Posted on 03/28/2005 8:39:13 AM PST by srm913
When I try to understand how liberals think, I try to imagine 'the myth of the cave' made famous by Plato.
Imagine a cave with a deep entrance. As you enter there is a fire with men passing by it on a platform. Facing the wall of the cave are others who are so bound that they cannot turn their heads. They see nothing but the shadows created by the unbound behind them. If one of them is freed, he is so upset by the direct glare of the fire, and incapable of understanding the reality of the situation,(namely what is causing those shadows) that he goes back to his original bound state which is more familiar.
Eventually those who attempt to reason someone out of an opinion that they haven't first reasoned themselves into, will realize what a waste of time that is.
"There is no arguing that classical IQ, as measured by most intelligence tests, is important in our personal, academic, and professional success. However, emotional intelligence [maturity] matters as much as the classical IQ. One could almost say that emotional intelligence [maturity] is a prerequisite for the proper development and actualization of our other intellectual abilities." ~ Unknown
I haven't found that to be the case; perhaps you are simply more persuasive than I! :-)
"...when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather." - Pat Sajak
"Why do they hate us?" The fashionable idiocy that haters must have justifications is one of those ideas that George Orwell said only an intellectual could believe -- because no one else could be such a fool. ~ Thomas Sowell
Infallible haters? Thomas Sowell
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com --
ANYBODY can be mistaken -- except haters, apparently.
Whenever others express their hatred of Americans, in words or deeds, the hand-wringers among us want us to ask: "Why do they hate us?"
Apparently we should automatically go in quest of those "root causes" so dear to the ideology of the left, instead of realizing that many people in less fortunate countries find hating Americans easier than facing the truth about themselves.
Long before September 11th, the Taliban demonstrated again and again their intolerance and hatred of all who differed from them, clamping a reign of terror on the Afghan people and demolishing ancient Buddhist statues, despite worldwide pleas to spare those artistic treasures.
What had the Buddhists or their statues ever done to them?
What did the Jews ever do to Hitler?
The fashionable idiocy that haters must have justifications is one of those ideas that George Orwell said only an intellectual could believe -- because no one else could be such a fool.
Unfortunately, we have a large supply of both amateur and professional intellectuals.
They are busy on college campuses across the country, sounding off with their blame-America-first message.
They are also an undercurrent in the mass media, where they must insinuate what they can say unopposed in academia.
For centuries, some of the most productive people in many societies have also been the most hated.
After the Moriscoes had been expelled en masse from Spain in the 16th century, a Spanish cleric asked: "Who will make our shoes now?"
That was a question that should have been asked before expelling them.
After Indians and Pakistanis were expelled from Uganda in the 1970s, the Ugandan economy collapsed.
People from the Indian subcontinent had created whole industries in East Africa and had been so predominant in the commercial life of the region for so long that the rupee was at one time the prevailing currency there.
Yet they were hated by the very people who benefited from their economic activity.
It has been the same story with the Chinese minority in various countries in Southeast Asia. The mob violence against the Chinese in Indonesia in 1998 was part of a long history of such outbreaks against them in that region, going back for centuries.
Like so many groups, the overseas Chinese were accused of "taking over" whole industries, when in fact they created those industries.
Hatred and mob violence against more productive minorities has been the rule, rather than the exception, for centuries -- whether against the Jews in Eastern Europe, the Ibos in Nigeria, the Armenians in Turkey, the Germans in Russia, the Lebanese in West Africa, the Chettiars in Burma, the Japanese in Canada or the Asian shopkeepers in our own black ghettoes today.
Whatever the economic benefits that these various groups contributed in these countries, their achievements were a devastating blow to the egos of others.
This was what has been so galling and has provoked such rage.
Seldom are the idle rich as hated as those who started out poor and worked their way up to modest prosperity, because that achievement is a slap across the face of others who have stagnated.
Why then is it so surprising that the most productive country in the world is so hated among those who lag far behind?
Whatever the shortcomings of Americans -- real and imagined -- shortcomings are common to all peoples.
That can hardly be the basis for singling out Americans as objects of a special wrath and venom.
What is new in history is the internal hostility to American society by some of its own citizens who have benefited from its productivity and its generosity.
No one has been more favored and indulged than those in academia and the media -- and no one has acted more like spoiled brats.
Their ego problem is quite different.
These are people convinced of their own superior wisdom and virtue, who are constantly trying to impose that wisdom and virtue on others, whether by media spin, government regulation, classroom propaganda, or moral intimidation.
Their exalted vision of themselves is frustrated by the fact that the vast majority of other Americans reject -- or, worse yet, ignore -- their presumptions of moral leadership.
To some of us, that is called freedom.
But, to the self-anointed, it is enough to produce hostility to the values and traditions of American society.
I was not referring to the Shiavo case and neither is the article. However, I have had "discussions" with you on other threads regarding evolution vs ID and your about as doctrinaire as they come.
"If you want to try something even better, guaranteeing a much more pleasant life, try giving up associating with them. This includes relatives."
A little harsh, don't you think? Is there something wrong with 'agreeing to disagree'? I would like to think that most people are close enough to their friends and relatives so that politics aren't the only things ever discussed within those relationships. Or do you feel that politics should be weighed so heavily as to eclipse something as special as family ties?
Liberals really do think they are the smartest and they think that they are the most well informed. I find that laughable.
A liberal friend recently told me I should not argue politics with her husband because he read the New York Times and he knew what was going on. When I told her it was because I knew he read the NYT that I knew he was wrong on almost everything. She got so mad it almost ended our friendship.
Well, I did include a significant qualifier: "...and who will actually have an intelligent conversation...". So, you are probably just running into the typical close-minded liberal.
Tom Harkin, Ralph Nader, Lanny Davis, and a few others, to their credit. (Even a blind bird catches a worm once in a while.) Unfortunately, there aren't many of them.
bttt
Some of the 'All Terri, All the Time' petulant Freepers may find that they resemble some of these remarks, I am saddened to say.
My father used to say "never argue with a fool". He sometimes added that it was OK to kick their a**, but never argue with one.
Why should he give her anything of value? :)
Within a minute of entering the lab, he starts browbeating an openly Bush-supporting coworker of mine over euthanasia in Holland -- I suppose Terri Schiavo brought this on, though her name wasn't mentioned.
Our Dutch liberal tears off into an uninterruptable rant spurred on by nothing in particular, and then utters the phrase 'I wish I could line the whole religious right up against a wall and shoot them!'.
In literally his next breath he told us 'The left and right in America can't have a reasonable discussion anymore'.
We were unable to get more than a few words in edgewise at which point he cut us off by saying 'Don't ever talk politics to me again!' and storming out.
This entire incident was witnessed by another registered FR member.
The 'War on Drugs' threads are famous for this: the Drug War cheerleaders (you know who you are) never fail to go down the logical fallacy/name calling path as well.
That's sad. And I don't get it - maybe it's the location (too close to the bay area!). I've worked with probably over a hundred engineers and physicists and all are politically conservative. Except for the lone philosophy major that was writing software (we're not sure how he got the job). Logic and reasoning should transgress all boundaries and not just be applied to a job. I don't see how they could turn their reasoning powers when they leave work! For example, when I read the CA proposition ballots, the lack of logic in the Democrat's rebuttals drives me nuts. Not just because I don't agree with them, but also because it's so transparently illogical. Anyone who has taken upper level math, even in high school, or a programming class should get it...
Oh, well....there goes my theory! Thanks for the info.
Yes! It's as if since some liberals might support that particular idea, the idea is somehow "tainted", and so anyone who decries the WOD as the War on Liberty that it really is is also tainted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.