Comments on: Now, now, watch the name-calling… http://principalquattrano.com/blog/2007/01/02/now-now-watch-the-name-calling/ News, education, female superiority, and just about anything else Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:11:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Publus http://principalquattrano.com/blog/2007/01/02/now-now-watch-the-name-calling/comment-page-1/#comment-901 Publus Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:07:31 +0000 http://principalquattrano.com/blog/2007/01/02/now-now-watch-the-name-calling/#comment-901 "Jonah" mischaracterizes the debate. The problem with the Jonahs of the world, and their ilk, isn't merely that they're "certain" about something -- it is that they are moral absolutists and empirical relativists. They will choose what they think of as being a "moral absolute," (we need to invade Iraq, gay people are evil, abortion is murder, or whatever you like), and cling to it the way a three-year-old clings to his teddy bear. Then, they will pick and choose facts based -- not on data -- but on whether a particular fact happens to fit with the moral absolute they created. Iraq has a large stockpile of weapons of mass distruction, they say. Never mind the mountains of evidence indicating that Iraq does NOT have weapons of mass distruction. Such evidence is to be ignored because it doesn't fit with the moral absolute we selected. You're either for us or against us (the Sith Absolute), and if you're for us you'll agree that Iraq has a large stockpile of weapons of mass distruction. If you acknowlege the existence of evidence that Iraq has no such weapons, you're against us. BTW, Bush never said that Iraq had a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. No, don't bother pulling out those video tapes, press releases, or transcripts that prove he did, he never said that. If he had claimed that Iraq had a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, then such a statement would run afoul to the Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility. You're either for us or against us, and if you point out that Bush incorrectly claimed that Iraq had a large stockpile of weapons of mass distruction, you're against us. Abortion causes breast cancer. Never mind all of the scientific research that disproves any link between having an abortion and breast cancer, the important thing is the moral absolute that Abortion is Murder. Since the claim that abortion causes breast cancer tends to support that moral absolute, it must be true. You're either for us or against us, and if you don't think that abortion causes breast cancer, then it must be because you're against us. As for Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, if anybody makes the case for reality based thinking, it would be those two. The prevailing "Moral Absolute" at that time was that black people were inferior to white people in terms of intelligence, wisdom, and morality. Empirical evidence showed no significant difference between the races in this regard, but that empirical evidence was supposed to be disregarded. You're either for us or against us . . . The Nazi "moral absolute": Jews are evil. The Jews are responsible for the Great Depression. The Jews are responsible for the Reichstag fire. The Jews are responsible for Germany losing the Great War. You're either for us or against us, and if you acknowlege the ample empirical evidence out there tending to prove (for example) who really caused the Germany to loose the Great War, then you're against us and there's a special place for people who are against us in Auschwitz. Perhaps the Jonahs of the world simply suffer from an inadequate education. “Jonah” mischaracterizes the debate. The problem with the Jonahs of the world, and their ilk, isn’t merely that they’re “certain” about something — it is that they are moral absolutists and empirical relativists. They will choose what they think of as being a “moral absolute,” (we need to invade Iraq, gay people are evil, abortion is murder, or whatever you like), and cling to it the way a three-year-old clings to his teddy bear. Then, they will pick and choose facts based — not on data — but on whether a particular fact happens to fit with the moral absolute they created.

Iraq has a large stockpile of weapons of mass distruction, they say. Never mind the mountains of evidence indicating that Iraq does NOT have weapons of mass distruction. Such evidence is to be ignored because it doesn’t fit with the moral absolute we selected. You’re either for us or against us (the Sith Absolute), and if you’re for us you’ll agree that Iraq has a large stockpile of weapons of mass distruction. If you acknowlege the existence of evidence that Iraq has no such weapons, you’re against us.

BTW, Bush never said that Iraq had a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. No, don’t bother pulling out those video tapes, press releases, or transcripts that prove he did, he never said that. If he had claimed that Iraq had a large stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, then such a statement would run afoul to the Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility. You’re either for us or against us, and if you point out that Bush incorrectly claimed that Iraq had a large stockpile of weapons of mass distruction, you’re against us.

Abortion causes breast cancer. Never mind all of the scientific research that disproves any link between having an abortion and breast cancer, the important thing is the moral absolute that Abortion is Murder. Since the claim that abortion causes breast cancer tends to support that moral absolute, it must be true. You’re either for us or against us, and if you don’t think that abortion causes breast cancer, then it must be because you’re against us.

As for Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, if anybody makes the case for reality based thinking, it would be those two. The prevailing “Moral Absolute” at that time was that black people were inferior to white people in terms of intelligence, wisdom, and morality. Empirical evidence showed no significant difference between the races in this regard, but that empirical evidence was supposed to be disregarded. You’re either for us or against us . . .

The Nazi “moral absolute”: Jews are evil. The Jews are responsible for the Great Depression. The Jews are responsible for the Reichstag fire. The Jews are responsible for Germany losing the Great War. You’re either for us or against us, and if you acknowlege the ample empirical evidence out there tending to prove (for example) who really caused the Germany to loose the Great War, then you’re against us and there’s a special place for people who are against us in Auschwitz.

Perhaps the Jonahs of the world simply suffer from an inadequate education.

]]>