Keith Devens .com

Keith, are you serious? You actually purchased a book by Anne Coulters. I don't know if we can be friends anymore. :: Sigh ::

You know.... you can find extremist views on both sides. Because some left wing extremist thinks it's OK to abort a child AFTER it's born, it doesn't mean that the left side thinks that this is alright.

So, why do you care to bring up extremist views from the left side WITHOUT considering if there also might be some extremist views on the right side? If the number of extremists on both sides are about the same (which I believe they are), then WHY would you try to paint a picture of ONLY left-leaning people having extremist views?

This is a WRONG picture, you know. So why are you trying to paint this picture?

Elling, I don't get your criticism. I was discussing Peter Singer specifically. It worries me that you're so quick to find something to argue with me about.

It's because everything you write has this one-sidedness to it. It's like you seem to WANT the world to be black and white.

THAT's what worries me, and not any of the particular things you write about Peter Singer or anyone else.

Elling,

Is it black and white that the world is not black and white? Or do you just WANT it to be not black and white?

Well.... it isn't black and white, that's all I can tell you.

I think you should read the book "How Religious Ideology Makes (otherwise) Smart People See the World as Black and White".

So it IS black and white that the world is not black and white. But how is this not self-contradictory?

I refer you to the book, "How anti-'black and white' ideology makes (otherwise also) stupid people think that it is black and white that the world is not black and white." Or, just admit that the world is black and white. In fact, even each shade of gray is still a definite color.

This "black and white" discussion is silly. Criticizing someone for seeing things "in black and white" is like criticizing someone for being closed minded. When people criticize others for seeing things in black and white it's often just code that you've taken strong stands that the person disagrees with.

The point is, there's right and wrong and good and evil in this world. The good is never perfectly good, though the evil is often pretty purely evil, but not always. One striking thing looking back at history is that pretty much everyone who does great evil thinks they're doing good. Hitler wanted to "purify" the world of the lesser races, for instance.

Sometimes it takes a little wisdom to discern the good from the bad, though usually not all that much wisdom is needed. Ultimately, you need a coherent worldview and system of ethics to discern the good from the bad. Maybe people who see everything in shades of grey just don't have that.

As for the books I was criticizing, Elling, those were some of the ones I came across on the main table in my local Barnes & Noble that has new political books. I wasn't using Peter Singer or Michael Moore as representative of the left or trying to "paint a picture of ONLY left-leaning people having extremist views" as you claim. I think you crossed the line with your criticism.

There's good and there's bad. But you know, even THIS is subjective. If, for instance, you take the inquisition. During the inquisition certain non-christian practices were considered evil, and some (otherwise) wise persons from the church were 100% sure that what they saw was evil, and they were so sure about it that they hunted down the people and burned them alive in large numbers.

So, were they bad, those who were burned alive because of the inquisition? And were they wise those who decided on where to draw the line between good and bad?

I only react to what you write because you strike me as one of those people who are VERY sure about where the line goes between good and bad. And I'm just saying that it SOMETIMES can be dangerous to be so sure about a thing.

I probably agree with you on a lot of things, but I don't agree with the way you seem to polarize some issues. But you know, this is just my opinion, and my own perception of what you write.

There's good and there's bad. But you know, even THIS is subjective.

Elling, you seem to be making a serious philosophical error. Good and bad must be objective, otherwise you're consigned to relativism.

I'm not very familiar with the history of the Inquisition, so I won't speak about it. However, judging the Inquisition is much different than judging things that are happening today. The Inquisition is an historical event about which we have incomplete knowledge, though it doesn't help that your description of certain acts, the rightness of which you intended to indicate are questionable, was itself very vague.

I think what you were getting at is that sureness of your beliefs can lead to bad things. Of course it can: if you believe the wrong things. Hitler was sure of his beliefs, but he was certainly wrong. Or take Neville Chamberlain. He was clearly confident when he said about Hitler in 1938: "Now here is a man, a true statesman, a man I feel I can really trust". Wise men knew that they were both wrong. Chamberlain was wrong as a fool is wrong, Hitler was wrong as an evil man is wrong.

Third, consider weak men who didn't take a strong stand on either side. They were killed by Hitler all the same.

I only react to what you write because you strike me as one of those people who are VERY sure about where the line goes between good and bad. And I'm just saying that it SOMETIMES can be dangerous to be so sure about a thing.

Indeed, it is often dangerous to not be so sure. That I'm often very sure of myself reflects not a lack of nuance or sophistication, but rather that I have a well-developed sense of judgement, system of ethics, or what have you. The Bible often calls this "wisdom". I stand with men like Winston Churchill and George Bush in recognizing evil for what it is, and calling it such.

Consider this election. I presume you'd like to see a Kerry presidency. As I see it, that would be like exchanging Churchill for Chamberlain -- gravely foolish, and incomprehensibly dangerous. Consider also that one who is not sure either way where he stands remains in danger from Islamic terrorists nonetheless.

I can end no better than by quoting Steven Den Beste (blogged earlier):

There comes a time in every man's life when he has to choose sides. I have chosen my side. I am comfortable with my decision. I do not think everyone on my side is a saint, but I know that those on the other side are much, much worse.

Sometimes a man with too broad a perspective reveals himself as having no real perspective at all. A man who tries too hard to see every side may be a man who is trying to avoid choosing any side. A man who tries too hard to seek a deeper truth may be trying to hide from the truth he already knows.

That is not a sign of intellectual sophistication and "great thinking". It is a demonstration of moral degeneracy and cowardice.

Look: if there's a specific case where you see I'm looking at things in a way that's too simplistic, naïve, or monochromatic, then call me on it. In the meantime, always keep in mind that we're working based on different presuppositions. When we disagree about things on the surface, say the Iraq war, the reason we ultimately disagree is because we have more foundational, yet unstated, disagreements. Keep in mind also that the Bible often mentions people who are fools but who think they're wise. The solution is not to be weak and indecisive, but to make sure you're believing in the truth and have real wisdom. That we should all pray to God for.

Well..... there are those who call themselves wise, and there are those who say wise things....... Which of them do you want to be?

But, ok.... Den Beste says that being too broad minded is a trap. And sure, I do agree with that. But is it also a trap to become too narrow minded? Is it a trap if you consider NOTHING to be relative in terms of what's good and bad? I think that's a trap too.

I think that if you're too narrow minded you lock down your own beliefs, and you go looking for ways to preserve your own beliefs instead of looking for things that can change your views or refine them.

You mentioned the Ann Coulter book you bought, and I think the title of this book is an example of the problems with being too narrow minded:

"How to Talk to a Liberal"

I don't know how you interpret this title, but personally I notice that it's not how to LISTEN to a liberal, or how to COMMUNICATE with a liberal, but how to TALK to a liberal. And in my ears that's got the sound of "how to keep a conversation with a liberal without being won over by his arguments", or interpreted even further "how to preserve your own world view". And this is what I interpret as defensiveness..... and I also interpret it as what I call some slight narrowmindedness.

And I also think that this is the danger of narrowmindedness, namely to simple not WANT other arguments to exist, if you see. It's not only that you disagree with the arguments of the other side, but you simply WANT their arguments to be wrong.... And that's when the warning light blinks red, at least for me.

I think it's ADMIRABLE when people take a stand, and frankly, I'm a bit bad at this myself, and I might have fallen somewhat in the trap that Den Beste mentions. But I'm improving. But, also, like I said: There's a difference between taking a stand, and taking a stand and also actively WANTING the other side to be wrong. What I say is that I think you should always keep your ears open for what the other side says, no matter what stand you might have taken....

Well..... there are those who call themselves wise, and there are those who say wise things....... Which of them do you want to be?

That's a false choice (I don't know why their fallacies section is under their "atheism/agnosticism" section). But again, rather than talking in generalities, I'd appreciate it more if you'd save your criticism for specific things I've said or done that you think are foolish.

Is it a trap if you consider NOTHING to be relative in terms of what's good and bad?

I didn't say that. I wrote that morals, or what's good and bad, are objective, not subjective, but I never denied that there are degrees between the two, or even that sometimes it can be hard to discern what's what.

I think that if you're too narrow minded you lock down your own beliefs, and you go looking for ways to preserve your own beliefs instead of looking for things that can change your views or refine them.

Again, please do point out to me when you think I'm being narrow minded, ignoring pertinent facts, etc.

But talk about being narrow minded. You're literally judging Ann Coulter's book by its cover! This approaches self-parody.

It's not only that you disagree with the arguments of the other side, but you simply WANT their arguments to be wrong...

If you're arguing that the reason I believe certain things is because I simply want people on "the other side" to be wrong then that's just not the case. But, please do point out to me if I'm ever unfair or irrational in my arguments.

I just came across this quote that I think is relevant:

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

- Dante

False Choice

No, it's not a false choice. If it's a false choice, then name ONE wise person who also walked around calling himself wise. If you can't find one such person, then I think you should reconsider.

You're literally judging Ann Coulter's book by its cover! This approaches self-parody.

I made an assumption. Clearly. But was my assumtion right? It think it was. If it wasn't then please tell me how it wasn't. But whichever way you look at it, you probably bought the book based on it's title and it's cover, which makes my point valid any way you look at it, right?

I know I might be on thin ice when I judge you only based on a couple of blog entries I've read. But you know, sometimes you think you can do that, and especially if you think you can see some patterns in the way a person argues.

My theory is this (kind of not so well founded, but still a valid theory):

If a person grows up in a very religious context, such as having a very religious family or being in a religious environment, and if that person also adopts the religion as his own world view, then that person often becomes USED to having to protect his own beliefs rather than to explore them and refine them. Because that's how it is with religion. You believe in the fact that Christ died and was born again to save us from our own sins. But this belief is so fragile, that each sunday you have to go to a ceremony where the priest tells it to you again, so that you will not loose faith. And this is a pattern where you strive to PROTECT your beliefs, and where the goal is to NOT loose your belief. Don't you agree?

So, here comes the core of my theory: My theory is that some people move this practice onto other aspects of life, such as politics. And that's what I think I see in your writings; a tendency that you want to protect you views from being changed or distorted, and that you are more focused on that then on actually trying to find out if the views you have are right. THAT's my "accusation", if you like.

And one example of that is that you choose to read "How to Talk to a Liberal", by Ann Coulter, rather than for instance reading something that's written by well acknowledged liberal writers. If you were bold you wouldn't have done that, but you would have chosen to read something from an acknowledged liberal writer, and you would have risked to actually have to change your opinions. But you don't want to do that. And that's what I've been rambling away about for the whole length of this exchange of opinion. I think you act as if you're afraid of having to change your views.

And if what I say is true... then it becomes kind of futile to argue with you about real world cases, because you'll mostly be striving to preserve your own view instead of listening to what the other person says.

Also, I know I'm making my observations based on a small amount of information, and I know I cannot prove that what I say is true... but at least I'm telling you how I perceive what you write!

(Also, I don't think I'm on my way to hell.... )

That I'm often very sure of myself reflects not a lack of nuance or sophistication, but rather that I have a well-developed sense of judgement, system of ethics, or what have you. The Bible often calls this "wisdom". I stand with men like Winston Churchill and George Bush in recognizing evil for what it is, and calling it such.

If I may... Elling, Elling, Elling. My friend, don't feel too bad. While Keith is ostensibly an owl amongst hen... he's still kinda beefy.

Just for fun, while we're on the topic of being so sure about things, Beef, are you sure you're right about Chamberlain? What do you think about the argument below?

Under Chamberlain, the United Kingdom undertook a massive expansion of its military and war industry and instituted a peacetime draft. According to some historians, Chamberlain was under no illusions about the aims and goals of Nazi Germany, but was informed by his military advisers that Britain was in no condition to fight Germany over Czechslovakia. Seen from this vantage point, Chamberlain's actions in Munich were less a cowardly and ignorant cave-in, but rather a calculated and necessary tactic to buy time so that Britain could rearm against the Nazi menace. The rearmament program accelerated after Hitler's seizure of Czechoslovakia, and by the time Hitler's armies attacked Poland, Britain was well on its way to building its own war machine to confront Nazi Germany's.

Where's that bit on Chamberlain from?

I tracked it down for you, Keith. It's from wordIQ's aricle on Neville Chamberlain:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Neville_Chamberlain

.... and yeah, it is a good illustration of my point.

I won't rub it in..... but this is indeed an example of a story where there seemingly are more nuances than you first implied, Keith.

You answer my question first... then I'll answer yours.

Elling, maybe Chamberlain is not the appeaser history has judged him as. Maybe when he said that Hitler is a man he can trust he was actually bluffing in order to somehow gain England more time to build up its military. Even if that is true it doesn't impact upon my comments at all, since then Chamberlain is not the person I thought he was. In that case, my knowledge of history is incorrect, but my judgement, given my conception of Chamberlain as a foolish appeaser, was correct.

Yes, indeed. You thought Chamberlain was a fool, and that he didn't recognize the dangers of Nazi Germany, and similarly you think that Kerry is a fool and that he doesn't recognize the dangers of international terrorism.

The first of those assumptions proved to have more nuances than you thought. And I think I can promise you that there are more nuances in the second one too.

Haha, that's silly. I like this response to your assertion.

I had to run out (to choir, heh), and I didn't get to say everything I wanted to...

You seem to be confusing historical knowledge with judgement. I know next to nothing about Neville Chamberlain besides that he was prime minister of Britain in the 1930s before Churchill, that he said that he trusted Hitler, and that history has judged him as an appeaser. On the other hand, I know a heck of a lot about John Kerry. If my knowledge changes about Chamberlain I might judge him differently, but I don't think there's anything I could learn about Kerry that would fundamentally reverse everything else I know about him.

Well.... you might have to reverse your thoughts about the situation that Kerry is faced with. You think that the situation is comparable to the situation before World War II. And yet you reveal that you know next to nothing about the situation before World War II.

So.... if you follow my thoughts, your lack of knowledge about this previous war might cause you to be wrong when you say that the situation today is comparable to the situation back then. And if your judgement about that is wrong, then I think that your whole judgement of Kerry's position is in danger of being wrong, or at least in need of major revisions...

Like you know, Kerry says that international terrorism has more similarities with international crime in general than with what you'd call "conventional warfare", and the fact is (at least in my mind) that he very well might be 100% right about this.

And in that case, a comparison to World War II might be very wrong, and it might even be very dangerous to rely on this comparison....

So, in short: There you have some new nuances to your picture of Kerry being on his way down the wrong path.

You think that the situation is comparable to the situation before World War II.

I never said this. Of course it's not. What I did was use an analogy to compare Kerry to Chamberlain and Bush to Churchill. I was comparing the men, not World War II to this war.

Well.... and the REASON you compared the men, was that you thought the situation was similar, right?

Nope. All that's similar is that they're leaders in a time of war. Maybe you should go back and re-read where I first mentioned them. As you can see, I mentioned the men in passing as an illustration, but they were not central to my point.

Haha... You're modifying your own words to try and find a way out of my arguments. That's what you're doing, pal.

You compared the two because you think today's situation is comparable to the situation back then. Or at least you think the gravity of the situation is similar. And because of that, you think that a "war president" is necessary in America today.

And all I say to you is that MAYBE a "war president" isn't necessary, and maybe you are misjudging today's situation. And in misjudging the situation, you might be misjudging Kerry. That's all I say.

Elling, I'm getting tired of you reading things into what I've said that I didn't say, as well as constantly mutating your argument, whatever it is. That's been the common theme of this "conversation". I'm not "modifying [my] own words to try to find a way out of [your] arguments". Frankly, I don't even know what you're arguing.

But this whole time you've been trying to play a "gotcha" game with me... now you think that because I've mentioned a similarity between the men in that they're wartime presidents that I consider "the situation [today to be] comparable to the situation before World War II", which you accused me (incorrectly) of being ignorant about the history of. Now you're the one who's modifying his words, since you're switching from talking about historical circumstances to the gravity of those circumstances, but those are very different things.

(I frankly don't even think I said anything informative when I mentioned that they're wartime presidents... that's obvious. After I posted the comment I thought I should have left that sentence out simply because it didn't add anything. In fact, I kind of expected you to give exactly the kind of "gotcha" retort you've just given.)

In any case, I do think the gravity of the threat we face is similar or even greater to the threat we faced from Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. And of course a "war president" is necessary... we're at war. Though I'm not sure the distinction between a "war president" and some other kind of president is helpful. Of course it wouldn't be good to have a president who's somehow great in peacetime but useless in war, after all. For what it's worth, I think Kerry would be a disaster in peacetime as well. Frankly, he's been a disaster throughout his tenure as a Senator (and even before then when he hurt our country during Vietnam), but fortunately for the rest of us most of the time his approach to things didn't win the day.

And all I say to you is that MAYBE a "war president" isn't necessary, and maybe you are misjudging today's situation. And in misjudging the situation, you might be misjudging Kerry. That's all I say.

Good, then maybe we're finally done with this circuitous argument. You may not think we should consider ourselves to be at war. We didn't consider ourselves to be at war until September 11th, when we unfortunately were forced to face that our enemy had been at war with us for essentially decades while we didn't care to notice. It would be a mistake to forget the lesson September 11th taught us -- or maybe some of us never learned it in the first place. I don't think Kerry has, for instance.

The lesson that September 11th taught us was that there are millitant Islamic groups around the world that are ready to launch suicide attacks directed at western targets. That's what it taught us. And that's what Kerry also thinks it taugth us.

What it did NOT teach us is that the entire Islamic world is conspiring to destroy the western world.