Letter writer: There can be no justice without truth

Write to Mountain Xpress
Graphic by Lori Deaton

Asheville seems to think itself the kind of place that believes it polite to say that we should all just agree. Agree that everyone’s ideas are equally valid. That no one’s thoughts or beliefs have an edge over anyone else’s — that no one view on truth is the “right” one. It’s only fair, right? All else might feel “oppressive.” How else could we live peaceably in a pluralistic society? It would feel un-American to say otherwise.

And yet, at the same time, we act in complete contradiction to this almost endlessly. As though magically, we have the “right” to be indignant. That certain views and ideas are “right,” and some are “wrong.” Not just that we are just merely discontent with such opposing views; but that they are morally and ethically wrong and therefore bad for society.

“We have an obligation,” we say. “We must fight against the dying of the light and snuff out all who say otherwise. Unite against the evils of white privilege, patriarchy and cisgendered norms!” And then, after a moment of not-so-mild self-satisfaction, we sit back and marvel in a moment of pure bewilderment at the contentious state in which we find our society.

There is a kind of ignorance that engenders more ignorance. There is kind of “enlightenment” that only seems to bring darkness to the public discourse. It’s this specific kind of “tolerance” that kills the discourse that is needed now more than ever. If you’re wondering why you keep fighting the good fight, and no one seems to be listening to you except for those with whom you already agree, it’s because of this simple reason: That there can be no justice where there is no truth.

We can’t say as a society that truth doesn’t really exist in a universal sense — and then decry universal injustice. You don’t get to do that. If we want to fight the good fight against injustice, we are going to have to start by admitting the obvious: that we believe in this inescapable and infuriating thing called Truth. Nothing lasting or truly good will come out of all this talk until we do.

— Ryan Russell
Woodfin

SHARE
About Letters
We want to hear from you! Send your letters and commentary to letters@mountainx.com

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

106 thoughts on “Letter writer: There can be no justice without truth

  1. The Real World

    I think Ryan likely has a good point but I didn’t understand his description. Would someone please paraphrase for me? (But only if you actually grasp his meaning). Thanks.

    • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

      IMO he’s basically saying that progressives say one thing and do things that contradict what they say.

        • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

          What you said doesn’t make sense.

          An example of what I said is when a University president who claims to champion free speech cancels the scheduled appearance of a speaker who talks about universities restricting free speech, and then claims that that person is creating an anti-free speech movement.

          • Peter Robbins

            My comment makes perfect sense — to anyone with the moral courage to post under a real name. But do continue with the lecture, Perfesser.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            What you said didn’t make sense because I didn’t say anything about courage (I feel like I’m talking with the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz). I mentioned hypocrisy. And fwiw, hypocrites are not moral no matter how morally courageous they think they are.

          • Peter Robbins

            I didn’t mention you at all. Interesting that you raised your hand, though.

  2. Peter Robbins

    The letter perceives a tension between being tolerant and having standards. Big whip. Anemic tolerance legitimates bigotry and extremism. Anemic standards legitimate denialism and alt-facts. I say accept the tension and relieve it, from time to time, with a gentle irony. Or not so gentle, as the case may be.

    • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

      This tells me that progressives think that they have standards while those who don’t agree with them don’t. Thus they think that they are morally superior which justifies their intolerance towards those they oppose. This is just a secular form of self-righteousness.. I see the same attitude in legalistic religious. people who pride themselves in the high standards they embrace and claim to follow, and feel justified through an imagined moral superiority in condemning those who don’t follow their standards. But justice isn’t found in self-identifications and following rules and regulations, but in treating others with the same respect they have towards themselves. Thus hateful intolerance of other people (and everything that goes with that) and justice are mutually incompatible..

      • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

        “mutually incompatible”

        Brainfart. Should read “incompatible and mutually exclusive”.

      • The Real World

        This is very well put. You’ve described what I’ve been saying for awhile…..that liberalism in the 21st century is promoted, managed and believed like a religion. This is very much evidenced by their acolytes unwillingness to consider critically or dissent any main tenet being promoted by their prophets.

        Which means one of two things: a) they either blindly buy everything their political prophets are selling or b) they don’t buy all of it but fear being shunned or deemed not a true believer if they say otherwise. Hullo? See any problems there? Seems very much akin to the Baptists or the Amish.

        Sigh….and I feel certain that most Democrats have never heard the names Edward Bernays and Saul Alinksy. I might suggest they do some reading since the techniques of those two are heavily deployed in the Democratic sphere. Yes friends, you are being programmed. The first HUGE flag indicating that is the lack of dissent permitted and your shunning if you do.

          • The Real World

            Oh, I am quite familiar with both. But particular religious brands aren’t the point; it was an general analogy.

            Apparently, you do not disagree with the primary premise. It’s quite obvious to objective, open minds. So, I guess you have one.

          • Peter Robbins

            I disagree completely with the premise. Liberals are as fractious as Baptists, maybe more so. To quote Will Rogers: “I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat.”

        • Big Al

          “…liberalism in the 21st century is promoted, managed and believed like a religion. ”

          Or like an -ism.

          Specifically, Communism ( and all of the neo-Socialist -isms that it begat) had the very same rules, means and methods as the most fundamentalist religion, but disallowed and discredited religions as illegitimate distractions from the cause: worship of the secular humanist state.

          While progressives avoid the “C-word” like the plague, most of their rules, means and methods (speech codes, political correctness, re-education) are the very same.

          Cheers, Comrades!

          • Peter Robbins

            I’m against speech codes, as a general rule. But I don’t think an employer, through his speech, should be allowed to create a racially hostile workplace in hopes of running off black employees. Is this hypocrisy? Or an example of how society wisely balances two values that exist in contradictory tension?

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            Actual racism needs to dealt with. But the sword cuts both ways. Race baiters who constantly magnify the slightest perceived transgressions into imagined racism create just as hostile a workplace and need to be dealt with in the same way as racists..

          • bsummers

            Spare us. The idea that these mis-characterizations don’t just as easily apply to groups on the Right is intellectually dishonest.

            And you’re really offended by “speech codes and political correctness”, I’ll give you my login info to the DailyHaymaker, the Tea Party-affiliated website, and you can try to post a comment that deviates from the approved political spectrum.

          • Peter Robbins

            And I don’t see why religion is getting such a bad rap here, either. If it makes people more aware of their social obligations to their fellow creatures, I am prepared to hypocritically overlook a certain amount of creative story-telling, performance art, extravagant theorizing and weak punch. Even some stupid opinions now and again. That’s just how some folks was raised.

          • The Real World

            Methinks the 2 commenters above recognize what has been put forth by several people here. Because one tries to switch the the topic into a binary comparison (good cop, bad cop scenario. Sad!). But no other groups were being discussed.

            The other is picking at the fringes of the topic; counting trees while missing the forest. C’mon guys, you’re proving the points being made. Leave the denial behind and have an open-mind. That would be progressive.

          • Peter Robbins

            If free speech must give way to the tender feelings of racial minorities, as Mr. Snowflake claims, then what about women? And religious minorities? And the transgendered? Mr. Snowflake is turning into quite the little snowflake, no?

          • Peter Robbins

            And no, Real World, you’re the one who needs to man up. Leap off your silly progressive/conservative/resentment treadmill and get with the pragmatic program. You’re not meeting my standards.

          • The Real World

            Take a read from Edward Bernays Wikipedia page:
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            In his book,Propaganda (1928), Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:[19]

            The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            Now, this stuff occurs throughout the Western world but Democrats in the USA, in the last dozen years or so, have intensely co-opted these techniques and deployed them in all forms of media, cinema, the organizing and funding of faux “movements”, outright manufacturing or grossly exaggerating issues. It is all extremely easy to recognize. So, they have to program their acolytes because when they need to resort to all of the above — clearly, they’re operating on a weak and failing platform.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            “If free speech must give way to the tender feelings of racial minorities, as Mr. Snowflake claims, ”

            Doesn’t sound like what I said. Free speech trumps anyone’s feelings. That’s the whole point of enshrining such a right in constitutional law.

          • Peter Robbins

            You acknowledged that racial discrimination in the workplace should be corrected and the creation of a racially hostile working environment is a form of discrimination. In any event, courts have held that the Civil Rights Act precludes racially hostile working environments, notwithstanding the First Amendment. No constitutional right is absolute. So, I’m afraid it doesn’t really matter what you think, little Snowflake.

          • Peter Robbins

            And before you open your mouth again, it’s not a matter of a statute trumping the First Amendment. It’s a matter of the First Amendment not protecting workplace racial discrimination, just as it does not protect fraud.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            Racial discrimination is denying someone his due rights based on skin color. Offending someone with speech is not discrimination against gender, religion, or race.

          • bsummers

            “Offending someone with speech is not discrimination against gender, religion, or race.”

            Actually, that’s false.

            “Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA).

            Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

            Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance.”

            https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm

          • Peter Robbins

            Of course. That’s where the hostile work environment is prohibited. But I expect the citation will now be dismissed as fake law.

    • Peter Robbins

      He also put a capital letter at the start of the word “truth.” Not sure I like the looks of that.

      • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

        No post-modern moral relativist does. I think the LTE author did a reasonable job of exposing the inherent contradiction of that worldview.

        Moral relativism’s fatal self-contradiction
        Assertion: There is no absolute truth.
        Response: Is that absolutely true?

        • Peter Robbins

          Sheesh. There are propositions sufficiently well grounded in evidence and logic that it would be perverse for a responsible person to gainsay them. Those propositions can be characterized, for practical purposes, as “true.” But even those propositions are subject to reconsideration if significant new evidence — or new methods for evaluating existing evidence — emerge. There is no need to speculate further into the nature of “truth” and, in my opinion, people who see the need cause much trouble.

        • Peter Robbins

          Or, to put it another way, “absolute truth” is created by putting the useless word “absolute” in front of the useful word “truth.” Unicorns are made from horses in the same way. Fun to imagine; hard to ride anywhere worth getting to.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            The word absolute is used to distinguish reality from interpretations of truths. The latter frames the worldview of moral relativists.

          • Peter Robbins

            And there’s the irony. Right on cue.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            No irony. Truth is self-existent and completely independent of what man thinks. Objective. To a moral relativist truth is what he thinks reality is; a useful word to describe his perception of reality.. Subjective.

          • Peter Robbins

            The word “true” is a provisional compliment paid to propositions that test particularly well.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            True is an adjective. Truth</ is a noun. Again, we are back to the reality vs. ideation of reality thing.

          • Peter Robbins

            No, we’re not. Because I’m framing the argument so as to make your terms irrelevant.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            I know. That’s what progressives do. Establish a framework with narratives. Facts (realities) are irrelevant and narratives become reality. It’s not working anymore except on those who have no sense.. Toto has pulled aside the curtain.

          • Peter Robbins

            You want to argue on your terms? Fine. Identify an Absolute Truth that everyone in the world, including you, thinks is wrong because it is not supported by evidence? Can’t do it? Then I win. There is no practical reason to use a definition of truth more ambitious than the provisional one the scientists use.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            That’s not a realistic request because some people see and recognize absolute truth and some don’t. But as an example of what you requested, GOD is absolute truth. And that is supported by the evidence. But you limit the framework to 5 senses and reject that revealed truth. So yes, I do argue on my terms, which means examining ALL of the evidence.

          • Peter Robbins

            If you are relying on evidence to sustain a belief in God, then you can have no more than a provisional and tentative belief, since you don’t know what conflicting evidence might be discovered in the future or what different ways of thinking about the matter might be developed in the future. We don’t even have to get into all the other problems entailed with supposing that you reliably know squat about what this imagined deity is or thinks. A better case could be made for unicorns, because we at least know that planets might exist with an atmosphere thick enough and gravity light enough to make their flight possible.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            That reasoning has so many holes in it. Only an unstable or mad person would have a provisional or tentative belief that the law of gravity won’t always be operative. So there are things that can be known absolutely via evidence.

          • Peter Robbins

            You’re just being silly or deliberately dishonest. As I said before, there are propositions so well supported by evidence that it would be perverse to gainsay them. But all scientific propositions — no matter how well established — are tentative and provisional in the sense that they are always subject to review at a later date if new information comes to light or new ways of thinking about the problem are developed. Scientific propositions are never deemed to be absolutely true. Never. There is nothing “mad” about that. Get used to it.

          • Peter Robbins

            And, as a little aside, why don’t you explain whether gravity is quantized? I’m sure your Absolute Truth covers that aspect.

          • The Real World

            “Scientific propositions are never deemed to be absolutely true. Never.” — sounds reasonable. So, how could it be that a smart, well-connected guy like Al Gore never got that memo?

            Prophet Al preaches that all of his (contorted) data PROVES that human activity is responsible for climate variation. Bernays and Alinsky would be proud of him because he’s trained his acolytes to deem anyone who makes a statement like you did to be a heretic. Watch out, they’re going to come after you now, you non-believer.

          • Peter Robbins

            Never saw the Al Gore movie, so I can’t speak to its fairness or accuracy. But, as general rule, you don’t need absolute truth to have evidence overwhelmingly sufficient to justify corrective action. Particularly when the danger is great, as it is with climate change. But thanks for recognizing that provisional truth based on evidence is a perfectly reasonable concept — one that nicely averts certain “true believer” tendencies on both sides of the political spectrum.

          • The Real World

            “evidence overwhelmingly sufficient” — Noble laureate’s in Science as well many internationally-renowned climate scientists would beg to differ with that. Youtube is a treasure trove of speeches given by those folks. Decide for yourself if they’re whistling Dixie.

            Never saw his film either but I’ve heard him preaching many times. I’m a neutral skeptic on the issue because I don’t have the background to understand it well (nor does anyone I know but, that doesn’t stop them from their certainty!)

            Here’s a truth: ALL of us should insist that Al, every scientist in his pocket and any other prominent proponents of human-influenced climate change disclose any investments or income related to that issue. That, friend, will provide us with very valuable truth about whether their motives are purely science-based and genuine or whether paydays are involved. I’d make a big wager that most would be surprised (but they shouldn’t be) at what those disclosures would reveal.

          • The Real World

            Just remembered…. these are too good not to pass on. Peter, how do you reconcile what these two informed people have said?

            Posting excerpts: At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

            the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

            The whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

          • Peter Robbins

            Getting a little far afield here, old friend. Another time.

          • The Real World

            No, technically, this thread could go on for years as long as the posts were attempts to get at the truth of something. Plus, I just tagged on to scientific comments already being made, because it fit.

            Don’t run away. That speaks volumes. Sad! Maybe you’ll be willing to comment in the future when I front those links after someone writes in again about how we should all endorse Al’s carbon credits. Ca-ching!

          • Peter Robbins

            Oh, my. Taunts. What’s next? Barbs?

          • Peter Robbins

            I suppose I should rephrase to say that the scientific method is not designed to produce absolute truths, rather than saying that scientific propositions are never absolutely true, so as to avoid the tiresome self-referential gotcha. It’s so hard to phrase things perfectly in such pugnacious company.

  3. The Real World

    False premise. No one can speak for all of humanity. (Really?!!)

    Then I win. And that reveals your actual motives. You don’t care about learning from others, you merely want to beat them. Sigh……..

    • Peter Robbins

      No, I want to demonstrate my proposition — that Absolute Truth is a useless concept because no practical use can be made of it. And it’s a dangerous concept because the graveyards of history testify to what happens when people suppose that they have access to It. Frankly, I’m astonished that the people here who are accusing me of being the ideologue are the ones arguing against a pragmatic approach to truth.

      • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

        Depends entirely upon what absolute truth is. If it is love then it is eminently practical. Gravity is a manifestation of absolute truth and it is very practical.

        • Peter Robbins

          No, it isn’t. Gravity is a concept derived from the observation of regularities in nature. If, in the future, gravity were observed to behave differently, the concept would be revised. You cannot know for an absolute certainty that such changes will not be observed — only that they haven’t been so far and are unlikely to occur.

          • Peter Robbins

            It is, however, a very practical concept, notwithstanding its provisional and tentative status.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            That’s true, but purely theoretical. All evidence indicates that gravity is an unchanging force/law. There is no evidence for your conjecture. All evidence indicates that within this particular context of existence, gravity is absolute.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            I’m not interested in redirects. If you can’t explain it yourself, you don’t understand it.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            Calling something plain stupid is not a lucid response. The awareness of the possibility of something happening (eg, law of gravity changing) doesn’t mean that it will happen. Therefore, it cannot be considered reality, or truth. It is simply a thought.

          • Peter Robbins

            And, just to be clear, the part that is stupid is the idea that an Absolute Truth followed from any of the observations that preceded it.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            Observations reveal absolute truth, they don’t precede it.

          • Peter Robbins

            No, observations produce evidence. But I was talking about the observations that you made in your comments.

      • Peter Robbins

        And, bear in mind, Mr. Snowflake define Absolute Truth, in part, as a proposition that would be true even if no one thought it was true.

        • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

          Not sure I understand what you mean, but absolute truth stands completely independent of man. So what man thinks is irrelevant.

          • Peter Robbins

            What you think is irrelevant, I’ll give you that. Read the MIT article.

          • Peter Robbins

            Or, if you won’t read the MIT article, give us your Theory of Quantum Gravity so that we can be assured you know the Absolute Truth about gravity. Either one is fine.

  4. Richard B.

    Wow! This is great! Each of you guys would have been really good in lecturing at one of my college Philosophy classes.
    Seriously!
    Good discussion, almost completely free of name calling.

    • Peter Robbins

      Except for the Cowardly Lion crack, which I generously overlooked. Glad you liked it. I’m talked out. I would refer you, if you’re interested, to the two great Richards — Rorty and Posner — from whom I shamelessly swiped all my opinions. I like Posner particularly, not because he consistently arrives at the progressive result — he usually doesn’t — but because he balances cost and benefits carefully, realizes that there are competing values in society that can exist in tension, and is upfront about the personal attitudes that inevitably color “objective” judgments.

      • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

        IT had nothing to do with calling you cowardly. That was just the voice that went off in my head when I read your word courage. I didn’t know how to write “Kkuuur-age” and get my point across. (see I still don’t know how)

        • Peter Robbins

          Don’t worry. I don’t mind your penchant for name-calling and crudity, although I expect it’s what landed you in moderation. That is what explains the delays in your posts, isn’t it?

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            You can’t point out a single example of me name-calling against a person. I will do so quite freely, though, against ideologies and groups. I’ve run into this before with some religious people insecure in their beliefs who felt personally attacked when I attacked their doctrine.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            Yes, I’m in mod. Doubt it’s for the reason you mentioned, though, especially name-calling because I never do that against people, just groups and ideologies.

          • Peter Robbins

            My bad. I didn’t realize “Cowardly Lion” was a term of respect.

          • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

            Slow learner, huh? I already said the term was not directed at you.

          • Peter Robbins

            And, just so you know, people land in moderation because they use foul language or make personal attacks or act like a jerk. I’m guessing you hit the trifecta.

  5. The Real World

    Here is just one example of what I refer to above — the shunning and trashing of those deemed not to be “true believers”.

    Chadwick Moore, a contributor for the LGBT magazine OUT, has come out as a conservative in an article for The New York Post, citing his gradual move to the right after left-wing friends rejected him for his neutral profile on Breitbart Senior Editor MILO. Take a look: http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/im-a-gay-new-yorker-and-im-coming-out-as-a-conservative/

    Short on time? This statement from Mr Moore sums up the article, “I realized that, for the first time in my adult life, I was outside of the liberal bubble and looking in. What I saw was ugly, lock step, incurious and mean-spirited.”

    • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

      It’s the group think and intolerance of identity politics. Incipient fascism.

    • Peter Robbins

      Not to pile on the uncritical groupthink, but you gave us a self-report published in a notorious New York tabloid. Has the account of the fellow’s social travails been independently verified? He may be just an oversensitive little snowflake.

      • Snowflake (Social Justice Worrier)

        Please explain how one individual’s recount of his experience of feeling rejected by a group’s intolerance of his stance against the group consensus is group-think.

        • Peter Robbins

          I was referring to the progressive groupthink complained of by my esteemed colleague.

          • Peter Robbins

            You know, the incipient fascism of the raised eyebrow.

      • The Real World

        NY Post is no more notorious than the NY Times, has been around 50 years longer and has similar circulation. They like flashy front covers; that’s their shtick. Don’t forget that is was *gasp!* the National Enquirer that broke the hideous and true story of Mr. John Edwards.

        Look, I apply the same healthy skepticism to ANY media outlet. I can’t see how that guy gains by “coming out”…..LOL….as a conservative while pointing a direct finger at his fickle friends/colleagues. He, clearly, has much more to lose (his career as a journalist) if he was purely making it up.

        Is this a surprise to you, Peter? That is the program; it is common. No offense, but you have not comprehended well what has been happening the last many years.

  6. The Real World

    Peter – you are a disingenuous guy. More sad! People put forth info or reasoning that makes you squirm so you start throwing darts all over the place because you don’t want to deal directly with good info that may counter your adopted dogma.

    Lawyers can be sooooo tiresome in their self-serving slipperiness.

    • Peter Robbins

      Stick to the issues and leave the personal stuff out. Nobody cares about my perceived foibles.

      • Peter Robbins

        Okay, let me modified that remark. You did make one relevant point. A dogmatic devotion to pragmatism would indeed be ironic, and thus illustrates my original point about how to relieve the tension of conflicting values. That said, the floor is now yours. Let her rip. Put forth all the information and reasoning that you want.

        • Peter Robbins

          Should be “modify.” Don’t want to give The Real World anything more to complain about.

    • Tracy Rose

      This thread has been largely free of personal insults. So, let’s keep it that way …

  7. Peter Robbins

    I’m guessing, Real World, that your last outburst against me was prompted by my disinclination earlier to debate the relative merits of positions on climate change. As I said before, I think your remarks took the discussion too far off-topic. Now that you’ve had a chance to calm down and everyone apparently is done discussing the matters raised in the letter to the editor, you have the thread to yourself. To get you started, here’s a chapter from one of the dogmatic holy books that our new President hasn’t yet gotten around to suppressing : https://www.epa.gov/climate-change-science/overview-climate-change-science. Have at it.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.