That, is brilliant

Unlike the people who flee from cities in search of a life free from disagreement and dark skin, we are for contentiousness, discourse, and the heightened understanding of life that grows from having to accommodate opposing viewpoints. We're for opposition. And just to be clear: The non-urban argument, the red state position, isn't oppositional, it's negational--they are in active denial of the existence of other places, other people, other ideas.

That, right there.

I thought I'd post that because, well, because I'm taking the GRE tomorrow and I'm trying to think about other things.

Also, I want to make known that I really liked the passion, verve and [mostly] clear-headedness with which Savage and company present their case. Yes, it's unequivocal. Yes, it's illiberal of the intolerant [and intolerant of the illiberal]. Yes, it's inflammatory. It's a call to arms--something to unite behind--and it's exactly what we need.

Story time: The kids that organized prayer vigils outside Planned Parenthood used to corner we evolution advocates on the issue of human cognition. It essentially went like this: The human brain is a triadic mechanism. Cause to effect [problem to decision] then reflection. In the modern-scientific empiricist model, there are only dyadic mechanisms, cause and effect. Where, then, does the third thing come from? Reflection?

I always replied that advancements in organic computing systems (Stanford's parallel computer was my example) showed the beginning of what would become a computer's ability to think truly reflexively. Whatever. Then I'd say their argument was an oversimplification of Newton, who, time has shown, was pretty damned simplistic himself, and that I was sure [without having any proof, See also: bluffing] that modern scientific theory allows for such mechanisms. There were no scientists in the room, no one had heard of Stanford's computer project, the bluff at least ended debate. Nonetheless, it came back up several times after that.

It often took other forms. Another issue with [evolution specifically] on the question of self-reflexivity, is that the theory of evolution can't self-reflexively examine itself. My professor's illustration of this dilemma was people who claim to be tolerant. In being tolerant you ostensibly oppose intolerance. By opposing those who are intolerant, you in fact negate your own tolerance by being intolerant of those who are intolerant of others. That is, essentially, a fallacy. The entire politically correct movement is guilty of this.

I always hated this reasoning, but I never had an answer for it. I personally believe logic is not some perfect language of truth, it is a tool to be manipulated and this argument is sophistry of the worst kind. That said, I never had a rebuttal, until now. Thanks Dan. It goes something like this [in declaratory prose]:

We oppose with fervor the restriction and degradation of human worth and dignity by states and individuals. Our imperative is to eradicate ignorance and the hate it breeds. Our fallacy, the stumbling block of our ideology, is that we cherish and tolerate all people except the intolerant. This makes us hypocritical. Hypocrisy also disturbs us and we also strive to end it. So, we will redouble our efforts to end intolerance--oppose it with more rigor--for, in doing so, we also end our own hypocrisy. Once there is no intolerance, there will no longer be an ideology we oppose. Problem solved.

Then I'd turn to the kid who orchestrated the prayer vigils and flip his short ass off.

What Would Jesus Not Do? Cast stones.