Reason Vs. Emotion
Recent discussions with some moonbats regarding David Brock's "discovery" that the media is truly biased toward conservatives have driven me to ponder the nature of logic and reason as opposed to emotion.
If I believe that if I speed in a school zone I will get a ticket, that is a rational belief. It is based on experience, the experience of others if not my own. It is useful as a predictor. If I speed in a school zone each day on my way to work, the amount of speeding tickets I get will go up.
If I believe that the cops pulling me over are fascists, that is an irrational belief. They do not wear Nazi armbands on their uniforms. They do not have portraits of Adolf Hitler on the dashboard. They do not pull me over to the tune of "The Horst Wessel Song". This belief is based on no evidence whatsoever, nor any attempt to gather any. It is strictly an emotional response to being pulled over.
Using reason to combat irrational belief is a fool's errand. You can present a moonbat with all the evidence in the world that cops aren't fascists, but it won't change their mind as they didn't make up their mind based on evidence in the first place.
It's like that with Cindy Sheehan, headliner for Traitorpalooza. She claims we went to war in Iraq for their oil, or on behalf of Israel, or both. Yet the price of oil is through the roof, the Iraqi oil isn't being dumped into the strategic reserve, nor commandeered by Halliburton, and the major issue in the Iraqi constitutional convention is how the Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds will divvy up their oil amongst themselves, not how much America will get. Moreover, Israel is pulling out of Gaza, has been discouraged from assassinating terrorist leaders, has been encouraged to treat with Abu Abbas, and has been apparently dissuaded from launching an attack on the Iranian nuclear development which is primarily a threat to Israel. None of this matters to the moonbats, who only spin completely incoherent conspiracy theories in response.
It's the same situation with the environment. It doesn't matter that ANWR is an empty wasteland. That just makes it "pristine"---can't drill there. You can't cut down festering, disease-ridden jungle---those are precious "wetlands". Mountain lions, bears, and wolves must not be hunted, no matter how many people they kill. You can't cut down trees, even when it greatly diminishes the chance of forest fire, because old growth is somehow superior. The list is endless, and the only common denominator is neo-Ludditism. Reason won't help with the Earth worshippers.
Ditto appeasement. Appeasement has never worked. Yet we hear the same old arguments from the Lefties over negotiating with our enemies, despite the fact that every concession only yields more demands. Bin Laden doesn't want anything but dead Americans. Abu Abbas wants Israel annihilated. There is no negotiating with such people; negotiation is simply a tactic they employ to regroup between attacks. The Left never provides examples of successful appeasement---there aren't any. There is only victory, slavery, or death.
I am under no illusions as to whether anything I write or anything I say will persuade a moonbat to become a conservative. That's a fool's errand.
I do hope, however, that the non-moonbats out there in the blogosphere might be exposed to evidence contrary to their initial position on these issues, and that over time they may join the rest of us.
Failing that, I hope they get so engrossed in the posts that they don't even realize it's Election Day.
If I believe that if I speed in a school zone I will get a ticket, that is a rational belief. It is based on experience, the experience of others if not my own. It is useful as a predictor. If I speed in a school zone each day on my way to work, the amount of speeding tickets I get will go up.
If I believe that the cops pulling me over are fascists, that is an irrational belief. They do not wear Nazi armbands on their uniforms. They do not have portraits of Adolf Hitler on the dashboard. They do not pull me over to the tune of "The Horst Wessel Song". This belief is based on no evidence whatsoever, nor any attempt to gather any. It is strictly an emotional response to being pulled over.
Using reason to combat irrational belief is a fool's errand. You can present a moonbat with all the evidence in the world that cops aren't fascists, but it won't change their mind as they didn't make up their mind based on evidence in the first place.
It's like that with Cindy Sheehan, headliner for Traitorpalooza. She claims we went to war in Iraq for their oil, or on behalf of Israel, or both. Yet the price of oil is through the roof, the Iraqi oil isn't being dumped into the strategic reserve, nor commandeered by Halliburton, and the major issue in the Iraqi constitutional convention is how the Shi'a, Sunnis, and Kurds will divvy up their oil amongst themselves, not how much America will get. Moreover, Israel is pulling out of Gaza, has been discouraged from assassinating terrorist leaders, has been encouraged to treat with Abu Abbas, and has been apparently dissuaded from launching an attack on the Iranian nuclear development which is primarily a threat to Israel. None of this matters to the moonbats, who only spin completely incoherent conspiracy theories in response.
It's the same situation with the environment. It doesn't matter that ANWR is an empty wasteland. That just makes it "pristine"---can't drill there. You can't cut down festering, disease-ridden jungle---those are precious "wetlands". Mountain lions, bears, and wolves must not be hunted, no matter how many people they kill. You can't cut down trees, even when it greatly diminishes the chance of forest fire, because old growth is somehow superior. The list is endless, and the only common denominator is neo-Ludditism. Reason won't help with the Earth worshippers.
Ditto appeasement. Appeasement has never worked. Yet we hear the same old arguments from the Lefties over negotiating with our enemies, despite the fact that every concession only yields more demands. Bin Laden doesn't want anything but dead Americans. Abu Abbas wants Israel annihilated. There is no negotiating with such people; negotiation is simply a tactic they employ to regroup between attacks. The Left never provides examples of successful appeasement---there aren't any. There is only victory, slavery, or death.
I am under no illusions as to whether anything I write or anything I say will persuade a moonbat to become a conservative. That's a fool's errand.
I do hope, however, that the non-moonbats out there in the blogosphere might be exposed to evidence contrary to their initial position on these issues, and that over time they may join the rest of us.
Failing that, I hope they get so engrossed in the posts that they don't even realize it's Election Day.
posted by Teflon at 5:17 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
The question was never why did the U.S. declare war on Iraq, the U.N.'s chief miscreant, defiler of women, abuser of children, molester of men. The only real question has been why did Saddam Hussein not avert the promised war by acceding to the lenient terms of WMD disclosures?
Vigilis-
I think Claudia Rosett has answered that question: Saddam's exploitation of Oil-for-Food as a perfect bribe delivery system led him to believe that he had bought off enough corrupt Europeans and UN staff to forever stymie U.S. and British efforts to enforce UN resolutions around WMD. He simply didn't believe the Americans and Brits would form a coalition and attack him.
Why give up WMD if you think the fix is in within the international community?
And isn't it ironic that those who opposed the war in Iraq were the ones motivated primarily by oil?
Have to agree that your described scenario may very well have allowed that frame of mind for a crafty, self-centered opportunist like Saddam. Afterall, when Saddam fled to Egypt (after being shot in a leg) and sentenced to death, in absentia, he attended the Cairo University School of Law. No wonder Ramsey Clark and Saddam are such friends.
Most people have been unaware that:
Tom C. Clark (1899-1977), the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, was forced to resign in 1967 by President Lyndon Johnson's appointment of his son, Ramsey, to the post of U.S. Attorney General. The obvious conflict of interest is thought by insiders to have been intended by President Johnson as a surefire method of dumping the elder Clark. Thurgood Marshall was appointed in his stead.
To many lawyers, being a Supreme Court Justice represents the very pinnacle of their profession, higher even than POTUS due to the life term involved. Realizing his political career was effectively dead-ended with LBJ's retirement, and knowing that he had ended his own father's career prematurely, poor Ramsey felt obliged to prove his selfishness had not been in vain.
He needed to demonstrate a level of professional attainment above Supreme Court Justice. But how? He had to rise on a larger playing field than private practice in the U.S. That meant international law.
His clients from then on had to be of the highest profile. While major wealth would be essential, unsavory character became unimportant. So began the not so mysterious, private career of this very guilt-ridden, decidedly liberal, lawyer.
Post a Comment
<< Home