Freedom of speech apparently works only one way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llIOdgOZLF4&feature=player_embedded
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Differing perspectives by "progressives" and conservatives
The following is taken from a column last November by Steve Janke, in the Canadian newspaper, The National Post --
How zealotry came to pervert climate science
Posted: November 26, 2009, 11:15 AM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Steve Janke
There are many ways to characterize people, and one way is to separate them into idealists and realists.
The words, as I use them here, mean something somewhat different from their common usage.
An idealist passes judgment on the universe. For the idealist, the universe (or some portion of it, like his country's politics), ought to behave in a certain way. In other words, there is an ideal state that ought to be achieved. Of course, no two idealists will agree to what that state is, and that is why countless millions have died throughout history, caught up in the fight between competing idealists for whom being right is more important than, well, anything. Putting that aside, idealists work on the premise that if the universe (or some portion of it) is not behaving as it should, then the universe (or some portion of it) is broken.
Though not necessarily a characteristic of every idealist, most by far, it seems, also believe that it is their job to fix the universe (or their portion of it). The cost of fixing it is not an issue. Trillions of dollars or millions of lives -- it doesn't matter to an idealist. The stakes are just too high to worry about piddling issues like that. The universe (or their portion of it) is broken, and they know how it should be, and it is their mission in life to remake things to reach that ideal.
Contrast that with the realist. For the realist, the universe (including their portion of it) is neither right nor wrong, it just is. It is in a state reached for any number of reasons, some apparent and some not, but whatever the route taken, it is what it is and you just have to deal with it. There is no right answer to the question about how the universe should be, because the question of how things "should be" is itself meaningless. It is possible to influence conditions under certain circumstances to improve a local situation, and those opportunities ought to be considered, but in the end, our ability to influence things is rather limited, and the outcome of our attempts to alter a situation might not be what we expected or what we hoped. Realists take that in stride, because, as always, there is no right answer to the question "How should the universe be?". A realist merely asks what is the state of the universe now, accepts that, and moves on.
Liberals are invariably idealists of the worst kind. A liberal (in the modern usage of the term) will spend countless millions on social programs, for example, because he is offended that some people don't have this benefit or that. Taking someone else's money, and then using it to deliver that benefit to another person at no cost to that other person, is perfectly acceptable, because now the universe (or this portion of it) is closer to his ideal. The opinion of the person paying the tax is barely considered, since the stakes are so high. That giving something of value to certain people for free might have unintended consequences on the recipients, or on the rest of society, is also blithely ignored, unless the liberal decides that his universe includes a fix for that too, in which case, our liberal will impose his own fix on that problem too. Whatever the cost or consequence.
Conservatives are usually realists. That there are inequities in life is neither acceptable nor unacceptable. That is a moral judgment on what is merely a fact of life, or so a realist would say. Perhaps some inequities can be addressed, but a realist recognizes that virtually any attempt to level out such inequities across broad swathes of the population with massive state intervention will probably create other inequities. And that too is neither good nor bad, it just is, though a conservative will likely wonder if substituting one inequity for another is truly achieving anything, and might opt to leave well enough alone. Indeed, experience shows that large-scale interference typically exacerbates existing problems while simultaneously creating new ones.
In any case, idealists are, by definition, arrogant. You'd have to be to think the universe ought to be a particular way, and that you know what that way should be. Their plan to fix things will always succeed, and if things get worse, then it means their perfect plan wasn't followed correctly. For them, leaving well enough alone is never an option. Efforts are redoubled, and more money and more lives are dedicated to the plan.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/steve-janke-how-zealotry-came-to-pervert-climate-science.aspx#ixzz0gltYnhJ9
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
How zealotry came to pervert climate science
Posted: November 26, 2009, 11:15 AM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Steve Janke
There are many ways to characterize people, and one way is to separate them into idealists and realists.
The words, as I use them here, mean something somewhat different from their common usage.
An idealist passes judgment on the universe. For the idealist, the universe (or some portion of it, like his country's politics), ought to behave in a certain way. In other words, there is an ideal state that ought to be achieved. Of course, no two idealists will agree to what that state is, and that is why countless millions have died throughout history, caught up in the fight between competing idealists for whom being right is more important than, well, anything. Putting that aside, idealists work on the premise that if the universe (or some portion of it) is not behaving as it should, then the universe (or some portion of it) is broken.
Though not necessarily a characteristic of every idealist, most by far, it seems, also believe that it is their job to fix the universe (or their portion of it). The cost of fixing it is not an issue. Trillions of dollars or millions of lives -- it doesn't matter to an idealist. The stakes are just too high to worry about piddling issues like that. The universe (or their portion of it) is broken, and they know how it should be, and it is their mission in life to remake things to reach that ideal.
Contrast that with the realist. For the realist, the universe (including their portion of it) is neither right nor wrong, it just is. It is in a state reached for any number of reasons, some apparent and some not, but whatever the route taken, it is what it is and you just have to deal with it. There is no right answer to the question about how the universe should be, because the question of how things "should be" is itself meaningless. It is possible to influence conditions under certain circumstances to improve a local situation, and those opportunities ought to be considered, but in the end, our ability to influence things is rather limited, and the outcome of our attempts to alter a situation might not be what we expected or what we hoped. Realists take that in stride, because, as always, there is no right answer to the question "How should the universe be?". A realist merely asks what is the state of the universe now, accepts that, and moves on.
Liberals are invariably idealists of the worst kind. A liberal (in the modern usage of the term) will spend countless millions on social programs, for example, because he is offended that some people don't have this benefit or that. Taking someone else's money, and then using it to deliver that benefit to another person at no cost to that other person, is perfectly acceptable, because now the universe (or this portion of it) is closer to his ideal. The opinion of the person paying the tax is barely considered, since the stakes are so high. That giving something of value to certain people for free might have unintended consequences on the recipients, or on the rest of society, is also blithely ignored, unless the liberal decides that his universe includes a fix for that too, in which case, our liberal will impose his own fix on that problem too. Whatever the cost or consequence.
Conservatives are usually realists. That there are inequities in life is neither acceptable nor unacceptable. That is a moral judgment on what is merely a fact of life, or so a realist would say. Perhaps some inequities can be addressed, but a realist recognizes that virtually any attempt to level out such inequities across broad swathes of the population with massive state intervention will probably create other inequities. And that too is neither good nor bad, it just is, though a conservative will likely wonder if substituting one inequity for another is truly achieving anything, and might opt to leave well enough alone. Indeed, experience shows that large-scale interference typically exacerbates existing problems while simultaneously creating new ones.
In any case, idealists are, by definition, arrogant. You'd have to be to think the universe ought to be a particular way, and that you know what that way should be. Their plan to fix things will always succeed, and if things get worse, then it means their perfect plan wasn't followed correctly. For them, leaving well enough alone is never an option. Efforts are redoubled, and more money and more lives are dedicated to the plan.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/steve-janke-how-zealotry-came-to-pervert-climate-science.aspx#ixzz0gltYnhJ9
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
This image is how I experience "progressives" as they try to deal with conservatives. They seem to think that we conservatives are too ignorant, or too dimwitted, or too warped to be able to grasp the beautiful "truth" that they have to share.
I am sure that there are conservatives who are thoughtless, ignorant, or psychologically unhealthy - just as there are those who hold to "progressive" positions for reasons that in reality have little to do with those positions. Taht being said, however, the majority of conservatives know what they are talking about, have good reasons to believe what they believe, and are psychologically healthy. We simply have a different starting point - and for Christian conservatives, that starting point is that there is a God who communicates. He may not tell us all we want to know, but he has told us what we need to know in order to trust him, follow him, and grow to be more like him.
I am sure that there are conservatives who are thoughtless, ignorant, or psychologically unhealthy - just as there are those who hold to "progressive" positions for reasons that in reality have little to do with those positions. Taht being said, however, the majority of conservatives know what they are talking about, have good reasons to believe what they believe, and are psychologically healthy. We simply have a different starting point - and for Christian conservatives, that starting point is that there is a God who communicates. He may not tell us all we want to know, but he has told us what we need to know in order to trust him, follow him, and grow to be more like him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
