You'd better believe it...

…and TRUTH will win the day…

The following will be familiar to those who have dealt with Progressive activist groups.  Eliminating the distinction between the individual and the group will hasten the end of our Constitutional rights unless we are very carefulBe careful.

Progressives tend to become zealous about their cause, and zealots tend to appeal to emotions and feelings in place of a valid or compelling argument to dismiss relevant criticism or flaws in their position.  One or more of the following methods are commonly employed

Presenting circular arguments in which the conclusion is included in the premise (Al Gore letter to the Wall Street Journal, 10/30/13).

Attacking an opponent’s character or personal traits and/or misrepresenting his argument by turning back criticism on the accuser (answering criticism with criticism), claiming that the burden of proof lies not with themselves making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. (Al Gore, Professor Torcello and others)

Cherry-picking data to suit their position; presuming that a relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. [If we allow X to happen, then Y will happen too; therefore we should not let X happen.] (Global warming proponents generally)

Claiming that because a cherry-picked authority thinks something it must therefore be true. (Global Warming proponents including Al Gore and John Kerry)

Moving the goalposts: finding an exception when their own claim is shown to be false.

Ignoring evidence of support for the other approach.  (global warming modelers)

Failing to obtain all relevant/pertinent information; looking for confirming evidence rather than looking for evidence to refute. (ditto)

Opting for decisions that will lead to favorable results; once a solution seems apparent, what starts as a possibility becomes ‘definite’.  (ditto)

At least seven of these are employed by ‘global warming’ proponents; the eighth (moving the goalposts) is regularly used by environmentalists (wind farms killing “protected species” of birds) or when excusing the misadventure of ObamaCare.  But it’s not just us talking:

“Karl Marx and his mentor, the philosopher Hegel, popularized the idea that opposition to the inevitability of socialism was anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. The progression of history is scientifically knowable, quoth the Marxists, and so we need not listen to those who object to our program. Later, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others would use this reasoning to justify murdering millions of inconvenient people. It was a “God is on our side” argument, minus God.” (Joe Bastardi, )

The Progressive offensive (and it is offensive to ethical individuals) can easily be countered by ethical means; that is—truth and honesty—if one will make the effort.  These are integral to the individual.  The Constitution is integral to our nation—it must be preserved as written—it is not subject to the ‘interpretation du jour.’  Again quoting Justice Scalia: “The Constitution is not a living organism…It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say”…and it is the law of the land.  Ignoring, bypassing or otherwise negating the Constitution is not only unethical and unconstitutional, it is illegal.  

Truth and honesty are what ExtremeEthics is all about.  This website treats the subject (ethics) in detail; you are encouraged to read the HOME page and go on from there.  The fact is that Progressivism is at its core dishonest and unconstitutional and will lead to destruction of the American Way, the end of liberty.  The Founders warned against just such a thing:  as Benjamin Franklin said when asked what they had given us, he answered “a Republic…if you can keep it.”  We must keep it or it’s all over for us.  Wake up, America, and get involved!  Your future depends on it!

9 Responses to ETHICS ISSUES: POLITICAL ETHICS – PART IV (Conclusion, for now…)

Leave a Reply