They all think they are perfectly reasonable.
Of course.
But despite this, some are objectively unreasonable and nutty and others not.
If Bush were to go before the UN and claim that he was enveloped by a green light, that time stood still and that no one blinked during his speech, would you be justified in suggesting that his water might be, ah, a bit suspect?
Of course you would.
If he were to invite David DuKKKe and the rest of the Holocaust denying nutballs for a grand Jew-bashing party, would you think that maybe, just maybe, he ought to check his water? Objectively speaking, of course.
If someone were to interrupt my most civilized discussion with Mq concerning the alleged gender difference in IQ levels by screaming and shouting that the Koran says men are better, smarter, etc., and that therefore it is true, females are less IQed than men, would you be justified in thinking that the interloper is a bit nutty? Of course you would.
As I said, it is in the water.
The idea that there is relative equality in views is a creature of academia, whose more hydrated denizens refuse to make moral judgments on the ground that we are all equal. Well, we are, theoretically, but that doesn't mean that my views or Mq's or yours or TJ's are not superior because they have been formulated using reason and logic, not folklore and superstition. They are indeed superior for the reasons I cited.
I will not accept the fashionable view that a cargo cultist or a follower of Pol Pot is entitled to have his views given equal weight and treatment than yours or mine.
NB: It seems elmat is no longer in Persia so there's hope for him.
PS: Note to elmat, get some bottled Evian or Pellegrino, quickly, if still climbing poles in Teheran. |
