Have you ever wondered how liberals manage to delude themselves with such skill? I have to admit I have. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, they usually manage to pull a "Gollum," putting their hands over their ears and chanting, "Not list'nin', not list'nin'."
But I've been reminded of this tendency with fresh evidence recently. One instance is in the Rapid Reply of the Rapid City Journal's article on the recently released 2006 abortion statistics.
In the Rapid Reply, I pointed out that the most telling statistics in the report--the reason for the abortion--were left out of the news article.
Instead of discussing the fact that the vast majority of abortions were done purely for convenience, one commenter says this:
" ahh, stats with no record from whence they came. how is that refreshing? both sides can provide stats that are skewed. . . "
It's true that in my Rapid Reply, I didn't specifically state the full name of the report, only referring to it as "...the recently released abortion statistics..." Well, duh! What report was the article talking about? Pretty obvious to most folks.
After another commenter filled in the blanks for the slow commenter, the first commenter (or another?) responds:
" thanks for posting where your stats came from, for the future, your stats will be far more effective if you do so in the original post along with a link to where you found them. "
Again, what report was the news article talking about? You don't need to be a genius to extrapolate that.
Was this really a lead-like density on the part of the commenter? Was it a child-like insistence on being spoon-fed information? Or was it an attempt to cast aspersion on the impact of the data?
In a subsequent Rapid Reply, I stated that it was pretty obvious what statistics I was referring to, and the brain trust replied to that:
" no, it really wasn't. . . but whatever. just one more instance of misused stats. *tear* "
So how were these stats "misused?" Were they misused to reveal a truth that pro-aborts would rather keep hidden--that most abortions are done as retroactive birth control?
On a different subject, Keith Rhudy of Rapid City wrote a letter to the Rapid City Weekly News a few weeks ago about the Laramie Project play which Central High School will soon put on is a play that "plays" upon the sympathies by lifting up the murder of Matthew Shepard as an example of why homosexuals must have special rights and special protections. In his letter, Rhudy pointed out that the children who will be exposed to this play will likely not hear about the health risks of homosexuality, only that those who practice it must receive special protections.
Michael Coats, who is the most vocal homosexual activist in the Black Hills, responded with a letter that accused Keith and those who point out the dangers of homosexuality of "distorting other people’s work."
This is what homosexuals say when you point out scientific studies which show that homosexuality dramatically increases a person's risk of AIDS, Chlamydia, herpes, HPV, “gay bowel syndrome,” gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis, anal cancer, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety, suicide, domestic violence and a much shorter life span.
The work of these researchers is often released in the form of raw data, with no moral or practical conclusions drawn. Homosexual activists can live with that. But if you then cite that research data and draw from it a moral or practical conclusion, then you've "distorted" or "misrepresented" someone elses work. Doesn't matter if a 5-year-old could connect the dots and reach that conclusion; you're just not supposed to do that. What value is there for data from which no conclusions can be drawn?
Because Rhudy didn't cite information that was highly specific and referenced, he was also accused of putting out false information (you're only allowed so many words in a Letter to the Editor, so it's a challenge to provide full footnotes and still have room to say anything meaningful).
So I wrote a letter providing more detail, citing as much about the studies as I could and still have room to say anything of substance. I included specific percentages and enough reference data that an interested party could look it up, without taking up too much space in the letter.
Dennis Halterman responded to my letter
And the statistics — as suspect as any other group of statistics —...
Halterman's letter provided absolutely no information whatsoever to counter the scientific evidence which proves that homosexual behavior is very dangerous. Instead, it was filled with what characterizes so much of public discourse today: emotionalism.
Further, according to Mr. Coats' blog, Old Man's Lavender World, my references were again insufficient. Mr. Coats is apparently bereft of the ability to look up this information on his own, using only the clues I provided. Like Rhudy--and as I'm charged with doing on the abortion issue--I apparently "misrepresented" these studies.
Coats even found it necessary to disparage my citation of a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report (I did include that specific reference--"CDC" doesn't take up much space, and it's authority generally speaks for itself) that shows 72% of AIDS cases are contracted through homosexual behavior and homosexuals doing drugs, claiming I had "distorted" it. How does one "distort" a statistic as basic and simple as that? ("Yes, but religious conservatives hate homosexuals, so that statistic doesn't count"???)
It's true that some statistics can be twisted and interpreted to mean different and often opposing things. This is not the case, however, with all statistics. Sometimes the numbers tell a story that is so clear-cut and so damning that they can mean only one thing. Those indicted by them have no choice but to try and cast aspersions on them and/or pull a Gollum.
This is a technique employed by the Left over and over and over again. They start out insisting that everything be immutably rooted in science; no less-tangible justifications from the philosophical or religious world are allowed, no matter how their effects can be demonstrated in "real world" outcomes. Then, if they don't like the "science" with which they're provided, they sulk and complain that it doesn't have enough footnotes or references (even though the origins of the work can be easily obtained with just a little effort), or that the author once pulled the wings off a fly. Finally, if they don't like where the "science" leads, then, well, the person citing it must be twisting or misrepresenting it. Usually little or no effort is made to counter or refute the evidence, and what little effort is made is usually rooted in emotionalism.
I've been there before. I've been at the place in my life where I was doing self-destructive things and not inclined to change. I used to be a drunk. I used to be a risk-taker. I used to be a foul-mouthed skirt-chaser. Like everyone engaged in destructive behavior, when confronted with the truth about this destructiveness, I was faced with some choices: (1) Ignore it, (2) pretend that what you're doing is really morally acceptable because _______________ (i.e. try refuting the evidence), (3) change. For a long time, I opted for #1, consoling myself with the belief that I was only hurting myself, and that at least my professional life was still going well. I never tried #2 (I knew darn well what I was doing was wrong), and eventually surrendered to #3.
But a lot of folks caught up in destructive behavior don't have the intellectual honesty to avoid #2. When you avoid #2, it's only a matter of time before #1 doesn't work anymore and #3 is staring you in the face--that, or death. So they opt for #2--obfuscation, minimization and willful dismissal--because it buys a lot more time.
If you can convince yourself (and others) that evidence of your destructive behavior is unreliable, then you can keep on doing what your doing for a long time. And if you can even convince yourself that it's normal, natural and healthy--and get some other folks to pat you on the back, too--then you can keep it up indefinitely.
So even though someone is trying to warn you--and others--to stop or avoid a harmful behavior, your efforts to help are branded as "hatred." Jesus came to this world to "set the captives free," and that took pointing us to the truth of our sin, so we could identify it and let go of it. If Jesus is a hater, then so, indeed, is my motivation. But He unequivocally proved that He loves each of us immeasurably, even as He tells us to "go and sin no more."
Despite realizing all this, I still find it hard to fully understand that whole process of self-delusion. It's a process where the heart speaks for the mind, indeed, the heart convinces the soul that it IS the mind. Thus, we end up responding to things emotionally rather than rationally or logically. Our emotions don't naturally respond to logic and reason, so they are much harder to tame than the mind.
Perhaps that's why God tells us "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"
The human mind is not infallible, but the heart is far more likely to blindly lead us down the path of destruction.
0 comments:
Post a Comment