ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

John C. Wright explains l'affaire sauvage

In his philosophical explication of the differences between the Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian political theories, Standout Author John C. Wright explains why the conflict between me and the writers presently dominating SFWA was not only inevitable, but will remain unresolvable.
The reason why political discussions between partisans of these theories are so often futile is that their goals are unrelated to each other, and the fears of one seem highly theoretical, if not ridiculous, to the other.... Libertarian views of Liberals is one of deep seated and scathing contempt. Where Libertarians are fundamentally intellectual and conservatives fundamentally men of passion and honor, Liberals are entirely emotional, and do not have the metaphysical or philosophical groundwork needed to erect an intellectual defense of their position to Libertarians, or to mount an intellectual criticism of Libertarianism.
It's intriguing to see how closely his observations serve well as a predictive model concerning the behavior of both myself and my critics.  I certainly tend to regard this particular set of critics with "deep seated and scathing contempt".  And, as we have seen, the SFWA writers have not only failed to erect an intellectual defense of their position, or mount an intellectual criticism of mine, [REDACTED PENDING APPROVAL TO QUOTE FROM SFWA FORUM].  They definitely regard me as evil.
This speculation is admittedly harsh.

It would have been gentler had I been asked my opinion in the days before I exchanged many, many arguments with liberals of all stripes. The one thing they all have in common, and this includes Catholic liberals as well as atheist liberals, male and female, young and old, all of them, all of them, all I have ever met: their argument is primarily emotional, and they interpret disagreement as a moral failure, not just an intellectual one.

They do not think you are wrong, my dear conservative and libertarians readers, they think you are evil. Not one I have met thinks that there can be honest disagreement with their positions, or that the matter is one where reasonable men can differ.

This is not due to the personality of the liberals I have met, but it is due to their theory. I have had angry Catholic socialists denounce me angrily as wicked for not believing his nonsense, but I have also had gentle grandmotherly socialists do the same in mild tones, and sneering atheist socialists utter the same denunciation in sneering tones without even bother to discover what the argument is or the objections are. The tone depends on the personality of the liberal, and they are as different as the whole spectrum the human race affords.

But the the automatic imputation of vile motives and conspiracies by one mass against another mass is not due to a character flaw in the liberal psychology. Rather, the flaw is built into their theory. It is what they have to say. They can say nothing else, since if they did, they would no longer be liberals. The institutions of civilization are the enemy, since they and only they are the source of mass-oppression and inequality.
Wright's observations are 100 percent in line with my own considerable experience of what he describes as the Liberal. And this explains why Jamsco's assertion about the need for inoffensive dialogue is not only wrong, but futile.  Because he only thinks about what he sees as being obviously offensive, he doesn't recognize that it is not the sharper points of the rhetoric that offend, but rather the way in which the use of that sharper rhetoric correctly communicates to the Liberal that the non-Liberal is immune to their primary emotion-based tactics.  He's only looking at the surface, and in doing so, he's failing to see the more substantial forces operating beneath it.

You cannot use Aristotelian dialectic with a Liberal.  You cannot reason with him because he is not reasonable.  You cannot engage in rational discourse with him because he is not rational. To paraphrase Aristotle, you can only rhetorically flay him alive while dialectically exposing the flaws in what passes for his arguments in order to persuade undecided third parties.  And the more cruelly you flay them, the louder they shriek, and the more third parties are eventually inspired to see the difference between your reason-based arguments and the emptiness of their emotion-based non-arguments.

It would surprise - no, it would horrify - the rabbits if they had any idea how more and more people are coming over to agree with my positions as a direct result of Liberal pointing-and-shrieking combined with their total inability to make a coherent case, let alone a compelling one.  Perhaps you recall how only last year various rabbits were trumpeting the significance of how popular Whatever was and asserting that I was jealous of their Chief Rabbit's massive blog traffic?  Less than a year later, my blogs have 4553 percent more pageviews than the Chief Rabbit's warren.

Now, Wright's series of posts - read the whole thing from the start - are not about my conflict with a group of SFWA members, and yet they demonstrate that those who see that conflict as a petty writers squabble are entirely missing the point.  It is, rather, a micro-model of the great civilizational conflict that is already engulfing the entire West, whether most of those on either side realize it yet or not.

Labels: ,

269 Comments:

1 – 200 of 269 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Daniel June 20, 2013 9:22 AM  

That liberal is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or honesty. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Anonymous TW June 20, 2013 9:22 AM  

28% of liberals have ditched a social media contact b/c of their politics vs 16% of conservatives & 14% of moderates. http://bit.ly/17Y4wVJ

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben June 20, 2013 9:26 AM  

Liberalism is a sick ideology. I once had an Italian professor who was ecstatic that whites would be a minority by 2050. They love to glorify the degenerate and castigate the honorable, which is why they hate conservatives.

Liberalism is for the weak, depraved, and dishonorable.

Anonymous Auntie Whyte Jemisin June 20, 2013 9:29 AM  

"Da white mens are da racists." - Steven Gould

"Da whites mens privilege is like da Disneylands ride, and coal. I forget why. But it is." - John Scalzi

Blogger Shimshon June 20, 2013 9:30 AM  

I experienced this personally. The mentality is so foreign to me that it was absolutely jarring the first time it happened.

Anonymous Daniel June 20, 2013 9:36 AM  

Liberalism is for the weak, depraved, and dishonorable.

Weakness, depravity and dishonor we will always have with us. I think Wright is saying that liberals possess a deeply rooted ideal in a false concept. After all, they certainly have more strength (as it is), a certain cultural cohesion, and a sense of shame that serves as a proxy for honor, in numbers.

When the merely weak gather, all you get is a refugee camp.

Blogger Old Rebel June 20, 2013 9:37 AM  

"Liberals are entirely emotional, and do not have the metaphysical or philosophical groundwork needed to erect an intellectual defense..."

This is so true, though liberals, champions of reason that they imagine they are, will deny it vehemently.

In EVERY discussion I've ever had with liberals/leftists about HBD, I've never encountered a single one who offered a fact that actually countered my argument, such as "In California, the black-white performance gap has been eliminated through progressive teaching methods."

Instead, the mere charge of "racism" was all they needed to put my case completely out of their minds and beyond the need for refutation.

Amazing. And sad.

Anonymous kj June 20, 2013 9:39 AM  

modern liberalism is dogma. If you bring data they castigate your sources. Math, they argue about children. Reason, they look away.
I have engaged many, asking questions, watching them tie themselves in mental knots, never realizing they reveal their own mental destitution. Years ago I learned never to bother changing them, merely study them under reasons microscope and prepare. Remember always that any of them at any time would happily kill those who disagree as long as they don't have to get their own hands dirty. This strata of humanity has always looked to be emotionally incited from before the Greek demagogues.

Anonymous TJIC June 20, 2013 9:41 AM  

I love John C Wright's essays. He's one of the few science fiction authors who covers political topics who uses rationality (you, of course, being another).

His tripartite understanding of the different modes of thought that explain libertarians / conservatives / liberals is dead on. Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Foundations_Theory

explains the political landscape better than any trillion other words on the subject combined.

I'd be curious to see research done at the intersection of Moral Foundations Theory and HBD - might some races be inherently more logical, inherently more honor motivated, or inherently more emotional?

To pick a very very minor example: I would not be in the least surprised if it were scientifically proven that the average Italian has genes for greater emotional volatility; this correlates with their "form" of "government".

Anonymous MrGreenMan June 20, 2013 9:42 AM  

I went to college with a guy who had all the policy positions of the left, but was capable of having a friendly discussion, thinking through his beliefs and defending them, and even lived by the credo that "we can agree to disagree and still be friends."

I met him five years later and he was a Ron Paul libertarian who was quoting Michael Savage.

Anonymous TJIC June 20, 2013 9:42 AM  

@kj:

Reason, they look away.

Well, to be fair, sometimes they accuse you of lying and being evil. It's the classic introvert/ extrovert test for a liberal. ;-)

Anonymous TJIC June 20, 2013 9:43 AM  

@MrGreenMan:


I met him five years later and he was a Ron Paul libertarian who was quoting Michael Savage.


All roads lead to Rome and all rationality leads to one place as well.

Anonymous VryeDenker June 20, 2013 9:56 AM  

I've mentioned this before rather recently, but it bares repeating every chance I get. A few years ago, I was accused by a progressive of offering an argument that was "full of facts and arguments. Also bitterness". That's it. The problem with my argument was that it contained facts and arguments. Oh, and bitterness.

Anonymous Godfrey June 20, 2013 9:58 AM  

Liberals are naive and easily conned. They lack a skeptical mind. In many ways they are like children. They possess a very simplistic worldview. They’re the kids easliy enticed with promises of candy into the car with the pervert. We need to help them grow into adulthood.

Anonymous Godfrey June 20, 2013 10:01 AM  

@VryeDenker June 20, 2013 9:56 AM "That's it. The problem with my argument was that it contained facts and arguments. Oh, and bitterness."


To the childlike liberal, facts and arguments are themselves bitterness. Reality is bitterness.

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 10:01 AM  

Vox, can I respond to what you said about me, or would that be OT?

Blogger IM2L844 June 20, 2013 10:02 AM  

This! The opening post. The whole damned thing. Every last jot and tittle.

Anonymous VD June 20, 2013 10:02 AM  

Of course you can, now that it is on topic. I'd even be interested to know if you see yourself as more Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian by Wright's description.

Anonymous Alexander June 20, 2013 10:05 AM  

Daniel,

Since when has being dead stopped a liberal from smearing you? If anything, attacking the dead (and rewriting history) are a preferred strategy, since it becomes that much more of a challenge to defend yourself against their rhetoric.

Anonymous Desiderius June 20, 2013 10:13 AM  

"a sense of shame that serves as a proxy for honor"

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. A proxy beats nothing.

Without dishonor, there is no honor. The whites are determined to see no sin, no evil, no dishonor, lest we be called "judgmental" or lose our niceness badge.

So we have become a people without honor or the valor that seeks it.

Anonymous Desiderius June 20, 2013 10:15 AM  

There is a (vast) difference between progressive and liberal.

Until we learn to exploit that divide, we will remain conquered.

Anonymous paradox June 20, 2013 10:18 AM  

OT: but I've noticed... when it comes to The War Between The States and Lincoln(aka civil war) Wright bitterly clings to his inner emotional liberal.

"The presence or absence of Northern Abolitionists who died on the battlefields of the Civil War..."

|facepalm|

Anonymous Mike M. June 20, 2013 10:18 AM  

And there is a massive lesson for the Republican Party here.

You CANNOT win over Liberals by being "nice". That is an exercise in futility. Victory comes through attacking the Liberal, destroying his arguments, demonstrating his follies - and thereby winning over the persuadable centrists.

Lee Atwater was right.

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 10:20 AM  

I'd even be interested to know if you see yourself as more Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian by Wright's description.

If you're talking about this:
Libertarian views of Liberals is one of deep seated and scathing contempt. Where Libertarians are fundamentally intellectual and conservatives fundamentally men of passion and honor, Liberals are entirely emotional
I guess I'd say conservative.

I don't think of anyone with deep seated and scathing contempt and I'm not entirely emotional.

Anonymous Wanderer June 20, 2013 10:20 AM  

Unfortunately, it looks like feminists don't understand the meanings of words:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577904578555581403945500.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Blogger Some dude June 20, 2013 10:21 AM  

To sum up, in effect he is saying that Liberals are simply bullies whose bullying depends on how much and how effectively they think they can get away with it.

The liberal atheists sneer because that is their weapon of choice to slit the social throat of their peers, the Catholic Socialist yells because that has always availed him since he was a spoiled little shit, the grandmother gently shows contempt because she simply does not have the guts to pull out a knife and cut your balls off.

How we treat each other tells us a lot of how we feel we should be treated.

Blogger Some dude June 20, 2013 10:22 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 10:22 AM  

What do you think about this statement:

Vox and the Ilk do not think the SFWA leftists are wrong, they think you are evil. They do not think the matter is one where reasonable men can differ.

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 10:23 AM  

"They think THEY are evil". sorry.

Blogger Some dude June 20, 2013 10:25 AM  

I have a friend who acts pretty harshly when he is in the presence of offence or bullshit. At first I was put off by that, then I noticed he tends not start up with people who don't start up with him.

There is a point in time, that if every single guy wearing a red bandana and indentifying himself as a member of "X" treats me like garbage, I'm going to start treating the whole lot of them the same way.

I have a feeling the "ilk" are the same way. And by the way, I think it's pretty sick that you refer to a variety of human beings with different social views as "ilk". Technically the word isn't negative, but the connotation is.

Anonymous TheExpat June 20, 2013 10:26 AM  

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/grass-always-greener-other-side
Scroll down two or three space key presses to Bar Fight" although this anecdote is one of deliberate disengagement rather than fighting.

Anonymous VD June 20, 2013 10:27 AM  

Vox and the Ilk do not think the SFWA leftists are wrong, they think you are evil. They do not think the matter is one where reasonable men can differ.

I think it's provably incorrect and a childish tactic. We not only think the SFWA leftists are wrong, we know they are. We can logically prove it. They may or may not be evil. And we do think the matter is one where reasonable men can differ for a variety of reasons, most of which are related to ignorance.

Anonymous Godfrey June 20, 2013 10:29 AM  

Liberals aren't the real enemy. They're dupes. They're conned. They're asleep.

Once you realize this, your frustration dissipates and they become easier to deal with. You must be patient; as if dealing with a child.

Blogger tz June 20, 2013 10:31 AM  

Is Glenn Greenwald a Liberal?

The Rhetorical heat coming from dialectical light reignites that still, small voice in the back. Each time the choice has to be made - do I stay with my irrational and even destructive (and yes, even hateful, in the sense that the way they promote their "love" requires hating the opposition) view, or do I let my mind work. Do I kill my rationalization hamster and look past the immediate and think. Even just a bit.

Even worse, let them imagine they've won. Those who would redistribute wealth without creating it. Print all the money you want, but if there are no farmers, there is no food. If there is no incentive to farm (See the USSR), there will be no farmers. Obamacare is doing something similar to doctors here today.

If the libertarians win, the liberals can still beg people to provide help.

John C. Wright makes a distinction between conservatives and libertarians which I don't see because I disagree with the agency. For blue laws, and people declaring themselves "Married" (or not, if not doing so to commit fraud, consider Abraham in Egypt), conservatives are willing to use violent means to enforce such. Now if my Church respects the Sabbath (and different churches have different sabbath periods), and declares it a sin to break it, I am within my rights in admonishing sinful brothers and sisters, individually or within the CHURCH body. I don't see any right I have to take a gun and point it at a pagan - or jewish - store owner and insist he open or close his shop under the threat of being shot to death, or something similar like burning down the store.

I have no disagreement over the customs necessary to create and preserve civilization, and would probably be stronger about some and have a longer list. But not every custom warrants violent means of prevention, cancellation, or retribution for its breach.

If the church and not the state is responsible for charity, being put out of the church can be socially significant. But only in a libertarian culture. Conservatives and Liberals differ in their morals and goals, but both mix and confuse Church and State, even to the point where they will NOT use violence against actual clear, present, immediate threats and crimes which are destructive of the society and culture, often because they are too busy using it on things which are irrelevant.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother June 20, 2013 10:32 AM  

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

And in the land of the skunks, the man with half a nose is king.

--Chris Farley

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 10:39 AM  

Is Glenn Greenwald a Liberal?

Yes, but he's one of the good guys on some very important issues.

Unlike, say, David Brooks, who is nominally a conservative but is wrong about everything.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 10:42 AM  

I don't think of anyone with deep seated and scathing contempt and I'm not entirely emotional.

That's because you're a very nice person who believes that the most important thing anyone can every do is to be nice to everyone. Because Jesus was nice.

Blogger Doorstop June 20, 2013 10:43 AM  

Slightly OT: Did anyone else get a chuckle out of seeing the sisterhood of the babbling rants turn on Serena Williams yesterday and slap her back into line? Apparently she hadn't been fully indoctrinated with the warped herd logic which dictates that you can tell a kid who may never encounter a pedophile that it's unsafe to talk to strangers, but you can't tell her underage sister it's unsafe to get blackout drunk at a parties with other hormone-addled teens.

Anonymous Godfrey June 20, 2013 10:43 AM  

The difference between a liberal like Glen Greenwald and a libertarian is that a liberal believes "the ring of power" can be used for good and a libertarian believes it has to be utterly destroyed.

Anonymous Simpleton 2000 June 20, 2013 10:45 AM  

Liberal logic:

1. Media tells me the Liberals are the most intelligent.
2. If I take the Liberal side I will be seen as intelligent
3. Since I take the Liberal(most intelligent) side, I don't have to defend my worldview as those who challenge it are obviously not as intelligent and I can continue feeling smug and justified in not defending the Liberal worldview. Loop closed.

Anonymous Steve Canyon June 20, 2013 10:46 AM  

I wonder if liberalism is the result of the lack of a strong father in one's life and growing up in a household dominated by the mother.

Anonymous Lorem Ipsum June 20, 2013 10:46 AM  

For the best effect, immediately after finishing Wright's post go peruse the screed from Foz Meadows to drive the point home.

If they win, it will be only because we allowed them.

Anonymous Stilicho June 20, 2013 10:46 AM  

When the merely weak gather, all you get is a refugee camp.

Which is also what you get if you strip away that "deeply rooted ideal in a false concept" with facts and logic. On some level, they recognize this, hence their visceral reaction to such arguments.

Blogger tz June 20, 2013 10:47 AM  

There may be a few SFWA leftists that are actually evil, but I would not attribute evil to them any more than someone on LSD that is flailing his arms trying to push off an imaginary magenta hare that is trying to give him a big hug and saliva laden kiss. Psychopaths and sociopaths are distinct. Those who are divorced from reality aren't generally a threat (as opposed to those who are clear about it and use that knowledge for destructive purposes). The threat they pose is because in the Asylum called the SFWA, the psychotic patients outnumber the staff, but everything is subject to a democratic vote. Their psychosis makes coordination difficult, so it takes someone shrieking loudly about something to get the attention of the herd.

The simplest example is claiming "science", specifically evolution, then denying there can be ANY substantial differences in the races or sub-races. They cannot be in the same reality when making the former statement v.s. the latter. They mistake "equality" for "dignity". Those with extra chromosomes tragically are obviously not equal, but their dignity should be recognized. As should the dignity of the unborn human beings. But that is farther than they want their minds to go, so they enter fantasy land and stay there.

Or take the lady whose most recent shrieks exacerbated the current kerfuffle. My window overlooks Detroit. It could use help. Where does this lady live? Among the people who would be most clearly victimized and could use direct help? Or somewhere in the safe outskirts? Why is she in one place but not the other? If the people in the "victimized" people (and a lot are the victims, but there are enough victimizers) all moved into her neighborhood, would she stay or move yet again?

Chesterton pointed out that the psychotic has an explanation for everything. Everyone has been gotten to. Questions require proving a negative.

In any case it is fruitless to attempt a dialogue with such a person, except to try to have them stop or start taking medications or meditations and synchronize their minds with reality. When they return to this world, only then can meaningful dialogue begin.

Anonymous JartStar June 20, 2013 10:47 AM  

Yet libertarians and conservatives have lost every major political battle in the USA for over 100 years.

The truth might win out, the Truth will win out, but in the mean time everyone gets to live in decades if not centuries of liberalism ascendent.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 10:48 AM  

The difference between a liberal like Glen Greenwald and a libertarian is that a liberal believes "the ring of power" can be used for good and a libertarian believes it has to be utterly destroyed.

And the same thing with conservatives. Examples range from GW Bush's "big government conservatism" to Obamacare to the ilk getting out their fainting couches because of pitbulls.

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 10:48 AM  

"That's because you're a very nice person who believes that the most important thing anyone can every do is to be nice to everyone. Because Jesus was nice."

Why do you think I believe that?

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 10:52 AM  

Why do you think I believe that?

Because your most common admonishments regard not being sufficiently nice to people. Whether it's the sfwa or John Piper, you are very worried that people will be offended by what Vox says and the way in which he says it.

Anonymous JartStar June 20, 2013 10:53 AM  

Liberals aren't the real enemy. They're dupes. They're conned. They're asleep.

Wrong. They have won for now since they control all major national institutions in the US and are now setting their sights on the churches like the liberals did in Western Europe. They've won so big that Vox fled the country.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 10:54 AM  

Yet libertarians and conservatives have lost every major political battle in the USA for over 100 years.

Except the second armament. We haven't lost that one yet. We've lost ground, but not the battle

Anonymous Godfrey June 20, 2013 10:55 AM  

@JartStar June 20, 2013 10:47 AM "Yet libertarians and conservatives have lost every major political battle in the USA for over 100 years."


Actually what is going on is beyond politics and has to do with the fallen nature of man and his attempts to overcome the consequences of original sin… but that’s the pre-enlightenment Christian theological perspective.

Anonymous dudemanhey June 20, 2013 11:03 AM  

One thing i have often experienced, as a Libertarian, from engaging with both Liberals & Conservatives in debate is that both misidentify my opposition to their views. Because i dont agree with them i must be the "opposite" side. And very few will then even be able to listen to my views long enough to understand what i am talking about.

I have been called both a "Republican" and a "Communist" and i am assuredly niether.

While Vox states that you cannot use Aristotelian dialectic with a Liberal, i would add that neither can you with the vast majority of the population.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:04 AM  

"Yet libertarians and conservatives have lost every major political battle in the USA for over 100 years. "

This is a function of time. Liberals today are living in a time where barbarism is on the assent. Its not on the assent because they are winning. They are winning because its on the assent. Its just time. Its just where we are in the cycle. a few hundred years from now.. they will be losing every battle... because barbarism will be vanquished and new organizations and systems will be constructed.

Anonymous -facepalm- June 20, 2013 11:08 AM  

"OT: but I've noticed... when it comes to The War Between The States and Lincoln(aka civil war) Wright bitterly clings to his inner emotional liberal."

Because it's perfectly rational to defend the CSA in completely emotional terms, while ignoring the CSA's central planning, censorship of newspapers, fiat money printing, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/18/the-confederate-leviathan

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 11:09 AM  

Because your most common admonishments regard not being sufficiently nice to people. Whether it's the sfwa or John Piper, you are very worried that people will be offended by what Vox says and the way in which he says it.

Encouraging a cruelty artist to be less cruel is far from saying "the most important thing anyone can every do is to be nice to everyone".

Anonymous VD June 20, 2013 11:09 AM  

They've won so big that Vox fled the country.

You fail to understand. They haven't won. Vox left because he doesn't believe that living in war zones is healthy. It will be fought in many places, but I suspect it will be most vicious in the USA.

Anonymous bw June 20, 2013 11:10 AM  

and they interpret disagreement as a moral failure

As we have noted all along, they are religious-zealots-as-nut-jobs:
the very thing they claim to be against.
The are the very thing they hate.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:10 AM  

"Why do you think I believe that?"

Because you're Ned Flanders.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:11 AM  

" It will be fought in many places, but I suspect it will be most vicious in the USA."

This is an ahistorical conclusion.

Its been a long time since the most violent people in the world had a really good excuse to start killing each other. Nothing makes a european happy like killing another european.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:12 AM  


"Encouraging a cruelty artist to be less cruel is far from saying "the most important thing anyone can every do is to be nice to everyone"."

Sure Ned.

Jesus died on the cross so we would be nice to each other. Spread the word!

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:14 AM  

"Because it's perfectly rational to defend the CSA in completely emotional terms, while ignoring the CSA's central planning, censorship of newspapers, fiat money printing, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/18/the-confederate-leviathan"

The stupid is giant.

Does the term "invasion" mean anything to you?

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 11:17 AM  

We not only think the SFWA leftists are wrong

Would you likewise agree that Wright was incorrect when he said, "They do not think you are wrong, my dear conservative and libertarians readers"? Because they do, do they not?

They may or may not be evil.
...

We do think the matter is one where reasonable men can differ for a variety of reasons, most of which are related to ignorance

That's good to see. Do you have reason to believe the leftists do not feel this way about conservatives and libertarians?

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 11:18 AM  

"Jesus died on the cross so we would be nice to each other."

As you know, I don't believe that.

Anonymous Desiderius June 20, 2013 11:19 AM  

"Actually what is going on is beyond politics and has to do with the fallen nature of man and his attempts to overcome the consequences of original sin… but that’s the pre-enlightenment Christian theological perspective."

It is exactly about the denial of/blindness to Original Sin (if you prefer, the hindbrain, or what we've lately been calling here "savagery" or feral behavior) and its consequences. But you are dead wrong about such awareness being merely "pre-enlightenment". The Enlightenment itself was about transcending that Sin. What is ignored (hence the ignorance that plaques us today) or denied can no longer be transcended.

Plenty of post-Enlightenment thinkers, both for and against, premised their arguments in the concept of Original Sin and what to do about it. See Moral Man and Immoral Society for the most prominent 20th Century example or any major Classical Liberal work from anytime in history to the present.

The Red Pill is its rediscovery, but its also showing up in the research of nominally progressive scientists who attempt to spin in their way but who find tabula rasa no longer tenable.

The most fervid deniers of Original Sin today are the Joel Osteen evangelical "conservatives" and Niceness Churchianity.

Anonymous Daniel June 20, 2013 11:19 AM  

Daniel,

Since when has being dead stopped a liberal from smearing you? If anything, attacking the dead (and rewriting history) are a preferred strategy, since it becomes that much more of a challenge to defend yourself against their rhetoric.


Absolutely true, but much harder to work it into a quote from The Terminator. I am a man of few gifts.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 11:20 AM  

Its been a long time since the most violent people in the world had a really good excuse to start killing each other. Nothing makes a european happy like killing another european.

But they're all one happy euro family now!

Anonymous Desiderius June 20, 2013 11:20 AM  

"As you know, I don't believe that."

We know no such thing.

Actions speak louder.

Anonymous cheddarman June 20, 2013 11:20 AM  

"Yet libertarians and conservatives have lost every major political battle in the USA for over 100 years."

It is interesting how this observation coincides with giving women the right to vote in the US and Europe. A lesson for future generations.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 11:23 AM  

As you know, I don't believe that.

Then why are you so concerned with people being sufficiently not nice?

You're certainly acting like niceness uber alles.

Anonymous Earl Ragnar Cheddarman June 20, 2013 11:25 AM  

"The most fervid deniers of Original Sin today are the Joel Osteen evangelical "conservatives" and Niceness Churchianity." -Desiderius

There is a special placed reserved for him among my collection of severed heads in jars.

Sincerely,

Earl Ragnar Cheddarman

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 11:26 AM  

Now to the original post:

And this explains why Jamsco's assertion about the need for inoffensive dialogue is not only wrong, but futile.

Vox, True or False: if you hadn't called Jemisen a Half Savage, then the vast majority of the threats and stupid reviews wouldn't have happened.

You cannot use Aristotelian dialectic with a Liberal. You cannot reason with him because he is not reasonable. You cannot engage in rational discourse with him because he is not rational.

When is the last time you've tried this? Did it go worse than your rhetorical activities of late?

To paraphrase Aristotle, you can only rhetorically flay him alive while dialectically exposing the flaws in what passes for his arguments in order to persuade undecided third parties.

Translation: I have given myself a mandate to be publicly cruel, so I can make a point on the internet.

Anonymous JartStar June 20, 2013 11:26 AM  

They haven't won.

If you are talking about the Eternal War, of course they haven't won and won't win, but if you are talking about the battle for the USA they have already won. If it comes to shooting, it is just the final mop-up phase of an old battle.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:27 AM  

"We do think the matter is one where reasonable men can differ for a variety of reasons, most of which are related to ignorance"

For the record... I am not one of the "we" Vox refers to here. I do not view liberals as someone that is just wrong about something. I view them as evil. I view them as one views any thief.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey June 20, 2013 11:27 AM  

Lately, it has been my experience that when you "rhetorically flay him alive while dialectically exposing the flaws," it is oftentimes more effective, and entertaining, to do so with the precision of an experienced surgeon rather than the brute force of a butcher. This is in no way advocating "nice," as no matter how sharp and sterile your knife may be, rhetorical and dialectical castrastion still envolves the removal of the opponent's balls. However, it is sometimes necessary that when one's opponent isn't "nice" and sits still, holding them down and bashing their balls with a hammer still gets the job done.

Anonymous dudemanhey June 20, 2013 11:28 AM  

"I wonder if liberalism is the result of the lack of a strong father in one's life and growing up in a household dominated by the mother."

Maybe a corelation, definitely not a causation. From my anecdotel experiences i know too many exceptions to that for me to believe the lack of a strong Patriarch is the root of all Liberal.

Anonymous JartStar June 20, 2013 11:29 AM  

The mop-up is always the bloodiest though even if the outcome is known.

Anonymous zen0 June 20, 2013 11:30 AM  

those who see that conflict as a petty writers squabble are entirely missing the point. It is, rather, a micro-model of the great civilizational conflict that is already engulfing the entire West, whether most of those on either side realize it yet or not.

Its a Voxiversity Field Trip.

As with most field trips, some people are paying attention, some are dawdling or sniggering, and some are picking their nose.

Maybe if there was a quiz to come later, people would focus better.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:31 AM  

"As you know, I don't believe that."

Obviously I do not know that. Evidence available speaks louder than your protestation.

Being a murderous satan-worshiping calvinist it appears to be perfectly reasonable for you to take that position. After all... why offend the damned? They are damned. Let us all await our pre-determined fate with grace.

Right?

Anonymous Desiderius June 20, 2013 11:32 AM  

"Maybe a corelation, definitely not a causation. From my anecdotel experiences i know too many exceptions to that for me to believe the lack of a strong Patriarch is the root of all Liberal."

A too strong Patriarch is an identifiable cause. Greatness famously skips a generation.

The Boomers are so bad because the Greatest Generation was so good they despaired of surpassing it, and instead became content to destroy the memory of the greatness.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 11:32 AM  

Vox, True or False: if you hadn't called Jemisen a Half Savage, then the vast majority of the threats and stupid reviews wouldn't have happened.

Why don't you go over to scalzi, jemsin, and hines and tell them to stop calling Vox a RSHD?

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 11:34 AM  

Being a murderous satan-worshiping calvinist it appears to be perfectly reasonable for you to take that position. After all... why offend the damned? They are damned. Let us all await our pre-determined fate with grace.

YOU'RE NOT BEING NICE

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:34 AM  

"Vox, True or False: if you hadn't called Jemisen a Half Savage, then the vast majority of the threats and stupid reviews wouldn't have happened."

Jamsco, True or False: more people have had their eyes opened to the truth by the dust up caused by insult than have been turned away from the truth by the insult.

Anonymous Ned Flanders June 20, 2013 11:34 AM  

Hell, I'm Conan the Barbarian, compared to jamsco.

Anonymous TW June 20, 2013 11:36 AM  

Might be OT ... but makes the same point, and reeks of Vox's entanglement with SFWA...

"A massive twit-storm washed over your humble columnist yesterday, set off by our Wall Street Journal op-ed defending an Obama nominee and the rights of criminal defendants.Our argument infuriated feminists, yielding hundreds of tweets and perhaps a dozen posts on various leftist websites..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

Anonymous Steve June 20, 2013 11:40 AM  

"For blue laws, and people declaring themselves "Married" (or not, if not doing so to commit fraud, consider Abraham in Egypt), conservatives are willing to use violent means to enforce such. Now if my Church respects the Sabbath (and different churches have different sabbath periods), and declares it a sin to break it, I am within my rights in admonishing sinful brothers and sisters, individually or within the CHURCH body. I don't see any right I have to take a gun and point it at a pagan - or jewish - store owner and insist he open or close his shop under the threat of being shot to death, or something similar like burning down the store."

Such as?

Which leading conservatives are promoting this? Which conservative group is committing violence in the name of some kind of social revolution?

None of them.

None of them are.

It is true that liberal groups,such as OWS are doing this, but you cannot point to any major conservative group with widespread support and say "[Such and such] group firebombs police." or " 'Family Research Institute' is killing lesbians." because it doesn't happen. The idea that "conservative groups" are violent is an urban legend. You "heard it from someone that heard it from someone". In other words,it's a load of crap.

It's a set of ideological blinders. It's an irrational memetic muzzle for your mind. The truth of the matter is actually the inverse of your statement.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey June 20, 2013 11:42 AM  

Josh June 20, 2013 11:34 AM Being a murderous satan-worshiping calvinist it appears to be perfectly reasonable for you to take that position. After all... why offend the damned? They are damned. Let us all await our pre-determined fate with grace.

YOU'RE NOT BEING NICE

Nate only uses a hammer. It being his own free will or predestination, I care not. Nonetheless, bash away.

Blogger Some dude June 20, 2013 11:44 AM  

@Nate

I view them as evil. I view them as one views any thief.

And what are your thoughts on GoatRape™?

Anonymous Stilicho June 20, 2013 11:46 AM  

For the record... I am not one of the "we" Vox refers to here. I do not view liberals as someone that is just wrong about something. I view them as evil. I view them as one views any thief.

You are not the only one. Some are intentionally evil, some engage in evil through stupidity, ignorance, or both. Some in the latter camp might someday understand the error of their ways, in which case we can happily prepare the fatted calf, but I am not optimistic about it happening in any significant degree. Those in the first camp are not redeemable save through divine grace.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:46 AM  

"Such as?

Which leading conservatives are promoting this? Which conservative group is committing violence in the name of some kind of social revolution?

None of them. "

Yes. That's his point. The liberal CARES more for his ideology than the conservative does. It is life and death to liberal. There is no honor... there is no loyalty... so the ends ALWAYS justify the means.

The ends are all that matters to a liberal.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 11:49 AM  

"And what are your thoughts on GoatRape™?"

That its entirely possible that some goat may have to suffer a violent indignity so that I may sufficiently express my rage upon the person of a formerly living liberal.

Anonymous Stilicho June 20, 2013 11:54 AM  

...scapegoat is a noun for a reason, after all...

Anonymous VD June 20, 2013 11:56 AM  

Vox, True or False: if you hadn't called Jemisen a Half Savage, then the vast majority of the threats and stupid reviews wouldn't have happened.

False. Perhaps 15% less.

When is the last time you've tried this? Did it go worse than your rhetorical activities of late?

Two weekends ago. Yes, it was like trying to reason with a brick wall. I tend to stick to dialectic in person, no matter how futile it is. In person, of course, I am never attacked the way the online folks attack me.

Anonymous Edjamacator June 20, 2013 12:02 PM  

H-E-Double hockey sticks, I'm Conan the Barbarianiddly, compared to jamsco.

Fixed it for ya.

Anonymous Godfrey June 20, 2013 12:11 PM  

@JartStar June 20, 2013 10:53 AM "Wrong. [Liberals] have won for now since they control all major national institutions in the US and are now setting their sights on the churches like the liberals did in Western Europe...."


I think the liberal in the next cubical or down the block is a dupe, he's not evil. Liberalism is the candy the pervert uses to entice the child into the car. It is the means to an end. The end is power and control, not a better world for the mass of humanity. The liberal is conned by the wealthy power elite who "play" him for their own ends.



Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben June 20, 2013 12:13 PM  

Is it possible to be a libertarian conservative?

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 12:13 PM  

"Two weekends ago."

I mean on the internet.

Anonymous Godfrey June 20, 2013 12:16 PM  

@Desiderius June 20, 2013 11:19 AM "But you are dead wrong about such awareness being merely "pre-enlightenment". The Enlightenment itself was about transcending that Sin. What is ignored (hence the ignorance that plaques us today) or denied can no longer be transcended."



Thank you, I stand corrected.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 12:22 PM  

"...scapegoat is a noun for a reason, after all..."

winning.

Anonymous Cederq June 20, 2013 12:23 PM  

Go Nate Go!

Anonymous VD June 20, 2013 12:24 PM  

I mean on the internet.

No idea. It's been a while, to be sure.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 12:28 PM  

Is it possible to be a libertarian conservative?

That depends on how you define conservative. I would generally say it's not possible.

Blogger Holden June 20, 2013 12:38 PM  

I would bet that your SWFA opponents would fail an intellectual Turing test, that is they would be unable fool a group of your supporters that they understand your position. However, you would easily fool theirs. In my experience libertarians understand their opponents' position better than the typical member of the opposing political set does. This demonstrates (to me) a strong commitment to intellectual honesty.

Anonymous Auntie Whyte Jemisin June 20, 2013 12:38 PM  

Had Jemisin not portrayed white Australians as savages who are even today a danger to blacks, and then asked for a confession for things people did who are dead or which never took place, would anyone have been offended?

Blogger El Borak June 20, 2013 12:39 PM  

Is it possible to be a libertarian conservative?

Yes. The libertarian conservative accepts the value of institutions and especially long-lasting voluntary institutions. Where the conservative libertarian must part ways with the conservative is when the latter starts using the institution to coercively mold or improve the member.

For example, the libertarian conservative understands and values marriage. He understands and values strong families. He does not, like the conservative, conclude therefrom that the government ought to promote marriage or strengthen families.

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 12:43 PM  

"No idea. It's been a while, to be sure."

Well, give it a whirl sometime.

Blogger CarpeOro June 20, 2013 12:45 PM  

Jamsco
"What do you think about this statement:

Vox and the Ilk do not think the SFWA leftists are wrong, they think they are evil. They do not think the matter is one where reasonable men can differ."

I won't answer for others, but I see them as evil of the old "banality of evil" sort. They tend to be narrowly focused, with the true focus being their own navel. They will insist on their own "morality" and that the use of force to get all to give (read government) is true justice, redistributing everything until it is "fair". Just like their close relatives the fascists, they will insist they are simply sticking to the letter of the law as they tear society down around them. Do I hate them? Of course not. Hate the sin, not the sinner. I just won't ever trust them to have anyone other than their self interest at heart and fully expect for them to wreak havoc on those they are claiming to help.

Blogger RobertT June 20, 2013 12:45 PM  

As the smarter starlets in the 20s and 30s knew, scandal makes you more interesting and famous, and it attracts tons more to find out what the dust up is all about. It certainly didn't hurt Edna St. Vincent Millay any in this regard. She rode it to fame and fortune. Scandal can damage you only if you retreat or demonstrate uncertainty. Obviously, this isn't advice you need, but just for the sake of saying it, as long as you remain absolutely resolute, these ankle biters will fall away like dust in a hurricane.

Anonymous Jill June 20, 2013 12:45 PM  

This also aligns with my experience. I'm frankly tired of being emotionally manipulated by liberals. But, for the record, I've had very conservative people delete my comments from their blogs for not being sufficiently nice or in line with their beliefs; however, I've never had conservatives de-friend me on the internet or scream at me in person as I've experienced with liberals. And I've also found that Christian libertarians are often just conservatives in disguise who are disgruntled with the Obama administration. On the other hand, couching my language in all of the above terms is, in a sense, just defining myself as a member in the third group. This makes me uncomfortable. I don't like aligning myself with groups for the reason that tribal affiliation often shuts down honest, intellectual discourse."Belonging" is a feel-good value for many people.

Blogger RobertT June 20, 2013 12:47 PM  

It'd be appropriate to send them a thank you note for advancing your fame and fortune.

Anonymous CLK June 20, 2013 12:53 PM  

VS says "I think it's provably incorrect and a childish tactic. We not only think the SFWA leftists are wrong, we know they are. We can logically prove it. They may or may not be evil. And we do think the matter is one where reasonable men can differ for a variety of reasons, most of which are related to ignorance."

(1) I am always confused by what appears to be a shifting position on logical thought vs faith. Belief in God is established by faith, not logical thought (although there are great fathers of the church that tried to establishing the existence of God through logical arguments)

(2) The liberal view (good, bad, evil, misguided - no judgement's by me here ) is colored by a moral view that comes from Christianity and the supposed teachings of Christ .. many times in the past we have argued here this here.

(3) So how can a liberal, who views are colored by and based on a system that has a basis in faith and no logical thought argue effectively against a libertarian whom is only arguing from what can logical be justified through proven reason.

(4) and then how can people fault the argument of a liberal and its weakness if they themselves use that same faith based argue for the existence of God.

(5) There is no evil or good within the realms of logical thought (remember VD have made that point again and again against the atheists position of following their own gold rules) so a libertarian making a logical argument would not use the term evil or good.

(6) What J C wright wrote is an opinion... nothing more or less and its correctness is only to the extent that it matched what VD experienced.. I sure I can find smart and dumb, good and evil, this and that of any of the three classes of (liberal, libertarians, conservatives). Its an opinion that is not proven and thus an argument based on this in only that logical and true...

Anonymous bob k. mando June 20, 2013 12:53 PM  

i'm really glad i found John C. Wright in the book stacks.

his books have expansive vocabularies ( i am occasionally forced to look words up in the dictionary ), a deep grounding in Latin, Greek and the Greco-Roman pantheon ( i've been induced to wiki several of the minor characters for the background mythology ) and he tends to follow the implications of his ideas through to the bitter end.

his books are challenging in the best way: they stimulate my curiosity to learn more about the world.

it's been a long time since i've seen a writer like this.

Blogger El Borak June 20, 2013 12:54 PM  

[cont.] The conservative and the libertarian conservative are in agreement as to the problems that are caused by weak families, out-of-wedlock births, and the like. The political question in these progressive-dominated times is always, "what are *we* going to do about it?"

The conservative answers, "we should use the tax code to encourage marriage and home ownership, make it difficult for people to get divorced, ensure that the children of divorce receive support from both parents...." In other words, modern conservatives, like the progressives with whom they share many assumptions, propose all manner of coercive or at least collective solutions to "our" problem.

The conservative libertarian answers, "*We* are not going to do anything. I'm going to adopt my daughter's out-of-wedlock child, home-school my kids*, and do whatever else it takes to ensure that my family does not suffer the problems we all identify."

The former agrees with the latter's solutions but is convinced they are not enough. tTe latter is sure the former's programs are unable to solve the problem and, being collective and coercive, will probably exacerbate the problem. Time will tell who is correct, I suppose.

* inverse relationship between those two, I suspect

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 12:55 PM  

" I don't like aligning myself with groups for the reason that tribal affiliation often shuts down honest, intellectual discourse."Belonging" is a feel-good value for many people."

Don't bother to strive to be, or trying to pretend you're, above the in-group out-group thing. None of us are. None of us ever will be.

Anonymous Stilicho June 20, 2013 12:58 PM  

Is it possible to be a libertarian conservative?

Yes. The libertarian conservative accepts the value of institutions and especially long-lasting voluntary institutions. Where the conservative libertarian must part ways with the conservative is when the latter starts using the institution to coercively mold or improve the member.

For example, the libertarian conservative understands and values marriage. He understands and values strong families. He does not, like the conservative, conclude therefrom that the government ought to promote marriage or strengthen families.


Chili

Blogger El Borak June 20, 2013 12:58 PM  

bkm: it's been a long time since i've seen a writer like this.

I just bought one of his books, so we'll soon find out.

Anonymous Lana June 20, 2013 12:59 PM  

This was an interesting article in light of this discussion:

"Church became all about ceremony, handholding, and kumbaya," Phil said with a look of disgust. "I missed my old youth pastor. He actually knew the Bible."

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/listening-to-young-atheists-lessons-for-a-stronger-christianity/276584/

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:03 PM  

"He does not, like the conservative, conclude therefrom that the government ought to promote marriage or strengthen families."

Then he isn't a conservative. Conservatives, in these terms, DO support the use of government force to promote the institutions that keep the barbarians away.

In this case... he would be a libertarian.

Blogger Joel June 20, 2013 1:08 PM  

Nate: Being a murderous satan-worshiping calvinist it appears to be perfectly reasonable for you to take that position.

What I find hilarious, Nate, is that when it comes to the issue of Calvinism, you turn into an emotional liberal.

Nate: After all... why offend the damned? They are damned. Let us all await our pre-determined fate with grace.

Continually resorting to logical fallacies is a sure sign you don't have the truth on your side. I see strawman arguments like this from Arminians/Pelagians all the time. You'd think that if they had the truth of Scripture on their side they wouldn't have to misrepresent their opponents' arguments like they so often do.

Calvinists don't claim they know who is reprobate and who is not; that knowledge is for God alone. Calvinists preach the gospel to all men precisely because they do not know who is elect and who is not.

Having been corrected on this point, I'm sure you won't use this strawman argument again. But I won't hold my breath.

Blogger stareatgoatsies June 20, 2013 1:17 PM  

In EVERY discussion I've ever had with liberals/leftists about HBD, I've never encountered a single one who offered a fact that actually countered my argument, such as "In California, the black-white performance gap has been eliminated through progressive teaching methods."

In Whiteville primary school, the black-white performance gap was ('98-'02) substantially reduced through traditional teaching methods.

Not exactly what you were looking for, but certainly relevant.

Anonymous Jill June 20, 2013 1:18 PM  

"Don't bother to strive to be, or trying to pretend you're, above the in-group out-group thing. None of us are. None of us ever will be."

I'm not above it. I'm uncomfortable with it and don't like it. Those were the terms I used. And I prefer to remain uncomfortable because I don't want to shut down my own thinking faculties and/or morals for feel-good belonging.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:20 PM  

"Calvinists don't claim they know who is reprobate and who is not; that knowledge is for God alone. Calvinists preach the gospel to all men precisely because they do not know who is elect and who is not."

Logic is hard.

If elect, then preaching doesn't matter.

If not elect, then preaching doesn't matter.

Thus...

Preaching doesn't matter.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:23 PM  

"I'm not above it. I'm uncomfortable with it and don't like it."

Oxygen is explosive. Explosions can kill people.

I wish my body didn't run on oxygen.

Anonymous Daniel June 20, 2013 1:24 PM  

Calvinists don't claim they know who is reprobate and who is not; that knowledge is for God alone. Calvinists preach the gospel to all men precisely because they do not know who is elect and who is not.

It's like a spiritual game of "button, button, God's got the button," and explains why Calvinists have a tendency to evangelize and re-evangelize the saved. After all, you literally never know when it is going to take.

By the way "continually resorting to logical fallacies is a sure sign you don't have the truth on your side" is...

...a logical fallacy. There is absolutely no reason why someone defending the actual truth would invalidate that truth by employing a fallacy.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:26 PM  

"...a logical fallacy. There is absolutely no reason why someone defending the actual truth would invalidate that truth by employing a fallacy."

Calvinist tries logic. hilarity ensues.

Anonymous Cederq June 20, 2013 1:28 PM  

Nate, being literal here, Oxygen is an accelerant, it is not explosive...

Anonymous VD June 20, 2013 1:29 PM  

(4) and then how can people fault the argument of a liberal and its weakness if they themselves use that same faith based argue for the existence of God.

There is your error. The answer is: because is not an identical amount of evidence for and against all arguments. Arguments for the existence of God where the evidence is insufficient to prove anything one way or the other is very different than arguments where the evidence is both sufficient and conclusive.

Anonymous Alexander June 20, 2013 1:31 PM  

A fair point.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:33 PM  

And just in case you thought my position that preaching shouldn't matter to the calvinist is un-biblical... I give you...

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. - Luke 19:40

Creation itself will call out to the elect! The elect aren't saved by your preaching you arrogant totally depraved reprobate! They are saved by God and God alone!

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:34 PM  

"Nate, being literal here, Oxygen is an accelerant, it is not explosive..."

zip it.

Blogger Vox June 20, 2013 1:35 PM  

There is absolutely no reason why someone defending the actual truth would invalidate that truth by employing a fallacy.

Of course there is. He might be using rhetoric rather than dialectic, he might not understand the fallacy, or he might have accidentally stumbled upon to the truth by accident. I've seen people defend sound positions with flawed arguments here practically every day.

More importantly, employing a fallacy in defense of a truth does not invalidate the truth defended. Something is not only true so long as its defenders are sufficiently skilled in logic.

Anonymous Cederq June 20, 2013 1:37 PM  

Well, if you going to use physics to make your point, at least be factual and arrogant at the same time, ya old goat flucker...

Anonymous TJ June 20, 2013 1:38 PM  

I have a liberal friend that loves to boast on facebook that she is an "emotional thinker" and brag
about having a "heart" for people. I truly wonder what emotions she "thinks" with ... I doubt it is love because love is work.

A society built on well reasoned principles is now being de-civilized by abandoning reason for emotions ... and the rabbits celebrate themselves.

Blogger Bob Wallace June 20, 2013 1:38 PM  

Liberals are almost entirely emotional but think they are rational. They also think that anyone who disagrees with them isn't just mistaken, but evil. You know, sexist, racist, ageist, lookist...whatever.

Blogger jamsco June 20, 2013 1:41 PM  

""There is absolutely no reason why someone defending the actual truth would invalidate that truth by employing a fallacy."

Of course there is. He might be using rhetoric rather than dialectic, he might not understand the fallacy, or he might have accidentally stumbled upon to the truth by accident."

Vox, I think you grabbed the wrong quote here. Aren't you agreeing with Daniel?

Anonymous MarkP June 20, 2013 1:43 PM  

Wright's quite accurate insights have been concisely summarized for some time as Krauthammer's Law:

"To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil." Charles Krauthammer

Blogger Joel June 20, 2013 1:47 PM  

Preaching doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. Preaching brings glory to God. It is the primary way through which God saves (Romans 10:17). God could use (and from time to time does use) other means to convert the elect, but he has chosen the preaching of his word as the normative method.

Why preach if the ultimate salvation of the elect is predetermined? Because God commands us to preach; because the word of God brings glory to God and does not return void. Is that not enough?

Why follow God's commandments? Because Romans 6.

Theology is hard.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:49 PM  


"Liberals are almost entirely emotional but think they are rational. They also think that anyone who disagrees with them isn't just mistaken, but evil."

I don't know... there is an aspect of it that is being missed. Liberals also think if you were just as smart as they were, you'd agree with them. If you were just as educated as they were, you'd agree with them.

If you ARE as smart as they are... and you ARE as educated as they are... and you still disagree with them... Then you are evil.

Anonymous Daniel June 20, 2013 1:51 PM  

Vox, I think you grabbed the wrong quote here. Aren't you agreeing with Daniel?

It's a confusing quote. What I meant was that a logical fallacy does not invalidate the truth or fact that it defends. The "correct" people use logical fallacies all the time.

However, the quote could be read in a way opposite of what I intended to write: that it isn't linguistically (or maybe rhetorically) possible for someone to defend the truth and use a logical fallacy somehow. In other words, a truth-teller has no motive to employ fallacy. Of course, I believe the opposite. Most people, right and wrong, utilize fallacies on an almost constant basis, in general.

tl;dr - The Few. The Proud. The Dialectic.

Anonymous JA June 20, 2013 1:52 PM  

John C. Wright ... what has he written ... and what has he written that's GOOD?

Anonymous JartStar June 20, 2013 1:52 PM  

Because God commands us to preach;

It's not like the one doing the preaching has any choice in the matter.

Joel, did God per-ordane the Elect before or after the fall?

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:52 PM  

"Theology is hard."

its not theology that's your problem mate... ok.. that's not true. Theology absolutely is your problem... what with you defending mass murdering satan worshipers and all... but your problem here is your failure to grasp the context.

In terms of saving the elect... the preaching is irrelevant. They will or will not be saved regardless of preaching.

Don't take it up with me. Take it up with the Satan worshipers.

Anonymous Iain Johnston June 20, 2013 1:53 PM  

"...a logical fallacy. There is absolutely no reason why someone defending the actual truth would invalidate that truth by employing a fallacy."

This is correct, but if the person in possession of the truth employs fallacies on a continual basis, we would be justified according to the balance of the probabilities in assuming that his "truth" was nothing of the sort. Truth usually stands up well enough on its own.

I find for example that most ideas which require insulting or making personal assumptions about dissenters are likely to be ill-founded. It's not the insult that invalidates the argument, it's the fact that the insult pretty much is the argument.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:53 PM  

"John C. Wright ... what has he written ... and what has he written that's GOOD?"

The essay linked in this post.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:55 PM  

"I find for example that most ideas which require insulting or making personal assumptions about dissenters are likely to be ill-founded. "

Does a cake stop being a cake if you fail to put the icing on it?

If I put icing on a cake... is it still a cake?

Or is the icing irrelevant to the nature of the cake?

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 1:56 PM  

"Well, if you going to use physics to make your point, at least be factual and arrogant at the same time, ya old goat flucker..."

ya mean Chemistry right?

Anonymous JA June 20, 2013 1:57 PM  

"The essay linked in this post."

I meant books. What BOOKS has he written ... and what BOOKS has he written that's GOOD?

Anonymous Tallen June 20, 2013 2:00 PM  

Does a cake stop being a cake if you fail to put the icing on it?

If you drizzle enough icing to sculpt Jabba the Hutt over the cake, nobody can tell at first glance it's a cake. I think that is where Iain Johnston is going with this, but he forgot to mention the importance of context.

Anonymous VD June 20, 2013 2:04 PM  

I find for example that most ideas which require insulting or making personal assumptions about dissenters are likely to be ill-founded. It's not the insult that invalidates the argument, it's the fact that the insult pretty much is the argument.

You're conflating two different things there.

Blogger Joel June 20, 2013 2:05 PM  

Nate: Creation itself will call out to the elect!

You're confusing the metaphysical with practical means. Of course God being God can save using many different means. For Saul it was a blinding light and a voice from heaven. But for most he has chosen the plain hearing of his word, preached by fallen yet regenerate preachers. Again, see Romans 10.

Nate: The elect aren't saved by your preaching you arrogant totally depraved reprobate! They are saved by God and God alone!

This is a strange charge to level at a Calvinist. Do you even know what Calvinism is?

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 2:07 PM  

"I meant books. What BOOKS has he written ... and what BOOKS has he written that's GOOD?"

Books that is good?

...

really?

Blogger Thomas Ryan June 20, 2013 2:08 PM  

@Josh:

"That's because you're a very nice person who believes that the most important thing anyone can every do is to be nice to everyone. Because Jesus was nice."

Point to the section in the New Testament where Jesus was nice. He displayed compassion, but he was never "nice"

Anonymous A,.Catholic June 20, 2013 2:08 PM  

"Do you even know what Calvinism is?"

Yes, it is "God" controlling me like a puppet.

Calvinist say "god controls when I go poopie"

Pathetic. Worse than leftists.

Anonymous Leonidas June 20, 2013 2:09 PM  

Jamsco: When is the last time you've tried this? Did it go worse than your rhetorical activities of late?

This right here falls back to exactly what Wright was talking about. "Did it go worse..." By what metric? Jamsco's metric is quite obviously that the discussion must be going badly because people have stopped being nice. Vox's metric, as he's stated clearly many times, is a) standing by what he believes to be the truth no matter what and b) winning over more people. That Vox has achieved A is self evident. His rise in page views is testimony that he's achieving B.

So what, exactly, would "go better" for Vox if he switched back to dialectic rather than rhetoric? There might be a bit less of people "being mean." Not being a rabbit person, Vox doesn't care.

The important point to note is that Vox is winning here. Not because he's winning an argument, not because he's not backing down to the rabbit people, but because he's pursuing goals that are ENTIRELY UNRELATED to what his opponents think he's using and completely unrelated to what they think he should be using. More to the point, they're mostly incapable of even understanding what goals he's actually trying to achieve. They think they're winning because they're pursuing the Hippity-Hoppity goal of ostracizing him, and achieving decent results within their own rabbity colony. All the while, Vox is just playing an entirely different game altogether.

I recognize the tactic clearly because I use it every time my sister-in-law tries to play stupid games with me and my wife, and it works like a charm every single time. Every. Single. Time.

My name is Leonidas, and I approve this method of castrating rabbits.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 2:09 PM  

"This is a strange charge to level at a Calvinist. Do you even know what Calvinism is?"

Yes. I do.

Do you know what sarcasm is?

Blogger Joel June 20, 2013 2:10 PM  

Daniel: ...a logical fallacy. There is absolutely no reason why someone defending the actual truth would invalidate that truth by employing a fallacy.

I was missing a "probably" in there. But my point--which was valid--still stands. Those who routinely resort to lies in defense of their position most likely do not have the truth on their side. Especially when we're talking about Christians, who are to be truthful in all things, even in their arguments in defense of biblical truth.

Anonymous sprach von Teufelhunden June 20, 2013 2:11 PM  

As Duff and Harris prove their astuteness on the matter ( 06-19-13), Liberals are neither libertarian or truly progressive. To the chagrin of Thom Hartmann, the SFWA, et al, a 21st Century Liberal is a Communist and worse, a Bolshevik (to the chagrin of the majority of Russian Social Democrats) ...

Anonymous Cederq June 20, 2013 2:11 PM  

Chemistry is physics, you know the physical world...
Biology is physics, geology is physics... etc, etc.

Blogger Joel June 20, 2013 2:16 PM  

Nate: Do you know what sarcasm is?

Well, I figured you were being sarcastic, but I wasn't sure. You've already proven ignorance concerning other tenets of Calvinist thought, which was why I was hesitant whether or not to take you seriously.

Anonymous zen0 June 20, 2013 2:17 PM  

See? Field trip.

Anonymous Cederq June 20, 2013 2:18 PM  

Some get on the long bus, some the short bus...

Blogger Scott June 20, 2013 2:20 PM  

Living in the sf bay area in software I work with predominantly liberally minded people. You might think that engineers and scientists from top schools would be logically minded in their political point of view and therefore tend to be conservatives. But you'd be wildly wrong. My observation over the years is that they are more liberal than average and fall in line with just about every aspect the socialist agenda from taxes to global warming to race to healthcare. They are otherwise very intelligent human beings. My hypothesis is that a man's level of reasoning power has nothing to do with whether or not he chooses socialism, instead it's the measure of independence and, for lack of a better term,

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 2:20 PM  

" You've already proven ignorance concerning other tenets of Calvinist thought, which was why I was hesitant whether or not to take you seriously."

I love how calvinists act like they have some fantastically complex theology. In that way they are very much like liberals. If we just understood we'd agree! really! we would!

What you've shown Joel... is that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 2:23 PM  

Point to the section in the New Testament where Jesus was nice. He displayed compassion, but he was never "nice"

You missed my point.

Blogger Joel June 20, 2013 2:23 PM  

Vox: More importantly, employing a fallacy in defense of a truth does not invalidate the truth defended. Something is not only true so long as its defenders are sufficiently skilled in logic.

Of course. But if the position is sound and the "ilk" defending it are as brilliant as many of them claim, then, well...I guess I expect better.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 2:25 PM  

I love how calvinists act like they have some fantastically complex theology.

Well they have that whole infinite wills of God thing...and that whole "this word can't mean what it means, it actually means something else" thing...

It's like multiverses in physics

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 2:28 PM  

"Of course. But if the position is sound and the "ilk" defending it are as brilliant as many of them claim, then, well...I guess I expect better."

You obviously missed Team Calvin being totally demolished. You're late to the party pal. Now we're just pissing on the ashes.

Anonymous JartStar June 20, 2013 2:29 PM  

You obviously missed Team Calvin being totally demolished. You're late to the party pal. Now we're just pissing on the ashes.

To be fair the end was never really reached in that debate, but they haven't had a good showing on the blog in general.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 2:29 PM  

I love it when Calvinists quote Romans.

No see All means all... except that one time when it says all it doesn't mean all... it means the elect.

because.

Blogger IM2L844 June 20, 2013 2:30 PM  

Belief in God is established by faith, not logical thought (although there are great fathers of the church that tried to establishing the existence of God through logical arguments)

The logical arguments for the existence of God do not 'prove' the existence of God. They prove that the existence of God is not implausible or logically inconsistent. Once that hurdle is cleared there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence that requires an awkward plethora of contrived alternate explanations from materialists in order to accommodate their worldview which then still gets sliced and diced by Occam's Razor.

Logic was how I arrived at the conclusion that God existed. After the fact, I placed my faith in the promises of God.

Blogger Nate June 20, 2013 2:30 PM  

"To be fair the end was never really reached in that debate, but they haven't had a good showing on the blog in general. "

oh please.

They got smashed.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick June 20, 2013 2:33 PM  

I wonder how many on both sides of the debate have actually read The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Anonymous Noah B. June 20, 2013 2:33 PM  

Very good essay. I only found one thing I would take serious exception to, which is the statement that "Liberals do not regard Libertarians as an institution, hence they are not instruments of oppression, so therefore there is no need to expostulate a theory concerning them."

(OK, I also object to calling them liberals -- von Mises was a liberal. Wright's "liberals" are leftists.)

Leftists are not content merely with abolishing long-standing institutions. They want to hijack those institutions and use their power and prestige to carry out grand social experiments; thus, in most cases, leftists are even more supportive of big government than conservatives. To leftists, any act that impedes their social experimentation ("progress") is oppressive, so libertarians' desire to dramatically weaken government is viewed merely as an anarchistic variety of oppression that, they fear, would inevitably result in a return to the unjust racial and sexual inequalities of the past. It does not seem to occur to leftists, however, that their anticipated outcome of limiting government power reveals that they do not genuinely believe in equality between the races and sexes. The power of government one believes is necessary to maintain "equality" and social order is directly proportional to one's own sense of inferiority.

Blogger Giraffe June 20, 2013 2:34 PM  

Calvinism doesn't make any sense.

God made me say that.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 20, 2013 2:38 PM  

Why follow God's commandments? Because Romans 6.

What if God preordained you to disobey? You know, like what He did to Adam.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 2:39 PM  

I wonder how many on both sides of the debate have actually read The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

I read a large portion of it when I was in high school.

Anonymous Noah B. June 20, 2013 2:39 PM  

"If you ARE as smart as they are... and you ARE as educated as they are... and you still disagree with them... Then you are evil."

This comes in lots of different flavors, too. Among why family members who are leftists, I would guess that most of them see me as selfish. They probably would not consider me outright evil, though.

Blogger IM2L844 June 20, 2013 2:40 PM  

oh please.

They got smashed.


...to smithereens...

Anonymous Desiderius June 20, 2013 2:43 PM  

Lana,

"Maybe a corelation, definitely not a causation. From my anecdotel experiences i know too many exceptions to that for me to believe the lack of a strong Patriarch is the root of all Liberal."

Thank you for the very interesting link.

The first function of the church is the cure of souls ravaged by sin and its consequences.

Niceness Churchianity (liberal or conservative) in its willful ignorance of sin is about as useful for the cure of souls as a faith healer is for a broken femur.

Blogger wrf3 June 20, 2013 2:44 PM  

Nate wrote: If we just understood we'd agree! really! we would!

Maybe, maybe not. People can understand things and not agree with them. Some people would rather hold to the illusion of free will than accept the truth that God is, in fact, utterly in control.

Your brain, and therefore your thoughts, are subject to the laws of physics. And the laws of physics are not yours to control.

Anonymous Daniel June 20, 2013 2:47 PM  

I have read the Institutes, as well as a terrible translation of Christianismi Restitutio. It is a most fascinating juxtaposition. One of the areas that I had the most difficulty in CR was an initial gross misinterpretation of Servetus' view on pantheism (He emphatically opposes. I couldn't comprehend the book well enough to understand that at first. I mistook his differentiation of Christianity from pantheism for a harmonization.)

Blogger The Deuce June 20, 2013 2:47 PM  

I've got an example of a liberal engaging in argument right here on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo

Now whaddya say to THAT, Vox?

Anonymous Daniel June 20, 2013 2:48 PM  

Your brain, and therefore your thoughts, are subject to the laws of physics. And the laws of physics are not yours to control.

What about those thoughts that come from the heart? Is not the heart subject o physics, as well?

Anonymous Desiderius June 20, 2013 2:48 PM  

"I wonder how many on both sides of the debate have actually read The Institutes of the Christian Religion."

I have, closely, in a professional capacity.

The squabbling re: Calvinism here is unbecoming the ilk.

The tougher the times, the more reassuring the Sovereignty of God is to the faithful. See the Psalms.

The easier, the more readily the doctrine breeds abuse. See Israel after David. Or the cheap grace that drowns us today.

That is all.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 20, 2013 2:49 PM  

Some people would rather hold to the illusion of free will than accept the truth that God is, in fact, utterly in control.

Yes. We obey because we don't obey. That is right. Obedience does not mean what it means.

Blogger El Borak June 20, 2013 2:49 PM  

Then he isn't a conservative. Conservatives, in these terms, DO support the use of government force to promote the institutions that keep the barbarians away.

Actually, modern conservatives use the power of the state to keep in place the innovations of the prior generation of liberals. A modern conservative is the guy who is opposed to an increase in the minimum wage, but is similarly opposed to its elimination. He opposed the current rate when it was a proposed rate but supports it now that it's the current rate.

Someone higher up in the thread was bragging that progressives have won everything for the past hundred years - this is the reason. Conservatives only oppose today's progressives; they are the previous generation of progressives' greatest defenders. You will find them defending half the societal innovations of the 60s, most of the innovations of the 30s, and everything proposed since the 1890s, as if bad ideas, like good wine, grow better with age.

Two generations after the barbarians tear the gates down, conservatives will be talking about how back in their day, they didn't have any fancy gates, and they liked it just fine.

Blogger wrf3 June 20, 2013 2:50 PM  

Nate wrote: Logic is hard.

For you, maybe.

If elect, then preaching doesn't matter.

You can't even get the start of your argument right, as you are confusing God's ends with God's means. Furthermore, Scripture says preaching matters: "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." [1 Cor 1:21}. So you are as ignorant of Scripture as you are of logic.

Since your argument doesn't even get off the ground, the rest is irrelevant.

Anonymous Desiderius June 20, 2013 2:50 PM  

Lana,

Mispaste - meant to refer to the atheist link.

Anonymous Jill June 20, 2013 2:50 PM  

"Oxygen is explosive. Explosions can kill people.

I wish my body didn't run on oxygen."

Oxygen is explosive given certain circumstances. It is always explosive when compressed in cylinders. It is very reactive even when not compressed. It is, likewise, necessary for life. Tribal affiliations are not necessary for life. A man from one tribe can have sex with a woman from another tribe and create life. Tribal affiliations are, rather, a natural proclivity or tendency of humankind. Their only resemblance to oxygen is in their propensity toward group explosions given the right set of circumstances. And I'm guessing that those group explosions often come down to too much hot air, thereby causing spontaneous inflammatory events.

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 2:51 PM  

Your brain, and therefore your thoughts, are subject to the laws of physics. And the laws of physics are not yours to control.

Shut up

Anonymous Joey Wheels June 20, 2013 2:53 PM  

THE FATE OF EMPIRES AND SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL by Sir John Glubb

Blogger wrf3 June 20, 2013 2:54 PM  

Toby Temple wrote: What if God preordained you to disobey? You know, like what He did to Adam.

You know, like, He did. Or are you unaware of Romans 11:32. Something about "imprisoned all under disobedience..." Everyone has been preordained to disobey. Not every one has been preordained to believe.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 20, 2013 2:56 PM  

You can't even get the start of your argument right, as you are confusing God's ends with God's means. Furthermore, Scripture says preaching matters: "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." [1 Cor 1:21}. So you are as ignorant of Scripture as you are of logic.

Dammit, wrf3. Are you really that fanatical to your dogma that you cannot even see the irony of your comment?

Anonymous Josh June 20, 2013 2:57 PM  

Actually, modern conservatives use the power of the state to keep in place the innovations of the prior generation of liberals. A modern conservative is the guy who is opposed to an increase in the minimum wage, but is similarly opposed to its elimination. He opposed the current rate when it was a proposed rate but supports it now that it's the current rate.Someone higher up in the thread was bragging that progressives have won everything for the past hundred years - this is the reason. Conservatives only oppose today's progressives; they are the previous generation of progressives' greatest defenders. You will find them defending half the societal innovations of the 60s, most of the innovations of the 30s, and everything proposed since the 1890s, as if bad ideas, like good wine, grow better with age.

This is why, within ten years, conservatives will be vigorously defending obamacare against proposals for universal healthcare. This is also why conservatives are starting to support gay marriage as an alternative to rampant gay male promiscuity.

The previous generation's defeats are championed ass victories by the current generation.

Also Chesterton's quip about conservatives and progressives and mistakes fits here.

Anonymous the bandit June 20, 2013 3:00 PM  

Noah B., good first sketch at correcting Mr. Wright's oversight of the liberal characterization of libertarians as dangerous anarchists. I also thought his analysis that liberals see libertarians as a non-entity was flawed; it likely arises from his more conservative experience.

Anonymous Noah B. June 20, 2013 3:00 PM  

"And the laws of physics are not yours to control."

Certainly not, but even modern physics claims that physics is not deterministic.

Anonymous Noah B. June 20, 2013 3:01 PM  

"This is why, within ten years, conservatives will be vigorously defending obamacare against proposals for universal healthcare."

They've already done that. It took about 10 minutes for "repeal" to turn into "repeal and replace."

Blogger The Deuce June 20, 2013 3:01 PM  

Josh in response to wrf3:

Your brain, and therefore your thoughts, are subject to the laws of physics. And the laws of physics are not yours to control.

Shut up


Go easy on him. He's not physically capable of being logically coherent, nor is he physically capable of even realizing that he's incoherent. It's not his to control.

Blogger wrf3 June 20, 2013 3:08 PM  

Noah B wrote: Certainly not, but even modern physics claims that physics is not deterministic.

Sure, but it doesn't help your position in the least. At the bottom, the universe is utterly random, It is both unpredictable and uncontrollable. It is God who brings order out of that chaos, not man.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 20, 2013 3:09 PM  

You know, like, He did. Or are you unaware of Romans 11:32. Something about "imprisoned all under disobedience..." Everyone has been preordained to disobey. Not every one has been preordained to believe.

~facepalm~

So He made everyone disobedient. Then started giving out commands knowing not a single soul is going to obey.

The calvinist god just gotten a lot crazier...

Anonymous Daniel June 20, 2013 3:09 PM  

Yes, championed ass victories, of course!

Actually, Josh, that's the perfect way to describe Republicans ongoing defense of the outgoing sloppy seconds: "championed ass victories" - that phrase gots chilli.

Championed Ass Victories in history:

Abortion "limits" (she's only got the right to kill them sooner rather than later!)
Welfare "reform" (shift the subsidy leftward and call it a cut!)
Tax "relief" (jerrymander the code until the base says "Ahhh!" and doesn't happen to be the group to which the burden was shifted for the moment)
Public school "choice" (Buchenwald or Dachau? YOU Decide!)

1 – 200 of 269 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts