Sane Society and Intellectual Honesty

Sometimes things I say confound people. They are talking to me via Facebook or chat room or email, and I say something like: “I think the term ‘intellectual honesty’ is a misnomer, just like the term ‘sane society.'”

I always manage to do these things where I make a complex statement, and it’s hard to jam the reasoning behind it into “140 characters,” so to speak.

This is why I love blogging.

I might lose just about all of you if I go on too long, but these URLs won’t go down so you can read my verbose verbage another time if you so desire. Like most who know a little about writing I know to kind of sum it all up in that last paragraph that everyone reads anyway.

Let’s start with “Intellectual Honesty” and why I call it a “misnomer”:

I am most certainly not saying that any person being intellectual is thereby being dishonest, by any means. The reason I believe the two words do not link is because the alternative is an impossibly. One cannot be dishonest in regards to your own personal reasoning and personal opinions, no matter if any facts collide with their intellectual position or not.

I can “intellectualize” any issue for you to the point that whatever provable facts and established evidence have far departed from whatever wide assertion I am making. You can find lots of examples of this on this very blog.

Whereas “honesty” relates to strict codes of precise reasoning that, as much as many desire them to, do not change at the whim of an individual. I believe the people screaming these false cries of “creeping socialism” are being “intellectually honest” with us, but they are still dishonest in their facts, in the labeling and on the raw record.

“Intellectual Honesty” is either one of two things: it is a given, where 100% of all people everywhere are “intellectually honest” so it is a redundant term; or it is a fallacy in that intellectualism may be in it’s nature honest but honesty is not by it’s nature intellectual. Either way I feel that this term doesn’t convey any kind of realistic view of the world, regardless of who is using the term.

Now on to “Sane Society”:

This term, to me, is a misnomer in complete and full. While one can glean and nit-pick through a society and raise up certain examples of sanity and good graces, there is a massive gap between that assessment and the picture of the whole.

I present to those believing that at a certain point we will attain a fully “Sane Society” here on planet Earth that to a certain degree establishments rely upon a certain amount of disorder. Utopian Society would be without need for “laws” or even “group morals” for all persons would never consider such acts that might disturb good public order and ethical treatment of others in first place. Other than for the sake of pomp and circumstance there would no need for “leaders” or anything but basic levels of “establishment” because all peoples everywhere would already understand and adhere to “Sane Society” principals. I believe a certain amount of chaos and disorder is inherent to the human condition itself, therefore while I enjoy musing over a “Sane Society” and the “Utopian Dream” I also view it as nothing but a muse in which to model a better world as opposed to the ultimate consequence of human progression.

What I am really talking about is the words we use and how we use them.

With the sharp increase in ad hominem attacks and red herring arguments in our lexicon, I can see how some might view these as less than important points. But I think these kind of issues are at the root of what is preventing good communication between opposing viewpoints in our society today. There is a strong need for a focus on critical thinking and making better arguments, and it starts with using language that makes real sense.

Advertisements

Pizzaman versus EricG

I have managed to make a profound impact upon a man with the screen name Pizzaman and before I ever got a chance to project my blather in this posting from Alan Colmes’ Liberaland, he was already name-dropping me. I don’t mind, a name-drop is a name drop and if someone reads my homepage I’m happy, but I would rather people at least comment directly on my blog if they are so invested in me specifically to use me as a reoccurring example. The way I see it if you have something to say to a man you say it to his face or in case of the internet you send him a notification of your comments. I send emails to all the conservative radio jocks and spinsters that I negatively comment on via blog. I also send emails to those that I might praise in one of my blogs. I would call such things being a ‘real person.’ Standing up for what you have to say rather than shouting out items and then fleeing the scene before any person involved in your comments might defend themselves.

I don’t believe in passing solely my opinion in this blog. If someone reads it and decides for themselves a conclusion other than my own, then so be it. I think this “Pizzaman” is so biased that his commentary that the commentary is useless in regards to liberals and ultimately to all politics. These fundamentalist ideologies are destructive. And most importantly they are anti-society.

Decide for yourself:

Kregg Reply:

Alan quotes: Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

K: No one was asking for a ‘vested right to promotion’ but simply a fair chance at one. To throw out the test results because the ‘right’ races didn’t score well denied those who DID score well the opportunity to advance.

 

Pizzaman Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Further to Kregg’s comments against Ginsberg:

Since when is required that an applicant for a job have a “vested” right to that job in order to have a valid discrimination claim? If a black and a white are competing for a job, NEITHER has a “VESTED” right to the job, but EACH has a valid discrimination claim IF the job is denied on grounds of race. What’s so hard abouit THAT? Why does it it take a genius to figure this out. Why can the conservative majority of the Supreme Court see this, but Ginsberg and her liberal colleagues not? Hmmmmm? Answer: Blinding, pathetic white guilt. EricG — care to respond? Did YOU ever violate God’s law against racial discrimination? I didn’t. And if not, why hold us BOTH accountable?

pizzaman

 

Do I violate God’ Law about … racial discrimination?

I know no such specific part of God’s Law. It’s against hate, not specifically ethnic hate but all hate.

Like right now I hate you. I hate you because you keep bringing me up in the course of making your points and I have never done such a thing to another internet user in all my life.

Maybe I should start. Using people on the internet as examples of racism and bigotry and hate for liberals. Why not?

We all violate the law against hate. We are human after all. But we must fight this within ourselves.

Just as a person who feels ’superior’ to others due to race should fight this urge within themselves to view themselves as superior.

Kind of like … the way how you view yourself as superior to liberals. Is that racism? Think about it. It’s not racism but do you think of liberals as your equal? Intellectually or as a person at least?

I doubt it. That’s why I have no respect for you as a man, your opinions aside.

You’re just one more vile dog out there causing harm to nation with partisanship taken to new heights.

Waste of time all true patriots. Seriously.

Grow up and be an American.

NEWSFLASH LIBERALAND!

Pizzaman is God!!!!

He knows all the transgressions under God’s Eyes because he is God and knows all the secrets of the universe and where exactly he is accountable for everything he ever did.

“And if not, why hold us BOTH accountable?”

We are all accountable. You are accountable before God for how much you hate your fellow Americans called ‘liberals’ and in the same I am held accountable for my hate against Americans called ‘conservatives.’

Next time you want to pick a internet fight with someone you might want to pick someone who is timid and will back off. You’ll be much happier ramming your nonsense and BS down their throat than you ever will dealing with me.

This is the web. You’re going to be more a coward than you would be to my face and I’m going to be more edgy here than I would be in person.

But in the end it’s best we don’t met. I don’t enjoy people who can’t be civil and respectful. I don’t think much of people like yourself, or rather people who present themselves as you have.

It’s a bunch of hollow ‘look me and my hatred and superior intellect’ while when you look around you don’t find people like myself who are outspoken, surely, but not involved with declaring myself ‘above’ others.

I’m right and you’re wrong. About ____. That’s true.

But I’m no better than you and vice versa.

This is America. Try to act like it. The burden falls to you as well as I. If you won’t do anything but be a partisan against liberals then you are a piece of carp American, same for me and cons.

It’s not a game. So don’t screw around.

 

———-

That exactly right, Alan. She not NOT being nominated to vote with the conservative majority. She SUPPOSED to be nominated for her intellectual ability to bring the CONSTITUTION — with the 14th Amendment, a color-blind, non-racist document, halelluliah! — to bear on hard legal issues. But IN FACT, Obama has nominated her precisely because of her penchant for giving preference to black or brown skin tone. Yes, appoint her . . . because she has the intellectual and legal qualifications, and under law, the President has that raw power. But be aware, and beware, of what Obama has appointed: Raw judicial power. And to hell with the Constitution. See Ricci v. New Haven. Funny, true conservatives who act in good faith usually lose out on the raw power decisions. And you EricG, are thinking, “Yeah, yeah.”

Pizzaman

(Somehow he knows my mind before I‘ve read enough about Ricci v. New Haven to feel informed enough to comment. Very strange.)

————-

Um Cara Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

I think he has nominated her because she is an anti civil libertarian, nothing to do w/ ‘preference to black or brown skin tone’.

 

Pizzaman Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

You’re naive.

BlissfulConservative Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

I’ll agree with your first sentence UM, but I think a lot of her decisions would be based on skin color/socioeconomics.

Course that is my opinion.

Pizzaman Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

blissfulconservative:

Stand up! “That is my opinion,” my deeply creviced arse. Sotomayor has made a career out of skin color and national origin. I’m an American who “happens to be” hispanic, and I’m fed up with the condescension. “La Raza” = “the race.” This is a collective admission of special need. Well, I don’t need — and I emphatically REJECT — any benefits conferred because of liberal white guilt. “This isn’t about you,” you Anglo, EricG–style liberals. And it’s not about you either, brown skinned hispanics or blacks. It’s about what WE are as a people, and about our founding, our BINDING documents. Get that? “BINDING,” in more sense than one. WE, as one, are BOUND by this document. Want to reject it? Fine, then go fight the civil war all over again.

pizzaman

(I‘m ‘Anglo-style’ now. I feel judged based on the color of my skin!)

OK. As of 4:37 p.m., on 6/29/09, the uncontested fact is that a firefighter (aka “fireman”) was denied a promotion simply because he outscored all minority competitors: black, hispanic, Asian, Venusian, Venetian, Malthusian, and Carpathian. The 14th Amendment says: “No State shall . . . . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [on ground of race].” Why does the conservative majority have to engage in a death struggle to uphold this premise, which follows so naturally from the eralier premise that :We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .”? Is it that we no longer believe in “self-evident” truths? Or a Creator? God help us if that’s the case. What saved Jews under Hitler? Raw American power? Or adherence to the idea that, under God’s Natural Law, we are equal? EricG: Would you contend that we are ignorant regarding God’s wish concerning Jews in concentration camps? Or the tortured in Darfur? Has false pride so fogged your internal compass that drops of condensation obscure your needle? Think straight. God gave you a mind. I don’t mean to pick on EricG or be mean to him, but he has set himself up as the enemy of natural reason, which flows from God. If not from God,then from EricG and the like-minded who deny all constants, except those like “don’t racially discriminate” or “don’t screw the planet.” But even in asserting these constants, EricG (aka modern liberal man) acknowledges a source of authority and truth greater than himself. Who might this be?

pizzaman

EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

I see my name in there a lot.

You care to label yourself while your labeling me?

Are you a conservative? Are you a Christian?

How about an American?

Are you now, or have you ever associated with a communist?
“don’t mean to pick on EricG or be mean to him, but he has set himself up as the enemy of natural reason, which flows from God”

Well, your ‘good Christian’ self did just that and you will need to face up for what you’ve done.

The fact remains that we have freedom of religion in this country so whatever insane fundamentalism you are fitting yourself up for … you can’t touch me.

So chew on that for awhile. I have my views on God and Christ and you have yours and in the end you can’t tell me what to think or cause me any harm or stop me from spreading the TRUTH OF JESUS CHRIST in the face of your vicious lies designed to keep people in chains of misery and hate.

“EricG: Would you contend that we are ignorant regarding God’s wish concerning Jews in concentration camps?”

We didn’t go to war over the Jews in WWII.

I don’t see your point, at all. If we could know for certain exactly what “God’s wish” was at any given moment our lives would be infinitely easier.

If you want to accept all the words of the KJB as truth and solid then that’s your failing and not mine. You go right ahead worshiping Constantine and his apprentice.

“Think straight. God gave you a mind”

That’s not the problem. The problem is hate-monger and disgraces to humanity like yourself choose to promote idiocy and bigotry when others seek to fill the world with Christ’s love.

Glad to know you’re fighting me on this one.

Good to know I have people in my court.

“If not from God, then from EricG and the like-minded who deny all constant”

You are angering me by putting words in my mouth that I never said. Would you try not to lie so much about me? Please? It’s a simple request.

I never ‘denied all constants,’ show me where I did this.

Death is a constant. We all die. Time, gravity, etc.

I am trying not to degrade into name-calling and bitter comments but I’m not seeing a lot of Christian in anything you are saying. In fact I don’t even see any of God’s love in this very human posting of very biased views against me personally and liberals in general.

“acknowledges a source of authority and truth greater than himself. Who might this be?”

It’s God. It’s not my business to tell everyone else all the things of the world and everything I understand to be true. Supposedly we are supposed to learn things on our own without hand holding all the way through.

You all those who would attack someone for sharing a perspective on God other than fundamentalism are the ones who are ENEMIES OF REASON. The destroyers of Christ’s love in the streets and the followers of the hate-preachers who spread intolerance of gays and promote an end to religious freedom in the US.

Admit it. You hate this nation.

If it were another country you would never have to hear anything but the secularism of the state or the approved religion which sits just fine with you.

When you have to hear anything but your perfectly ARCANE and equally INSANE orthodoxy then you have to call some a ‘enemy of reason’ and ‘pick on them’ because it threatens everything you do to have people … question the idiocy of religion.

And yet pull away the greatest lessons. Thus making all the hate and BS you all drown yourselves in become nothing but a hollow shell which serves no purpose except to draw blood and feed Satan.

I will resist the swearing, and simply say:

Next time you want to pick on me come to my blog and say it to my face you coward.

Pizzaman = fascist pig

 –

Pizzaman = fascist pig

What Eric, no race card to follow.

– 

He is picking me out of the crowd and I can’t figure out why…

I retract that statement. I was pissed when typing that.

Are you going to retract some BS you posted?

Didn’t think so.

Typical conservative partisan-house unamerican bull from you guys … all day long.

 

Goliath Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

EricG

Take your meds please.. you’re really losing grasp on reality

 –

Whatever, you’re one more partisan loser who never once shown any respect to this nation or the liberals of the world.

You deserve all the anger and then some.

And all you conservatives are the ones losing your grip on reality.

I seem to remember debating if the recession even happened and if Bush was ever president or somethig like that the other day on here.

If anyone in America is living in a bubble of lies and falsehoods it would be the conservatives of America.

I shouldn’t care, that’s what my friends say.

they say you guys are fools who will never learn to be anything but fools.

I think more of you. But you don’t make it easy with the way you all treat me.

makes me think maybe I was wrong. Maybe you are all communist scum who deserve a bullet like some of my friends think…

 

wooo Eric, its not good to get that upset. Nothing personal here, but maybe you should stop listing to your friends talking about bullets.

They don’t believe in Christ or any of this side of my ‘bipartisan attempts’ so I can see where they are coming from, I guess.

But it’s insane. I’m the worst. I’ll be the first to say it. But I also see nothing to start with on the conservative side. No place I go send someone to hear a non-BS conservative perspective in politics.

People don’t believe something until they see it. If all you allow yourself to see is race and politics and religion you are missing the bigger picture.

But it’s all my opinion in the end. So I can state myself minus the name-calling and partisanship but who on the right will join me?

It’s a two-way street. When the other guy throws punches it’s hard to get anything done, it’s really that simple.

(There it is. Bickering about politics and my usual cry for sanity.)