Category: Uncategorized

The restaurant owner made a foolish business decision.

Turning away a customer due to her service to the president is taking politics to an absurd level, but is not surprising.

So, as Conservatives I think it is safe to say we are not welcome at that restaurant.  I think the publicity this incident is getting will serve as a de facto boycott.  The owner actually generated a self-imposed boycott by making it known that Trump supporters are not welcome to spend their money at her establishment.

That’s just dumb business.

She is a prime example of a Useful Idiot of the modern National Socialist movement in America that is desperately attempting to regain the power they had under President Obama.  They failed to usurp the White House, even with the exposed coup attempt perpetrated by operatives within the FBI, DOJ, Obama Administration, Clinton Campaign, and even some reporters who obviously attempted to bribe FBI agents for leaks… wow.

And the media thinks their “Border Crisis” yellow journalism is somehow going to make us forget about the massive corruption scandal that dwarfs the iconic Watergate Scandal.

Alas, our history books will probably not even mention it because our education system is completely dominated by the Left.

Please homeschool your children to avoid the indoctrination.

Society has once again proven itself to be caught up in the paradox of tolerance.  I have witnessed media authorities needlessly walking on eggshells in deference to the rhetorical echoes of racism from a distant past while simultaneously embracing crude utterances of misogyny. That distant past is so far removed from the 21st Century that references to “racist” remarks are far less harmful than they are a convenient political tool. Well, that political tool has been used… again… very effectively by the National Socialists here in America.
Recent events have shown several things that need to be pointed out:

• Conservatives need to stop apologizing… period.  Phony umbrage is only used for political leverage; there is no true harm arising from anyone’s “racist” language.
• No more is there need for the three R’s of allegations of racism:  Recoil, Recant, Resign.  That obligatory decorum has been exploited for factitious political manipulation appealing to the trite jeremiad of a far removed societal scourge.
• If umbrage were grounds for torpedoing someone’s career, then it should be consistently applied.  Samantha Bee should be cancelled, or Roseanne should be reinstated… fair is fair.
• Punishment applied to the casual error of cacology as though it were truly reflective of a pervasive attitude… which it is obviously not to anyone who is not simply policing the political correctness of one’s verbiage.
• Roseanne’s “racist” joke was not racist; there was no attempt to promote the superiority of one race above others, or to imply the inferiority of any other race…it was merely a joke.
• Samantha Bee, on the other hand, can freely spout misogynistic vulgarities in a jejune malediction that caused the adoring audience to fleer out of disdain for our president but had no comedic merit.
• That which is arguably a mere cacology should not be elevated to the significance of “racist” sentiments.  All you are accomplishing by this overreaction is cheapening the claim of racism, macerating its seriousness by steeping it in the teapot tempest of phony claims.
• The cast of “Roseanne” got screwed, royally, for no good reason.  The weapon of indignation that was used effectively as an overture of disdain for Roseanne’s support for President Trump affected several cast members who lost their job in a political gambit to remove a public forum for the intolerable flaw of espousing an opposing opinion.

Conservatives need to stop apologizing and capitulating to the career-ending consequences to their comments. There are no white supremacists in our government. I am sick of hearing the obligatory platitudes of denunciation, such as “repugnant” and other terms of abomination one is expected to use in order to avoid being slandered as racist by default.

Anyone who slanders you as a racist should be censured vehemently, because they do so at the peril of your reputation and, dare I say, safety. (Notice how Hollywood dehumanizes “racists” as objects of socially acceptable murder for zombie protagonists who need to eat “repugnant” humans.)

The actual danger of white supremacist oppression of racial minorities is miniscule. According to my research, there are only 5000-8000 fools in the United States who adhere to the tenets of white supremacy. That is a micro-population of 0.00025% of the 325.7 million people in the United States. There is nothing to fear from “white supremacy” but the fear of white supremacy itself, with apologies to FDR. The “fear” is nothing more than conveniently sanctioned umbrage feigned for purposes of political leverage.

Roseanne got cancelled for her reference to someone looking like a cross between the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes. I fail to see the harm in that. No one’s reputation was besmirched by those comments, nor was anyone oppressively dehumanized. On the other hand, Samantha Bee’s epithet of misogyny was given a free pass. Wake up, society! “Planet of the Apes” is far less dehumanizing as a racist comment than “feckless cunt” is sexually demeaning misogyny! Where is the feminist outrage over that?

Yet Roseanne and the entire cast of her show lose their jobs because of “Planet of the Apes” while Samantha Bee goes on to laudatory praise as an advocate for social change. The failure to apply any consequences for “feckless cunt”, which is sexually demeaning and is as unmentionable as the “racial epithet that must n-ever be uttered”.

To the executives that cut Roseanne but made no attempt to reprimand Samantha Bee I say:

You are nothing more than a political janissary of the National Socialist Movement looking for a convenient commination used to torpedo Roseanne’s show because her intolerable beliefs did not match your political agenda.

The paradox of “tolerance” is embodied in the following terms:

• Social Justice
• Tolerance Movement
• Restorative Justice
• Social Change

Those are the new eponyms of societal intolerance masquerading as “tolerance”, “inclusiveness”, and “diversity” that will become dangerous if we continue to be politically complacent.

“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

• Voltaire: “The best is the enemy of the good.
• Confucius: “Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.”
• Shakespeare: “Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well.”

Author Gretchen Rubin has been credited with recently popularizing the aphorism in her book, The Happiness Project.

(I must credit the website for this information:  http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/249676)

I decided to apply that motivational business concept in a historical/anachronistic application.
Our Forefathers set out to establish a “More Perfect Union”. Notice their use of the comparative ‘more”, rather than the superlative “most”, or simply dubbing it a “Perfect Union”. By carefully modeling the semantics through word choice, they humbly acknowledged their current imperfections with the intent to improve, to become more perfect. They were remarkably forward-thinking regarding the Constitutional concept of “Liberty”. They eschewed the hubris of assuming they were the ultimate authority on a Free Society. They understood that, with the guidance of our governing document, Liberty would be open to match the “more perfect union” America would become as geographically and culturally diverse states would grow more consistent in their agreement of what “liberty” is and to whom it applied.
As you have probably noticed, Americans are beginning to question (and perhaps dismiss altogether) the integrity of our Forefathers because they did not provide equal liberties for Americans of African descent and women. There are even some “statue-phobes” who are calling for the removal of Jefferson and Washington monuments because they were slave owners. Hold on a minute! It is as though people are assuming they simultaneously invented liberty for “white men” and slavery for “black men”. The slaves they owned were an inheritance that was passed to them, a vestige or their predecessors.

Be careful not to abandon the Good, the accomplishments of these men, because they failed to be Perfect. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” These guys had not experienced the progress over the 240 years of a “more perfect union” that we have. To judge them using the anachronism of our current progress of “liberty” is unfair. (I blame the failing education system for this misconception, but I’ll address that later.)
That brings us to another useful aphorism:
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”

― Søren Kierkegaard

Think of Historical figures and their significant contributions to the development of our nation. They were living life forward from a world that was characterized by:

1. Minimal development of civilization
2. Human brutality toward others
3. Despotism that quashed liberty
4. Imperialistic drive for national self-sufficiency

Peoples were territorial out of necessity for self-preservation

Priorities of nations were:

• Trade (ports, rivers)
• Secure borders (natural protective boundaries)
• National defense

Throughout history mankind:

• Brutally dominated other peoples
• Enslaved others to maintain dominance and maintain a supply of manual labor
• Sought to expand territorial holdings for purposes of natural resources, access to trade, and to provide a buffer zone for defense

…but then we look at life backward.

Wow, these people were hypocrites in terms of “liberty” and “all men are created equal”, enslaving fellow Americans and denying women the right to vote.

Well, those concepts were an anachronism in their time.  They came about with great efforts by great Americans.

The framers of the Constitution had to start from the square upon which they were standing. It was difficult enough to get 13 geographically, culturally, and economically diverse regions to come together and agree on a plan for government. Too many innovations and it would be even more difficult, if not impossible, to come together as The United States of America.

History is now taught from a judgmental perspective rather than a factual one. I have seen historical programs designed to appeal to children that overtly present an anti-“old white men” attitude that reflects poorly on our Founding Fathers… even to the extreme as calling them “backward-thinking” (for not providing for the right of women to vote).

No, no, no… This judgmental, simplistic portrayal of American History is eroding patriotism passing on to future generations.
It is a fallacy of logic to pass judgment on historical figures when the condemnation is anachronistic.
American education is now condemning our founding fathers for moral dilemmas and flaws that are an anachronism for the progress of liberty in their time.

• How could Thomas Jefferson pioneer liberty while continuing to own slaves?
• How could America fight the brutality of Axis powers while bombing their cities and using atomic weapons?
• How could America claim moral high ground when it stole its land from the indigenous peoples of North America?
• How could the Founding Fathers selfishly deny women the right to vote?

While these are compelling philosophical questions, they commit fallacies of logic when used as condemnation of America and its Founding Fathers.

Remember:

• The perfect is the enemy of the good… America has experienced over 200 years of forming a “more perfect union”.
• What we have now is completely different than what existed in Jefferson’s time.
• There was no democracy, no individual liberty, therefore, any such establishment required political invention; there was no contemporary model.
• Jefferson and Washington were significant historical figures because they were instrumental in the invention of such an establishment. The liberties they established were utterly experimental. They had to be conceptualized, dictated in legal terms so that they could not be infringed, put into practice, and protected.
• Why were the liberties of women, slaves, etc. not included in the original deal?

Consider the tabula rasa concept. The Constitution was a blank slate. The authors had several obstacles to clear before the document would be accepted:

• Everything had to accommodate the needs of an extremely diverse demographic from Georgia to New Hampshire.
• The unification had to be equitable so that no one group would develop greater power and become the next despot.
• Many things needed to be accepted with the agreement that they would be dealt with later. .. and, as history has progressed, they have.

That brings us to the modern concepts, fraught with intolerance as they are, of “toxic masculinity” and “white privilege. I will further address these topics in a later post.

I learned a lot about adults in my years as a fifth grade teacher.  How?

As a veteran teacher, I became quite adept at recognizing perennial behavior patterns in children. I compiled a list of recurring claims in outbursts of backtalk. In the early years of my career, I would succumb to the typical teacher hubris and commence arguing with the student to “put him in his place”, or other misguided authoritarian claims common to the stereotypical teacher attitude. Well, ultimately, the ensuing exchange was merely a pointless waste of time (which I eventually concluded was the intent of the student from the beginning; an attempt to interrupt the lesson for an opportunity to engage in some “officially sanctioned” goofing off, anything to get off the topic of the lesson.)

Subsequently, I have discovered that adults are not much different that the kids they once were. They engage in the discussion of controvertible subjects with recurring tactics, much a children do in school. Democrats, I have discovered, use a predictable bank of tactics. They even use a predictable bank of talking points, usually begging the question with them as though they are self-evident truths that can be used as evidence… which they are not; “begging the question” is a logical fallacy, making the claim invalid.

I have also discovered, in retrospect, ineffective tactics of my own. I invariably walk away from an argument with a Democrat kicking myself at the poor display of debate skills I just exhibited. I always lose, or at least feel like I lost, the argument… usually bowing out to rescue myself from the collision course with an impending outburst of rage.

Here is a short list of some of my findings. I tried to summarize it into a memorable bullet list of political argument tips.

The prevailing strategy of a Democrat is to control the narrative:

They will use multiple tactics with which to accomplish this strategy. Pay attention to these tactics because they are recurring, and, if you keep a mental record of them, you can plan rebuttals using logic as opposed to references to faith or other claims that will never succeed in convincing a Democrat that she or he has lost the argument.

I will start with some suggestions.  I have retro-critically analyzed my failed arguments with political opponents.  These suggestions are based on mistakes I have made in the past, and, regrettably, continue to make.  So, I emphasize the importance of preparation when it comes to political argument tactics.

• Refrain from cajoling… you will not succeed in eliciting sympathy from a Democrat; they are too arrogant and possessive of their beliefs. Obviously they are not swayed by reference to the human carnage of abortion on demand, therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that they value their own beliefs over anything a Conservative could posit as a “poster child” for sympathy.
• Refrain from quoting the Bible or referencing the supreme authority of God: Words of solemn significance to the Christian Faith have no effect on those who do not share that faith. Likewise, any Dictum from the Bible, regardless of its power in the hearts of Christians, will have no effect on an arrogant atheist, or devil’s advocate of any persuasion who likes to aggravate rancor in Christians by attacking their beliefs.  I once pulled out the coup-de-grace in an argument with a Democrat over a religious issue, “abomination”. I was convinced that the solemn impact of this word would bolster my argument such that he would bow his head in defeat, symbolically handing over his sword in political defeat. As I should have expected, it had no effect whatsoever, other than cause me to suffer retrospective humiliation at the cajoling tone of voice with which I presented that most sacred of terms… bah, I only made a fool of myself. You will only experience frustration in your failure to effectively reference your own faith…So, don’t do it.

It is a good plan to, citing the philosophy of General Douglas MacArthur, “know your enemy”. It is wise to keep mental notes of the recurring tactics of your Democratic opponents, or even write them down… there is no shame in jotting notes during an argument. This especially true if you encounter the same person in an endless war of political attrition, arguing the same themes ad nauseam on a daily, weekly, yearly basis…

It is encouraging to know that Democrats universally use a recurring bank of argument tactics. They also tend to argue in “talking points” or “mantras”; they use the same go-to terminology and pet claims as evidence in a predictable manner. Here are some of the things I have noticed about the characteristics of the Democrats I have encountered.

• Defiance: They are unwilling to yield. You will need to stay focused on the issue specific to the topic of discussion. They are masters of putting you on the defensive. So, even though you began the argument with a belief you hold to be self-evident, they will ultimately cause you self-doubt such that you are relegated to defending the overall integrity of your political, religious, and cultural beliefs as a whole, let alone the original topic of discussion.
• Shrewdness: They will try to confuse you by attempting to divert attention from the issue. Their defiance manifests itself in every diversionary tactic known to debate enthusiasts worldwide. It is vital that you deflect these diversionary tactics and stay on the original topic. (Well, I did some research into logical fallacies and discovered that everything Democrats predictably use as a diversionary tactic is some type of logical fallacy that renders their counter-claim invalid.)
• Guile: They predictably attempt to transfer culpability to a Republican politician or other public figure. They invariably will counter-charge a Republican with an “equal and opposite” stigma that “absolves” their pet politician of any wrongdoing by proxy of scapegoat hypocrisy. Although they are 100% guilty of hypocrisy themselves, they often place the entire basis of their rebuttal on this “you too”, “Tu Quoque” fallacy.  Pointing out hypocrisy is not a valid claim:  Hypocrisy does not invalidate the logic of the claim.  So, in logic, there is indeed a “do as I say, not as I do” validation…
• Stubbornness: They will never concede your point in an argument, let alone convert to your beliefs. Never confront their belief with your belief as a rebuttal. Stick to logic. They are as beholden to their beliefs as you are to yours. You will not change their minds; you will not convert them, politically or religiously; you will not get them to back down from their claim. The only way to keep the upper hand in the argument and come out with your dignity is to confront their claims and counter-claims as logically invalid. That takes a little homework. I will try to help with that.

In future blog posts, I plan to address specific tactics to plan for, as well as specific logical fallacies your political opponents commonly use.

People are using a faulty comparison fallacy to publicize an emotionally charged lie that stirs up unjustified rage that has incited violence.

The claim is that Law Enforcement Officers in America are racist, disproportionately targeting black males.

This is a lie.  Yet, nobody calls it out as such.

NFL players kneel on it.  One even justified his “Anthem kneeling” by stating that “black men are being gunned down in the street by racist cops”.  The implication evokes images of astonishing body counts as though there was a war raging.
This claim is a lie.  The statistics used to support this lie are not related; percentages are used that do not indicate nearly the tremendous number these activists are implying.

I did some research… and none of the sources of information I found even agreed on the actual number of decedents.  I just picked one to illustrate my point.

One claimed that of the  1,129 people officers killed, 27 percent were Black — despite Blacks being just 13 percent of the U.S. population.
This is 305 persons… out of well over 45 million persons encountering police (a special category, total U.S. population is irrelevant to this comparison).

This black decedents to “persons encountering police” comparison is 0.0007% as opposed to 0.0018 non-black decedents.
Comparing that micro-percentage with 13 percent of the total population of America is a faulty comparison:

• 325.7 million people, 74.5 million black… 86% of whom did NOT experience a police encounter, so the 13% comparison is a faulty comparison…
• 0.0007% of people who actually did encounter police officers is a micro-percentage that is more appropriately attributed to behavior than race

Do not allow people to emotionally charge this issue!  Correct anyone who claims police are racist.  Use the above numbers to support your rebuttal. 

The fomenting rage against police is inciting violence against officers.

Do not allow people to spread lies using faulty comparisons of statistical data as phony “proof” of endemic racism in law enforcement… 1000 people, regardless of demographics, do not represent a universal policy or attitude within law enforcement.

Law Enforcement Officers are NOT racist.  PERIOD. 

I have noticed the proliferation of something that at first went unnoticed, then I misunderstood, and then I heard it for what it has become…
Politics of Dysphemism: A dysphemism is a hateful term used as a nominative substitute in order to disparage someone

Political Correctness has all but criminalized certain slurs, and has rendered rhetoric so precarious that one is likely to be retroactively shamed by someone’s invented umbrage.

Society has become sensitive to indignation on many fronts, yet it is allowing other offensive slurs to pass uncontested.
At first I was merely annoyed by the apparent stupidity of it all.

Opponents of our president sling invective at him in order to besmirch his image. Slurs like “Nazi”, “Hitler”, “Fascist”, “White Supremacist”, , and a litany of abhorrent terms have been thrown at him.  Conservatives are reviled as “Alt-Right”.

At first I dismissed it as loose-cannon Leftist mudslinging that has become the trademark stratagem of the modern Democratic Party.
Then, I thought they were committing verbicide by cheapening the historical significance of the words. We who have been taught history before the demise of our education system know the significance of these terms. I was actually concerned that their widespread use would soften the impact of the terms. After all, the terms were seemingly over-the-top mudslinging.  Wrong again…

It came together after the obligatory media outrage concerning the “Charlottesville Riots”.  NO one was allowed to deviate from the narrative that the responsibility of the violence lay solely with the white supremacists without being denounced for making “a moral equivalent” to the hated “Nazi Scum”.  Then I took notice to how the media portrays “Nazi Scum” as people who deserve to be beaten to death on sight.

This unapologetic dehumanization concerned me. Even though I oppose the opinions of the “Unite the Right” demonstrators, I certainly don’t support how society condones violent confrontation with them.  I researched the objective report of the law firm, Hunton & Williams LLC, who audited the police departments involved that day.  Without going into the whole thing, the vehicular homicide denouement of the day was set into motion and escalated by people who were not the possessors of the permit to demonstrate.

The aforementioned widespread use of dysphemism, undeservedly applied to conservatives, is intentional.  Seeing how white supremacists are vituperated to the point of dehumanization such that society condones hatred, violence, and even murder of such “Nazi Scum”, I decided to speak up.

The frequent application of such terms is intended to transfer that violent societal rancor to all conservatives.  Though it is amusing to watch distraught Leftist sheep shout toward the sky in anguish over the fall of the Clinton Machine, the escalating collective emotion is alarming.

To the Leftists, Conservatives are no longer fellow American political rivals within a wonderful country.  You may not think much of it, but the term “Alt-Right” carries a great deal of hatred. It is a modern term for Conservatives portrayed as hated enemies who bear the responsibility for all racism, sexism, etc.  Conservatives are now hated more by their political opposition than foreign aggressors.

Here is what conservatives need to do:
Anytime, and I mean IN EVERY INSTANCE, you hear anyone make reference to a Conservative as a racist-affiliated dysphemism, imagine the shouts of umbrage one would get after uttering a racial slur.  Stand up and fight back.

…Stand up and fight back:

• Stop the conversation IMMEDIATELY.
• Denounce the slur in the strongest terms.
• Reaffirm your denunciation vociferously, because they will invariably scoff.
• Demand they renounce the use of such hateful language to smear Conservatives.
• Reiterate the demand, because they will undoubtedly try to laugh it off.
• If they don’t recant, end the conversation and walk away.

Retaliate with all the fury reciprocal to the billingsgate they have unabashedly spewed since the 2016 election.

DO NOT accept their comparison of Conservatives to white supremacists!  None of us should.

We need to quash this vilification and dehumanization of Americans who disagree with the Left.  It is more deleterious that it currently appears.  “Social Justice” activists are currently assaulting the hated “Nazi Scum” with impunity.

Don’t let that happen to us.

I usually try to avoid political discussions in public because I have trouble keeping my autonomic nervous surges in check when I get angry.  Even if I manage to resist the outburst of rage, my shaking hands and trembling voice belie my attempt to stay under control.

However, I have fallen into the trap…

• A point of contention emerged in a small group meeting, and before I knew it, everyone in the room discovered my political affiliation.
• The topic of taxes comes up, and the person with whom I am conversing suckers me into thinking they have a reasonable concept of Capitalism… Alas, no.
• A conversation over a “common sense” issue… well, in politics there’s no such thing as common sense.
• An argument whether a picture of an armored military vehicle was taboo for inner city kids… I would say that shielding them from the scourge of gun violence by eschewing a fearsome picture of an M1A1 Abrams tank is far less important than fostering a burgeoning interest in a military career that would get them out of the cycle of inner city squalor…
• And other innocuous-sounding topics that I suffer from the hubris of thinking I can change someone’s mind about… Sisyphean complex, I suppose.

Their argument-ending statement was always, “Let’s agree to disagree.”

Never accept the argument-ending statement “let’s agree to disagree…”
Translation:

“Shut up, you’re wrong, and I have run out of patience resisting your logic.”

“I have run out of talking points I use as canned defense to logical challenges.”
No, I will not “agree to disagree.”
I will agree that the agreement failed because of invalid claims and a refusal to follow sound logic.
I will agree that you refuse to abandon your invalid mischaracterization of your opposition’s claims, foolishly clinging to emotionally-charged anecdotes of outrage with which you attempt to coerce unconstitutional legislation.
I will agree that you refuse to challenge your own invalid, minimal-truth propagandistic hearsay messages and accept the sound logic of an opponent whose views are irrationally abhorrent to you.

I will agree to accept your capitulation due to failure to challenge logic with valid arguments.

That’s what I will agree to do.

President Trump’s appointee for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, is suffering the indignity (and, dare I say, anxiety) of a Senate Media Spectacle in which Democrats grandstand for the most media-perfect aphorism and semantic trap with which to gain political leverage over the Trump Administration.  Sen. Kamala Harris asked, “Do you believe that the previous interrogation techniques were immoral?”

Haspel replied, “Senator, I believe that CIA officers to whom you refer…”

Harris interrupted, “It’s a yes or no answer…”, repeated the question, and embellished the question, “I’m not asking you if you believe they were illegal.  Do you believe they were immoral?”

“Senator, I believe the CIA did extraordinary work to prevent another attack on this country given the legal tools that we were authorized to use,” Haspel continued, fighting off another attempted interruption.

Harris then badgered her to, “…please answer ‘yes or no’.  Do you believe, in hindsight, that those (torture) techniques were immoral?”

To which Haspel provided her stance to “support the higher moral standard we have decided to hold ourselves to.” (a masterful choice of answer to what the question should have requested, had it been more appropriately posed)

I will explain why this answer demonstrates wisdom far greater than that posed in the question.

Let me explain why this ostensibly simple question is a Democratic signature semantic trap.  Note:  I always want to ensure accuracy when I make a claim, so I find it prudent to consult a dictionary.  (I include the definitions to illustrate the claim of semantic ambiguity, so please understand I don’t have any intention of insulting anyone’s intelligence in doing so.) 

Point #1:  Ambiguous Reasoning:  The question presents a tenuous assumption of morality that is undercut by subjective ambiguity; it requires discussion.

The semantics of the words do not lend themselves to a simple “yes or no” answer.

Point #2:  On the surface, torture is viewed as an immoral act by accepted modern ethics, but let’s look at the specific semantics of the key words used in Harris’s question:

Immoral:  Adj.

Not conforming to accepted standards of morality

(hmmm… quite often Democrats dismiss the notion of morality as a qualification of decisions.. but, let’s go on…)

Morality:  N.

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, good and bad behavior

Ok… so far, even the definitions of the words themselves evoke more discussion.  So, a dichotomous yes/no answer to that question is not appropriate.

Let’s try a synonym for morality to clarify:  ethics

Ethics:  Moral principles that govern a person’s behavior or the conducting of an activity

Ok… more ambiguity contingent on the subjective determination of principles that distinguish right and wrong

Let me ensure my argument using “subjective” supports my claim accurately…

Subjective:  adj

1.  Based on OR influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions
2.  Dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence

I could go on, but the picture is completely nebulous regarding what a Democratic Senator’s subjective idea of what “immoral” is.

Point #3:  Democrats’ fluid subjectivity regarding the concept of “immoral”…

• Hillary’s lies… and all the lies of her cronies to cover her lies… etc.
• Hillary’s corruption… Uranium One, DNC rigging of her nomination, etc.
• Bill’s sexual improprieties… too many to list
• John Kerry’s constant equivocation… “Notwithstanding the violence in the Middle East, we have never lived in a safer time.” (Yeah, NOTWITHSTANDING Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, the 1940’s were pretty safe, too.  He insults my intelligence every time speaks, assuming that the public is too stupid to see through his Ivy League snobbery.)
• …the list goes on…  Democrats refuse to condemn the acts of the members of their own party as immoral, (thereby condoning that which is, by any reasonable decorum, undeniably immoral).  (hehehe… “notwithstanding” the Al Franken impropriety… and a few other recent incidents, which make this a ‘rarely’ rather than a ‘never’…).

Point #4:  That brings us to the semantics of the word “torture”:

The Senators used it as a noun in the syntax of their questions (Harris implied it in the video clip, referring back to actual use of the words and substituting the word “techniques”…)

Torture:  n.

1.  The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as punishment or to force them to say something

…Or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain

(neither of which apply to “waterboarding”, which does not have the effect of inflicting pain… nor is it intended to do so.)

2.  Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety

3.  A cause of suffering or anxiety

Well… there you have it… more subjectivity-dependent semantic interpretation

Point #5:  Kudos to CIA Director Appointee Gina Haspel for refusing to capitulate to the “anxiety provoking” demand for a yes or no answer to that subjectively ambiguous question.

If she had answered NO, she would besmirch herself as an immoral person who condones torture and, therefore, her confirmation would have been denied.

If she had answered YES, (which was the expected, ostensibly correct answer) the dichotomous reasoning would open a Pandora’s box of subjective interpretation with which Democrats would endlessly bedevil her tenure as CIA Director, and, more reflective of their true motive, harass President Trump for having appointed her.

The “Torture Police” would continually scrutinize the practices of the CIA and broaden their fluidly-semantic interpretation of “torture” to use as political leverage.

Point #6:  Democrats certainly do overuse “Virtue Signaling”…

vir·tue sig·nal·ing

So, to each virtue signaling Democratic Haruspex with the motive of investing future political capital in forcing, under mental duress, CIA Appointee Gina Haspel in a severely anxiety-provoking hearing, to answer a question better discussed with lengthy clarification due to the potential subjectivity in the semantics of  the terms in question, using badgering and verbal assault to coerce an unqualified answer…

I say to you

1. clarify your question by eliminating the ambiguity of subjectivity-fluid terms
2. refrain from demanding yes or no answers to questions that require discussion
3. Stop using anxiety-provoking torture* to force answers from CIA Appointee Gina Haspel regarding her stance on torture.  (*by definition #2 and #3)

To Conservatives:  Refuse to allow your opponents to control the narrative!  Plan your defense using these incontrovertible points:

1. “Immoral”, by definition, is subject to “accepted standards of morality”
2. It is faulty reasoning to force someone to commit to indefinite “accepted standards of morality”
3. Gina Haspel affirmed that she would “support the higher moral standard we have decided to hold ourselves to.”
4. With that response to the true spirit of the inquiry, she closed the argument.

These points of defense cannot be defeated in an argument because their logic is sound.

Your opponents will try to get you to follow a “red herring”, diverting the argument to some tangent.

Don’t get into it with them:  You closed the argument.

In response to the headline “Should Hate Speech be Protected”, I responded:

“Hate speech” is a subjective claim. ALL speech should be protected. There is a movement by the Leftist Revolutionaries in this nation to suppress conservative opinions by claiming the speakers commit “hate speech”, or it makes them feel “unsafe”. This is merely an appeal to outrage or pity (logical fallacy) in order to gain political leverage.  I will be addressing this issue on my blog in the near future.

A dialogue of posts followed:

Respondent #1:

You’re right. I tend to lean left myself and up until recently considered myself a liberal. I do not use that label anymore because the actions and statements from the left in the United States are not acceptable to me anymore. I was so angry when liberals were attacking the ACLU for their ‘Why We Must Defend Speech We Hate’ campaign. This seems very obvious to me and it is shocking how many liberals think that anything offensive should be shut down. No, no, and no. It is absolutely imperative to allow speech we don’t like. When censorship starts it won’t take long for it to filter into everything.

My Response to #1:

Thank you for seeing the Leftist movement for what it is. I try to make a distinction between Liberal (reasonable ideology) and Leftist (radical movement we now are seeing in full force). The push for Socialism is totally a Leftist movement… definitely not the traditional Liberal Democrats we have known. I hope we can return to open discussions rather than hateful shut-downs of opposition.

Respondent #2:

hate speech isn’t subjective it’s well defined

My Response to #2:

Not at all… don’t lie to yourself. The definition keeps broadening to include anyone whose opinion opposes the “accepted liberal standard.

Respondent #3:

What about when hate speech as racism threatens the life of people? Hate speech is not to oppose and idea. Hate speech is violence

Purpose of this blog:

• Expose the fallacy-ridden claims of the Leftists in our government and media
• Alert voters to ways they can reject invalid claims coming from propaganda talking points posited by Leftists
• Discuss the decline and ultimate reduction of the Education system to the lowest, most simplistic, narrowly interpreted misrepresentation of American history
• Dare to factually challenge the sacrosanct issues of racism, sexism, and other powder kegs of weaponized indignation
• Challenge the counter-knowledge, lies, misrepresentations, and other false reporting of the pro-Leftist media
• Provide research-based refutation of mischaracterizations, slander, and other falsehoods
• Find answers to issues that are ignored by the bias-confirmation focused media
• Speak out in favor of our Constitutional values and Rights
• Fight back against Leftist push to control guns, speech, and elections