![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/05\/DogRaces.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is a follow-up discussion, from yesterday\u2019s\u00a0Dialogue: Pro-Life White Guys & Anti-Southern Prejudice<\/a>. That dialogue continued further on Facebook<\/a> (minus my own participation). Deacon Steven D. Greydanus<\/strong>\u2018 words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n There has to be a certain willingness to dialogue and subject one\u2019s own views to scrutiny. I don\u2019t think the good Deacon was willing to do that here: as proven by his utter refusal to answer Mike\u2019s basic question to him, that I repeatedly pressed upon him.<\/p>\n I am a great admirer of his theological thinking, as I have stated many times: often characterizing it as \u201cbrilliant\u201d and suchlike. But his political views leave much to be desired, from where I sit. In this particular discussion, I think he is profoundly influenced by liberal \/ secularist thinking, whether he is aware of it or not.<\/p>\n Having been of that mind myself, I can spot it a mile away. I often note how my college education in sociology and psychology taught me how the secular mind approaches life, and how this has been invaluable as an aid to my apologetics for now 38 years. College was the height of my own liberal thinking. It was in the year of my graduation (1982) that I became pro-life and started reading conservative writers and doing my own thinking, rather than accepting liberal pablum as Gospel Truth, as I had been doing.<\/p>\n It\u2019s very difficult to critique liberal thinking and be heard, because those who are enthralled with it are much like a fish in a fish tank that is blissfully unaware that it inhabits a certain \u201cworld\u201d or that there are any other worlds besides its own.<\/p>\n Again, I note that I am not saying that Deacon Steve is a liberal (I regard him as a third-party moderate). I\u2019m saying that with regard to this particular issue of racism and its intersection with politics, he thinks like a thoroughgoing liberal. And so he is fundamentally wrong. I found your own analyses far more compelling and thought-provoking, and in line with my sociological thinking in this area: now modified and developed by 37 years of conservatism.<\/p>\n (You clearly<\/em> don\u2019t understand my position,\u00a0Dave, or you wouldn\u2019t keep complaining about my \u201cnon-answer\u201d of a question that is exactly<\/em>\u00a0like \u201cHave you stopped beating your wife?\u201d But it\u2019s very funny to me that you think you do. Carry on.)<\/span><\/p>\n Glad you\u2019re amused. My urging you to answer the rhetorical question was purely a question of logical thinking (specifically, the reductio ad absurdum<\/em><\/a>, which is routinely misunderstood by lots and lots of folks, who fail to apprehend its very nature, as\u00a0well as its fundamental seriousness). Thus, I conclude that you are lacking in your understanding of how logic works (at least in this particular respect): or else you would have eagerly taken up the challenge.<\/p>\n I would have loved<\/em> such a challenge, were I arguing for your position, and someone asked me this. But the difference between us is that I would have recognized my stated argument as absurd as a result, and would have conceded and modified it; whereas you fight on interminably, and give this sort of \u201canswer\u201d which continues to entirely miss the point.<\/p>\n This reply is not<\/em> intended as a rank insult at all. Many people fall into the trap of being insufficiently logical. That\u2019s why it is a course in college that everyone ought to take. I did, along with many other courses in philosophy.<\/p>\n As I said, I understand perfectly where you are coming from because I used to think almost exactly the same way back in my liberal days (just as I have a firsthand knowledge of Protestantism, having been a very zealous Protestant, and an apologist for that position as well).<\/p>\n But if it comforts you to think otherwise, feel free. I can\u2019t puncture that bubble.<\/p>\n I understood that it was an attempted reductio<\/em>. So is \u201cWhat would it take for you to cut back to beating your wife only once a month? Once every six months? Once a year?\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Being an attempted reductio<\/em> doesn\u2019t make a complex question fallacy any less fallacious.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n AS I POINTED OUT.<\/span><\/p>\n Mike\u2019s question was predicated on an assumption I explicitly<\/em>\u00a0rejected: that my problem was based on the skin color of the 25 lawmakers in question.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Since that was not my objection, and since I explicitly stated it was not my objection, a thought experiment modifying the race of the lawmakers did not go to my objection, and my inability to put a number to how many lawmaker skins we would have to change said nothing about anything except Mike\u2019s failure (and yours, evidently) to understand my objection.<\/span><\/p>\n We think liberalism is well-intentioned but poorly reasoned. Liberals (and moderates, as it were), think that conservatism comes from bad intentions and is also poorly reasoned. But the attribution of ill will is fundamental to it. Thus, we see the centrality of the personal attack and assumption of evil intent (racism, sexism, anti-poor, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-homosexual, etc. ad nauseam<\/em>) and ill will in Democrat rhetoric (and now, Never Trumper rhetoric, that you fall into), for these past 50 years: exponentially increased since Bork was borked in 1986.<\/p>\n You cannot \u201chear\u201d this critique at this present time. Perhaps one day you will be able to. People can and do change, but it\u2019s usually a slow geological process.<\/p><\/div>\n I have stated that you are unduly influenced by liberal thinking in this<\/em>\u00a0area. It doesn\u2019t follow that every single particular would be present in your thinking.\u00a0You may (and I think, do) believe that Mike and I are not \u201cheartless\u201d but you think we are unduly influenced by that which you are critiquing in the Alabama pro-life scene,<\/p><\/div>\n Several comments of yours subtly imply that we are insufficiently in-tune with the needs and situation of minorities.<\/p><\/div>\n But now he says: \u201cNothing I said constitutes a critique of \u2018the Alabama pro-life scene.'\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n What gives?<\/p><\/div>\n They are all aimed at the excesses of the Trump administration and many of its supporters on the national stage.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The pro-life moment nationally<\/em>\u00a0has been morally undermined by acquiescing \u2014 if not enthusiastically supporting \u2014 family separations. Not every pro-lifer, obviously, but moment leaders and the rank and file have supported the president and in many cases supported this specific policy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I know that you have been critical of specific stories about family separations, and I give you credit for that. I also know that if I held forth on the evils of family separations on your wall \u2014 or, heck, on my wall \u2014 a parade of pro-lifers would show up to support the policy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is to our shame. It has nothing to do with Alabama in particular.<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n The article was specifically about the 25 white guys in Alabama who voted for a pro-life bill. How can one share an article specifically<\/em>\u00a0about Alabama pro-lifers, complete with cynical comments about pro-lifers (and Trumpers, as you say), and this tidbit of wisdom was shared by you in this discussion, yet now you claim, \u201cIt has nothing to do with Alabama in particular.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That just doesn\u2019t add up; sorry. It was<\/em> clearly the association made. If not, then the two things: the statement and the article, shouldn\u2019t have been in conjunction at all: connected by your friend, and in effect, endorsed by yourself too.<\/p>\n This looks to me like it is now an attempted (almost bizarre and surreal) revisionist history of what went down in our vexed discussion.<\/p><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n That you regard this as \u201cattempted (almost bizarre and surreal) revisionist history\u201d is par for the course for your level of misunderstanding. Why do I get the feeling you\u2019ll now stick to your guns and insist that your original misunderstanding was correct? I hope I\u2019m wrong, but\u2026<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n This is a follow-up discussion, from yesterday\u2019s\u00a0Dialogue: Pro-Life White Guys & Anti-Southern Prejudice. That dialogue continued further on Facebook (minus my own participation). Deacon Steven D. Greydanus\u2018 words will be in blue. ***** There has to be a certain willingness to dialogue and subject one\u2019s own views to scrutiny. I don\u2019t think the good Deacon […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":32999,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[81,289],"tags":[84,8660,8657,3390,88,3391,1021,4164,2092,2093,2936,756,8669,2076,3453,4165,1254,1255,2088,747,746,8663,8666,2091,4274],"class_list":["post-32993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-life-issues","category-political-ethical-moral-issues","tag-abortion","tag-alabama-legislature","tag-alabama-pro-lifers","tag-bible-abortion","tag-childkilling","tag-christianity-abortion","tag-conservatism","tag-conservatives","tag-fetal-development","tag-fetus","tag-genocide","tag-infanticide","tag-liberals-pro-life","tag-murder","tag-new-pro-life-movement","tag-new-pro-lifers","tag-personhood","tag-preborn-child","tag-pro-abortion","tag-pro-choice","tag-pro-life","tag-pro-life-strategy","tag-roe-v-wade","tag-unborn-child","tag-whole-pro-life"],"yoast_head":"\n\nIt\u2019s not the same as that (the \u201cbeating your wife\u201d question) at all (at least in how I<\/em> was employing it). I made no judgment on your character. The reductio<\/em>, rightly understood, is an attempt to persuade a person, precisely because it is assumed that he is not<\/em> of bad character, and can be made to see the error of his premises, which lead to bad and absurd consequences.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nIn this way, it is completely different from the idiotic \u201chow often do you beat your wife\u201d (which is not a reductio<\/em>, but simply a cynical, slanderous fallacy). It\u2019s the fallacy, of course, of the loaded question<\/a>.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI was sincerely attempting to understand why you think in the way you do about this issue, and what would be required for you to see that you have false premises in play that soil your thought.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\u201cJudgment of character\u201d is a red herring. Logically, the problem with \u201cHave you stopped beating your wife?\u201d is that it\u2019s a complex question. The emotional and moral particulars are irrelevant to the logic; that just makes it a humorously memorable example.\u00a0And I believe you\u2019re not trying to be condescending, but since you\u2019re the one who\u2019s confused\u2026<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAre you familiar with the<\/span> fallacy of the complex question<\/a>?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nYes, but that\u2019s not the logic I was employing, as I have been explaining. That\u2019s completely different from a proper reductio<\/em><\/a>, which is part of socratic method<\/a>: which I have been enthralled with and have employed for now 42 years in my dialogues: since my first course in philosophy.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAnd that would be a<\/span> false dichotomy<\/a>. As I\u2019ve already illustrated, a reductio<\/em> can also be a complex question \u2014 they aren\u2019t mutually exclusive \u2014 and this one was.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIt was not at all, but obviously we are at an impasse. You\u2019re not willing to closely examine your own thinking in this area. Again, most folks are the same way, in matters political. That\u2019s why most political discussions (like the one we have just engaged in) go nowhere, if there are existing profound differences at the level of presuppositions.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMike\u2019s question would absolutely have been a proper reductio<\/em> IF MY OBJECTION WERE TO THE NUMBER OF WHITE PEOPLE. Since my objection WAS NOT TO THE NUMBER OF WHITE PEOPLE, the reductio<\/em> failed.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWe\u2019ve been through all that discussion. I\u2019m not gonna revisit it again. All we can do is let readers decide: which I\u2019m always very content and happy to do.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMike\u2019s confusion doesn\u2019t interest me. Yours, frankly, baffles me. But such is life.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI\u2019m not baffled by your shoddy thought at all, because I think I know where it comes from (liberal thinking and the myriad logical fallacies and falsehoods therein). As usual, the conservative is pilloried as heartless, whereas our\u00a0critique of liberalism is that it is insufficiently logical and is shallow thinking about very complex issues.\n\n
As usual, the conservative is pilloried as heartless . . .<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nNope.\u00a0See, you can\u2019t say one true thing about my actual position.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI was speaking broadly and generally about how both \u201csides\u201d usually view each other.\n<\/div>\nNothing I said constitutes a critique of \u201cthe Alabama pro-life scene.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nwhich goes back to the larger picture of historic racism, etc.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nNothing I said indicates that I think you (singular or plural) are unduly influenced by historic racism. As I said earlier, racism affects us all.\u00a0<\/span>\n<\/div>\nI\u2019m not aware of saying anything that implies that about the \u201cwe\u201d in question.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIs that so? So you see nothing critical or objectionable at all in the outrageously acerbic and cynical opening salvo that you lobbed in the dialogue?:<\/div>\n\n
An agnostic friend of mine shares the article below with the comments: \u201cTo my religious friends, the ones who have sacrificed every ounce of their morality and reason for this one moment: I hope it was all worth it. The family separations, the hate crimes, the rejection of science and scholarship, the vile rhetoric, your disgusting, gibbering Mammon in power over all.\u201d This is what we have done to the pro-life movement.<\/span> [links to Guardian<\/em> article<\/a> about 25 white male pro-lifers \u2014 all pictured \u2014 in Alabama]<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nReaders note: the final sentence is the Deacon\u2019s own words: \u201cThis is what we have done to the pro-life movement.\u201d\n<\/div>\nDave<\/a>, not one of the specific critiques in my friend\u2019s comment \u2014 \u201cThe family separations, the hate crimes, the rejection of science and scholarship, the vile rhetoric, your disgusting, gibbering Mammon in power over all\u201d \u2014 was specific to Alabama.\u00a0<\/span>\n<\/div>\n\u00a0I don\u2019t see how you can deny any<\/em><\/strong> connection, seeing that this agnostic critic \u201cshare[d] the article below with the comments . . .\u201d\n<\/div>\nYou\u2019ve evidently badly misunderstood my friend\u2019s comment. Let me translate: \u201cWell, here in Alabama you\u2019ve finally gotten your reward for all the havoc you\u2019ve been a party to on the national stage. For the sake of a SCOTUS that may uphold this Alabama law and maybe overturn Roe, you\u2019ve embraced family separations, etc. I hope it was worth it.\u201d<\/span>\n<\/div>\nYou can have the last word.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\nMike Johnson and Deacon Steven continue on again<\/a> in a second Facebook combox.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\nPhoto credit:\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>herbert2512<\/a>\u00a0(10-20-18)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License]<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"