Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Saying something without saying anything

I get "sayings" from time to time in my e-mail, or in the format of a jpeg image as in the post below.  These are usually written by pseudo-intellectual left-wing nutjobs who say a bunch of stuff that sounds thought-provoking but actually says nothing meaningful.  Its vagueness and incoherence is meant to be a disguise for its vagueness and incoherence by way of producing a few factoids that sound deep, but ultimately the post's statement makes no real point. 

Let's look at this one below.  We'll start with the opening statement: "Before you judge others or claim any absolute truth, consider that..."

Right off the bat we see that this is aimed at religious people, because it is liberals who accuse religious people - specifically Christians - of being judgmental and believing in absolute truths.  Let's deal with the issue of absolute truths first.

What is an "absolute truth"?  In a nutshell, it is a truth that is absolutely true - for example, that God is all-good and all-loving.  Now, while liberals will say that they don't believe in absolute truths, the truth is that they do, and it's easy to prove.  If you ask them, "Would you say that there are no absolute truths?", what would their response be?  If they say "Yes, there are no absolute truths", then they've contradicted themselves!  Did you see the contradiction?

However, if they catch themselves before uttering "There are no absolute truths", then they'll have to respond with something like "I'm not certain".  Well then, with this uncertainty comes the possibility that absolute truths exist, because if they say that they don't exist, then they'll contradict themselves, so based on just that, we've proven the existence of absolute truths.  

So I - and you, and anyone - can claim with no guilt whatsoever the existence of absolute truths; for if one can exist, then others can exist, and the argument that "There are no absolute truths" is sunk faster than the economy under a Democratic government.  The doubting and the questioning of absolute truths is the lazy intellectual shortcut way for these people to sound like they're saying something deep and profound, but for anyone with a lick of sense, they'd know that they are just drooling utter nonsense.  

As for being judgmental, there's an important distinction to be made, and liberal dunderheads intentionally leave out this distinction so as to buttress their weak arguments.  That distinction is that there is a difference between judging the person and judging the act that they perform.  Before I continue, I will state that yes, there is such a thing as judgmental (in the bad way) Christians (who are the villains to whom this particular post is aimed at), but you would have to be lying to yourselves to deny that judgmental (in the bad way) people come in all races, colors, and creeds, and not just among Christians. 

Now let's look at some examples of bad acts and bad people.  Let's say that Melvin, a 6-foot-5, 325lb man, just jumped Scott, a 5-foot-4 165lb man and pounded the hell out of him.  A bad act?  On the surface, yes.  Hardly a fair fight, with big ol' Melvin pounding on little ol' Scott!  You might judge Melvin to be a bad man.  However, what if Scott was carrying a pair of Uzis and was about to fire into a crowd at a mall?   Melvin is now a hero!  The act is still the same - of Melvin pounding on Scott - but the context changed the whole judgment of his act.  Would it be a big stretch to assume that Melvin is of good character while Scott is not? 

Isn't that very assumption...

...being judgmental? 

Now let's take another example, and one that I think even our liberal looney psycho nutjobs would say is an evil person!  Let's take Chuck, a man who likes to wear golf shoes and go stomping on kittens and puppies with them!  What kind of sick, sadistic monster gets enjoyment out of that?  Well, you would have to pass judgment on Chuck to say that he is evil! 

Thing is, friends, liberals are just as judgmental as they say Christians are.  The difference is that they are judgmental in ways that they feel totally at ease in passing judgment.  For example, they have no hesitancy whatsoever in calling the likes of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and other conservative women the worst names imaginable.  They have no shame whatsoever nor do they have any sense of irony in hating them passionately.  So the same group of people that would call themselves open-minded, tolerant, enlightened, and non-judgmental will suddenly go Jekyll-and-Hyde whenever Sarah Palin posts something to her Facebook page and whip themselves up into an orgasmic frenzy over how stupid she is. 

So now we see that this post directed at judgmental believers of absolute truth actually applies to all of us!  I can guarantee you that this was not the writer's intent, but it is the ultimate result!  It's time now to see what follows and how it applies to this opening statement.  

(reading rest of post)



Our eyes create rainbows, eh? 


The point of the rest of this post seems to emphasize that we are, in essence, less than nothing -

- and yet our eyes can create rainbows. 


I can see how rainbow-creating eyes would be inconsistent with being judgmental and believing in absolute truths. 

This, folks, is what education buys nowadays.  

Sad, ain't it?  :- \

1 comment:

Quartet-man said...

Two online acquaintances (one thought I should avoid politics and another thought people should show respect to Obama no matter which side they were on) both ended up joining "I Hate Sarah Palin" groups. (Not I hate what she stands for, certain traits etc., but hate her). Oh, the irony.