Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Ann Althouse Defines "Lie"

The famous Law Professor and blogger, Ann Althouse has trouble understanding three-letter words like "lie." She based her assertion that Obama is a liar on the following quote.

Nobody gets to write your destiny but you. Your future is in your hands. Your life is what you make of it. And nothing -- absolutely nothing -- is beyond your reach, so long as you’re willing to dream big, so long as you’re willing to work hard. So long as you’re willing to stay focused on your education, there is not a single thing that any of you cannot accomplish, not a single thing. I believe that.

We have some people around here who love to throw that word around. I've even been accused of lying when I was offering an opinion.

What do you think? Is this something peculiar to Republicans, righties, conservatives and pro-gun advocates. It seems like it to me.

Please leave a comment.

19 comments:

  1. Annie went deep into the wine box after seeing O'Donnell and Paladino win.

    To the larger point, though. Rightwingers (gunloons included) see anything that varies from their worldview as a 'lie.' That's why science has a liberal bias.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jade understands lies and liars as well as anyone I would imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And you are a truly honest man, FatWhiteMan?

    I've been looking for you for the past few millenia!

    Διογένης ὁ Σινωπεύς

    ReplyDelete
  4. And look, spammer, you found him!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting to see that JadeGold is the first to comment on lies. After all he is the subject matter expert.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mikeb:

    Is this something peculiar to Republicans, righties, conservatives and pro-gun advocates. It seems like it to me.

    The possibility not mentioned: perhaps Democrats, lefties, liberals and anti-gun advocates actually do display a disproportionate tendency to lie, thus drawing the accusation more frequently.

    That's not something I actually believe (well, I do believe it about the forcible citizen disarmament lobby, because the anti-gun stance depends on lies, of course), because I think those sweeping, broad-brush generalizations are simple bigotry--the crutch of the intellectually lazy and morally degenerate.

    I'll finish up with the (utterly unsurprising) observation that no statistical evidence was offered in support of the hypothesis that making accusations of lies is "something peculiar to Republicans, righties, conservatives and pro-gun advocates."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll finish up with the (utterly unsurprising) observation that no statistical evidence was offered in support of the hypothesis that making accusations of lies is "something peculiar to Republicans, righties, conservatives and pro-gun advocates."

    Of course, statistical evidence in such a case would be difficult--if not impossible--to show. After all, how could one even begin to design such a study? It would be akin to demanding statistical evidence to ascertain which religion--if any--most closely conform's to God's desires.

    However, examples such as the wine-soaked Althouse's 'opinions are lies 'cause I don't believe it' are useful.

    I'd also offer up this example: consider global warming. Rightwingers--many of whom are barely literate--tell us that the overwhelming preponderance of the world's scientists and scientific institutions are not just wrong about global warming--they are also deliberately committing fraud.

    Think about it. Not only are the scientists wrong--they are actively pursuing some deliberate conspiracy against us.

    This example alone demonstrates how out of touch with reality conservatives are.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Are you all saying that you are truly honest men?

    I seriously doubt that.

    Διογένης ὁ Σινωπεύς

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jadegold:

    It would be akin to demanding statistical evidence to ascertain which religion--if any--most closely conform's to God's desires.

    And Jade demonstrates that even a blind squirrel can, indeed, find the occasional acorn, if only by accident.

    Yes--the comparison between believing one of Mikeb's peculiar hypotheses, and acceptance of religious doctrine as an article of faith, is a valid, even astute, one.

    Even if it was all luck, Jade, nicely done, and you know I'm not one who enjoys giving you compliments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anyway, that lack of statistical (or any other kind of) evidence, however understandable the difficulty in compiling such evidence, renders this hypothesis, like so many others of Mikb's, safely dismissible as bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Zorro:

    "Anyway, that lack of statistical (or any other kind of) evidence, however understandable the difficulty in compiling such evidence, renders this hypothesis, like so many others of Mikb's, safely dismissible as bullshit."

    Now that's a bit harsh. Couldn't we say it's a feeling I have?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mikeb:

    Now that's a bit harsh. Couldn't we say it's a feeling I have?

    Certainly, if you prefer. Not sure why you think your feelings are any less dismissible than your groundless hypotheses, but if that makes you feel better, who am I to deny you that bit of peace you seek so desperately?

    ReplyDelete
  13. MikeB: “Now that's a bit harsh. Couldn't we say it's a feeling I have?”

    Yep, that is exactly what it is. In your defense you said so much with your “seems like it to me” line. No it is not a lie- the worst it is going to do is lessen people’s impression of your opinion. However, it’s no surprise to me that gun owners and conservatives are the ones calling you a liar. So from your point of view- yes indeed they are the ones who cry out “liar” more often.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Zorro: You're illustrating rightwing dishonesty.

    You claim that if cannot provide statistical evidence--this renders any hypothesis invalid. This shows you don't really have an understanding of either statistics or evidence.

    Let's take evolution (another topic rightwingers have issue with), for example. You cannot prove evolution by statistical analysis. Yet, it is accepted by the scientific community as fact. Note: please don't play semantical games about theory v. fact (Gould already covered this here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jadegold:

    You claim that if cannot provide statistical evidence--this renders any hypothesis invalid.

    Um--no, Jade, I didn't. Speaking of lying, if you're going to lie, it would probably be a good idea to stick to lies that were a little more difficult to debunk.

    Let's help you out a bit with what I actually claimed (emphasis added):

    Anyway, that lack of statistical (or any other kind of) evidence . . .

    Statistical evidence is only one type of evidence that he could not provide (he apparently cannot provide any other type, either).

    Further, "safely dismissible as bullshit," differs a bit in meaning from "renders . . . invalid." My point was that if the author of a hypothesis cannot back it up with evidence, there is no need for anyone else to take it seriously. The hypothesis might even be correct, but there can be no shame in dismissing a notion presented without any supporting evidence.

    Thanks for playing, and dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Zorro, The evidence is there. It's been presented plenty. But, I want you to agree based on my feeeelings. They count too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:

    Zorro, The evidence is there.

    Must be some of that "evidence" that only Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader can see. The kind of "evidence" that helps Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader determine a person's guilt or innocence based only on newspaper accounts (often contradictory), rather than witness testimony, courtroom arguments, and--you know--actual evidence.

    ReplyDelete