Wednesday, January 02, 2008

When conservative arguments fail, simply abandon any pretense of caring about the debate:

Via alicublog, an essay at Tech Central Station celebrating ignorance. Excerpts: (bold emp add)
...has the emergence of a conservative intelligentsia proven to be an unmixed blessing? Or is the very phrase conservative intelligentsia an oxymoron?

Today, no self-respecting conservative wants to be thought stupid, not even by the lunatics on the far left. Yet there are far worse things than looking stupid to others—and one of them is being conned by those who are far cleverer than we are. Indeed, in certain cases, the desire to appear intelligent at all costs can be downright suicidal.

... there will always be those who can pull the wool over the eyes of the rest of us, and if we once begin to listen to their spiel, then we find that before we know it we have been taken advantage of. It is not easy to outfox the fox, and those who try often end up on the unpleasant end of the food chain. Thus, it is safer simply never to begin listening to them ...

The stupid conservative [ed: that is not an epithet] ... does not look for a higher authority than tradition itself. He is prepared to rest his case simply on traditional authority alone, without seeking to appeal to logic, or reason, or empirical data. For what reason gives, reason can take away.

If traditional marriage needs to be defended by good arguments, then it stands or falls on the validity of these arguments, and where good arguments can be put forward to justify alternative "experiments in living," then the authority of tradition as tradition is overthrown, and whoever comes up with the best argument carries the day. The end result of this process is that intellectuals, trained to be good at arguing, inevitably gain an undue influence in the shaping of public opinion ...

... stupidity has been and will always remain the best defense mechanism against the ordinary conman and the intellectual dreamer ...


As the worthy Homer wrote, "facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."

By Anonymous Globber, at 1/03/2008 1:05 PM  

Post a Comment