Previous

Contents

Next

The Liberal Fault
by Peter Cyprian
c/o [email protected]

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

I check "MSNBC's NewsVine" daily after perusing the news and I am often amazed at the absolute idiocy I see being spouted from the rather large number of liberals on MSNBC's NewsVine. Some of the positions I see being taken are just mystifying! How could one group be so misguided? I seriously had to ask myself this question—how could these people be so cross-wired? I was posting on a seed about Evolution being taught in the schools and had a rather heated debate with one of these people and then, it hit me! How could people that are self-proclaimed "educated" people be so screwed in the head? They REFUSE to ever admit when they are wrong! It is that simple. When a liberal is confronted with undeniable facts, they lack the moral character, the intestinal fortitude, to admit they were wrong. Since this is the case, they will continue to spout their nonsense, regardless of the facts. As a professional trainer, I can tell you that the worst situation you can find yourself in a training environment would be when your students believe themselves to be "experts" on the subject material. I have had this happen several times and each time it ended the same way—I taught the class to the best of my ability and they learned nothing. Later, when they failed to perform as expected (sometimes on the battlefield), they had nothing but a litany of excuses, which my company had to debunk each and every one of them. Liberals—it is simple....here's a lesson for free....read this and say it out loud: "gee, thank you for showing me the facts that prove my position is invalid, I WAS WRONG TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE." If that is too long winded for you, try this: "I was wrong".

This lack of character has infiltrated a number of areas in our society. Unfortunately, the scientific community is one of them. I read an article about the "scientific" process, and it was drastically different than what I learned in high school and later on in college. It used to be that a scientist would put forward a theory based on a hypothesis. That theory would be tested and proven, disproven, or required further testing. This was not the end though; it then had to be repeatable by other scientists in order for it to be deemed "good". The article that I read basically said that they just go where the evidence leads them, make their assumptions, and if the facts ever reveal that their assumptions were off, they adapt their assumptions to fall in line with the new evidence. Now some may say "that's reasonable", and it is...partially. The part that is missing is where these people NEVER acknowledge that they were wrong. What's worse is the way these same people will attack ANYONE that dares contradict them. These are the "educated" liberals of today.

Prime example—prior to 1992, any astrophysicist that said they were looking for planets outside our solar system would have been treated as an outcast, a loon, someone to be shunned. Amazingly, despite this stigma, a few still dared to look for "little green men" as the bullheaded "educated" ones would say. They were treated like the kooks of their profession and their work was widely called "junk science". When a group of them not only found the first exoplanet, but PROVED its existence, those same people that called them "kooks" then did everything in their power to try and debunk them. Once that failed, they had no choice but to accept exoplanets as reality and the Kepler Mission has since identified over 2000 such planets. Was there a great outpouring of "we're sorry, we were wrong"? Not from this group, they were way too "educated" to be wrong, they just had misinterpreted the evidence.....but that doesn't make them "wrong".

We see evidence every day that proves gun ownership is a good thing, yet those that want to deny us our Constitutional rights will stick their head in the sand and deny the evidence every time. Time and time again we see LEGALLY owned and carried weapons, in the hands of a gun owner (since the gun doesn't do anything just sitting on the sidewalk, minding its own business), being used to protect the lives of innocent people. We read about national tragedies that could have been prevented if there were but one armed person present, they could have prevented the loss of innocent lives. Those of us that exercise our right to carry know the truth of the matter, and it seems to not make a difference to the anti-gun group how many facts, figures, and real life situations you present to them; they will NEVER admit that they are wrong.

Let's be real for a moment—I have been WRONG many times in the past and shall most certainly be wrong about something else in the future. It doesn't make me a bad person or a dumb person; it merely confirms my membership to the human race. According to my wife, I am always wrong, even when I am right! I can't win! There's the catch...it's not about "winning" or "losing", it is about being humble enough to admit when you are wrong, fixing the wrong, and moving on without repetition of whatever it was you were wrong about. This is an essential step in the learning process! (At this time I shall not embarrass myself with the many things I have been wrong about—but I will say that when I was proven to be wrong, I was able to admit it.)

So, what is the problem with never admitting that you are wrong? Well, besides being a major character defect, it stunts the learning process. How can you ever learn something if you refuse to admit that your assumptions, on any given subject, are wrong? The answer is simple—you will never learn anything. Just as I can't teach an "expert" anything, you will never be able to show these simple minded people that their assumptions are incorrect. No matter how much evidence you bring to the table, no matter how many facts and figures you show them, they will simply do as the liberals on MSNBC's NewsVine do—stick their fingers in their ears and shout at the top of their voices, hoping you will just go away. They will make up their own "facts", dismiss anything that doesn't sing the same tune as they do, and refuse to admit they are wrong about anything. And THAT is the fault of liberals.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: