Reply #10: "as i defined it"

[welshTerrier2]

isn't "as i defined it" the perfect example of semantics.

you stated: "Ideology is never good as only "grudgingly" yielding to facts will mean that there may be facts you will not yield to."

here's where i strongly disagree. "grudgingly yielding" is not the same as NOT yielding. it recognizes, to quote a line from the famous Chicago Conspiracy trial, that "facts are nothing without their nuance". it also recognizes that one fact does not a conclusion make. the world we live in is filled with paradoxes. a single fact, even one that directly contradicts our little vision of the world, does NOT necessarily mean that we should abandon our beliefs.

it means that we should double and redouble our efforts to find credible evidence to support our values. this does not mean we ignore the "fact" being presented. it means we weigh it in with all the other facts. again, it's not about ignoring reality; it's about making damned sure that we are not led astray by what appears to be one "out of place hair" on our little heads.

for example, we saw DU posts like: "OMG, they found WMD in Iraq". What should we have done with that fact? What if they actually had found a cache of WMD? does that mean I should trust the bush administration? does it mean that I was dead wrong about whether we should have invaded? am i just burying my head in the sand? not at all. i would have, and should have, remained highly suspicious of whether the "fact" was actual factual. I would have looked for contradicting evidence. i would have challenged the source of the evidence to determine his or her credibility. i would assess whether it would make any sense at all, even if WMD did exist, to topple Saddam and leave a huge, destabilizing power vacuum in his absence. i would have asked what bush's REAL motivation for invading Iraq actually was. starting with a core belief that the US government is a corrupt organization that does not have the best interests of the country or its citizens at heart gives me a very healthy skepticism when issues like war are on the table. it's what allowed me to make the correct call on the IWR and what led people like Hillary Clinton down the wrong path with her tragic statement that she took bush "at his word". She lacked a belief that bush was corrupt and that he was clearly going to war to cater to his oily friends.

that's what i mean by "grudgingly yielding". i don't toss aside my deeply held convictions that are built on a lifetime of experiences and beliefs just because some so called "pragmatist" tosses a "fact" at me. facts are seasonings; they are not the main course. it's what we do with facts and how we integrate them into the gestalt that matters.