I
know. This is not a destination blog for people looking for lofty
ideas presented by an accomplished word crafter. As one of y'all
said, "I'm here for the pictures." Which is my reason too. But
this posting, and reader commentary by Shannon Love on the Chicago Boyz blog are things I have to pass on.
“
|
Ever since the days of Karl Marx, leftists have tried to stigmatize the
political beliefs of non-leftists as stemming from some irrational
pathology.
Marxists developed the idea of “false consciousness” to explain why
everyone in the world didn’t immediately recognize the obvious
correctness of Marxist ideas. Later, leftists of all stripes resorted
to explanations based on Freudian pseudo-science to “explain” that
conservatives rejected the obviously correct leftist ideas because of
sexual repression or other Freudian mechanisms we now know to be
without any scientific basis.
Today, we see an increasing number of “studies” that seek to link
non-leftist beliefs to mindless biological factors. The latest comes
from political scientists at Cornel University.
The press release from Cornel says:
Are you someone who squirms when confronted with slime, shudders at
stickiness or gets grossed out by gore? Do crawly insects make you
cringe or dead bodies make you blanch?
If so, chances are you’re more conservative — politically, and
especially in your attitudes toward gays and lesbians — than your
less-squeamish counterparts, according to two Cornell University
studies.
|
Morals don’t exist to be philosopher’s toys. They exist to provide
practical guidelines for peoples’ day-to-day lives. If you dig deep
enough into the morality of every culture you will find a practical
underpinning for most moral rules. The goals of many of these rules
don’t always align with our modern goals, but the practical
underpinnings are there nevertheless.
We intentionally created a protected environment for academics in which
they pay no penalty for being wrong. This is good in that it allows
truly-original thinkers to thrive, but bad in that it leads its
inhabitants to believe that abstract ideas that win academic debates
automatically have relevance to the real world. [Shannon Love]
|
” |
“
|
[Warning: This post uses sexual imagery and a satirical tone to make a serious point.]
The authors of the disgusted conservatives study I discussed earlier
reveal their ivory-tower bias when they sniff at the way real people
make real decisions.
Disgust seems to be particularly implicated in many of our moral
judgements (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999b). But should
disgust play any role in these judgements? According to many liberal,
educated Westerners, the answer is no. Whether a practice or behaviour
is considered morally palatable or reprehensible should depend on
whether that behaviour harms or infringes on the rights of another
individual; disgusting but harmless behaviours do not deserve moral
condemnation (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993). According to this view,
consuming faecal matter, engaging in sexual intercourse with animals,
or masturbating to pornography is not immoral, as long as no other
people are harmed by one’s behaviour (Bloom, 2004b).35
|
|
Up until a few years ago, I would have agreed with that reasoning.
(Except for the sex with animals part. Animals have a right not to be
raped. Moo means moo.) - continued
|
” |
MISS, MS.,MISTER
Dilbert: I had some questions, sir...er, ma'am...sir? (pause) Are you a man or a woman?
Department Head: In Accounting, it doesn't really matter.
|
|
|