The Seven Bad Ideas of Leftism

Posted in Politics
Wed, Aug 6 - 9:00 am EDT | 4 years ago by
Comments: 98
Be Sociable, Share!
Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

The Wright Perspective - Seven Bad Ideas

Before we bid adieu to the topic, it behooves us to contrast the Seven Right Ideas of Conservativism (which have been discussed in this space over the past two months) with their opposition, and to say why the opposition is so vehement and implacable.

The cult of darkness variously known as Leftists, Liberals, Progressives, Brights, Socialists, Pinkos, Late Moderns, Collectivists, Traitors, Blame-America-Firsters, Political Correction Zombies, Statists and Shriekbunnies – but which I call the Morlocks, because they have the courtesy and dignity of devolved cannibal troglodytes – is controlled by a Seven Bad Ideas around which their various emotions and interjections orbit.

The Seven Bad Ideas are:

  1. Solipsism — the paradox that asserts that truth is personal, hence optional: “It is not true that truth is true.”
  2. Relativism — the paradox that asserts that virtue is subjective, situational, relative: “It is wrong for you to judge right and wrong.”
  3. Subjectivism — the paradox that asserts that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As if putting a urinal in an Art Museum, and betraying the standard somehow proves the standard wrong, not the betrayal.
  4. Irrationalism — the paradox that asserts reason is untrustworthy. Each man’s reason is too biased by upbringing, class self interest, sex, race, and background such that no one, aside from members of a given race and sex and victim group, can be expected to understand or advise other members of the victim group. Of course, reaching this conclusion from that premise is itself an act of reasoning, requiring the reasoner to trust his reason, despite the background and race and sex of the reasoner.
  5. Pervertarianism — the paradox that asserts it to be licit to seek the gratifications of sexual union of the reproductive act without the union, without the reproduction, and, in the case of sodomites, without the act. The same insane paradox asserts that females should be feminists rather than feminine; and that sexual predation is more romantic than romance.
  6. Totalitarianism — the paradox that asserts that freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength. The Constitution is a living, breathing document, ergo it must be smothered and killed.
  7. Nihilism — the paradox of that the meaning of life is that it has no innate meaning.

No proof is being offered here that Leftists believe these ideas or make these assertions. The reader can discover that for himself, merely by listening to them talk, reading their works, and reaching his own conclusion. If you cannot see it by reading what they say, you will not see it by my repeating what they say. Look for yourself.

No claim is here being made that these Seven Bad Ideas are rational, related to reality, or even comprehensible. This irrationality and unreality and incomprehensibility of the ideas is a feature, not a bug. Once logic has been dismissed as a tool of cognition, reflection and judgment are unnecessary, and the process of thought is greatly simplified. Instead of a levelheaded discussion such as Leftists, back when they were in the minority, were wont to pretend to want, the modern Leftist substitutes venom, vilification, sneers, slights, and self congratulation.

No claim is being made that all, or even most, of the individuals on the Left adhere to each of these Seven Bad Ideas. No one can. These are things various Leftists say in various debates to silence opposition, but little or no attempt is made to carry out any logical consequences of these ideas. Indeed, paradoxes have no logical consequences. In that respect, they are something like Zen koans. These Ideas are not thoughts, they are riddles meant to jam the gears of thought.

Why so vehement?

Looking back, one may note that the comments to the column on point six, romance versus perversion, reads like the transcript of the yowling at Bedlam. Before saying farewell to the topic, let us at least explain the vehemence of the cacophony.

Their word-noises are not meant to convince themselves or anyone. They are ritual repetitions of mumbo-jumbo phrases, meaningless words whose only meaning is as a gang-sign. By these bafflegab phrases, the members of the herd identify themselves to each other and proclaim their loyalty. By claiming that all polite and right-thinking persons should adopt these phrases they can make the herd seem larger than it is, by tricking the unwary, the craven, and the inattentive into repeating the gang-sign word-noises along with everyone else.

Anyone who does not low the word-noises on cue with the rest of the cows is ejected from the herd by expressions of scorn. Hence, the comments by Morlocks found here and elsewhere discussing conservative ideas contain not the smallest scintilla of logic. That is not their role. They are expressions of scorn meant to eject nonconformists.

But there is more in this case. To say that even sex is subject to the rules of prudence and justice is to provoke the Left to their utmost madness. Sex is their idol. Sex is their Mohammed. Sex is their golden calf and sacred cow.

Sex is an overwhelming pleasure, a union, and therefore (but woe to the Lefty who admits this) the closest thing the materially-minded man has to a religious experience and unity with the divine. Sex is innately mystical.

So when I made the outrageous claim that there is a right way and a wrong way to approach their great god, Eros, and that the right way was more fun, the Leftist paramount idea was challenged at the most fundamental level.

As you can see from the Seven Lame Ideas listed above, Leftism is perversion, both intellectual and legal, but also sexual and physical. Leftism is the parasite attempting to distort, maim, corrupt and kill its host.
That is all it does. It is not a worldview, but a mental process that destroys worldviews.

The Leftist process can only operate by equating two unequal things: calling food poison, calling inequality equality, calling normal abnormal, calling wage-earning slavery. Leftism is the perversion of calling evil good and good evil.

Leftism dulls the mental acuity. That is its purpose. You should read in the comments below the Romance column one poor soul unable to comprehend the idea of loving subordination as separate from servile obedience. I do not think the comments were in bad faith: the poor fool had been lobotomized by Leftist ideas, and had no categories, no vocabulary, no conceptual tools to grasp the obvious.

Calling good evil and evil good is a word game, not a worldview. The central idea of this word game is to call perversions equal to (or better than, because they are more brave) the wholesome, to call ugly better than beauty, to called sodomy better than matrimony.

So for me to utter the obvious truth (which I strongly suspect they all know but dare not acknowledge, hence their venom) that matrimony is more fun than sodomy or sexual predation is a direct attack on their highest and most sacred idol, perversion, had to be met by their one, sole, and only weapon: the utterly futile child-fury of name-calling.

They cannot form an argument because persons who can form arguments are not Lefties.

This did not used to be the case. I remember reading actual thoughts written down in a coherent order by persons who tried to persuade others by means of rhetoric and logic to their side. Now, a corner has been turned, and the Leftists feel no need to persuade, and apparently have lost the talent. So they nag.

Some commentators believe that abortion is the Lefty sacrament. But this would not be an issue were not sexual disorders sacred to them.

Why so Implacable?

The struggle of Leftism against civilization is pursued without quarter and without courtesy because what is at stake is an absolute.

It is their version of a crusade, a holy war. The Unholy War of the Left is not a struggle over one policy, one economic system, one set of social rules. They are fighting as one universe against another universe.

On the one hand, the universe of Christ contains truth, virtue, beauty, reason, and a sound explanation for all these things, where they come from and what they are for.

In this universe, love and romance are not merely part of human nature; love is the ultimate law of nature overcoming all other laws, including time, death and entropy. In this universe, free will exists, and therefore life and liberty and the rights of man can have a place, as well as hope and charity.

On the other hand, the universe of Political Correctness is, not to be too dramatic about it, the universe of Antichrist.

There is no truth in that universe, only personal or cultural narratives. There is no virtue, only appetites and desires which you must indulge without prudence and without restraint. There is no beauty, only the warped and blurry nightmare of total ugliness leering at you from every corner of human life. There is no reason, only evil men with bad motives and your fellow cultists with enlightened motives. There is no romance, except between gays, because the relations between the sexes are mutual exploitation, best served by many dreary one-night stands. There is no free will; there is nothing but genetic conditioning; you are nothing but a meat robot. Your desire for life and happiness are merely chemicals in your brain, and they have no meaning. And after you die, and after the world dies, there is nothing but an infinity of darkness.

The choice is simple, dramatic and binary: either you are of the Christian universe or of the Antichristian universe.

A simpler way of framing this choice would be to talk about the universe, the sum total of reality in which we live, natural and supernatural, on the one hand, and the process of rejecting reality, bit by ever-more-leftnut bit, until there is nothing left.

When I was young, the Leftwing rejected the supernatural but still believed in the natural, still believed in reason, still believed in free will. Now, very few on the Left accept the concept of free will, and they have replaced the strategy of reasoning and debating with the tactic of shrieking. The current screaming tactic is actually more logical, that is, more in keeping with the underlying axiom of rejecting reality. It is a point of pride on the Left, their badge of courage, to express total loyalty to unreality.

There are, to be sure, other religions, other philosophies, and other worldviews aside from these two. But all of them are intermediate. They accept some part of the universe and reject others. Some, like Libertarians, reject the supernatural but accept the supremacy of reason. Some, like Taoists, reject the supremacy of reason but accept the supernatural.

But in the war between reality and unreality, these intermediary positions do not possess the integrity, universality, or logical consistency of the total acceptance of the truth and the total rejection of the truth.

The total acceptance of truth is Christ, who is the way, and the truth, and the life. The total rejection is an outer darkness filled with wailing and the gnashing of teeth.

John C. Wright is a retired attorney and newspaperman who was only once hunted by the police. He is a graduate of St. John College (home of Mortimer Adler’s “Great Books Program). In 2004 he foreswore his lifelong atheism and joined the Roman Catholic Church. He has published over 10 SF novels, including one nominated for a Nebula award, and was described by Publisher’s Weekly as “this fledgling century’s most important new SF talent.” He currently lives in fairytale-like happiness with his wife, the authoress L. Jagi Lamplighter, and their four children.

Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts

  • Pete the Greek

    Leftist bellowing in your columns reminds me of the description of the cries of dismay of the orcs when Morgoth’s legs are hewn from under him and he is cast upon his face before the Valar in the Silmarillion.

  • Steven Schwartz

    Let’s see: Our author asserts: “The cult of darkness is controlled…by by a [sic] Seven Bad Ideas around which their various emotions and interjections orbit.”

    Now, “No proof is being offered here that Leftists believe these ideas or make these assertions. The reader can discover that for himself, merely by listening to them talk, reading their works, and reaching his own conclusion. If you cannot see it by reading what they say, you will not see it by my repeating what they say. Look for yourself.”

    So; if someone does *not* see them, it is not the author’s fault — he will not present argument, merely assertion.

    “No claim is being made that all, or even most, of the individuals on the Left adhere to each of these Seven Bad Ideas. No one can. These are things various Leftists say in various debates to silence opposition, but little or no attempt is made to carry out any logical consequences of these ideas.”

    In other words, “I’ve heard people say things like this, and if you follow them down my preferred logical paths, you get bad results.”

    (Oh, and when it come to silencing; do you consider it a “rational” approach to dismiss your opponents with slurs? (For “morlocks” is nothing but one.) You object when people call you a bigot, yet it is within reason to call them morlocks?)

    “Their word-noises are not meant to convince themselves or anyone. They are ritual repetitions of mumbo-jumbo phrases, meaningless words whose only meaning is as a gang-sign.”

    And so on and so forth.

    It is very clear, and you have *made* it very clear, Mr. Wright, that you wish to establish a Good vs. Evil structure, where those who agree with you are Good, and those who disagree are Evil. The fact that your division is based entirely upon straw, and thus, like straw, is most effective merely for lighting a fire, is, I suppose, irrelevant to you.

    “They cannot form an argument because persons who can form arguments are not Lefties.”

    I presume you are aware that, by saying things like that, you are not only undercutting any moral high ground you might be trying to claim regarding “reason” and “understanding”, but heading rapidly down the road to eliminationism?

    “Now, very few on the Left accept the concept of free will, and they have replaced the strategy of reasoning and debating with the tactic of shrieking.”

    I suppose your disclaimers, insults, and dismissals of the very possibility of discussion with your opponents are more manly bellowing than shrieking? You will forgive me a moment of levity, but reading this after seeing your repeated generation of straw men and dismissal of the rationality, practically the humanity, of those who disagree with you is rather…hard to stomach without adding some humor to the mix.

    “But in the war between reality and unreality, these intermediary positions do not possess the integrity, universality, or logical consistency of the total acceptance of the truth and the total rejection of the truth.

    The total acceptance of truth is Christ, who is the way, and the truth, and the life. The total rejection is an outer darkness filled with wailing and the gnashing of teeth.”

    I am glad to see you have stepped back somewhat from your risible division of the world into two parts; that there is a middle ground. Of course, your complete failure to make any argument for your truth, while it might be beyond your word-limit (having spent so much of it dismissing and dehumanizing your opposition) makes one wonder why one should expect you to have any of it.

    I suspect you would howl with dismay (or, perhaps, chuckle with smug self-righteousness) if you saw a post about the Five Bad Ideas of Religious Conservatism, starting out with Tyrranical Absolutism, Joy in the Torture of Others, Dismissal of the Value of Women, etc., etc., and so forth — but that is, in effect, what you are trying to present here, arguing against a Morlock of straw, and dismissing the ability of people who disagree with you to actually *reason*.

    I suspect you would like other people to credit you with good faith — for example, the attempted crediting (apparently incorrectly) that Hal Duncan gave you a few years ago — but when you do not do the same, it drastically reduces the incentive.

    • JRL

      John says right up front he is making observations and you take him to
      task for “your complete failure to make any argument for your truth…”

      Then you say his observed “division is based entirely upon straw” and fail to make any argument for your own assertion.

      Instead of whining, why don’t you demonstrate the sound reasoning and logical coherence of, say, items 1 and 2?

    • http://blog.timp.com.au TimP

      “Instead of whining, why don’t you demonstrate the sound reasoning and logical coherence of, say, items 1 and 2?”

      I think he’s trying to claim that the opinions that Wright presents aren’t actually held by leftists. Of course he offers no evidence of that, just a naked assertion.

      At least Wright claims his own observations as evidence, and is obviously not trying to convince the “Morlocks”, but rather explain them to his nominal allies and the undecided.

    • JRL

      Could be, but I tend to doubt he would deny leftists believe any of the 7…and his using the phrase “your truth”, tends to point toward his believing in idea 1. [as I see you noted above]. It’s an emotional complaint that he is not taken seriously as a rational thinker. :) Maybe a demonstration would be the way to be taken seriously as such.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “It’s an emotional complaint that he is not taken seriously as a rational thinker. :)”

      I find it rather amusing that the person who demonizes his opponents, dehumanizing them and denying them the very function of rationality, is somehow considered more rational than the person who tries to engage with him, because that person uses a phrase that might, conceivably, disagree with one of Mr. Wright’s principles. ;)

      Even on a very basic level, “I like scotch more than tequila” is sometimes a true statement, sometimes not, depending on who is saying it; indeed, it can even change values when the same person says it over time. That is one way in which one could speak of “your truth”.

      I meant it, as pointed out above, in the sense of “those statements that you claim to be true”, since we do not have a formal decision procedure to validate these truth-claims — at least not one anyone has ever been able to usefully demonstrate.

    • JRL

      My guess is that if you engage with John rationally, he will respond in kind (whether here or elsewhere). He gives a list of what he describes as paradoxes. It is not a stretch to assert that someone who believes a self-contradictory idea is not being rational.

      As for truth claims, if there is no formal procedure to validate truth-claims, does this mean truth does not exist?

    • Steven Schwartz

      ” He gives a list of what he describes as paradoxes.”

      And he is very misguided. To take a different one than the ones I’ve taken on in different threads: “the paradox that asserts that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As if putting a urinal in an Art Museum, and betraying the standard somehow proves the standard wrong, not the betrayal.”

      Why is it “paradoxical” that beauty should be in the eye of the beholder? We know from ample experience in our own life that there is no unified standard of human beauty. We can tell, from the uproar that met, for example, the Expressionists, that there has not been a single standard for “beauty” in art. There is no paradox here, only rhetoric. (And, BTW, the fact that Mr. Wright appears to believe art is entirely a matter of beauty, and that therefore, apparently, critique is beyond its realm (viz. Duchamp’s urinal) says more about the narrowness and weakness of his vision than that of art. ;))

      Several of his other “paradoxes” rely upon agreeing with his own very narrow definitions before they become anything even approaching paradoxical. I came late to this series, so haven’t gone back to deconstruct his mistakes elsewhere. ;)

      “As for truth claims, if there is no formal procedure to validate truth-claims, does this mean truth does not exist?”

      If there is no method to determine between truth-claims, then how can we know which one of them is true? I submit that for the purposes that most people wish to use “truth” — a guidepost for behavior, judgment, etc., — a truth that is inaccessible to our knowledge is as useless to us as an absence of truth.

    • JRL

      I don’t have a problem with the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in a superficial level. However, if one were to assert that skinning a live baby is beautiful, I would categorically assert that it is not. Would I be wrong to assert this?

    • Steven Schwartz

      “However, if one were to assert that skinning a live baby is beautiful, I would categorically assert that it is not. Would I be wrong to assert this?”

      It’s not babies, but I point you at: “http://www.magnoliabox.com/art/88125/Cannibals_Preparing_their_Victims_or_The_Bodies_of_Jean_de”

      I personally believe something can be beautiful and horrible at the same time. There is beauty that is not worth the horror, to my lights, no matter what the beholder may think of it.

      Mr. Wright is, as am I, a speculative fiction writer; challenging either of us to imagine a circumstance is usually a losing game. ;)

      In theory, I could imagine a circumstance where such a thing might be beautiful — while also being horrific, and most people (myself included) would feel any beauty utterly swamped by the horror.

      I know that’s not a simple, clear-cut answer; but it is in part the oversimplified opinions of Mr. Wright and his ilk that I protest against.

    • JRL

      Well there you go – you describe the torture and murder of a baby as “potentially beautiful”. I can at least appreciate your intellectual integrity in affirming Mr. Wright’s point #3. It also seems you are very close to affirming his point #1.

      What you linked to is art. It might be very well done (no pun intended), it might point to the beauty of human skill and imagination, but it is not depicting beauty. Is that nuanced enough for you?

      Now, do you really believe that skinning a live baby is “potentially beautiful”?

    • Steven Schwartz

      I figured you’d go there; your sort usually does go for the extreme example, the trap question.

      If “beauty” is simply a matter of aesthetically pleasing arrangements, then it might be. If “beauty” requires judging the entire context of the situation, then no, it can’t.

      ” I can at least appreciate your intellectual integrity in affirming Mr. Wright’s point #3.”

      His point #3 is that there is a paradox in the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In that, he is wrong.

      “What you linked to is art. It might be very well done (no pun intended), it might point to the beauty of human skill and imagination, but it is not depicting beauty. Is that nuanced enough for you?”

      Then let us, as Mr. Wright repeatedly fails to do, detach “art” and “beauty” — his entire complaint against “art” was that it was no longer beautiful, to his eye, and therefore no longer valid.

      “Now, do you really believe that skinning a live baby is “potentially beautiful”?”

      See above. There is an awful majesty and, yes, beautiful symmetry in a mushroom cloud. Until you present some abstract definition of “beauty” that prohibits that possibility, the possibility exists.

      I notice, by the way, that you have carefully omitted the observations I made that suggest that beauty is in the eye of the beholder — do you agree that someone could find a person, say, beautiful whom you do not?

      And if so, how do you reconcile that with this objective notion of “beauty”?

      (As a side note, do a search for “beautiful crucifixion” — you’ll find results, of images that people *do* describe as beautiful, of a horrible, horrible act.)

      You are trying to prove, BTW, that “There is an objective standard X, because we can all agree that Y doesn’t fit.” Perhaps you should consider the stronger case, “There is no objective standard X, because we can’t all agree that Y *does* fit.”

      If Mr. Wright had claimed “There are actions we all find so reprehensible that it strains our imagination to think that anyone could call them “beautiful”", I would have no argument with him. But to argue that there are absolute standards of beauty to be “betrayed” is a very different thing.

      The argument through revulsion, that you appear to be trying to make, is not a logical one, but an emotional one; precisely the sort of argument Mr. Wright claims is the only weapon of the Left.

    • JRL

      Ha, I don’t know about “my sort”, but I personally go for extreme examples to try and cut to the heart of the matter. Your sort would apparently like to half-heartedly affirm some boundary of truth and beauty while simultaneously affirming that they are so nuanced as to be non-existent.

      Wright’s point #3 is that leftists hold that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not that leftists affirm that it is a paradox.

      **There is an awful majesty and, yes, beautiful symmetry in a mushroom
      cloud.**

      You keep referring to the beauty of a secondary thing. The ACT of murder is not beautiful, the artwork may have some beauty. The nuking a city is not beautiful, the shape of the mushroom cloud may be. Do you not see the difference?

      **I notice, by the way, that you have carefully omitted the observations I
      made that suggest that beauty is in the eye of the beholder — do you
      agree that someone could find a person, say, beautiful whom you do not?**

      I clearly did agree earlier that beauty can be in the eye of the beholder in superficial things. This includes relative standards of physical attractiveness.

      **(As a side note, do a search for “beautiful crucifixion” — you’ll find
      results, of images that people *do* describe as beautiful, of a
      horrible, horrible act.)**

      It begins to seem you are the one lacking in appreciation of nuance. Christians are not describing the actual act of crucifixion as beautiful, they are describing the beauty of what that crucifixion represents.

      **You are trying to prove, BTW, that “There is an objective standard X, because we can all agree that Y doesn’t fit.”**

      You are amusingly incorrect. I am merely trying to find out if you, a presumed leftists, truly believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So far you have equivocated: torture and murder of a baby might be beautiful or it might not….

    • Steven Schwartz

      “but I personally go for extreme examples to try and cut to the heart of the matter.”

      I admire your …phrasing, in this context. The fact that going to extreme examples brings in all sorts of complications does not, then, I take it, obstruct your view?

      ” Your sort would apparently like to half-heartedly affirm some boundary of truth and beauty while simultaneously affirming that they are so nuanced as to be non-existent.”

      Let me be clear: the position most often held by those who claim an objective “truth” and “beauty” is that they can then determine where something falls — in or out of their category.

      If they cannot, and it is merely to some P;atonic abstract they would like to appeal — then it doesn’t matter here in the real world; you can claim “there is a definition of beauty”, or “this is true!” but if it cannot be determined, then it is, in many vital ways, irrelevant.

      “You keep referring to the beauty of a secondary thing.”

      Heh. I see we are getting to one sense in which we have a clear definitional difference — you are ascribing the concept of beauty to an act. How shall we put this; if an act is not engaged in with any aesthetic intent, again, I would argue, its beauty is irrelevant; and if it *is* engaged in with an aesthetic intent, then the very thing you dismiss as “secondary” is, in fact, primary — the sensory/emotional impression upon the viewer.

      (As a sidebar; do you consider the presentation of tragedy on stage as capable of “beauty”? If so, then what you are arguing, in effect, is that that which is immoral/monstrous/etc., to the person watching, cannot be beautiful; which puts it once again in the eye of the beholder, because there are certainly things that I might find immoral that you might not, or vice versa.)

      “I clearly did agree earlier that beauty can be in the eye of the beholder in superficial things. This includes relative standards of physical attractiveness.”

      I am reminded of the old line — beauty is skin deep. Most people would not find the vast majority of their aesthetic experience to be “superficial” — when people judge “is it beautiful” it is precisely that sort of thing they are considering. Tell me, please, what is “non-superficial” beauty, and how can we judge it?

      “Christians are not describing the actual act of crucifixion as beautiful, they are describing the beauty of what that crucifixion represents.”

      Actually, I have seen (and saw in my cursory google search) many people discussing the aesthetic value of the images of the crucifixion — that the image itself was a “beautiful” one. Not the meaning — the *image*.

      “So far you have equivocated: torture and murder of a baby might be beautiful or it might not….”

      That’s because you appear to be conflating “beautiful” and “moral/appropriate/etc.” I can theoretically imagine someone skilled enough at dance and movement to make such a thing, if my moral sense was turned off, aesthetically pleasing.

      I can also imagine a person who does not find Notre Dame or the Parthenon aesthetically pleasing, to flip matters around. Does this mean, as Mr. Wright asserted, that I live in, contemplate, or desire a world in which”There is no beauty, only the warped and blurry nightmare of total ugliness leering at you from every corner of human life.”? Not at all.

      My argument from the beginning has been against Mr. Wright’s dualism and extremism. It is he who wishes to divide the world into “There are absolute standards of beauty” and “We hate beauty”. I simply argue that there’s little evidence enough of his absolute standards, and that his dualism is irrational and harmful.

    • John

      TimP & JRL -
      I wasted some time in the last article trying to reason with them, but you just get longer and longer responses – that have less and less to do with the article at hand – and I do have a real life outside of these blogs. So while he might not be shrieking – he is the equivalent of the man mumbling to himself so much that he never actually opens his ears to hear.
      -John
      Hint: if you *always* write more words then your opponent – maybe your arguments aren’t that good. Volume does not equal persuasiveness.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “Hint: if you *always* write more words then your opponent – maybe your arguments aren’t that good. Volume does not equal persuasiveness.”

      Of course, if you write less, you are told you don’t provide evidence. Heads I win, tails you lose. ;)

    • JRL

      Steven, you didn’t provide evidence. I only called you on it because you told John he didn’t provide any evidence…

    • Steven Schwartz

      I did in previous threads, to which John (the commentor) was referring. Here, there isn’t much reason to provide evidence, since Mr. Wright has already essentially asserted he’s not making an evidential claim, but one based upon….well, I’m not quite sure what, other than simple disagreement.

    • Centurion13

      @JRL: don’t do it, buddy. Don’t go down the rabbit hole…

    • Centurion13

      Annnnd boom! with the flippant remark. Good one, Steven. I bet your associates are blinded by your dry wit. The cherry on top was the smiley. Because everyone knows you’re just kidding, right?

    • Steven Schwartz

      I suspect that if anyone reading this looked at the ratio of flippant remarks and smart-ass oneliners in my comments and yours, they would discover that this is truly a case of the pot calling the snowfall black.

      And no; I’m not kidding. I’m smiling.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “I think he’s trying to claim that the opinions that Wright presents aren’t actually held by leftists. Of course he offers no evidence of that, just a naked assertion.”

      See above in re: Trotskyites, for example. Indeed, Wright admits that “No claim is being made that all, or even most, of the individuals on the Left adhere to each of these Seven Bad Ideas.” Somehow, to him, however, they are at the core of the beliefs that people who don’t adhere to them believe.

      Part, indeed, of Mr. Wright’s problem is that by creating a division between “Christians” and “The Left” — aside from the fact that this rather ignores leftist Christians — he is forced to argue that people who believe *vastly* different things are, in fact, subscribing to the same ideals; ask a communist and an anarchist, or a hardline atheist and a liberation theologian, and see if you get anything like the same answers.

      “At least Wright claims his own observations as evidence, and is obviously not trying to convince the “Morlocks”, but rather explain them to his nominal allies and the undecided.”

      He has also quite conveniently (through the dodge of “No claim…” as described above) made his argument effectively unfalsifiable; when Leftists do present arguments or counterexample, he can point and say “Oh, those don’t matter” — so all he is left with is his own assertions.

    • Centurion13

      Good point, TimP.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “John says right up front he is making observations” — perhaps we define that slightly differently. He is stating opinions, and claiming them to be based on something he has observed.

      “Then you say his observed “division is based entirely upon straw” and fail to make any argument for your own assertion.”

      I am not the one dividing the world into a very few parts; and, indeed, unless you find me utterly without reason, shrieking, etc., etc., and so forth, I am precisely the sort of Leftist he claims does not exist. ;)

      I know he attempted to cover himself, by saying “Oh, many leftists won’t say they agree…”, etc. — but at that point one has to wonder why we should trust him over the evidence of, well, so many leftists who don’t fit his definitions.

      “Instead of whining, why don’t you demonstrate the sound reasoning and logical coherence of, say, items 1 and 2?”

      As pointed out, many leftists don’t hold those positions. Heck, try telling an old-school hard-line Trot that Truth doesn’t exist and morality is relative. He’ll tell you right quick that’s not true, and the exploiting class is immoral. ;)

      Because what Wright is doing is claiming that, if you object to his version of Truth, you object to Truth. (He and I went around about this in his last post; I believe he conflates logical truths with moral/religious truths, and holds that if you say the latter aren’t objective, you’re claiming the former aren’t.)

      And, as a minor side note: I ask you to compare, in terms of tone and attempts to reconcile and reason, my post and Mr. Wright’s.

    • JRL

      **Because what Wright is doing is claiming that, if you object to his version of Truth, you object to Truth.**

      Well, in a sense, if he is correct, you do. If the ultimate basis of reality is God, and you reject God, you reject reality. Same with truth.

      In another sense, I think you have misunderstood him. I have no doubt he would affirm atheists can believe in truth.

      If I understand him correctly, what he rejects is the so-called “truth” that is not really truth. The idea that there is no universally applicable “ought”.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “Well, in a sense, if he is correct, you do. If the ultimate basis of reality is God, and you reject God, you reject reality. Same with truth.”

      “In another sense, I think you have misunderstood him. I have no doubt he would affirm atheists can believe in truth.”

      Well, he did, somewhat sub rosa — he flat-out said that many leftists don’t agree with those “7 bad ideas”. Of course, where he then gets the nerve to claim that those bad ideas, in which real, actual leftists don’t believe, are the basis of “Leftism”, is somewhat a mystery — he tries to explain it, but his explanations keep vanishing when approached with facts.

      “If I understand him correctly, what he rejects is the so-called “truth” that is not really truth. The idea that there is no universally applicable “ought”.”

      If there is no objectively *determinable* “ought”, then, I would argue, that whether or not there is a universally “applicable” ought is irrelevant; as trying to sort out which of the many “oughts” that claim universal application becomes a game of guesswork and hope. This is neither a particularly useful basis for individual or state action, nor a particularly pleasant state to attribute to an allegedly omnipotent being’s design.

    • sharculese

      Right. Similarly, if the ultimate basis of reality is the Matrix, and you tell the Architect, ‘fuck you, I’m gonna go find Trinity and pump her heart meat ’til it go pump-pump again,’ then you fight Hugo Weaving. Or something. I don’t remember how that ended.

    • Frank DiSalle

      If the ultimate basis of reality is God, and you reject God, you reject reality

      Yes, and If the ultimate basis of reality is Allah, and you reject Allah, you reject reality

      And If the ultimate basis of reality is Krishna, and you reject Krishna, you reject reality.

      And If the ultimate basis of reality is Scientology, and you reject Scientology, you reject reality

      ******

      As Thomas Paine once observed, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.”

    • Centurion13

      Don’t expect much from Steven. He’s bloviating on full military power. As John pointed out, the comments on this blog are proof enough of his statements. Just reading them makes me queasy. Bleh.

    • http://blog.timp.com.au TimP

      “… argument for your truth …” [emphasis added]

      I haven’t observed you for long enough to be sure, ;-) it could just be an accidental turn of phrase, but that does strongly suggest you at least hold to first “bad idea” of Solipsism. A non-solipsistic phrase would be something more like “your opinion” or “your perception of the truth”.

      Anyhow of course Wright hasn’t provided an argument, he specifically states in the post that he’s just explaining what he believes to be true, and telling his audience to simply observe his opponents to see if he’s right.

    • Steven Schwartz

      ” it could just be an accidental turn of phrase, but that does strongly suggest you at least hold to first “bad idea” of Solipsism. A non-solipsistic phrase would be something more like “your opinion” or “your perception of the truth”.”

      It was, indeed, a turn of phrase; more precise would be “that which you claim to be true”.

      “Anyhow of course Wright hasn’t provided an argument, he specifically states in the post that he’s just explaining what he believes to be true, and telling his audience to simply observe his opponents to see if he’s right.”

      And I merely wished to point out that he is behaving in many of the ways he accuses the Left of doing — that his absence of argument, his demonization of his opponents, his reliance upon bald assertion make it look as if, when he cries out against the misbehaviors of (at least) rationality when it comes to the “Morlocks”, he is looking in the mirror.

    • CorkyAgain

      I have observed that leftists seem to think that tu quoque is a devastating response rather than a fallacy of misdirection. Like all species of ad hominem, it attempts to disqualify the opponent rather than address the points he has raised.

      A logical response to Mr Wright’s observations would be to show how they do not accurately describe all or even most leftists. But that would require us to do exactly what Mr Wright suggests, which is to look for ourselves.

      I won’t say that Mr Wright has written the definitive Field Guide to the Left. But based on my own limited observations, I think he’s made a good start.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “I have observed that leftists seem to think that tu quoque is a devastating response rather than a fallacy of misdirection”

      As with many informal fallacies, it is much easier to dismiss something with them than judge if it is used correctly.

      If person A says “You do X, Y, and Z, therefore you are unreasonable”, it is not unfair to say “But by those same standards, you are also unreasonable.” I did not say “You said I did XYZ. You do XYZ, therefore I do *not* do XYZ.”

      See the difference? One is attempting to point out a potential flaw — the other is a defence against accusation. Mr. Wright could make the same points politely, with whatever evidence he could muster, and it would not affect their truth-value; what they effect is the truth-value of hte proposition “Mr. Wright is also doing XYZ, and if he despises XYZ so much, perhaps he should think about *why*.

      “A logical response to Mr Wright’s observations would be to show how they do not accurately describe all or even most leftists.”

      He himself admits that many leftists *don’t* act that way — thus undercutting his own argument. Instead, he appears to be relying on some way in which he knows other people better than they know themselves (a common problem among Christian apologists of a more extreme variety), and deducing from that back to the “bad ideas” they supposedly support.

      “I won’t say that Mr Wright has written the definitive Field Guide to the Left. But based on my own limited observations, I think he’s made a good start.”

      I recommend expanding your observations, then; especially in formats where you can meet members of said left as *people*, rather than as presentations in news articles and the like. Were I to take Mr. Wright as a representative Catholic, for example, I would be doing a grave injustice both to Catholicism and to several of my Catholic friends. ;)

    • Frank DiSalle

      See, when a lefty does actually engage in reasoned discourse with the righties who supposedly want reasoned discourse— absolutely no response.

      This tells you all you need to know about so-called reasoned discourse with righties.

    • Centurion13

      You’re asking for reasoned discourse from folks who have abandoned it for flippancy, insult and sneers. Your observations are spot-on. But it doesn’t matter to them, since they’ve got just about the most impenetrable armor against reason there is.

    • Frank DiSalle

      So the targets of Mr Wright’s delusional ravings are supposed to have a reasoned discourse about them?

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    • Centurion13

      And they’re delusional because… because *you* said so? But who are *you*? Nobody, just like the rest of us. I’m telling you, Frankie, you make a great leftist cheerleader, but when you start aiming insults at grownups, your reach exceeds your grasp. It’s about time you realized it, and acted on that knowledge.

    • Frank DiSalle

      A logical response to Mr Wright’s observations would be to show how they do not accurately describe all or even most leftists.

      So it’s up to leftists to PROVE that we are not cartoon villains?

      Pull the other one, it’s got bells on!

    • Frank DiSalle

      No proof is being offered here that John C. Wright is a perfect example of Richard Hofstadters “Paranoid Style in American Politics”. The reader can discover that for himself, merely by reading Hofstadter’s essay, and reaching his own conclusion.

      http://studyplace.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/files/courses/reserve/Hofstadter-1996-Paranoid-Style-American-Politics-1-to-40.pdf

    • Centurion13

      Go get your own blog, Steven. You make absolutely zero sense here, responding with a string of meaningless buzz words and unsubstantiated statements. But like John said, reason is beside the point with you guys. Get a hobby, pal.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “You make absolutely zero sense here,”

      Well, considering that other people are responding to this comment, and we are having rational discussions about it, this suggests your statement is false.

      “But like John said, reason is beside the point with you guys.”

      Says the person who prefers to dismiss — loudly and repeatedly — rather than engage. Hm.

      “Get a hobby, pal.”

      I have several.

    • Centurion13

      Then I suggest you tend to them and leave blog sniping to folks who actually have something to say. You’ve begun repeating yourself. Here’s a tip for free: louder and longer does not equal more true.

  • Bethany Spencer

    Another 50,000-word essay to say “liberals are poopyheads.” Love it.

    • Shawn Smith

      And if that is all you get out of this, you are basically walking proof of his assertion that the left hates reason and is incapable of argument.

    • Bethany Spencer

      Shorter Shawn Smith: Liberals are poopyheads.

    • timb117

      B, don’t give him credit for verbs. Should be “shorter Shawn Smith: Liberals poopyheads”

    • Centurion13

      Bahahaha! John’s right on the money with your well-considered response. Admit it, he’s got your number. And the number is zero.

    • timb117

      My favorite part was the declination that liberals and leftists might NOT have these qualities, it’s up to the reader to discern these qualities in these people by listening to them and reading them. But, why would I as a good Catholic theocrat WANT to read leftists? John has already told me they are without merit and downright evil. Why would I be yoked together with the unbelievers?

      The one thing we can be absolutely sure of is that conservatives do not read these poopyheads. Oh and that Johnny is — again — back to the “Every sperm is sacred” horsepucky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

  • Frank DiSalle

    Greatest straw man since the Burning Man Festival!

    Too bad about the pungent aroma of horseshit!

    • Centurion13

      Aaaaannnd we have YOUR word for it? Okay. Who the hell are you?

    • Frank DiSalle

      I’m a sane person, Centurion.

    • Steven Satak

      Aaaaand *more* insult! Wow! You just keep bringing the hits, Frank. Describing yourself as a sane person implies I may not be – and thus, folks can disregard what I say.

      Haha! Did you really think no one would see through your chicanery? Never actually address the question asked (“Who the hell are you?”). Always attack the speaker. Hey, at least you’re consistent. You stick to the liberal playbook pretty closely. Good work! Your credentials remain intact. Now, move on.

    • Frank DiSalle

      Well, I didn’t know how to answer an insane question like “Who the hell are you?”

      How would YOU answer it, Steven?

  • Frank DiSalle
  • Frank DiSalle

    Hey, I get it! Here’s how this game works…

    I love “X”, therefore leftists must hate it!

    I hate “Y”, therefore leftists must love it!

    • Frank DiSalle

      I love mayonnaise! Therefore leftists must hate it!

      I hate horseradish! Therefore leftists must love it!

    • Shawn Smith

      That’s a great summary . . . except that elsewhere he provides clear examples of every one of these things. For instance, he has an entire article about the Left’s hatred of beauty.

    • Frank DiSalle

      Yeah, I did read that, Shawn, and I remember his examples.

      Since Wright HATED Marcel Duchamp’s 1917 urinal, therefore leftists must LOVE it!

    • Shawn Smith

      No, he has repeatedly said that not every leftist embraces every point he describes. But the “artist” responsible was almost certainly a leftist.

    • Centurion13

      Don’t worry, Shawn. They’ve shot their flippancy, sneers and false analogies. Other than name-calling, that’s all they got.

    • Frank DiSalle

      Oh, no, we’ve got batshit crazy shit like this:

      The Constitution is a living, breathing document, ergo it must be smothered and killed.

    • Centurion13

      Because… you say it’s batshit crazy. And for no other reason, apparently. Again, who the hell are you? Do you have *anything* beyond unsubstatiated opinion to support your statement? You’re wasting time, pal. One day you’ll be gone; is this really how you want to spend your hours?

    • timb117

      He loves Reason, so liberals must hate it

      He loves Truth, so liberals must hate it.

      He hates sex with condoms, so liberals must love it

      He hates modern America, so why doesn’t he just leave?

  • Monaka der Hund

    “Pervertarianism”

    I didn’t know that Marx wrote about sex, let along the mind-blowing variety, though he seems to have been rather active in this area.

    “either you are of the Christian universe or of the Antichristian universe”

    I so want to read your books after enjoying your philosophical propositions. But perhaps you should reconsider this particular bit. There might be the occasional non-Christian who simply doesn’t care (or, such as in the case of the Amazon tribe that was recently contacted for the first time, doesn’t know) rather than being antagonistic.

    “wailing and the gnashing of teeth”

    To anybody afflicted with teeth-gnashing I would recommend avoiding your blog posts in the future.

    • Steven Schwartz

      The sad part is that at least 2/3rd of one of Mr. Wright’s trilogies was good, at least on first reading — after reading the last part, the presuppositions and set-ups appeared far too obvious to permit (at least to me) a second rereading.

      If he applied half the imagination and rigor that he did to his Golden Oecumene to the possibilities that humans are not as rigid and binarily-defined as he chooses to claim them, that the world is not as Manichean as he believes, he could do very interesting things.

    • Monaka der Hund

      I consider replacing the pharyngula blog with Wright’s logorrhetic bleedings for my daily dosis of fun. It’s sufficient to read the first and the last ten lines of each blog entry. Of course, he will have to write a minimum of one piece per day, which will be hard to do considering their length.

    • Steven Schwartz

      Well, you could just read a paragraph or three — that should produce enough amusement to last for a day, then 21 paragraphs per week? I bet he can manage that.

    • Centurion13

      How would you know?

    • Centurion13

      Of course it’s sufficient, if you’ve already dismissed it as a possible source of truth. Really, dismissing John Wright’s writing without reading it? Arrogance. And describing it as mere entertainment? More arrogance. It suggests (to me, at least) that you have shot your bolt – casual contempt / flippancy – and have nothing more to add beyond the usual code-words you use to signal to the rest that you are a member-in-good-standing.

    • Monaka der Hund

      Sorry if I am arrogant; Wright’s writing is just too much for me. And yes, all I am here for is shooting an occasional bolt, but I am aiming it at Wright’s code words and don’t think I am providing any code words myself. I don’t care for my standing.

    • Centurion13

      And how, exactly, do you know all of that?

    • Steven Schwartz

      Because he has done interesting things in the past, and I doubt he has degenerated that much? This man clearly put *tremendous* thought into what it means, for example, to be able to make perfect mental replicas of yourself, who can act autonomously — or what a body would require to exist at thousands of Gs. I admired that in his writing.

      And then he turned into this.

      I find it ironic that you seem to object to my *praising* Mr. Wright, and shaking my head ruefully about what he has become.

    • John C Wright

      “And then he turned into this”

      Let us reason together.

      When I wrote Space Opera which amused or entertained your idle hours, such as the ramifications of making a mental replica of oneself, you conclude I put tremendous thought in to my work.

      When I use the same thought to come to a conclusion about a philosophical or political matter where you have an emotional rather than a rational reaction, and instead of arguing against the ideas, attack my character, a man not personally known to you, you conclude that I put little or no effort into my work.

      You conclude that it is I who degenerated rather than, let us say, you who react with emotion rather than logic and make a hasty judgment.

      Fortunately, I can act as an eyewitness in both cases.

      The ideas in GOLDEN AGE were comic book level thoughts which I tossed off without any effort, because such things were obvious. My thoughts about politics, economics, the objectivity of reality, the nature of beauty, and so on, have been the same for all my adult life, including when I wrote those books. My theories of human sexuality changed after I became a father, and my theory of theology changed dramatically after a religious experience.

      So your theory of a sudden inexplicable degeneration of my intellectual power that strikes when and only when I disagree with you, dear sir, seems not to fit the facts.

      An honest man would change his theory to fit the facts.

      Leftists are inclined to pretend facts inconvenient to the theory do not exist. The simplest and laziest way to promote that pretense is to pretend to have impeached the credibility of any witness who testifies to the inconvenient fact.

      In this case, however, the fact under discussion is my intellect, to which I have primary access and you do not. Hence, my testimony as to when I worked hard and when I did not cannot reasonably be impeached, not without offering some proof.

      I await to see if your reaction fits hence supports or rejects and undermines what I have here described.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “Hence, my testimony as to when I worked hard and when I did not cannot reasonably be impeached, not without offering some proof.”

      I accept your testimony, and withdraw my compliment.

      I admit, however, that I see repeated failures of imagination and of rigor in your articles here, that I did not see in your writing; to what that is due, I do not know. I offered what I thought was the most charitable hypothesis, and having been in error, will offer it no further.

      We can go into *what* those failures are, if you wish — but since I have been receiving complaints both for my verbosity and for my lack thereof, I will leave it up to you if you wish to continue those discussions here, or elsewhere, or not at all (our conversation, that is; I may continue to argue with others in this space.)

      Thank you for taking the time to respond, and I do sincerely apologize if I hurt or offended you; I was attempting to express regret rather than anything else, but that does not excuse any offense offered.

    • Frank DiSalle

      “either you are of the Christian universe or of the Antichristian universe”

      Hello, False Dichotomy!

    • timb117

      John will find it lonely in Heaven, since it’ll just be him and Aquinas

    • Centurion13

      As if you’d know.

    • timb117

      I know you are, but what am I.

      Before you respond with a witty bon mot, just know that I am already rubber and you’re glue

    • Steven Satak

      No, you’re a time-wasting fool. But I don’t hold that against you. It’s kinda beyond your control.

    • Frank DiSalle

      Oopsie! Your clever bon mot just bounced off of timb117…. watch out, Steven Satak!

      Too late!

      It just stuck to you!

      Looks like you’re the time-wasting fool!

    • Centurion13

      And folks wonder why ‘discussions’ with people like you rapidly descend into something eerily reminiscent of playground insults… Flippancy, mockery… sooner or later, Frankie, they’re going to fail you. In fact, I suspect they already have.

    • Frank DiSalle

      Ah, Centurion, you’re just rollin’ coal to annoy us libs…

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/06/rolling-coal-photos-video_n_5561477.html

    • timb117

      really, how is it beyond my control? Demons? Satan? Protestantism????? Ahhhhhhh, run away

  • Andrew Stallard

    Solipsism — the paradox that asserts that truth is personal, hence optional: “It is not true that truth is true.”

    Relativism — the paradox that asserts that virtue is subjective, situational, relative: “It is wrong for you to judge right and wrong.”

    Whenever I read a post by a conservative or a libertarian who makes these kind of assertions I want to tear my hair out, and, no, I’m not a leftist myself. Leftists skepticism about values and their attacks on “judgmentalism” are a mere rhetorical strategy; it applies to other people’s values. About their own, they display a self-rightgeous crusading moralism that would make Torquemada blush. Tell one of them you are pro-choice on gun ownership, racial discrimination or recycling and watch the response you get.

    Pervertarianism — the paradox that asserts it to be licit to seek the gratifications of sexual union of the reproductive act without the union, without the reproduction, and, in the case of sodomites, without the act. The same insane paradox asserts that females should be feminists rather than feminine; and that sexual predation is more romantic than romance.

    Indeed, because so many on the right understand morality primarily in terms of sexual morality grounded in religion, which leftists reject, the aforementioned rightists think leftists are somehow devoid of moral imperatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Totalitarianism — the paradox that asserts that freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength. The Constitution is a living, breathing document, ergo it must be smothered and killed.

    A totalitarian is, almost by definition, an absolute moralist. Totalitarians want to impose their moral vision on everybody by any means necessary. Nothing could be further from a “moral relativist” or a “nihilist.”

    In my opinion, Mr. Wright is playing right into the hands of the leftists he despises with these sort of essays. For many on the left will gladly agree, they will claim their own political opinions are not grounded in values, but rather in science. They will tell you their political opinions are not opinions at all, but rather scientific facts, which they then juxtapose against the benighted, superstitious right-wingers who have mere “morality.”

    Left-wing moral imperatives such as “equality,” “diversity,” and “sustainability” can be just as easily relativized and trivialized as the values of a backwoods hillbilly preacher who rails against gambling, masturbation and liquor. It is high time more folks on the right start to do this.

    • Centurion13

      I think you’d be better off tearing your hair out. John calls a spade a spade and does so for the edification of those not already lost. That he ‘plays into the hands of the leftists’ matters not one whit. Do you honestly expect him to soft-pedal what he writes in an attempt to avoid enraging the ‘Morlocks’? But they are already, and perpetually, outraged as it is.

    • Steven Schwartz

      “John calls a spade a spade”

      Actually, Mr. Wright divides the world into blessed shovels and “everything else that could possibly be used to dig a hole, from spades to grenades to backhoes to oil rigs”, and declares the latter to be evil, to extend your metaphor.

      “Do you honestly expect him to soft-pedal what he writes in an attempt to avoid enraging the ‘Morlocks’?”

      No; but overblowing what he writes (such as calling a large percentage of this country “Morlocks”) is not going to win him many allies. Essentially, you either already agree with him or are being cast into the outer darkness. Which makes his essay rather more a waste of verbiage than anything else.

      Well, that, and a fine example for people to point to when they want to say “See? This is where dogmatic black-and-white thinking leads you.”

  • Andrew Stallard

    Solipsism — the paradox that asserts that truth is personal, hence optional: “It is not true that truth is true.”

    Nobody actually believes this. There are people who believe values are ultimtaley arbitrary and grounded in sentiment; I am one of these people. That is not the same thing as claiming truth is somehow personal. Democrats and Republicans disagree about a lot of things that are ultimately reducible to feelings, but both Obama and Romney will begin to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 when they fall. Values are not facts.

    • Centurion13

      Okay, how do you know, personally, that nobody believes this? Did you poll all seven billion plus people? No? Then hush. You’re babbling, and Steven Schwartz is about all one blog can handle.

    • John C Wright

      Rather, you should have asked him why, if nobody believes this, he believes it himself.

    • Frank DiSalle

      Ah, but he doesn’t believe it himself.

      His posting distinguished the difference between “values” and “truth”.

      Either you fail to comprehend that distinction, or you are deliberately pretending not to.

      Perhaps you just enjoy blowin’ smoke, like many of your conservative brethren…

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/06/rolling-coal-photos-video_n_5561477.html

  • timb117

    This dude must be a hit at parties. I was tempted to finish the article, but instead saw the link for “16 celebs who have breast implants and don’t hide it” to be more informed and grammatically incorrect (despite the original pronoun/antecedent disagreement).

    Maybe John could get more done if he stopped writing halfway through?

    • Centurion13

      Maybe you could get more done if you just stopped posting inane remarks here? But I doubt it.

    • timb117

      Here’s a hint for future posting. You don’t have to reply to someone to comment on the article. It would be nice if John would go back to writing crappy scifi rather than post his pre-Vatican 2 Mel Gibson-esque rants here, but he has a calling….

  • Frank DiSalle

    No proof is being offered here that John C. Wright is a perfect example of Richard Hofstadters “Paranoid Style in American Politics”. The reader can discover that for himself, merely by reading Hofstadter’s essay, and reaching his own conclusion.

    http://studyplace.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/files/courses/reserve/Hofstadter-1996-Paranoid-Style-American-Politics-1-to-40.pdf

  • Richard Nixon

    Seven bad ideas of Liberalism:
    1. Fighting Inequality
    2. Legalizing Marijuana
    3. Rights for all people, even homosexuals.
    4. No theocracy.
    5. Livable Wages.
    6. Equality.
    7. No poverty.

    Yeah, so bad.

  • Richard Nixon

    “The total acceptance of truth is Christ, who is the way, and the truth, and the life. The total rejection is an outer darkness filled with wailing and the gnashing of teeth.” – What a load of radical nonsense. You believe in a book written by old men in the dark ages, but call it truth? Join the 21st century and stop with the extremist propaganda.

  • bilejones

    You left out the Israel Firster’s in your listing of evil doer’s.
    An unintentional oversight, no doubt.

  • thetimguy

    You are exactly right, Augustine was the first to clearly bring this out in “City of God,” It all gets down to the unchangeable truth of God’s unbreakable moral standard. No matter how hard you try and how loud you scream, it is the truth by which you shall be judged. Thank God their is a Saviour, Christ Jesus the Lord. He is the Truth and knowing Him unlocks the mysteries of life. All is from Him and to Him and for Him.

Be Sociable, Share!