![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsDear Progressives,
Turn-about being fair play, I figured that I'd write a mirrior of Bean's post But where to start?
A couple months back Johnathan Korman wrote an excellent post on the poles of american politics. In it was the following line ...the correct social order is natural but not effortless — without devotion to the correct social order, conservatives believe we devolve into barbarism.
Do you genuinely believe that if you'd been transported back to fifteenth-century London as a baby, you'd realize all on your own that witch-burning was wrong, slavery was wrong, that every sentient being ought to be in your circle of concern? If so I'd like to know why,because as far as I can tell Homo Sapiens today are no more mentally capable than the Homo Sapiens of 500 years ago. I assert that our current high quality of life has more to do with culture and technology than it does with any inherent superiority to those who came before us. The fact of the matter is that we live in a civil society where, for the most part, people raise their kids to obey the law, pay their taxes, and generally not kill each-other without a damn good reason. It is this state of civility that conservatives seek to conserve.
The majority of these conservation efforts focus on individual and family responsibilities/virtue. They operate on the theory that if you want innovation you need to reward innovation. If you want virtue reward virtue. If you want stable kids reward stable families, because barbarity is never more than a generation or two away. If you want good social order we must reward virtue and punish vice.
It is in this space that intent runs head-long into perceived intent, and I start to turn into my grandad...
Using anfalicious' recent example, I am simply flabbergasted that a "post-gendered society" is even a topic of discussion outside of science fiction. Feminism has moved from arguing that women should be treated equal and have the same rights as men, etc... To that that men and women should be interchangeable. I am expected ignore the fact that the burden of reproduction is carried disproportionately by the female of the species. I am expected to ignore the differences in biology. To ignore the different strengths and weaknesses of both and how they compliment each other. I am expected to be genderless. I am not therefore I am a misogynist.
Global warming is based on computer models that keep failing. Catastrophic predictions are constantly proven wrong and (surprise, surprise) the only solution ever proposed is higher taxes and greater regulatory powers. I suspect that a dog is being wagged therefore I am a "denier".
I don't want to live in a world of "Honor Killings" and medieval torture and I refuse to coddle or kow-tow to those that do therefore I am a Islamiphobe.
I oppose gun control therefore I want children to die.
I support voter ID laws therefore I am a Racist.
Fascist.
Terrorist.
Killer.
I could go on...
These are labels that have been applied to me by my so-called intellectual and moral "betters" in an effort to shut me up.
I am a dinosaur. Hear me roar.
Turn-about being fair play, I figured that I'd write a mirrior of Bean's post But where to start?
A couple months back Johnathan Korman wrote an excellent post on the poles of american politics. In it was the following line ...the correct social order is natural but not effortless — without devotion to the correct social order, conservatives believe we devolve into barbarism.
Do you genuinely believe that if you'd been transported back to fifteenth-century London as a baby, you'd realize all on your own that witch-burning was wrong, slavery was wrong, that every sentient being ought to be in your circle of concern? If so I'd like to know why,because as far as I can tell Homo Sapiens today are no more mentally capable than the Homo Sapiens of 500 years ago. I assert that our current high quality of life has more to do with culture and technology than it does with any inherent superiority to those who came before us. The fact of the matter is that we live in a civil society where, for the most part, people raise their kids to obey the law, pay their taxes, and generally not kill each-other without a damn good reason. It is this state of civility that conservatives seek to conserve.
The majority of these conservation efforts focus on individual and family responsibilities/virtue. They operate on the theory that if you want innovation you need to reward innovation. If you want virtue reward virtue. If you want stable kids reward stable families, because barbarity is never more than a generation or two away. If you want good social order we must reward virtue and punish vice.
It is in this space that intent runs head-long into perceived intent, and I start to turn into my grandad...
Using anfalicious' recent example, I am simply flabbergasted that a "post-gendered society" is even a topic of discussion outside of science fiction. Feminism has moved from arguing that women should be treated equal and have the same rights as men, etc... To that that men and women should be interchangeable. I am expected ignore the fact that the burden of reproduction is carried disproportionately by the female of the species. I am expected to ignore the differences in biology. To ignore the different strengths and weaknesses of both and how they compliment each other. I am expected to be genderless. I am not therefore I am a misogynist.
Global warming is based on computer models that keep failing. Catastrophic predictions are constantly proven wrong and (surprise, surprise) the only solution ever proposed is higher taxes and greater regulatory powers. I suspect that a dog is being wagged therefore I am a "denier".
I don't want to live in a world of "Honor Killings" and medieval torture and I refuse to coddle or kow-tow to those that do therefore I am a Islamiphobe.
I oppose gun control therefore I want children to die.
I support voter ID laws therefore I am a Racist.
Fascist.
Terrorist.
Killer.
I could go on...
These are labels that have been applied to me by my so-called intellectual and moral "betters" in an effort to shut me up.
I am a dinosaur. Hear me roar.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 01:49 (UTC)Since consensus is just a "logical fallacy", I expect to see you flying around, unassisted, outside my window by the end of the day.
Words have meanings, and you can't handwave proven facts, no matter how inconvenient they might be to your ideology or political allies, just by pretending that these words don't mean what they mean.
You want to run around disbelieving proven scientific facts? That's your right. But don't be surprised when people laugh at it and call you a "denier," or at the very least, intentionally willfully ignorant of said facts.
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 02:17 (UTC)I am unaware of any peer reviewed papers rejecting the existence of gravity as a natural force. If there are any, I'd be interested reading them to see how and why they came to that conclusion.
ETA:
Aren't you the least bit curious to see what those 24 articles had to say?
(no subject)
Date: 9/9/13 12:48 (UTC)And this is the only reason we don't talk about the "consensus" in that case. But still, the consensus exists. It's not a logical fallacy. It is a DESCRIPTION of scientific opinion based upon rigorous and repeated testing. The only reason we have to trot out the word in the case of things like climate change (and an old earth) is that a tiny minority of naysayers with a political axe to grind continue to put forth disproven hypotheses. The use of consensus isn't a fallacy here: in fact, what's truly implied by it being used is that some bad ideas are being thrown around, and the general public (who unfortunately don't have the time to be well read on every scientific subject) can benefit from an easy summation of the majority scientific finding: that anthropogenic climate change is proven.
I'd be interested reading them to see how and why they came to that conclusion.
If I were a climate scientist, I might, just to understand whether the conclusions were based on minor errors somewhere in the research, or on glaring oversights (willful or not.) As a climate layperson, however, I defer to the experts on the subject (though I do study as much as time allows me to), just as I defer to my physician on matters of my own health (with enough study on the side to do what I can to promote my own healthy lifestyle and make good health decisions), and just as, down the road, I hope that my expertise and research in astrophysics and related fields can be deferred to by those without the time or inclination to bury themselves in the inticacies of quantum physics or radio astronomy. This is not a fallacious appeal to authority, but rather is specialization that allows the dissemination of fact to a greater number of people who might have specialized in an entirely different field, be it athletics, acting, a different science, or entrepreneurship, or even politics, and who lack the time to delve into the years of study required to remain current in hundreds of various fields of learning. To wit: the jack of all trades is the master of none.
The only objection to such a model is in the assumption that one group of specialists is lying for some reason. I will assert that such an assumption is nonsense. I understand that some folks have a different opinion on that, though in response, all I can ask is this: does it make more sense that thousands upon thousands of scientists (including assistants, and associated laypersons, and tons of others in a vast network of people) are all part of some huge secret (not so secret?) conspiracy to defraud the entire world, or that instead, just a handful of scientists are simply allowing ideology (or profit) to override scientific rigor? I know which I find more plausible.