Radio Free New Jersey
This is the same political elitism that Liberals engage in. The idea that some group shouldn't vote because "they don't know what's best."HYPOCRITICAL!!!
That's ridiculous. I guess you didn't actually listen to the video. His view doesn't have anything to do with what they know or don't know. All he's doing is recognizing an incotrovertable fact... that historically (since 1964) women have tended to vote for more liberals and therefore it can be argued that if you embrace conservative values and think those values would be good for the country, then you must conclude that it would be better if they didn't actually have the vote. That women have tended to vote liberal is a fact, and he's simply arguing that although women having the vote is a good thing on the whole, it is not without it's downside. It's a perfectly rational claim supported by the evidence. In fact the only one who is acting like a liberal is you, accusing him of harboring some nefarious sentiment simply because he has expressed an idea that you don't like. What's more, it isn't even his actual idea you don't like but one that you've made up on your own without actually listening to his. the only people I know who are that dismissive of other ideas absent evidence are all liberals.
He doesn't say that women's suffrage should be undone--just that he thinks women's votes don't help us out any. He correctly says that political equity is important enough for us to have it and live with the risk of its downside being quite large.This is really no different from my saying I wouldn't mind terribly if people whose political opinions differed from mine didn't bother to vote. About democracies committing suicide: that may be, but this country (ok, ok, a republic) has been around longer than most systems of government in the world. Have any others outlasted us?
Well said Mark. Our Republic has proven pretty durable, but I think we're coming up on a reset pretty soon. there will still be an America, it will just have a different government, like the difference between the Articles of the Confederation and the Constitution. Only the next one might be writtn by the SEIU.You aren't seriously apologizing for a grammar mistake on this blog are you? You know full well that I post with spelling and grammar errors all the time. This is a penmanship free zone...
Ok, I apologize for apologizing!And I hope its not written by the SEIU!
So what is the point of the video? He points out the maybe it's bad for women to vote... but really it's not that bad since equality is more important.Anyone who supports this view is just being confrontational for the sake of being confrontation. Why would you bring up the idea that woman's suffrage is a bad thing, if you don't really think it's a bad thing?
He's saying that, like most things, it's a question of analyzing cost - benefit. The principle he agrees is good thanks to equity, but the results are unambiguously bad because of the actual results. In person, John is much more soft spoken than one would imagine from his writing. I've never really seen him surrounded by people with whom he disagrees, but of what I have seen I'd say that he's very likely one of the least confrontational (for it's own sake) people I know. then again I was raised by wolves so it may be my view that skewed.I haven't asked him directly but knowing what I do about how he thinks, I'd say that none of this holds a high emotional content for him. He's simply analyzing the facts in a rigidly logical and empirical way.If you believe in conservative values, then the result of women voting is unambiguously bad. That they can vote at all is good, and the benefit outweighs the cost. but that doesn't mean we should ignore the cost.
I don't get the point of the author, his book, your your interest in this subject. You're saying we shouldn't ignore the costs, but since the costs are outweighed by the benefits, we should decide to ignore the costs in the end.There is no point to this issue. Equality in voting so heavily outweighs the costs, that there is no point in even bringing this issue up, unless you want to be seen a an elitist, polarizing idiot who has nothing to add to the political discussion.
Well it's a shame that you don't get it. It seems a fairly straightforward idea to me. But it seems to me that the only one being elitist is you. You say that the topic isn't worthy of discussion simply because you don't understand it. And all the while your accusing others of the vices that you are actually demonstrating. That's awfully liberal of you.
Then explain it to me. I told you that this discussion has no point unless you want to be seen as an elitist, polarizing idiot. You seem to think that actually discussing undoing woman's suffrage is a legitimate topic. Please tell me the point of bringing up the discussion, unless you're just trying to make a controversy and piss of liberals for no purpose.
For liberals, decision making is a question of ignoring all those potential consequences that don’t jibe with their original intent. But it isn’t that way for conservatives. For conservatives, decisions are a question of balancing trade-offs. And even if you don’t want to change a particular decision, it’s important for the purposes of a consistent world view, to recognize that every decision has its downside. The downside of women’s suffrage is largely ignored. John is trying to bring it to light for the purpose of keeping the decision making of conservatives clear and consistent. He’s not trying to praise the idea of eliminating the idea of women’s suffrage as much as he’s trying to praise the decision making process. There is little enough emphasis on logic and reason in political discourse; none at all on the liberal side. So it’s very much worthwhile to bring it up from time to time just to raise the level of the conversation.
Should we also be discussing the idea that blacks should be removed from America? You could make the case that this would help promote conservative values. Shouldn't conservatives bring up this issue so that we continue to "[keep] the decision making of conservatives clear and consistent."While I agree with you -- we should use logic and think about different issues. But for anyone who favors liberty, it would take only five seconds of reasoning to see that woman's suffrage is a good thing. We don't need to write books, have interviews, and write blog posts about this subject. It just makes you look like your trying to be confrontational if you take this as a serious subject for debate.
You certainly make it clear how difficult it is to reconcile the idea of liberty with the popular academic concept of political correctness. You stop somewhere short of declaring it a hate crime to bring up an uncomfortable topic like this, and that's a testament to your clear head and intelligence in spite of your obviously twisted education. I believe it's wrong to declare some logical topics as off limits simply because they offend the more easily offended. Confrontation isn't something to be avoided for it's own sake and by defending that idea you're sounding comically contradictory. You should just let this go.
Can you just show me how bringing up this topic doesn't make you look bigoted and elitist? Do you think that readers of the blog will think that you are "keeping the decision making of conservatives clear and consistent?" Or will readers simply see you as a political hack who is bringing up confrontational topics to get attention?
That’s an interesting question … Can I show you how this doesn’t make me look the way you think I do? Since it’s clear you had your mind made up, I think it’s equally clear that no one can make you see that. But assuming you leave academia eventually, you might one day reach a level of intellectual maturity to understand it. In the meantime however, I’m pretty sure you’ll continue to reach your conclusions first, and then see only those facts which support your view. It’s the liberal way. So in a word… no, I don’t think you’re open minded enough for me to show you much of anything on this topic. And that view is supported by the fact that I’ve presented the facts quite clearly and you still refuse to see them.
OK cool, you can't explain how taking this subject seriously doesn't make you look like an elitist. No problem for me, I'll just unsubscribe from your blog since you've already proven that you cannot judge which subjects deserve legitimate discussion, and which subjects serve only to polarize.Maybe someday you'll realize the difference between discussing politics and writing just to tick off liberals. Until then, enjoy entertaining your four or so remaining reader of this blog.
I really regret not seeing this comment thread before. I hadn't had time to watch the video, so I didn't see much point reading the comments about the video.I especially love the ending comment from ListenEllipse where he doesn't grasp that your inability to explain this concept isn't because of a failing on your part, but a failing on his.On the offhand chance that he gets email follow-ups, I'll lay this out as clearly as possible. Granted, facts and logic are to liberals like soap is to hippies.1. Women and blacks have the right to vote. This gives equity. Equity is good for the country.2. Women and blacks tend to vote more for liberals. If you believe that liberal values are bad for the country, then women and blacks voting is bad for the country.The good from number one outweighs any drawback from number two. This ranks right up there with the fact that Democracies and Republics allow the public the power to push forward really bad ideas. But we place a higher value on the freedom gained from a Republic than we place on the drawbacks.For people that studied science (real science, not sociology), engineering, or economics, this isn't hard to grasp. It's just a real world form of a cost-benefit analysis. For a liberal, it's just woefully politically incorrect.If you believe one candidate is better for the country than the other, then you have to believe that it would be better for the country if those who would vote for the other candidate just didn't vote. Believing it would be better if they did not vote is not the same, in any way, as believing they should not be able to do so because they don't know what's best.
I was actually talking to a friend at work about this just the other day. It seems to me that there must be a way to structure an argument so that the truth of it is so apparent that it can't be argued away or ignored by anyone. As you say, logic and reason won't do it since those genuinely seem to be beyond the capacity of many liberals. But there must be some way.. some mix of sentiment and condescension or whatever. It's been one of the great frustrations of my life that the objective truth is so obvious to me (and apparently you and many other conservatives) and I can't seem to describe it in a way that makes sense to them.
Tom, that's because most liberals, in my experience, are feelers (in the Myers-Briggs sense). Instead of basing their decisions on facts and logic, they base them on what feels like the best solution. It's not so much that they don't use logic at all. It just seems to be irreversibly mixed up with how they feel about the topic.Whenever I see a debate involving a liberal, it doesn't take long before I have flashbacks to a comment I received from an ex-girlfriend: "Why do you have to be so hyper-logical all of the time?" Because, as should be obvious to all of us, using facts in an argument is just being mean.
Post a Comment