E-Mail Argument Over Conservapsycho Writings

Is it me, or does the man protest too much and give up too soon????

HIM:

Go to the "Free Republic" web site. I posted a little essay I wrote there on Sunday under the philosophy heading. I came in this morning to find my first response!!!!! How cool is that?!?! I am not sure if the respondee is really smart, really dumb or just agreeing with me in a totally confusing way. I sent this to several on-line and print media options. I hope that doesn't violate any copyright laws, some of them require exclusivity (we did that once remember).

Maybe some cool, progressive editor or nationally known pundit will like my schiz-nit. It's my first real submission... so go easy. I find that the hardest part is remaining concise and not going off on inspired tangents for too long. I know you won't agree with my thoughts and I don't think I can call it philosophy -since I prefer answers and solutions- but by today's standards it might be considered genius, I don't know.

Anyway, let me know what you think. you da one wit da schoolin', right.

With a tremendous amount of luck, maybe I'll find a new career.

ME:

Wow. Your submission is certainly impassioned and, in general, well-written. I believe that the person who responded does indeed agree with the terms of your observations, but wants you to explore more fully the "causes." Post-modern philosophy tends to focus more on observation than on proposals for change - your essay has both - and is also more accepting of the writer's own feelings on the subject, so in that sense your views fit the philosophic mold. However, philosophy requires a calculus of sorts to be valid and all arguments must have "proofs." It is easy to overlook this because of the passion with which your observations are written; however, you must be sure your arguments will withstand the inevitable attacks on your logic. In this sense, you may want to temper your use of adjectives and descriptors.

Watch your punctuation!! Many of your sentences don't have any at the end, and some of the ones that do have terminal punctuation that does not coincide with the terms of the sentence. Be especially careful with "its" and "it's". The latter is not used as often as you might think, especially in terms of "possession." Remember, too, that there are two spaces, not one, before beginning a new sentence in the same paragraph.

If you had given this to me to read and edit before posting, I would have asked you to delete the entire second paragraph. Or at least rewrite it. As it is written kind of like this. Which is difficult to understand and invalidates your arguments. Many of the sentences do not have a clear subject, which leaves the reader to cast about in confusion for the reason for such passionate predication. Regardless, the second paragraph adds nothing to your essay and could easily be removed.

Many of your conclusions are assumed and therefore invalid. For example "In human conduct, duty is either accepted or shunned." Here, "Duty" is not defined. Unfortunately, though I and every reader will understand what you mean by "duty," a clear definition is necessary to substantiate your argument. As a human being and nothing more, I have no duty to anything beyond my own survival. I certainly have no responsibility to "the greater good," whatever THAT may be. Your argument here has sense but no reference, as all terms contained therein are political constructs and abstractions. Your terms must be fully defined before you can make such claims. Though it is apparent that you are speaking to a particular audience, if you want responses you must not leave yourself so open to invalidation. You can present this argument in a way that leaves nothing undefined, and I suggest that you find a way to do it as it is important later!!

Scarily, you sound almost Marxist in some of your claims, particularly in paragraph 6 ("Why here? Why now?"). You will alienate your audience in a heartbeat unless you tone it down!!

The strength of your argument and the backbone of your entire essay is finally presented in paragraph 7. I would like you to morph this out and focus on it, should you choose to continue to present your views to the world (so to speak!!). Here: "In this state of support, the liberal begins to spend the idle time he is allowed complaining about the means provided for him by another's labor. Over time these complaints (sic) morphed into a means of political and social authority." That is a beautiful assertion, and one that deserves more than you gave it. It deserves a well-presented definition and thorough investigation and self-argument.

Be careful of statements like this one: "The single qualifying quality - weakness of character - can be found...". Not all persons subscribing to a liberal view are weak of character. Some believe that they are serving the greater good no matter what you say. And some are warriors like yourself - and you know this to be true. Don't alienate these people as well, for they are the ones that may change their minds by reading a cogent argument. Statements like that one invalidate entire arguments because there is no logical calculus that supports it. Be careful!!

Another very strong argument appears in paragraph 9 ("ACLU"). "With no law higher than the individual man, all behavior will become subjective in its lawful implications and any duty to others will cease to bear import." This is beautifully stated and also bears further investigation and argument. If you had comprehensively defined "duty" in previous paragraphs, you would have a complete and cogent argument here. This is also the only kind of statement that can be made with an "all" conclusion, as it is presented in syllogistic form. Well done!!

I'm going to skip over the "Abortion" entry in my editing notes, as my reaction to your writing is not based on the writing alone. I will come back to it once I feel more objective about your statements. As you know - or should know - "selfishness" is not limited to those with a liberal bend to their personal freedoms.

Be careful again in statements regarding things that are protected by the Constitution... it is here that our Founding Fathers contradicted themselves by guaranteeing religious freedom but requiring the necessary separation of church and state. If you want prayer in your school, you must send your child to a non-public school. So sayeth our Constitution, no matter how you read it. No one is "sacrificing" their rights if there is not a moment of prayer in a public school. Everyone sacrifices their rights if there is. To even promote a voluntary "moment of prayer" in a public school classroom is unConstitutional. Of course, children are allowed to have religious groups on public school campuses, as long as it is not part of the curriculum. I'm not saying that the point isn't valid, because it is. Just be careful about how you word it. Especially now, as I agree with the person who commented that much of the attraction of liberalism is the loss of faith that many people are feeling. You can appeal to a wider audience by addressing this and incorporating it into your needs assessment.

I greatly enjoyed reading your efforts, as you write in much the same way as you make love.

My notes here assume that you would want to present your ideas to the widest audience possible, which may not actually be the case!! Before you send it anywhere else, I suggest revising, if only for punctuation. But I do believe that your writing will appeal to many, and that you may indeed find a new career!

HIM:

Geez....so thorough and so fast! You really are the scholar. Punctuation shit!! I don't think that really matters anymore, have you read some of the newspapers lately? Besides, YOU can be my proofreader when I hit the bigtime.

I know some things require greater explanation. This is what I meant when I talked about getting off on tangents. Some of my brevity is intentional to spark the exact kinds of responses you mentioned. I do have extensive reference materials to bolster most of my arguments. But I chose to explode upon the editorial map with a few basic precepts, light the fires (forgive the reference), and then fight the battles with strategy and specifics.

Thanks for the honest evaluation. Constructive criticism is a blessing from a true friend, and if I was not one of the few who understand that I might be able to make rank.

I thought about the Marxist thing too!! I was going to ask you if it sounded that way, but didn't want to invoke the self-fullfilling prophecy deal. Similar right down to the inconsistancies I should think.

not even gonna spell check..nnnnya!

ME:

How can you hit the bigtime if you don't punctuate???? I can proofread BEFORE you hit the bigtime... then after, you can pay an editor to do that menial stuff. :-)

It's easy to go off on unvectored thrust when you feel strongly about your material. And I see that you struggled with that. No worries - most people do it and it is almost expected in mainstream writing. You do well in relating most of your assertions to the topic at hand.

No one is "prohibiting the free exercise of"!!! Children enrolled in public schools are allowed to pray and express themselves religiously. And there is no law, besides the Constitution itself, which establishes how religion is to be expressed (or not). Separation is explicit, not implied, and there is no legislative body that would deign to cross that line. Which is why, thus far, no judicial body has supported the frivolous lawsuits presented on this subject. This particular portion of our Constitution is very well written and leaves little room for interpretation. And, just for the record, our Founding Fathers also assumed many of their conclusions. And we both understand what that does to the conclusions. Does it mean they were necessarily WRONG? Of course not. But it does make the theory behind the law invalid.

Congratulations on your first publishing! It is truly an amazing accomplishment and I applaud the courage that fueled it. Submission of writing is very difficult - especially to such a forum - because you are exposing your heart for any and all to slash and tear as they see fit. I hope that any comments submitted by the masses to your editorial will help you refine your arguments even more. (And for sure don't take them personally!!!)

I look forward to future efforts!

HIM:

Okay. But..if they did not want it why did they insist upon it?

Way off on the judicial stuff kiddo. 180 degrees so. Ever hear of Mt. Soledad or Mt.Helix. And there hunderds more where that comes from. This is why I write, people aren't aware of what is happening. To be aware, and to admit it's implications would require action. I don't think I want people to agree with me, in fact I prefer they don't. I just want the verification that, if our way of life is ruined, it's because we allowed it to be so. We didn't deserve it. I can live with that. You can't save evrybody, ya ken.

Will we be better off now that Christmas trees are legally forbidden in many town squares? The guy made my point for me I think. Culture encompasses governance, but if you have no discernable culture, don't be surprised when the sun of morality sets and never rises again.

ME:

I'm aware... and I admit the implications. However, Mt. Soledad is PUBLICLY protected property. I'm not "off on the judicial stuff"... I just understand the letter of the law (whether or not the spirit of the law is invoked). Do I agree with that decision? No. I prefer to exercise my own right to choose. If I could buy the protected portion of Mt. Soledad I would. If I could breathe light into the souls of those who do not recognize a symbol for a SYMBOL, I would. But I cannot change the fact that the legislation stands because of the necessary separation of the taxpayers from iconoclastic costs. That, like it or not, is the bottom line. Hateful, yes. Impractical, no.

And your first commentator is correct... the liberalist influence was ALWAYS there, so what, if anything, has really changed? Could it be that our way of life erodes because the design was flawed and never re-engineered? Or do we find that governable bodies (large groups of people in one place) NEED a set of controls that goes beyond the governance of behavior and into their very psyches? I believe that the latter is closer to the truth and that liberalism flourishes because people no longer seek the governing MORAL force of the likely community center (the church). Without something telling us what to believe and how to manifest it, we are lost microorganisms eternally searching for the radioactive charge into the positive or negative.

Neutrality - the ability to choose for oneself - is anathema to the human animal and is the "fear" that you have so comprehensively described in your essay.

You have another valid observation in the lack of discernable culture eroding the democratic effort without other outside influence. Add lawyers into the mix and the outcome is predictably sinister. It is frightening to me that new legislation seems to be predicated upon frivolous lawsuits that fundamentally undermine the spirit of justice rather than upon the clear and present needs and strengths of the society. Something else worth your time to explore philosophically, I think. Just another project for the back burner of a brilliant mind.

I'll miss the Christmas trees. But think how many more people would protest if I set up a Yule altar in the town square instead? They'd beg to have the tree back. :-)

HIM:

Okay. But..if they did not want it why did they insist upon it? (I'm just saving this line and re-re-re-pasting it now)

See "Why Here, Why Now" on why they were never allowed to propagate before. Today's "liberal" is not the "Liberal" that spawned the American and French revolutions. Our founders were, in today's terms, were either "conservatives' or "extreme conservatives". That is the evolution.

Speaking of revolutions...it won't be protesting that gets our Christmas trees back, mark it.

Of course it is the only practical way to keep order. It may not exactly be Psych 101 but it's still in the lower level courses. Hey, I don't go to church and haven't spoken to God very much lately, so it's not like I'm pullin for the holy rollers here. But it is the basis of our freedoms, the respect for fellow man and the one essential ingredient to our unprecedented sucess as a people. You could not have achieved this in a totally secular society. Hear me now, believe me later. Control.. maybe. Brainwashing...it's going to happen as long as human minds are around to submit. But whatever, change it..I'm game! Chaos should hold off until I can get to the next gun show for a few extra rounds, eh?

I agree that it is happening, and that your interpretation is widely accepted. This world. Not moved on... moving on.

ME:

Okay. But..if they did not want it why did they insist upon it? (I want to play, too!!)

I can easily interpret that sentence as equivalent to "be careful what you wish for...".

Protesting hasn't gotten ANYTHING back. Ever. The beauty of MY HOME is that I can erect a Christmas Tree AND a Yule altar. And wrap my presents in Kwanzaa paper after observing the daytime fasting of Ramadan. I can set my table for Michaelmas and light the candles on my Menorah. And no one can tell me that I have to take any of it down, or that I can't put any of it up. It is only the PUBLICLY PROTECTED places that are affected by the disease. Sure, I could fight about it. The fact is, I don't care. Let them have their sterile town square and their "holiday festival." Let them have traditions that are steeped in political correctness rather than in communion. Again, it seems to boil down to "be careful what you wish for..." - each move to protect the public from their own ability to choose further serves to isolate the individual. And, once completely isolated, chaos is upon us - as divided we must fall. Therein lies the natural and logical conclusion to the quest for "no law higher than the individual man."

I have plenty of rounds. I have rounds for guns I don't own yet. How's THAT for preparedness? But I'm pretty sure that once "chaos" arrives, I won't be needing them. Not for long, anyway. See my comments on neutrality.

It seems a fundamental flaw (speaking from philosophic terms) to augment your argument by placing the intent of the Founding Fathers into "today's terms." This is not only truly unknown, but truly impossible. And we cannot know the "evolution" because we cannot define the terms.

You already know that, on many levels, I agree with you and your assessment of our social indicators toward declination. Still, your ability and willingness to often subvert EVERY social phenom into a symptom of the disease that you've identified is troubling and smacks of the excess you yourself warn against as an indicator of decline. I don't argue with you because I don't believe that you are trying to do the right thing, I only argue that occasionally the terms need definition and the passion needs balance. I respect the courage it takes to "stick your neck out," as it were; especially given the nature of your statements. Again, the role of the philosopher is the quest for knowledge through objective observation. Without this objectivity, the argument fails into a "he said, she said." My comments are not personal attacks against the things you believe, only attempts to allow you to hone your position into the rapier-like logical calculus it could easily be.

I dare (double DOG dare!!) you to refine your presentation and send it to a forum that is not already labeled as Conservative. Yes, you open yourself up to attack by those waving their banner with the same zeal that you wave yours; you also have a chance to learn every argument that can be presented and find a way to refute each one. This is the dialogue that philosophers open in their quests for the truth... of course, that is only my opinion!!

HIM:

Okay. Sounds Good. That's enough for me. Like I said I really don't want to convince anyone of anything. And I certainly don't want to debate other people or hear their opinions. The only thing more tedious than reading other peoples responses is responding to them. Whoa, that was pretty cool! If that is an original quote you can't use it..it's mine. Isn't overbearing arrogance a must in this field?