Defense of Truth

  Heather Cox Richardson is a favorite among some of my leftist friends.  Her position as an academic offers imprimatur for her wanton partisanship and her acumen as a historical researcher helps her find the cherry-picked details she needs to cover a false narrative with a veneer of historicity.  I don't usually engage because her posts are long enough that it would take too much unpacking to deal with, but I wanted to take a crack at just a part of this one. Keep in mind that her schtick consist mostly of framing modern Republicans as morally corrupt and modern Democrats as knights in shining armor for all that is good and right, by peppering her argument with so much actual historical facts that you have the feeling of "context" so you don't notice the logical sleight of hand by which her narrative escapes reason and reality.  With that said, here's my summary, responding in snarky kind to her own partisan framing, but faithful to the content of her

  I generally love Star Talk.  I don't have tiktok because I limit my social media, but Facebook's creepy spy algorithm knows I'm interested in the sciences, astrophysics especially, and enjoy deepening my understanding of the vastness and marvels of God's creation by watching educational documentaries every now and then.  It's a genuine interest, but it also partially stems from a barely conscious need I have for a counterbalance to the constant stream of subjective, often barely coherent arguments to which I am constantly exposed in the literary, political, moral, and ideological realms in which my ideas almost constantly swim in my professional environment. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of my favorites.  He offers keen insights in his field, often with pedagogical panache, attention to current events, and doesn't just know how to make a point, but how to ground it in the history of ideas so that its impact has context.  He delivers epic smackdowns on flat-earthe

It's just not that hard, folks.  Unless we're dealing with the context of a justified war, there's simply no moral defense for killing innocent humans if there are any other options, let alone for the convenience of the living.  And while both sides may exaggerate to make a point, only one side of the argument does insane logical backflips to hide the true and morally repugnant nature of the acts, their numbers, their consequences, and the assumptions underlying their "justifications". Ever since the leaked Alito draft hinting that Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned, pro-abortion activists have had their day.  I suppose I can understand a certain need to defend against what they perceive as a threat on their liberties and rights.  So now that they've had their time to externalize their fears and put out ad campaigns, and fake being handcuffed at protests in unlawful locations, let's stand back from the emotions and just examine the core moral argument

 A thoughtful leftist friend of mine posted a series of "rebuttals" from a Progressive website called "So Informed" to their own caricature of Conservative talking points on recent current events.  It's worth thinking through each of them in turn, especially since I haven't posted in a long stretch, as a way to engage with the current state of our national culture's slide into centralized authoritarianism.  This friend gets full points for speaking her mind, engaging with compassion, and standing up for what she believes.  My concern here is to correct improper frames for debates, inaccurate and/or beside-the-point facts, and logical fallacies.  All of this is centered on the ideas in question, not impugning the motives of the holders of such ideas.  It's done in the spirit of believing in the other's freedom and intelligence strongly enough to offer sincere chances for them to change their mind.  The ideas themselves, however, come from somewher