EXPOSING FALSE MYTHS
September 27, 20106:03 pm
Exposing two prevalent myths: “Bush Lied People Died” (AND) “Abortion is not murder.”
When I was a younger man I used to wonder if liberals really believed what they say that they believe? I mean, most of what they say is so incongruous with how they actually live... it seemed to me (at that time) that they must not actually believe what they are espousing. And it seemed so dishonest of them. I mean, you might fool someone else into thinking that you actually believe something... but, how could you live with yourself knowing that you are always living a life of deception? However, after years of debating with people who are confessed liberals... I have come to a different conclusion. I think, for the most part, they are only “sound-byte educated”... and “personality addicted.” And both of these failings allow them to live a duplicitous life... because they are not even aware that what they say that they hold as sacred beliefs, can so very easily and with no hard research be shown to be patently false.
They don't seem to have any great knowledge in the liberal policies that they say they believe. I say this because when you are writing or speaking to them about any topic that they supposedly care passionately about... they always seem to know less than you do about their own liberal philosophies. That is why I say that they are “sound-byte educated.” Other than a few mantras they have memorized that sounds catchy... they have no depth of knowledge. And this lack of knowledge that I am writing about has to do with their own stated beliefs!
I believe for the most part that liberals are also “personality addicted.” Here is what I mean. Fifty years ago yesterday was the first of four scheduled televised debates between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. If you were only to read the transcripts of what was said by each contestant, then (according to polling data) Richard Nixon came out a clear winner. Polls which were also conducted at that time by people who only heard the debate on radio, said, by a wide-margin that Richard Nixon was the clear winner. However, what do you think happened with the polls that were done with television viewers? By a wide-margin... they said Kennedy was the clear winner! Why? Kennedy was younger and robust looking and Nixon was frail-looking. It didn't matter what was said... only that Kennedy was a nicer looking man!
At least since the advent of television... and for liberals in general, it apparently does not matter what candidates say or what they actually believe... it only matters if they look good saying it and if they can put their beliefs into a catchy saying which can be easily memorized.
I both like debate and research, and because of that I enjoy engaging people who hold views which are polar-opposite to my own. Several years ago and after I decided to write a book about religion I knew that I needed to go into the enemies camp and engage them in dialogue. I figured the best way to do this was to go on as many websites as I could which promoted agnosticism and atheism as I could find.
Over the course of the next several weeks... do you know what I found? They were no different than any other liberals I had spoken to in the past. They were not better informed about their beliefs or lack thereof. After a week I was known enough that when I entered a chat-room, immediately... many signed off. And only because I had been on there regularly posting information that they could not easily answer. They just were not well-prepared. They would know a few names of personalities which they admired and they had memorized some quotes this person might have said... but, that's about as deep in THEIR OWN STATED BELIEFS as they could go. I set up another account with a new name and made my way back through many of the same websites and with the exact same results as the first time. Many of them knew so little that their (supposedly) strongly held beliefs quickly fell apart.
I have recently been involved in a discussion on FB which has now become the second-longest post and with the second largest number of participants that I have personally been involved. The first would have been a thread with the subject matter “vegetarianism” about a year ago. One writer, on this post, in particular brought up two separate subjects that I answered in a very long post of my own. I have decided to reproduce her letter and my answer on this blog.
The only thing I am going to do, whenever I copy anyone's post to reproduce here, I am removing their name. Now, legally I don't have to do this. When they are directly engaging me and it is in a public forum... I am free to reproduce what is stated as long as I do not alter it. As a courtesy only, because I am not trying to embarrass anyone, I am removing their name. However, that is not to say that I do not have their name and the full script of any particular post I am involved in. I do this so that none can later say that I said something which I did not. I hope you enjoy as I expose two falsehoods that are commonly reported among liberals: BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED ….... ABORTION IS NOT MURDER
Now, her letter:
****** wrote:
"As a woman and the mother of four I chose to give life. You same people that
want every child born could care less about that life once breath is drawn! That
is the hypocrisy of those of you who want to butt into a womans right to bring
forth life or not. You say life begins at conception, I say if it can't live
outside of the womb and as an embryo, it can't then it is not a life. It is the
beginning of life.
I digress, I wonder did you support the invasion of Iraq? I ask because I did
not, yet those that did, didn't mind the President lying to us about Iraq, were
more than willing, nay, eager to sacrifice the life of my son and hundreds of
thousands of other American children. At the same time, you are against the
social programs that assure our children are fed!
So you can vote based on Abortion. My question is why do you trust the GOP to do
away with a womans Constitutional right to chose! They had the majority in
Congress for 12 years, 8 with a republican President and a Supreme Court that
was right leaning. Yet they did not undo a womans right to choose. You know why
Robin, they don't care, they never did. It was a means to an end and you are
proof that thier schemes worked. Make no mistake, you will never see an end to
an woman's right to choose, at least I pray you will not. AND further, I will
take judgement from God but not from you or anyone else. You worry about your
immortal soul and I will worry about mine! This is why religion and politics
don't mix Robin. You want less government but you want the government to
legislate our morals. No thanks, they aren't morally qualified and neither are you!"
What follows was my answer to her:
******, I will try to answer each of the points that you made in the order they were given. If, after reading this post you decide to respond... I ask that you show the same courtesy and answer each of the points I make... and not just those you might want to answer?
You paint with a large brush when you say... "You same people that want every child born could care less about that life once breath is drawn! That is the hypocrisy of those of you who want to butt into a womans right to bring forth life or not...”
To be fair... I'm not altogether who you are speaking about in the line... “you same people”... if though you mean myself or our family who does want to see every child brought to birth, which has been born in the womb... then I can assure you that you are greatly mistaken. For an example: In our immediate family we have four adoptions, two boys and two girls: and just outside our immediate family, my brother also adopted a little black baby nearly thirty years ago. She, today, is married with children of her own and she lives just a couple of blocks over from where my wife and I live. We, our daughters and their husbands regularly reach out and help families who are in crisis with their children. Our two oldest daughters have been involved in foster-care for a number of years and their homes have been open on a moment's notice to take in children whose parents are incapable of doing so at that time. So, we... those cruel and hard-hearted Republican church-goers do put our money, time and compassion in actually reaching out and trying to make a difference in someone's life.
Also, it is certainly okay to hold your personal belief about when life begins... however, ask a geneticist
and they will beg to differ:
(A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.)
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.
(Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception.)
Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a co-founder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.
Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”
In his film, “The Silent Scream,” Nathanson later stated, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.” Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader. At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts. (******, you can still view the film of the little girl online that he was killing during the abortion procedure (with vacuum aspiration) and what he saw that caused him to quit murdering un-birthed little children.)
Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male-and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,
I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.
The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:
The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.
The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” summarized the issue this way:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
(******, please keep in mind also that many of these people are not religious and not basing their views on the Bible... just what they can see under a microscope. Simply stated that is from the moment of conception, every single thing is contained in that single cell which your body will ever have... no more DNA or anything else is ever added or needed: nurture and growth is all that remains. All babies from that single dot... “are informationally complete.”)
So, as I said earlier, it is okay to hold whatever belief you want... just don't ask a geneticist, religious or atheist... what they believe... because they will disagree with you, life begins at conception! Please carefully read the next statement... and keep in mind this is a senate committee and every person was testifying under oath. I know that idea doesn't mean very much to someone like Bill Clinton, but for most normal people testifying under oath means people are going to be truthful.
A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”
Keep in mind, because these were scientist who were testifying, even those who thinks it's okay to kill babies in the womb, refused to say that life began at any other time than conception! Not one single witness!!!
Also, are you aware that even the United States government recognizes un-birthed children still in their mother's womb as human beings? And no, I don't mean 1972 America... today 2010 America. I'll prove that to you. Take a few minutes and search online at how many people have been prosecuted and sent to prison for killing either a pregnant woman or her un-birthed baby. They are not charged with one murder... but two! I even read of one case a few minutes ago where the mother survived the attack, but unfortunately her un-birthed baby died. She has been prosecuted for the baby's death inside her mother's womb... and this murderer is now facing twenty years in prison! So, even our own government as wicked as it might be at times... recognizes a baby inside the womb of their mother as a complete human being and they can and have often prosecuted people who have taken away that child's life.
That part concluded my thoughts to ****** in proving from all available medical evidence that human life is conferred at conception!
I wish I had been a speech writer in the White House during George Bush's presidency. Since that was never going to be... if I could I would very much like to ask him even today... this one question. Why, in a State-of-the-Union address did he not make a similar declaration like this one: “Ladies and gentlemen, I want to take the next five minutes and read quotes from illustrious and distinguished colleagues from the other side of the aisle on the main reason I decided to send our brave men and women into Iraq. In part, I did it because two years before I became president... our former president William Jefferson Clinton said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was ready to use them, or to provide them to terrorists: and, of course, Hillary has stated that Saddam is building his nuclear program and is giving... aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...”
Then, Mr. Bush should have quoted the three dozen leading Democrats on Capitol Hill that were all saying the very same thing... many of them, years before Mr. Bush ever became president. Now, Mr. Bush would have had to do this during a State-of-the-Union address, else the liberal news stations would never have carried those remarks. Liberals only prosper when they can control what news gets spoken about. That is why I love the Internet!
(What follows is my proof to ****** that if Bush lied about Iraq and Saddam having weapons of mass-destruction, then he first learned it from the lying liberals. This was very easy to do as I just used quotes from liberal politicians stating the fact that Iraq had such weapons and they were even urging (at that time) president Clinton to bomb Iraq: of course, this was before Mr. Bush became president.)
(We) urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry on October 9, 1998. (Keep in mind, ******, this was long before George Bush even became president!) This particular letter was directed to your old buddy William Jefferson Clinton asking him to bomb Iraq! And the reason... because all of these leading Democrats said he had weapons of mass destruction!
******, more follows:
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos.
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998.
******, I have many more just like these. So, I have question for you... if Bush lied... where did he learn the lies from... all of these prominent Democrats all said the very same thing... years before Mr. Bush ever became president!!!
(Now, I finish my post to her and try to tie-up a few loose ends that she had alluded.)
And no... to answer your question, I hated the war... as I do all wars... though some are necessary!
Your next point leaves me scratching my head... what “social programs that feed our children” do you suspect that I am against? Since I have never written for or against any of them that I know about it makes me wonder... are you somehow prescient? Just kidding... but really, so that I might answer... what programs are you speaking about. I sincerely hope this is not just a sound-byte phrase picked up on MSNBC and passed on?
At the time I wrote several letters to leading and prominent men in churches trying to find a case that was worthy to try and test the waters to see if something could get through the lower courts and be picked up by our high-court to see if in fact Roe-v-Wade could get a second look and finally be overturned. Almost to a man they felt the court needed one more conservative leaning person to assure that it would be looked at on its legal merit alone. Because if that is ever done... looked at it on what it is supposed to guarantee, it would be overturned. If you doubt that, read the dissenting voice when it was enacted by Warren's high court. They, that liberal court, had to completely fabricate something which had never before existed... and certainly not in our Constitution... a woman's right to privacy. So. Yes, I was disappointed, but ever the optimist I do believe that one day it will again be illegal for a woman to kill an un-birthed child in her womb.
And your next point again does not seem to me to be coherent enough that I can answer. Where exactly and with what post did I “judge you?” However, perhaps you feel guilty over something... I don't know, but I am curious... can you quote back to me what it was I said that made you feel that I was judging you?
Finally... bet you're glad to see me say finally. I do not now nor have I ever wanted the government to “legislate our morals.” I already have morals which are based on the Bible. I would just like to see people on the left and the right behaving as if they have morals and not acting like an alley-cat in perpetual heat!
I appreciate your concern about my worrying over my soul. To be quite honest, out of all of the worries I might carry... that one never enters my mind. I settled that worry nearly 30 year ago when I asked Jesus the Christ, God's Son to save me. You see, I don't have a worry, because I have trusted His goodness and His shed blood to wash away my sins! Never-the-less, thanks... if it was genuine concern which caused you to write that last part. Now, at your convenience... I would be quite happy to read what you might write in response to this. Have a good-night.
(Forty-four hours later... I have not yet heard a response from her. However, I am still holding out hope that she might yet respond. But, to be honest... it's doubtful, I mean, how do you defend an indefensible position?)
Because I regularly berate Obama in my writings... at times I will get his defenders angrily writing to me. I'll post a couple from the same string.
A post from another dissatisfied liberal:
***** ****** @Robin L. Johnson - that must be some kick $@* crack YOU'RE smoking.
Why don't you just call the President the "n" word and get it over with?
(With this writer, because she already started with remarks that show she is woefully inadequate to be part of a thoughtful debate, I decide to toy with her a bit and egg her on. I also, charitably, cleaned up her language by using $@*.)
My answer to her:
***** ******, You have me at a bit of a disadvantage asking me to call Obama the "N" word without giving me a single clue as to which one. So, I'll do the best I can and think of as many words that start with the letter "N" that might apply. Please tell me if I guess the right one? How about nincompoop? Or, nappy? Or, nuts? Or, negative? Or, nasty? Or, nuisance? Or, noxious? Off the top of my head that is all I could think of that would apply to him that starts with the letter "N."... Did I guess the one you were thinking of... and if I didn't, could you please use it for me in a sentence? Because to be honest, I typically don't like playing games with imbecilic people: however, for you I'll make an exception.
(The first writer was so unprepared (surprise) that she dropped from the discussion with only one poorly thrown jab.)
A new writer takes her place: (Note: I am not mistaking the number of times I use * to denote a letter for her name: apparently she has kept her own last name and added her husband's name... you know, kind of like an afterthought. (lol)
******** ****** *********: Robin,..Nappy was close enough for me!
(Note: I have found a truth from years of engaging liberals in debate: and it is this... they will leap to defend a cause or an imagined sleight, without even understanding that no sleight was intended. Out of all of the words I used to describe Obama, “nappy” was the only one I typed that was not meant to mock him.)
My answer to the new writer:
********, Do you mean the definition of "nappy" taken verbatim from the dictionary: "nappy - (of hair) in small tight curls." If that's all you both were looking for... why didn't you just say it?
(Note: You can tell by her next answer that this person is starting to get very confused. She is now wondering if I am serious or not or just playing with her? Of course, the original writer who thinks I might be smoking crack (lol) was trying to get me to type a particular word in describing Obama... I decided to goad her and force her to say it instead... sadly, she chickened out early in our discourse. However, now I am somewhat stuck and I decide to continue with my original ruse of not understanding... although it was not intended for this writer... but for the first ill-informed person who commented.)
Her answer:
******** ****** *********: Robin,..because I would never have thought of it,..that's why.
I think this string is full of games and anger and name calling, no one is listening and no one is learning. There is nothing for me to say here!
(Because I thought this particular writer comported herself well, and did not engage in derogatory name-calling, I decided to quit adding any further comments on this particular thread. In reality, all that she had done was leap to the erroneous conclusion that I had used a disparaging remark about Obama by referring to him as “nappy.” Of course, of the four found definitions in the dictionary for “nappy”... not a single one in any way could be construed as a disparaging comment toward him or anyone else. In fact, The few times in the last several years I have allowed my hair to grow to any length... I too could have been called “nappy” because of my own curly hair. It's sort of funny though, some of the other words I used to describe Obama... I actually did mean for them to reflect badly on his character: words like, nasty, negative, and noxious. Perhaps she didn't take me to task over those... because she also agrees with my assessment?)
My last answer to her:
********, I know exactly what you mean... I have been accused of "smoking crack." And this by a person I've never met and who knows nothing about me. Preposterous... don't you think? Although, I still might have a little more to say... for now I am going to go and watch the second-half of a football game. Enjoy!
Her final response:
I understand Robin, sometimes it is best to just walk away when a string gets out of control.
I am about to conclude this blog with the following thought and it will be an easy and tried-and-true way for you to see how prepared a person is in defending and (or) explaining why they believe... whatever it is that they say that they believe! I mean, if you believe something, anything, then by all means be prepared to defend and in no uncertain terms state why you believe it!
When you are facing people who only have beliefs because they heard them from their parents (or some politician who physically looks good and has a pocketful of jingles they can easily memorize) they all fall apart when you actually present facts to them and it seems to happen in three stages.
With this link I have been writing about I had offered to download some information that I felt would change some of these liberals falsely held beliefs. Instead of just downloading the information, I told them they would have to ask me to paste it in: I did this challenge more than once and in different sections of the thread... every single time my request was ignored: yet, other things I wrote in the same paragraph was remarked upon. Do you know why? It is because all of the liberals who were reading... and there were many, were afraid to see what proof I had. Now, does that sound like someone who has beliefs that are truly their own and they have enough knowledge to defend why they believe it? Of course not! Example: if any person were to say to me that I was wrong (about anything) and they could prove it... I would be begging to see what they had! It is because I know what I believe and I have thoroughly researched from every angle my beliefs and am prepared to vigorously defend what I know to be true.
Here, perhaps, is the biggest difference that I have found between a conservative and a liberal: at least as it relates to how we live with our beliefs. A liberal always seem to “doubt their beliefs and believe their doubts:” whereas a conservative tends to “believe their beliefs and doubt their doubts.” And make no mistake about it, as long as you have knowledge to support your beliefs... the last part is the right way to live: Believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts!
(What follows is what I wrote after I saw all three things happen with the people I had been debating with. I explained that years ago we were on a 50,000-watt radio station and the most popular segments, at least these were the ones we received the most mail and the most calls were generated, were the ones where people who held opposite beliefs to our own were debated. I soon came to see and understand a person's “tell.” This has happened often in my life and it always plays out exactly the same way. I will pick up where I am explaining to the two ladies when I can see that a person can no longer defend their own stated position )
****** ***** ...I always began to smile when the third of three things happened... sometimes quickly... and at other times it took awhile. When a person who holds ideas other than your own begins to run out of argument, or ideas: the devolution was always the same. Now, there is no particular order to the events, but they always seem to happen this way. They would decline, or ignore a challenge if it was offered... especially if they knew the proof was not going to look good for their cause. Then, they WOULD ALWAYS accuse you (me) of being judgemental, yet, how can they accuse me unless they ARE JUDGING. (lol) Finally, they would resort to name-calling... which is a childish thing to do and usually results from someone who is at that point bereft of fresh ideas. Can either of you guess if I am smiling at this point?
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com
posted by Robin Johnson @ 5:59 PM
