision I need to go with my instincts. You could say instincts are emotion; maybe they’re unconscious logic at work. At any rate, I’ve learned after trial and error to pay close attention to my gut reaction to situations.
I find strictly logical people just as exasperating as strictly emotional ones. You need a mix to function properly. IMO.
Ms. Teicholz should not have been excluded from the panel. She has much to add. I suspect that those who ganged up on her–think high school “mean girls” writ large–are afraid to confront the truth when it threatens their cozy sinecures.
I have nothing against following gut instincts at times. The illogical people who annoy me are those who adopt the “if I believe it, it’s true” attitude — especially if they want to stifle debate and/or impose their illogical beliefs on others.
There’s a petition to reinstate Teicholz to the panel:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/reinstate-teicholz-on-food-policy-panel
Currently at 2,665 signatures.
Only a subjectivist would point to the Left as being less rational/pragmatic/scientific than the Right in the U.S. But yeah, I’m sure building a wall will solve all our problems and yeah, sure, Mexico will pay for it…
Well, that depends on your definition of “right.” If you mean small-government/libertarian conservatives (as opposed to religious conservatives), they are far more logical as a group than leftists. Leftists believe in Santa Claus. They think the federal government can pass something called “The Affordable Care Act” and it will magically make health care affordable instead of, say, doubling many people’s premiums while raising their deductibles. Lefties think we can spend trillions of dollars on new programs and somehow pay for it all just by taxing “the rich.” Leftists think we can tax the snot out of corporations without sending jobs overseas. Lefties think we can jack up the minimum wage and employers will just eat the cost instead of letting people or go or raising prices to the point where the increase in wage is meaningless. Lefties think if the government bans Happy Meals, kids won’t go to McDonald’s and won’t get fat. Lefties believe if we force restaurants to put calorie counts on menus, people will eat less and lose weight. The list of their illogical beliefs goes on and on.
But back to the point of the post, if you can find examples of small-government conservatives on campuses trying to institute speech codes, demanding “safe spaces” where their views can’t be challenged, etc., please link to them.
What about ‘christian’ schools banning gays, unwed mothers. women who have had an abortion and women who “may” be pregnant? I realise that these may not be ‘small government conservatives’ (but they are sure conservative). The banning of such students is, of course, consistent with a particular emotional response and is, effectively, ensuring people who the church does not agree with cannot be on campus to – possibly – challenge the belief system of those students on campus (who are not gay, mothers etc) or make those students realise there are different views in the world. Check out ‘Title IX waivers’
I’m not saying your points on speech codes etc are wrong, but its not a total one way street.
Although your straw man arguments in the first para are a bit disappointing given your blogs focus on evidence. You have taken your particular emotional response to a policy and then claimed that, because you have that point of view, any other position is illogical. Issues such as minimum wages have occupied economists for years and years and none of them can point to a definite answer; I’m amazed you think you can.
As with S, I want to thank you for attempting to help me out by providing examples of illogical leftie arguments. But really, you all can stop now. We don’t need to embarrass them.
So your argument is that there’s a small group of rational people in your party. Therefore, your party is more rational than the other party. That’s a stupid, subjectivist argument. The Republican party is no longer the party of small government rational libertarians (if it ever was). It’s a big government, evangelical, pro war, pro police state, anti-science, anti-intellectual party. If you don’t see that you’re blind. There are rational and irrational people in both parties. Your highlighting only those on the left in your blog post clearly shows your own biases.
Anti-science? What, because we question the global warmi– er, “climate change” nonsense? See, that’s what science-minded people do. They remain skeptical in the face of weak or incomplete evidence.
The Republicans aren’t “my” party. I’m a libertarian and have strong disagreements with portions of yer typical Republican platform.
I appreciate you providing additional evidence, however, that the typical leftie argument quickly boils down to name-calling — the first line of defense by those who’ve run out of intellectual ammunition. I’m only surprised you didn’t add “racist” to anti-science, pro-police-state, etc.
I didn’t say anything about global warming. There is one party that won’t even acknowledge evolution and wants to change the textbooks. Guess which one? Yes, that makes them anti-science.
Let’s see … logic tells us that if you’re correct about that “one party” statement, Republicans overwhelmingly want creationism taught in schools, while Democrats overwhelmingly want evolution but not creationism taught in schools. So let’s check that against the actual facts. Here are some figures from a CBS poll taken during the Bush/Kerry election season:
Believe God created humans in their present form:
Bush voters: 67%
Kerry voters: 47%
Believe humans evolved, but God guided the process
Bush voters: 22%
Kerry voters: 28%
Want both both creation/intelligent design and evolution taught in schools:
Bush voters: 71%
Kerry voters: 56%
Wow, you really nailed it, didn’t you? How do you feel about that 56% of “anti-science” Kerry voters? Since 56% is a majority, doesn’t that make the Democrats an “anti-science” party?
Which party actually tries to legislate anti-science beliefs?
Well, let’s see … I seem to recall a party legislating what kind of light bulbs I can buy based on the totally unproven theory that this will somehow prevent global warmi- er, climate change. I recall a party legislating calorie-count menus based on the totally unproven — disproven, in fact — belief that these laws will cause people to eat less and lose weight. I recall a party banning Happy Meals based on the totally unproven theory that the ban will prevent childhood obesity. And I could go on and on.
So you tell me: what anti-science laws have those anti-science Republicans managed to actually get on the books and impose on everyone? In fact, tell me about everything small-government conservatives have imposed on you. Because if I started listing all the Grand Plans lefties have imposed on all of us, we’d be here for days.
And stop dodging the question I asked. You declared that “one party” is anti-science because its members want creation/intelligent design taught in schools, while the CBS poll showed that was also the preference of a majority of Kerry voters. Does that make a majority of Democrats “anti-science” or not? Your selection bias apparently only allows you to notice the Republicans who support the idea. You’re also apparently only capable of noticing “police state” behavior among Republicans, when according to the ACLU (hardly a right-wing organization), warrantless surveillance and other forms of domestic spying have increased by 60% under Obama.
So I’m going step out on a limb here and suggest you base your opinions on what you feel, not on the facts.
By the way, in her book “The Silencing,” Kirstin Powers (a Democrat) cites examples of anti-science behavior among the loony left — as in hounding people out of jobs for stating scientific facts.
One example: Lawrence Summers was hounded out of Harvard because when he was asked why a majority of astrophysicists and other high-level scientists are men, he dared to suggest that perhaps one reason is that more men have genius IQs. That is a true, provable statement — but doesn’t fit with the Left’s official narrative. (Men and women have the same average IQ as a group, but men are over-represented at both extremes.) He stated a scientific fact and lost his job because of it.
In another example Powers cites, a scientist (whose name I can’t remember) was fired from a university after publishing a paper showing that a chemical compound in sperm produces a rise in mood-enhancing hormones in women. This of course goes against the feminist narrative that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” So the guy was hounded out of his position — for publishing a scientific paper. We’ve also seen the left demand the resignation of professors who dare to publish papers suggesting humans aren’t warming the planet. Lefties tried to block the publication of Bjorn Lomborg’s book “Cool It” because he doesn’t support the left’s Grand Plans to battle global warming, even though he believes the warming is happening. Powers gives many more examples in her book of scientists losing their jobs or being disinvited from conferences for publishing scientific papers that go against the left’s narrative.
So … you really want to tell me Republicans are anti-science and lefties are all in favor of The Scientific Truth, whatever it is? ‘Tis to laugh … your selection bias is astounding.
Don’t worry, they’re kind of losing interest in legislating.
Instead, several Democratic members of Congress and a number of government-funded Climate Scientists (as opposed to real scientists) are asking the White House and stellar AG Loretta Lynch to use the RICO Act to prosecute people who question the validity of Global Whatever.
This would look pretty familiar to Galileo. It’s tough having to fight both the government and the Pope once they’ve decided something is settled doctrine.
Cheers.
Update on the party of rigorous science and tolerance…
http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/
Cheers
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201101/attention-ladies-semen-is-antidepressant
there
“..I’m sure building a wall will solve all our problems and yeah, sure, Mexico will pay for it..”
Who ever said it would solve all problems?
It would at least help remedy some problems .. like that of illegal immigration and inflow of narcotics. The US has a $58billion trade imbalance with Mexico.. a ‘wall’ is estimated to be around $10billion..a small trade-off..
Did you have a better solution..besides electing a corrupt and/or clueless politician that will keep the perpetual Washington machine in motion?
Building a wall won’t make a damn bit of difference. And if you think Mexico will pay for it, hahahahaha, your idiocy is so great I’m surprised you can tie your shoes. First, take the wall in Juarez. There are hundreds of tunnels under it. You can build a wall but you can’t stop the tunneling (and yeah sure the wall will stop narcotics getting through! Holy crap are you naive.). Second, there are actually more Mexican immigrants leaving the U.S. than entering. So your stupid wall could, ironically, do the opposite of what you hope. Third, the wall would have zero effect on the trade imbalance. Trade goes to and from Mexico through legal channels. Your mistake is thinking any solution would be better than electing a corrupt politician that will keep the perpetual Washington machine in motion. There certainly are better solutions. However, there are also solutions that are much worse…like electing the second coming of Benito Mussolini except infinitely stupider.
Check your history. Mussolini was a socialist journalist before he entered politics. He first endeared himself to the public after taking control by engaging in massive public-works “stimulus” programs — you know, just like any “right-wing” politician would. Before WWII, Mussolini and FDR exchanged letters of admiration for each other’s economic programs, and Mussolini had many fans among the American “progressives.” Labeling both Mussolini and Hitler (leader of the National SOCIALIST Party) as “right-wing” has been a triumph of revisionist history.
Those are the facts … which will bounce off your brain like little rubber bullets.
Lol the hate is strong with this one…
I never said the wall would completely stop anything. I recognize nothing is foolproof..thats why I used the phrase ‘help remedy’.
You misunderstand why the trade imbalance has been mentioned and how it relates to paying for the wall..so it seems you havent been paying attention to whats actually been said in that regard.
As far as its effectiveness..well, I dont think you understand the magnitude and scope of the proposed wall. Look at Israel’s wall to get an idea…
Also, you might not know that it’s not just a wall..it’s a multi-pronged approach that includes a proposed tripling of the number of ICE officers.
I think you assume Trump is a moron that doesnt know how to build, thats not aware of possible tunneling, and that he became a world class billionare business man through dumb luck.
You say a wall wont make a difference but later you state it could potentially stop illegal immigrants that supposedly are wanting to leave the US…? So which is it?
I do not think “any solution would be better than electing a corrupt politician”.. I specifically think Trump would be the better solution. I do not believe or trust that any other politician (republican or dem) will put America’s best interest in mind, and/or that they have a clue on how to do it…except for Trump.
“There certainly are better solutions..” Ok..so where/what are they? This is the second time Im asking..
I realize these are big words to tiny effect, but: Trump is declaring, more or less, that if Mexico is not reinforcing, patrolling and enforcing their side of the border, and they are not, then they are violating treaty obligations with the US. If they are in violation of those treaties, then we can violate, say, NAFTA, and impose an excise on them.
I don’t think you understand, but this is how adults enforce conformity with law since nations don’t have mommies and daddies.
It’s a US shorthand to call the illegal immigrants “Mexicans” but most of them are in fact Central or South American. Nevertheless, Mexico is responsible for law on its territory, including over foreign nationals, and they can be held to it.
“given the significant inaccuracies in her work.””
According to what OBJECTIVE standard? Climate and nutrition seem to be impervious to government “science” nowadays.
I recently attended a workshop on nutrition and cooking (that, but don’t quote me on this, seems to receive gov. funds) blabbers about the usual fat-is-bad-grain-is-good narrative. Two weeks ago we made balck bean tortillas. I ate 3 (I’m a very active guy) and felt completely lethargic afterwards. According to the fitbit calculator, I ate over 300g of carbs, well over the 200 I usually eat.
I like Ben Shapiro’s take on how to answer someone who says you’re a racist. In the video he said to call your opponent an a-hole because they are labeling you a racist without evidence.
There is no way to convince someone that you don’t hate him or her. You can convince him or her, however, that your opposition is a liar and a hater. When a leftist calls a conservative racist, the conservative tendency is to defend yourself by explaining why you aren’t racist. This is a losing battle. In fact, you’ve lost the argument the minute you engage in it. The proper response to a charge of racism is not, “I’m not a racist. Never have been. I have black friends, black bosses, black employees.” You’ve already given away the store by dignifying the charge with a response. The proper response to a charge that you beat your wife is not to explain that you don’t beat your wife and are in fact an ardent feminist: it’s to point out that throwing around accusations without evidence makes your opponent a piece of garbage. The truth is that your opponent, who labels you a racist without evidence, is the actual racist: it is he who waters down the term racism until it is meaningless by labeling any argument with which he disagrees racist.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/system/files/field/ebook_pdf/how_to_debate_leftists_and_destroy_them.pdf
Yup, calling you a racist is a tactic intended to change the argument, exactly as Professor Hicks explains.
“you may have had the experience of offering some objectively true fact, only to be treated to a reply of “Well, I just don’t believe that.” Oh, okay, that settles it, then.”
Oh yes I have. A while back I was discussing the ecological impact of San Francisco’s damming of part of Yosemite National Park for their water supply.
A person disagreed with me claiming that the dam was build before Yosemite was a National Park. He could not believe that these wonderful, ecologically green citizens could build a huge dam in an existing national park. I replied it was a NP before it was dammed. “Well, that’s just your opinion”, was the reply. ?!?!? It’s a fact or it isn’t right? Look it up. Read what John Muir said about it. Congress had to pass a special act in 1913 (the Raker Act) to permit the damming inside the park. Nope, none of these facts mattered. He wasn’t going to listen.
“That’s just your opinion.” Now THAT is hilarious.
Would have been better if they replied “Well, that’s just your dam opinion”..
But seriously, where can I get some dam bait?
I thought everyone knew the dam was built by the Hetch Hetchy Indians under Chief O’Shaughnessy.
Sorry, folks, I just canna resist:
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/08/a-dam-good-letter-2703788.html
This is the reason I dumped my best friend. I care passionately about the truth and couldn’t stand her going on about her beliefs based on feelings and popular opinion and stating those beliefs as if they were the unassailable truth. And it isn’t as if any of her beliefs are working for her: she’s in pain, gaining weight, needs regular medical care, and has come to live in a little bubble because she’s so $!@)($ picky about everything. We’re the same age, but I take no medication, need no medical care, and I’m close to my high school weight, having studied nutrition and human biology for over five years–but what do I know? I don’t even miss her, even though I just moved to a strange city and hardly know anyone here, because I don’t need a child for a friend. I need an adult.
Of course people need to consult their feelings about certain things. People just shouldn’t consult them about whether something is a fact. A fact is that which, when you stop believing in it, still exists. “There you have it,” said Judge Judy. “The absurd result of the national pastime of navel gazing. If you *feel* it, it must be so.”
Nice quote from the judge.
I didn’t mean to give people (others, not you) the impression that I think we should never consult our feelings or intuition when making decisions. We certainly should. I once turned down a job that looked right on paper because I had a gut feeling I wasn’t going to like working for the boss who interviewed me. He didn’t say anything to give me that impression, but I felt it. I’ve learned to trust my radar about people.
The difference is that illogical types like your ex-friend won’t change their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they’re wrong — because they *feel* they’re right.
I made the mistake of not trusting my gut instincts where a job was concerned. I was offered two jobs at the same time, one near Virginia Beach and one closer to home in Philadelphia. The one in Philly offered me a lot more money and the chance to stay close to family. The other paid significantly less, but it offered the opportunity to learn new technology (something it would take 9 years to learn in my job in Philly), the opportunity to work in different areas within my field (I was a news editor but could pick up overtime by going out with a camera and shoot the news…which the company in Philly steadfastly refused). The job near Virginia Beach offered me all the OT I wanted, was cheaper to live there and for crying out loud was 20 minutes from Virginia Beach!
I learned in the first week on the job in Philly that it was an awful place to work. The culture rotted like a fish from the head down. The mentality was like a frat house of 20 to 40 somethings who never grew up and were given power that they never should have had in the first place.
And I stayed 10 years.
You stayed 10 years?!
Yep. The older you get, the more difficult it is to find work at your current salary or better. Why hire someone with experience when you can get a kid fresh out of college who is willing to do the same work for half the salary?
So many people I know who have been there for 10-15 years and want out, but they have no place to go. Such is the economy.
I had an interview last week with a firm that’s growing, 10 minutes from home, had a nice office, offered good benefits from day one, and the work was something I definitely could have done. And yet I couldn’t wait to get out of their office. A pet peeve of mine is trying to find something out but getting one- and two-word answers. I’d have been pulling my hair out at that job within a week.
Oh, and I left one job after a day earlier this month. It’s a bad sign when you need four aspirin on your first day.
I quit my one and only salaried job when it got the point that I felt ill when approaching the office doors in the morning. That was thanks to a goose-stepping a-hole of a boss who replaced the affable boss who hired me. The company later fired the goose-stepper because too many talented people quit and named him as the reason during their exit interviews. But I was long gone by then.
I worked with a guy who would arrive at work 15 minutes early and sit in his car and wait until his shift started rather than go in and deal with the people in the office.
There’s a petition to reinstate Teicholz to the panel:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/reinstate-teicholz-on-food-policy-panel
Currently at 2,665 signatures.
This is the reason I dumped my best friend. I care passionately about the truth and couldn’t stand her going on about her beliefs based on feelings and popular opinion and stating those beliefs as if they were the unassailable truth. And it isn’t as if any of her beliefs are working for her: she’s in pain, gaining weight, needs regular medical care, and has come to live in a little bubble because she’s so $!@)($ picky about everything. We’re the same age, but I take no medication, need no medical care, and I’m close to my high school weight, having studied nutrition and human biology for over five years–but what do I know? I don’t even miss her, even though I just moved to a strange city and hardly know anyone here, because I don’t need a child for a friend. I need an adult.
Of course people need to consult their feelings about certain things. People just shouldn’t consult them about whether something is a fact. A fact is that which, when you stop believing in it, still exists. “There you have it,” said Judge Judy. “The absurd result of the national pastime of navel gazing. If you *feel* it, it must be so.”
Nice quote from the judge.
I didn’t mean to give people (others, not you) the impression that I think we should never consult our feelings or intuition when making decisions. We certainly should. I once turned down a job that looked right on paper because I had a gut feeling I wasn’t going to like working for the boss who interviewed me. He didn’t say anything to give me that impression, but I felt it. I’ve learned to trust my radar about people.
The difference is that illogical types like your ex-friend won’t change their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they’re wrong — because they *feel* they’re right.
I made the mistake of not trusting my gut instincts where a job was concerned. I was offered two jobs at the same time, one near Virginia Beach and one closer to home in Philadelphia. The one in Philly offered me a lot more money and the chance to stay close to family. The other paid significantly less, but it offered the opportunity to learn new technology (something it would take 9 years to learn in my job in Philly), the opportunity to work in different areas within my field (I was a news editor but could pick up overtime by going out with a camera and shoot the news…which the company in Philly steadfastly refused). The job near Virginia Beach offered me all the OT I wanted, was cheaper to live there and for crying out loud was 20 minutes from Virginia Beach!
I learned in the first week on the job in Philly that it was an awful place to work. The culture rotted like a fish from the head down. The mentality was like a frat house of 20 to 40 somethings who never grew up and were given power that they never should have had in the first place.
And I stayed 10 years.
You stayed 10 years?!
Yep. The older you get, the more difficult it is to find work at your current salary or better. Why hire someone with experience when you can get a kid fresh out of college who is willing to do the same work for half the salary?
So many people I know who have been there for 10-15 years and want out, but they have no place to go. Such is the economy.
I had an interview last week with a firm that’s growing, 10 minutes from home, had a nice office, offered good benefits from day one, and the work was something I definitely could have done. And yet I couldn’t wait to get out of their office. A pet peeve of mine is trying to find something out but getting one- and two-word answers. I’d have been pulling my hair out at that job within a week.
Oh, and I left one job after a day earlier this month. It’s a bad sign when you need four aspirin on your first day.
I quit my one and only salaried job when it got the point that I felt ill when approaching the office doors in the morning. That was thanks to a goose-stepping a-hole of a boss who replaced the affable boss who hired me. The company later fired the goose-stepper because too many talented people quit and named him as the reason during their exit interviews. But I was long gone by then.
I worked with a guy who would arrive at work 15 minutes early and sit in his car and wait until his shift started rather than go in and deal with the people in the office.
“Teicholz said she was disinvited after other panelists said they wouldn’t participate with her.” Last time I checked, if a group of kids didn’t want one kid to play with them, those kids were told off and punished for excluding (read: bullying) that one kid. Guess it’s all changed since I was in school.
Those on the panel and those who refuse to acknowledge high carb diets can be deleterious to most peoples health are ***CARB/SUGAR/STARCH ADDICTS***
When type II diabetics are willing to sacrifice a limb so they can continue the high sugar/carb/starch life style, we must acknowledge the addiction problem.
I’ve reached the conclusion that most who fail with low carb life style – can’t stick with it – are carb/sugar addicts period.
I have heard over and over from these folks “what’s life worth living if you can enjoy it.” ** In the context of diet and eating sugar.** So I let it go. I think to myself, yeah, live a life of metabolic chaos and all that comes with it. No thanks.
I challenge anybody on this thread to go 1 week without eating one sweet tasting item, be it berries, fruit, chocolate, an artificial sweetener or natural “paleo approved” sweet item. See if you can do it…. 1 week.
Addiction is the correct term. I’m a T2 who has spells of insanity (that’s the only word for it) when I will eat food that spikes my blood sugar. I’ve come to the conclusion that my addiction/illness wants me dead. It is very hard to eat an extremely lc diet (meds have side effects that I can’t tolerate). So-called sugar-free goodies are off limits for me, too, as they spike my BG.
I’ve discovered that eating less reduces my BG, but that means being hungry most of the time. So I would add a challenge for the “eat less, move more” people: reduce your food intake until you’re hungry most of the time and see how long you last.
What happens to your blood sugar and hunger if you eat the following for your first meal of the day?:
4 eggs
6 ounces of salmon or other fatty animal protein
1/2 Avocado
For many people, this aforementioned meal will last them several hours before hunger sets in, and little to no impact on BG.
I wish you well.
Haven’t eaten that much food for breakfast in quite a while, but it’s worth a shot. The last time I checked my BG after eating avocado it had spiked my BG, but that was in an early evening meal. I’ve noticed that it’s not good for me to eat late, so maybe avocado & fish would make a good breakfast for me. And I love eggs – have hens who have been very prolific this year. 🙂
“Teicholz said she was disinvited after other panelists said they wouldn’t participate with her.” Last time I checked, if a group of kids didn’t want one kid to play with them, those kids were told off and punished for excluding (read: bullying) that one kid. Guess it’s all changed since I was in school.
Those on the panel and those who refuse to acknowledge high carb diets can be deleterious to most peoples health are ***CARB/SUGAR/STARCH ADDICTS***
When type II diabetics are willing to sacrifice a limb so they can continue the high sugar/carb/starch life style, we must acknowledge the addiction problem.
I’ve reached the conclusion that most who fail with low carb life style – can’t stick with it – are carb/sugar addicts period.
I have heard over and over from these folks “what’s life worth living if you can enjoy it.” ** In the context of diet and eating sugar.** So I let it go. I think to myself, yeah, live a life of metabolic chaos and all that comes with it. No thanks.
I challenge anybody on this thread to go 1 week without eating one sweet tasting item, be it berries, fruit, chocolate, an artificial sweetener or natural “paleo approved” sweet item. See if you can do it…. 1 week.
Addiction is the correct term. I’m a T2 who has spells of insanity (that’s the only word for it) when I will eat food that spikes my blood sugar. I’ve come to the conclusion that my addiction/illness wants me dead. It is very hard to eat an extremely lc diet (meds have side effects that I can’t tolerate). So-called sugar-free goodies are off limits for me, too, as they spike my BG.
I’ve discovered that eating less reduces my BG, but that means being hungry most of the time. So I would add a challenge for the “eat less, move more” people: reduce your food intake until you’re hungry most of the time and see how long you last.
What happens to your blood sugar and hunger if you eat the following for your first meal of the day?:
4 eggs
6 ounces of salmon or other fatty animal protein
1/2 Avocado
For many people, this aforementioned meal will last them several hours before hunger sets in, and little to no impact on BG.
I wish you well.
Haven’t eaten that much food for breakfast in quite a while, but it’s worth a shot. The last time I checked my BG after eating avocado it had spiked my BG, but that was in an early evening meal. I’ve noticed that it’s not good for me to eat late, so maybe avocado & fish would make a good breakfast for me. And I love eggs – have hens who have been very prolific this year. 🙂
There is a trend to give voice to the whiners – be it “lefty’ or ‘righty.’ I think we lose sight of the bigger issue when we start insinuating that it is one side that owns weenieness. It turns it into a simple binary situation, when in fact it is way more complex. The media has been giving the squeaky wheels the oil for a long time now – whether it’s a tree hugger/college kid, or a religious conservative that doesn’t want to hear about “teh gays” or ‘sex’ on the news. Being offended isn’t anything new in this country – it is just that what offends us is changing. Ultimately, attacking each other about whinning or weenieness is just another way to divert and divide us.
Hey, I could claim that you are whining about this issue, but where does that get us. The fact is – our current government/economic system financial rewards individuals and corporations that shut out or stifle competing ideas – plain and simple.
Nicely put. I see the rubber-bullet-master has declined to respond.
It doesn’t really require a response. There are of course weenies and whiners among all persuasions, which I took as T33CH’s point. But anyone with a functioning brain can easily determine whether it’s mostly lefties or righties demanding safe spaces and trigger warnings and special consideration for this-or-that group’s tender feelings and attempting to stifle dissent by yelling “I’m offended! Microaggression! WAHHHHH!” In other words, the weenie faction is clearly much more dominant on the left.
Meanwhile, you and Rayshead provided such awesome examples of illogical leftie arguments, I couldn’t have asked for better support of the point of the post. Notice how many times I asked a challenging question that was never met with a reply. You still haven’t answered (to name one example) this one: do atheists “impose” their beliefs on their children by not taking them to church and telling them they don’t believe in God? Because you were certainly convinced that religious people “impose” their beliefs on their kids and offered that as evidence that they really want to impose their beliefs on all of us.
Your response to challenging questions is to ignore them and attempt a new tactic. But if you check the back-and-forth comments, you’ll see that I always replied to challenging questions.
In sports, if you refuse to show up because you claim “the opponent is not good enough” it is called a forfeit. USDA seems to be claiming, “It’s my ball, so if you don’t do it my way, I am going home!” Sandlot politics at its worst.
And the response from the organization should have been to let them forfeit.
There is a trend to give voice to the whiners – be it “lefty’ or ‘righty.’ I think we lose sight of the bigger issue when we start insinuating that it is one side that owns weenieness. It turns it into a simple binary situation, when in fact it is way more complex. The media has been giving the squeaky wheels the oil for a long time now – whether it’s a tree hugger/college kid, or a religious conservative that doesn’t want to hear about “teh gays” or ‘sex’ on the news. Being offended isn’t anything new in this country – it is just that what offends us is changing. Ultimately, attacking each other about whinning or weenieness is just another way to divert and divide us.
Hey, I could claim that you are whining about this issue, but where does that get us. The fact is – our current government/economic system financial rewards individuals and corporations that shut out or stifle competing ideas – plain and simple.
Nicely put. I see the rubber-bullet-master has declined to respond.
It doesn’t really require a response. There are of course weenies and whiners among all persuasions, which I took as T33CH’s point. But anyone with a functioning brain can easily determine whether it’s mostly lefties or righties demanding safe spaces and trigger warnings and special consideration for this-or-that group’s tender feelings and attempting to stifle dissent by yelling “I’m offended! Microaggression! WAHHHHH!” In other words, the weenie faction is clearly much more dominant on the left.
Meanwhile, you and Rayshead provided such awesome examples of illogical leftie arguments, I couldn’t have asked for better support of the point of the post. Notice how many times I asked a challenging question that was never met with a reply. You still haven’t answered (to name one example) this one: do atheists “impose” their beliefs on their children by not taking them to church and telling them they don’t believe in God? Because you were certainly convinced that religious people “impose” their beliefs on their kids and offered that as evidence that they really want to impose their beliefs on all of us.
Your response to challenging questions is to ignore them and attempt a new tactic. But if you check the back-and-forth comments, you’ll see that I always replied to challenging questions.
Your reply is not PC..also, please check your privilege..
Okay, I checked. Seems to be intact.
Cool…I think it’s every 5000 miles or something..sooner if in city or dusty conditions
Ok, I’ll try give you a better response. I usually respond on my phone, which is awkward, so sometimes a just can’t be bothered with a lengthy argument. I’m also rather busy. And I’m not much of a word-smith, so replying can take a while. I’m not attempting any new “tactic”, I just don’t have time.
I’m inclined to think that the difference between The Anointed’s Grand Plans and sensibly policy is just a failure of science communication. For example, I think everyone agrees that trans-fats are very bad for you, and should be regulated to some degree. This would be “sensible policy”. However, taking your favourite example of salt, regulation would be a “Stupid Leftie Grand Plan” (or whatever you call it), but really it’s just a failure of science communication. If the the science is really SO SURE that salt is ok, I don’t think the message is getting through to the policy makers, because they are obviously convinced that the science is SO SURE that salt is bad.
Now, I don’t think you would call trans-fats regulation *imposing* because that law is designed to protect people (you know, to prevent people from killing (or in this case slowly poisoning) each other, which should be the only function of a libertarian government, right?). However, salt regulation is only called *imposing* because you think its bullshit.
Now, to the religion example. I am an atheist, and I have a family. I’m not going to be imposing any atheist beliefs because there is nothing to impose! Atheism is the *absence* of belief in God. I will, however, encourage understanding in science and evolution. Religion, on the other hand, is bullshit. And yes, you would have to *impose* those beliefs on children because oftentimes they just fly in the face of logic. My Dad tells me to baptise my kids EVERY time I see him, because he thinks the devil is going to steal their souls, or some shit. I’m an adult, I understand that it’s bullshit and I can say no. But kids can’t, they have to do what their parents say. Go to church, pray, be good or you’ll go to hell, watch nutcase adults speak in tongues and have fits. Whatever.
And yes, in a broader time and space context than Tennessee, religious people DEFINITELY want to impose their beliefs on others.
Where the hell you do think the phrases The Anointed and The True Believer come from? Religion! Come on! The dictionary definition of anoint is “to smear or rub with oil, typically as part of a RELIGIOUS ceremony”. And you have the balls to say that religious people don’t qualify to be The Anointed?
Ok, I must stop this rambling as I can feel my wife’s eyes drilling through the back of my head. Instead of spending the last free moment of our day together, I wrote to you. Joy.
Yes, I call both trans-fat bans and salt bans “imposing.” The way to deal with trans fats is to announce loudly and clearly that they’re dangerous and then let people decide whether to buy foods with trans fats or not. I believe sugar ruins people’s health and turns them into diabetics, but if you’ve been paying attention, you know I’m against regulating or banning the stuff.
The salt regulations aren’t a failure of communication. I’ve seen John Stossel interview federal officials about salt. He pointed out the many studies showing no benefit to restricting salt. The reply was something like, “Yes, we’ve seen those studies, but we still think there might be benefits to restricting salt.” That’s not a failure of communication. It’s a failure of being willing to reverse policy.
The term “True Believer” comes from Eric Hoffer’s book, which spells out how the true believer mentality operates in both religious and non-religious (or specifically anti-religious) movements. “The Anointed” is of course a reference to the period in history when the rulers drew their power from the “divine right of Kings.” But it’s silly and illogical to conclude that since “anointed” was a religious term, that proves religious people are now The Anointed. The Anointed (as I borrowed the term from Thomas Sowell) refers to those who believe they know what’s best for us and want to impose their Grand Plans on the rest of us. They have a gazillion ideas for perfecting society, all of which somehow come down to confiscating and spending more of our money or restricting more of our freedoms. The Anointed in America most definitely lean left.
Your contention that atheists don’t impose their beliefs on their kids boils down to this: telling a kid there is no God doesn’t impose a belief because it’s correct, while telling a kid God created the universe is imposing a belief because it’s wrong. Nice try, but “because I’m right and they’re wrong” doesn’t hold up.
If by “a broader time and space context than Tennessee, religious people DEFINITELY want to impose their beliefs on others” you mean those African and Middle Eastern countries you pointed to earlier, that’s a laughable attempt to argue that religious people in American secretly want to impose their beliefs on us. It’s as logical as suggesting that religious people in America also secretly want to make women cover their faces in public and behead non-believers.
Meanwhile, we have the left imposing speech codes and other such nonsense all over the place. Try to tell me that’s not an attempt to impose one group’s moral beliefs on another. In fact, if you’re intellectually honest about it, you’ll see the left attempting to impose its moral beliefs on others all the time. Those moral beliefs just don’t happen to spring from a religion.
Imposing? Like forcing faith based bakeries to go against their beliefs by having to cater certain weddings…or face legal backlash..
Never mind christians or religion..how about imposing that a man in a dress is allowed to change in a girls locker room..I mean really.. screw you.
Yup, a fine example of the left imposing its moral beliefs on others. You won’t bake that cake? You won’t be the official photographer of an event that goes against your beliefs? Why THAT’S WRONG! (meaning the left finds it immoral, of course). So we’ll force you to photograph the wedding instead of just hiring another photographer.
By “regulating” trans fats I didn’t necessarily mean banning them. But labeling WOULD be necessary. Do you agree? Would you call that “imposing”?
Yes, I consider government-mandated labeling “imposing.” I’ve had that discussion on the blog several times. The way to handle trans fats goes like this:
“Excuse, Big Food Producer, how much trans fat is in this product?”
“We refuse to say.”
“Then I refuse to buy.”
Yes, “vote with your dollar”, you’ve said this many times before. But it’s probably as effective as voting for a libertarian presidential candidate: http://m.imgur.com/vwMin.
(Sorry, low blow.)
Naw, not a low blow. Just an illogical reply. Voting with our dollars isn’t a winner-takes-all situation, and it works quite well. We see it happen all the time. I mean, you don’t think all the gluten-free options, Kroger’s “simple truth” line of minimally processed foods, etc., all came about in the past few years because food manufacturers suddenly decided they love us and want us to be healthy, do you?
I’m a libertarian, but I don’t vote for the Libertarian (capital L) presidential candidate because of the Ralph Nader effect. You end up putting the candidate you like the least in the White House.
And if you vote for the Republican or Democrat, you do anyway.
“You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.” ~ Bart Simpson
“Your contention that atheists don’t impose their beliefs on their kids boils down to this: telling a kid there is no God doesn’t impose a belief because it’s correct, while telling a kid God created the universe is imposing a belief because it’s wrong. Nice try, but “because I’m right and they’re wrong” doesn’t hold up.”
I disagree, and I think this is the crux of it. The only reason you whine and whinge about lefties imposing their beliefs is because you think that their beliefs are incorrect. You don’t whine and whinge about lefties imposing their facts.
No, I whine about lefties imposing their beliefs because in the course of doing so, they confiscate other people’s money and restrict other people’s freedoms. I believe government’s legitimate function is to protect us against those who would deprive us of life, liberty or property through violence or fraud. It so happens that in modern times, it’s mostly the lefties who want to use government to deprive us of liberty and property.
What “facts” do lefties impose on me? That makes no sense.
By the way, in the broader time and space context outside of wherever you live, we’ve seen that quite a few lefties have happily killed those who disagree with them or sent the non-believers to re-education camps. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. So going by your own (ahem) logic, I assume you take that as evidence that all leftists secretly want to impose their beliefs on others, correct? You’ve no doubt concluded that the only reason leftists in America don’t kill or imprison the non-believers is that it’s not socially acceptable here, correct? Because if you’re claiming to be as logically consistent as I am, that would be the only logical conclusion.
If you go back and read my comments, you will see that I’m trying to tell you that all this belief imposing is probably not well correlated to left-right political ideology. By religion I was just trying to give an example where it is obviously not correlated. Get it? DO YOU GET IT?
No, and I still don’t. Perhaps you need to explain it more clearly.
Weenie/True Believer behavior is not perfectly correlated to left-right, and I never claimed otherwise. But in modern America, it is clearly and demonstrably the left-wing loons (especially on college campuses) who want to shut down debate, silence the opposition, impose speech codes, create “safe spaces” where their loony pronouncements can’t be challenged, etc. The point of the post that started this debate is that given the modern left’s intellectual heritage (as detailed nicely by Professor Hicks), this isn’t surprising. Modern leftism is the grandchild of philosophers who quite specifically rejected logic and reason and taught that words are weapons, not tools to discover the truth. So stifling debate, demanding “safe spaces,” attacking the person instead of what the person says, etc., are all natural extensions of the parent philosophy.
In sports, if you refuse to show up because you claim “the opponent is not good enough” it is called a forfeit. USDA seems to be claiming, “It’s my ball, so if you don’t do it my way, I am going home!” Sandlot politics at its worst.
And the response from the organization should have been to let them forfeit.
Some people are just more emotionally wired than logically wired. That’s probably the majority of people. And really, that’s not totally bad because if logically wired people ran everything we would have deficits in other areas. Many times. logically minded individuals can be ruthless and cold and unable to empathize with other human beings to the degree necessary for a society that doesn’t completely suck. I’m glad for some of my friends that see the world more through an emotional lens than a logical one. I think logical types need to learn to better communicate with emotional types so that our arguments can succeed. I can do an economic analysis of the Affordable Care Act all I want but if I can’t show someone the devastating, personal consequences of bad policy I probably won’t get anywhere. Obamacare might be bad policy for instance, but that has to be communicated to emotional thinkers through personal narratives and emotional appeals as opposed to strictly logical analysis.
Slight disagreement: I’m a highly logical person, but nobody would call me ruthless and cold. That’s a sociopath. Humans experience emotions. The difference is that logical people can more easily distinguish between what makes sense logically and what feels right emotionally.
Now the big agreement: one problem logical people have is that because they’re swayed by logic, they expect others to be swayed by logic. That’s a huge problem for the libertarian party, for example. They haven’t learned how to appeal to emotional voters. In the book “Social Justice Warriors Always Lie” (which I just finished), Vox Day devotes an entire chapter to the topic, explaining why logical types need to learn to speak in the emotional language of emotional thinkers.
Some people are just more emotionally wired than logically wired. That’s probably the majority of people. And really, that’s not totally bad because if logically wired people ran everything we would have deficits in other areas. Many times. logically minded individuals can be ruthless and cold and unable to empathize with other human beings to the degree necessary for a society that doesn’t completely suck. I’m glad for some of my friends that see the world more through an emotional lens than a logical one. I think logical types need to learn to better communicate with emotional types so that our arguments can succeed. I can do an economic analysis of the Affordable Care Act all I want but if I can’t show someone the devastating, personal consequences of bad policy I probably won’t get anywhere. Obamacare might be bad policy for instance, but that has to be communicated to emotional thinkers through personal narratives and emotional appeals as opposed to strictly logical analysis.
Slight disagreement: I’m a highly logical person, but nobody would call me ruthless and cold. That’s a sociopath. Humans experience emotions. The difference is that logical people can more easily distinguish between what makes sense logically and what feels right emotionally.
Now the big agreement: one problem logical people have is that because they’re swayed by logic, they expect others to be swayed by logic. That’s a huge problem for the libertarian party, for example. They haven’t learned how to appeal to emotional voters. In the book “Social Justice Warriors Always Lie” (which I just finished), Vox Day devotes an entire chapter to the topic, explaining why logical types need to learn to speak in the emotional language of emotional thinkers.
Isnt the problem that non-libertarians or the emotionally wired believe no one should suffer..and therefore they feel justified in trying to create a utopia for everyone?
The world sucks for a lot of people…technology is what’s helping it suck less. Not some grand scheme where we try to punish people’s success and motivation in order to level the playing field ..
In “The Vision of The Anointed” and other books, Sowell labels the two world views as the Utopian Vision and the Tragic Vision. “Tragic” doesn’t mean life sucks and we should walk around being depressed. It means accepting that humans and human societies will always have flaws, and so we must always choose between less-than-perfect alternatives. The Utopians, by contrast, believe that once they’ve spotted a flaw in a system, it is now The Bad — and of course they are smart enough to replace it with The Good. Enter the Grand Plan, which often ends up giving us The Worse.
When I read this “the most likely to be hostile to dissent and debate, the most likely to engage in ad hominem argument and name-calling, the most likely to enact politically-correct authoritarian measures, and the most likely to use anger and rage as argumentative tactics” I immediately thought of David Katz and his ilk. Well done.
I’m definitely a lefty, but one who has generally reasoned my way into my positions and which I uncomfortably admit have had to be reasoned out of occasionally. My own journey to LCHF came by way of Taubes reasoning me out of the illogical belief I’d held for years that my miserable low-sodium, high-carb diet was good and that I was fat and sick because of something I was doing wrong.
Now for the True Believer in me to escape: “DOWN WITH THE ANNOINTED!!” (whew. That feels better)
True Believers love The Anointed, so you probably don’t qualify as one.
When I read this “the most likely to be hostile to dissent and debate, the most likely to engage in ad hominem argument and name-calling, the most likely to enact politically-correct authoritarian measures, and the most likely to use anger and rage as argumentative tactics” I immediately thought of David Katz and his ilk. Well done.
I’m definitely a lefty, but one who has generally reasoned my way into my positions and which I uncomfortably admit have had to be reasoned out of occasionally. My own journey to LCHF came by way of Taubes reasoning me out of the illogical belief I’d held for years that my miserable low-sodium, high-carb diet was good and that I was fat and sick because of something I was doing wrong.
Now for the True Believer in me to escape: “DOWN WITH THE ANNOINTED!!” (whew. That feels better)
True Believers love The Anointed, so you probably don’t qualify as one.