cognitive dissonance, the confused mental condition that results from holding incongruous, often mutually contradictory, beliefs simultaneously. Websters New College Dictionary, 2005.
apolitical, not concerned or connected with political matters. ibid.
[however]
. . .if you believe that the interests of Elbert County residents have been ignored by our county commissioners, then fill you ballot out immediately, do not put it off until later. Vote NO to extending term limits.
You are a curious fellow, Brooks. You are obviously bright and well educated. I took 15 hours of logic as an undergrad and so I recognize and admire your Irving Copi / J.S. Mills approach to reason. You have command of a healthy vocabulary. You have a streak of libertarianism in you with shades of Ayn Rand. That’s why I am always so amazed when you use your intellect with such inconsistency. You invoke argumentum ad hominem with Norm and then stoop to calling me names. You have described me as a chump, and as a leftist with an agenda. You bring complaints against the commissioners for the ECDC contribution, but totally dismiss open meeting laws that require the BOCC put forth an agenda that has sufficient detail so that an inquiring public is able to participate in their civic responsibilities. You criticize me for standing up for property rights in the TRW movement. Despite having no evidence to prove the fact, you would like me to be a “tax and spend Democrat” and yet you are frustrated with your own party for spending like a fools on a holiday. You suggest that we claim to have all the answers, yet all we profess is that we believe that people should become more involved. The Superslab solves no transportation problem. How many studies have you read that suggest that it does? I have three that say that it doesn’t. I did not do the studies Brooks, they were done by state transportation agencies. I have no desire to attack your work, and I respect your mind, but lately, you just come off as angry (my opinion). You appear to be stuck. You are unwilling or unable to admit mistakes. Unsure to what I am referring? Apolitical. I am political and so is abe. I thought about your accusations and changed the page weeks ago because of your thoughts and readers (including you) were not getting the humor of the statement. Not every idea I have is a good one. I don’t own the truth. I side with what Plato said about wisdom: Admit only to that of which you know. I have no idea if any of this will get through to you, but I leave you with two thoughts. First, logic is a two way street and our system of government is actually founded on a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam. Innocent until proven guilty is as strange as proving the existence of ghosts. My point: don’t confuse logic with being correct. Secondly, you are often guilty of argumentum ad verecundiam (appealing to authority) as most of us are from time to time. I may be wrong but you act as if your criticism of others ability to reason is justified because you can cite authorities. As a Greek poet once said, “If being able to grow a goatee makes you wise, then goats are philosophers.” A dialog is productive. Sniping is not. I was reading your stuff because I admire thinkers, but now you just seem interested in put downs, cynicism and ideologocical rants(mostly other peoples thoughts). I am certain none of this interests you very much and I expect it to continue. Incongruous? Cognitively deficient? Perhaps, perhaps not. Good luck with your vision.
Robert
Dear Robert,
I used the word “chump” to characterize your opinion of the commissioners, not you. I know it’s difficult for a leftist to distinguish the argument from the man, but, well, just keep working on that.
I stand by my assessment that you are a leftist with an agenda. Only you can say whether that is a positive or negative assessment, though I don’t think of it in those terms. For example, I’m a conservative with an agenda. Big deal.
I complained to the Secretary of State over what I believe to be ECDC electioneering activities contrary to Colorado statute. You mischaracterized my complaint.
On open meetings and agendas, I expect the BOCC is within the letter of the law. If you think the BOCC agendas should be more specific, then lobby for that change. Complaining, after the fact, that an agenda item wasn’t more specific with regard to a particular issue is complaining about water under the bridge.
On property rights and the TRW agenda, I find your stance for your own property rights to be inconsistent with your stance on other people’s property rights. You trot out 5th Amendment takings talk when it suits you but ignore the 5th Am. when it comes to planning and zoning. The Constitution isn’t situational. It applies to all of us all of the time and you can’t cherry pick circumstances to apply it.
Last I looked you were a Democrat in favor of collecting the 1B sales and use tax and spending it on roads. Difficult as it is to conceive of how someone could make the leap to “tax and spend Democrat” from those facts, color me guilty on that conclusion.
On “apolitical,” you changed your web page to read “nonpartisan.” This is a distinction without a difference and the criticism stands. If the shoe fits, wear it proudly.
Our “system of government” is not founded on “argumentum ad ignorantium” or any other logical fallacy. It is founded on the Common Law, on premises contained within the Declaration of Independence, and the system of legalities outlined in the Constitution. “Innocent until proven guilty” refers to the burden of proof in criminal procedure and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the French, and many other legal systems’ principal of “guilty until proven innocent.”
On the allegation that I am “often guilty of appealing to authority,” such appeals are only a fallacy when the authority is not in fact a governing authority for the matter. I don’t believe I cite non-governing authorities but in any case, you’ll need to flesh out this allegation with some examples before I can respond in substance.
Dialog is not per se productive. To be productive each person so engaged must substantively respond to what the other party represents, and then advance the conversation in a reasonable direction. Mouthing words at another party without due diligence to the conversation amounts to propagandizing.
While you’re certainly free to characterize my comments as “sniping, put downs, cynicism, ideological rants, incongruous, and cognitively deficient,” no shortage of ad hominems there by the way, my efforts have been and shall remain directed at encouraging sound reasoning from the public voices in Elbert County. While I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, where you come out in those assessments is mostly up to you.
Sincerely,
Brooks