Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. – Marie Von Ebner-Eschenbach
A couple of months ago, a person I know online became very upset with me for disagreeing with her contention that it was possible to judge an idea by one’s attitude toward some person who supports it. In other words, she insisted that because a person she thoroughly dislikes agrees with some position, that it was valid for her to discard the idea through a process of guilt by association. This is, of course, one of the classic logical fallacies; human beings are complex creatures, and it’s inevitable that any given person will agree with any other person on something. Just because Charles Manson enjoyed Beatles music does not make it bad, and I’m sure many abusive cops enjoy a nice dish of ice cream as much as I do. Nor is this congruence limited to aesthetic judgments; people often arrive at the same position via completely different cognitive paths, or recognize a fact while drawing a completely divergent conclusion from it. For example, Sheila Jeffreys correctly recognizes traditional marriage as a form of prostitution, yet bizarrely insists that this means marriage should be abolished!
It’s impossible to draw an equals sign between any person’s likability or moral character and the quality of his ideas, or between the value of an idea and the likability or moral character of any given person who espouses it; yet, people insist on doing this all the time. Up until 70 years ago eugenics was a major tenet of the “progressive” philosophy, and it logically follows that if wise “authorities” can be trusted to dictate what people consume, say, see, hear, think and do in bed, they should certainly be allowed to control reproduction. But once eugenics became associated with the Nazis, it was rejected from the “progressive” canon despite the fact that its place there is undeniable. People also base their appraisal of someone’s character on the fact that he holds some or many of the same views as they do; again, that makes no sense. While politics does make strange bedfellows, I refuse to grant someone my blanket approval merely because he and I have some common cause.
Even the most predictably ignorant, habitually wrong and thoroughly confused individual gets it right once in a while, and when that does happen it deserves recognition. Pat Robertson deserves credit for statements opposing marijuana criminalization and young-earth creationism, Barack Obama for recognizing that the penny (like much of the government) is an obsolete waste of money, and Jezebel for actually publishing something funny and on-target for a change:
Colorado pastor…Kevin Swanson…[claims] “certain doctors and scientists…have…compared the wombs of women who were on birth control pill versus those who were not…and they have found that with women who were on the…pill there are these little tiny fetuses—these little babies—embedded into the womb…these wombs of women who have been on the…pill effectively have become graveyards for lots and lots of little babies.”
ALARMING INDEED. Intrigued by Swanson’s research, I consulted a respected doctor-scientist from my local university, and uncovered a whole bunch of other substances that have been found in the birth-controlled wombs of scarlet women:
teeth
snails
other, smaller wombs
watermelon rinds
a grizzled undertaker
apples
Jimmy Hoffa
tiny living babies
a bar of soap with a hair on it
Desmond from Lost
pine cones
hot lava
pieces of curb
Turtle Man
eels
goblins
imps
Hitler’s mustache
a DVD of Scrubs, season 4
a portal to John Malkovich’s brain
I laughed especially hard at “other, smaller wombs”. Unfortunately, the comments are just as off-cue and humorless as usual, but one can’t have everything. I’m sure even Jezebel commenters are right sometimes, but of course the odds against more than a few of them being right at the same time are astronomical…which is exactly why ideas must be judged on their own merits rather than which or how many people espouse them.
Maggie, there is a conversation in a blog about you. I think u’ll find it very interesting:
http://fleshtrade.blogspot.com.es/2013/04/attacking-maggie-mcneill-aka-honest.html
“a grizzled undertaker” hahahahahahahaha
strange bedfellows…blanket approval/ I see what you did there. 😉
I agree wholeheartedly (and with all other body parts) 😉
Hey now! I resemble that remark! 😀
If you limit your logical universe to only those you agree with – then you’re living in a dark box and you won’t see much.
I will say though, that it is often harder to forgive someone who you find intelligent and insightful for getting something screamingly wrong, than it is to accept that someone who you usually find screamingly wrong gets something right once in a blue moon. (As you might expect, I often find this happening when the subject of prostitution comes up, often in the most surprising ways.)
Also, with TV preachers I can never tell how much of their schtick they actually believe, and how much is for the rubes who eat up whatever they feed them. (I always think of TV preachers as P. T. Barnum in religious drag. It’s show biz, like an old-time medicine show.)
This is totally true for me. About a month ago I read a paper by a really good epidemiologist on sex work; I really respect her career and the solid research she put out. Buried in the introduction to one of her papers was a throw-away line about the average age of entry into sex working being 14-17 years. If most people said that, I’d mostly be grateful they didn’t say 12 years instead, but because it was someone I thought was really smart and knowledgeable, my jaw dropped a bit.
You usually run into it in all kinds of strange places. I was talking to a man who was telling me about his woes trying to support a wife and a mistress, and I don’t know how it came up but he said, “I’d never go with a prostitute, because those women have all kinds of diseases.” I argued with him a bit, but I couldn’t convince him of the ridiculousness of his position.
Now, I normally find this fellows opinions a little silly (he’s constantly talking about UFOs and ancient astronauts, for example), but I thought his sexual mores were closer to mine.
I totally agree with that. There is a certain preacher… Robert Tilton, I believe… who, I swear, is constantly a heartbeat away from breaking character and saying: “I’m sorry, but I can’t believe that you’re buying this shit…”
I know. It occasionally occurs to me that if I hadn’t have been raised Catholic it looks like a pretty fun career path and I might have been really tempted to follow it. (Fortunately, in the Catholic religion for priests its, “No sex with anyone, ever,” so I wasn’t even a little bit tempted all those years I was an altar boy.)
Of course, I can only expect if I was a preacher, I’d eventually be coming before my flock with tears in my eyes saying, “I have sinned against you, the Devil tempted me into that hotel room with those two girls and I did succumb…”
My favorite is always Jack Van Impe, the man loves to spin a good tale.
The irony here is that Paul lists forbidding marriage as one of the “doctrines of demons” in 1 Timothy 4:1-3.
In any case, the shortage of priests is gradually forcing Catholicism to accept marriage. For example, in Spain, married priests already constitute around 20% of the total.
I do not agree that marriage is quite the same thing as prostitution, although it is an economic exchange. The ancient bargain is not provision and protection in exchange for sex and pleasure, but in exchange for legitimate heirs. His labour in exchange for her labour. Legitimate heirs is something that only a wife – by definition – can give.
(And all the kids that do not inherit? Why, according to the bible, they are “arrows in your quiver” – cannon fodder for endless tribal wars, to be sent to beat up the other guy’s tribe who lives in the next valley and who worships a god who is not as cool as your own.)
It is very natural. We want to be part of the group (whatever group that might be) and disagreeing with something that a group member says feels wrong, like we’re letting ‘our side’ down. By the same token, agreeing with someone who is generally opposed to your group also feels like a betrayal of the group.
Man is a rationalizing, not a rational, animal.
“and they have found that with women who were on the…pill there are these little tiny fetuses”
Took me a while to find the correct word. “Prescientific” comes close, “magical”, kinda-sorta, but the I found it: these are *primitive* ideas. “Atavistic”, if you like five-dollar words. These are notions from the dawn of reason (or perhaps slightly before it).
I’m assuming that Pastor Kevin Swanson just made this story up, to stop all the sexy sex from going on amongst his parishioners, since he doesn’t source any particular crackpot but “certain doctors and scientists.” (It has a certain small resemblance to certain medieval superstitions about the mandrake root being formed from the sperm ejaculated by a hanged man..)
You know what I think? I think that he had a bad dream about all the fetuses, and has trouble distinguishing the content of his dreams from reality. It’s a very religious way to think. How many people take the book of revelation to be true?
This sort of thing is why it is pointless to debate religious types. Debate only works when people agree on facts, and fails as a method when people introduce things that are not true into the debate. You can’t actually fact-check in the debate format, which is why religious people are so keen on it.
What’s wrong with young earth creationism? Well, okay, “creationism”, granted, but the earth might be young. The earth/universe age questions have lots of twists and turns. To me it looks mysterious in the end.
If the earth is young, then God has gone to a great deal of trouble to make it look very, very old (about 3by). Since God has gone to so much trouble to make the world look old, ought we not pay him the compliment of pretending to be fooled?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
10,000 years is pretty old, isn’t it? I mean, the pyramids are only about half that and they’re really old. LOL
I used to be interested in these sorts of questions, but now I can’t be bothered. Pls See:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Which were written by people who know more about it than I do.
The problem is not really that many people judge ideas using this fundamentally defective approach, the problem is that they do not realize this approach is defective. As a consequence, they use the same on important things and become easily manipulated by people they think they like. One consequence is that politicians try to be liked instead of making good politics, as being liked brings them far more votes.
When it comes down to it, not knowing that this is a fallacy is a huge problem today, and basically negates the worth of democracy. It is also very immature not to know as recognizing ones limitations is fundamental for becoming a responsible adult and the only thing that allows people to overcome said limitations when it counts.
That somebody can actually argue that the fallacy in question is right is the hight of stupidity or just plain evil. (The latter if they profit from others using this fallacy.)
Does Pastor Swanson really believe this bullshit? Does he also believe in “legitimate” rape? How many other Americans believe this?
Almost none. There aren’t very many Nickleback fans either but they get lots of press. 🙁
If you follow some of the links Swanson says homosexuals will burn xtians at the stake. Hmm, what to say to that? “Boots on the other leg?” “Turn-about is fair play?”
Well, I’m a leftist, but I also believe in the right to bare arms. (I don’t currently possess a gun, nor have I in the past, btw.) Furthermore, I believe in the right to bare arms not because of the Second Amendment, but because we all have the natural right of self-defense.
Many on the Left have acted like chickens with their heads cut off ever since the Sandy Hook incident, even to the point of wanting to declare the NRA a terrorist organization. This so-called “gun control” is nothing but collective punishment, which any decent person should be against. Frankly, the Left is engaging in the same “collective responsibility” doctrine that the Right engaged in with regards to Muslims after 9/11 (yes, I’m talking to you, Michael Moore).
The NRA (since 1960) has been a loony organization, not a terrorist one. (I say this as a responsible gun owner.) And although I have problems with Michael Moore, the first part of ‘Bowling for Columbine’ (where he’s asking questions) I thoroughly enjoyed.
Actually thinking about people as individuals, and holding them individually accountable, is difficult. Blaming the entire group is easy. And most human beings are lazy.
The NRA is not a loony organization, it’s an industry lobby group. It’s no more loony than those dairy groups that want all patriotic americans to eat more cheese.
The NRA is headed by loons, then, and has been since the 1960s.
It’s no longer an organization that any responsible, sane person who supports the right to own firearms should want to have anything to do with.
Instead, if major restrictive gun control ever gets made into law in the United States, those who wish to ban firarms will owe a great deal of thanks to Wayne LaPierre for making their position seem reasonable and rational.
“Many on the Left have acted like chickens with their heads cut off ever since the Sandy Hook incident, even to the point of wanting to declare the NRA a terrorist organization.”
I know right? It’s become a kind of a mad fixation. The thing is, the guns were just as dangerous before Sandy Hook as after, so I’m not sure why it was Sandy Hook that triggered it. (Unless it’s to distract people from the Rubinite budget Obama recently proposed.)
Well, we have a Department of Homeland Security which considers “people reverent of individual liberty” as potential terrorists.
How about those Black Panthers? Nope – not on their potential terrorist list. Neither is Nation of Islam.
http://start.umd.edu/start/publications/research_briefs/LaFree_Bersani_HotSpotsOfUSTerrorism.pdf
I too believe in the right to bare arms, and wear t-shirts without shame. But even so, they are not appropriate in many workplaces, so I wear long sleeves and a tie when in a more businesslike environment. Just because I have a right, doesn’t mean I have to be a dick about it.
I certainly think I should be able to carry my musket with me if I want to.
When the people you like and the people you don’t like are advocating for the same thing, it gets your attention. Doesn’t mean the thing they are advocating for is right (or wrong, for that matter), but it gets a body’s attention.
So that’s what happened to Hoffa!