This might be a different kind of post. That is, different from recent posts.
What makes it different is that I won't do any links to other sources. This will come from just little old me.
Let's start with the first post of the day, which was an update. In that post, I expressed puzzlement over how the so-called conservatives keep using the left's language and premises.
It will allow me to segue into the revision of the language that we see lately. Nobody who claims to be conservative will approve of this, but what is the difference in using the other expressions that the left likes to use? Eventually, you will be dragged into that change as well. It is just a matter of time. If you oppose them, then do it with force. It starts to break down when you concede ground that you shouldn't concede. That ground is the very language we use and the premises we use in our arguments.
The most important word in this discussion is the meaning of conservatism. Conservatives should be against change. Maybe not all of the time, but almost all of the time. Sure, some things can change, and as a conservative, it wouldn't be inconsistent to be okay with that. For instance, if there is an injustice, why be in favor of it even if it means changing a tradition?
Some may say that that isn't conservatism. If you are okay with change, then you aren't conservative. Let's just paraphrase something about a foolish consistency being a hobgoblin of small minds. If something is wrong then, it can be changed. But change for the sake of change is what I'm getting at. All too often, there are forces who want to change things just to be changing things. All too often there is a claim of injury when there was none. All too often injustice is claimed when there was none. These can be pretenses for change that have no basis in fact.
There's a pattern of dishonesty in the public square that is becoming quite alarming. But we are still a nation that demands reasons for doing a thing. But when the reasons for doing a thing is not based upon evidence, where does the liberal go? It seems that they go into unreality and dishonesty. If evidence is to be the guide, and there's no evidence, it seems that some evidence has to be invented. If this was a society that required no evidence, then the lies wouldn't be necessary.
What I'm getting at is that the lies are the first step in removing the need for evidence. Eventually, if this pattern continues, there won't be any requirement for evidence. All that would be needed is the accusation itself.
Such a society cannot support the civilization that we have taken for granted. If we don't stop this trend toward irrationality, we are going to go into the dustbin of history.
Language is the tool of thought. It is the tool of the intellect. If that tool is faulty, then what good is it?
Premises are the tools of logic. If the tools are faulty, what good are they?
If the workman cannot use the proper tools, then what good is he? If you are conservative, you have to be reasonable and rational. Facts have to matter, and accuracy has to matter above all. Then and only then should action be taken.
WordPress.com