Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny trashed by a conservative

[Bfgrn]

You'll notice that even in the article he does NOT state that Levin in wrong, merely states that Levin may not be taking the "Reality" of Progressives positions (i.e "Global Warming") into account in his proposed solutions.

No Frank, Jim Manzi is saying Levin is wrong about global warming. SO wrong and SO incompetent in his analysis, that it draws into question the rest of his book.

'But what evidence does Levin present for any of this amazing incompetence or conspiracy beyond that already cited? None. He simply moves on to criticisms of proposed solutions. This is wingnuttery.

But if you’re someone who read this book in order to help you form an honest opinion about global warming, then you were suckered. Liberty and Tyranny does not present a reasoned overview of the global warming debate; it doesn’t even present a reasoned argument for a specific point of view, other than that of willful ignorance. This section of the book is an almost perfect example of epistemic closure.'

 

[Liability]

You'll notice that even in the article he does NOT state that Levin in wrong, merely states that Levin may not be taking the "Reality" of Progressives positions (i.e "Global Warming") into account in his proposed solutions.

No Frank, Jim Manzi is saying Levin is wrong about global warming. SO wrong and SO incompetent in his analysis, that it draws into question the rest of his book.

'But what evidence does Levin present for any of this amazing incompetence or conspiracy beyond that already cited? None. He simply moves on to criticisms of proposed solutions. This is wingnuttery.

But if you’re someone who read this book in order to help you form an honest opinion about global warming, then you were suckered. Liberty and Tyranny does not present a reasoned overview of the global warming debate; it doesn’t even present a reasoned argument for a specific point of view, other than that of willful ignorance. This section of the book is an almost perfect example of epistemic closure.'

Manzi ( AGW hoax proponent) does make that absurd, irrational and illogical "argument," but only after conceding that he hadn't read the whole book and that he's not expert in the other areas the book touches upon.

That you chow down on his spewed feces, Bfgrn, speaks only to how willingly gullible you are.

 

[Foxfyre]

You'll notice that even in the article he does NOT state that Levin in wrong, merely states that Levin may not be taking the "Reality" of Progressives positions (i.e "Global Warming") into account in his proposed solutions.

No Frank, Jim Manzi is saying Levin is wrong about global warming. SO wrong and SO incompetent in his analysis, that it draws into question the rest of his book.

'But what evidence does Levin present for any of this amazing incompetence or conspiracy beyond that already cited? None. He simply moves on to criticisms of proposed solutions. This is wingnuttery.

But if you’re someone who read this book in order to help you form an honest opinion about global warming, then you were suckered. Liberty and Tyranny does not present a reasoned overview of the global warming debate; it doesn’t even present a reasoned argument for a specific point of view, other than that of willful ignorance. This section of the book is an almost perfect example of epistemic closure.'

Manzi ( AGW hoax proponent) does make that absurd, irrational and illogical "argument," but only after conceding that he hadn't read the whole book and that he's not expert in the other areas the book touches upon.

That you chow down on his spewed feces, Bfgrn, speaks only to how willingly gullible you are.

Also Levin's book was not about global warming perse, but that was one of several illustrations of areas that he felt the goverment was misusing information in order to overstep its bounds. It is typical 'liberal-speak' to focus on one issue they think they can demonize in order to detract or trash an entire concept.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Wednesday, April 21, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure [Jim Manzi]

Jonah notes Ross Douthat’s very interesting post, in which Ross had this to say:

Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.

I thought some about this over the past few days, and took this as a direct challenge.

Here goes.

I started to read Mark Levin’s massive bestseller Liberty and Tyranny a number of months ago as debate swirled around it. I wasn’t expecting a PhD thesis (and in fact had hoped to write a post supporting the book as a well-reasoned case for certain principles that upset academics just because it didn’t employ a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tropes). But when I waded into the first couple of chapters, I found that — while I had a lot of sympathy for many of its basic points — it seemed to all but ignore the most obvious counter-arguments that could be raised to any of its assertions. This sounds to me like a pretty good plain English meaning of epistemic closure. The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error.

I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying — global warming — in order to see how it treated a controversy in which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail.

It was awful.

Whole article...

James Manzi is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Where's your evidence this guy is a "conservative?"

I've never heard of this guy, but SUDDENLY he's someone the liberals take seriously because he bashes a real conservative??????

I mean this is typical. This has been happening since I can remember.

When someone agree with conservatives, they are eeeeeeeeeevil. But if they bash a conservative, suddenly they are "see a conservative thinks this is wrong" and suddenly liberals take them seriously and use this tool as a means to "lecture" real conservatives on why we should be more "open minded."

Can anyone say McCain, Voinivich, or Lindsey Graham?

This is such an old tactic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wednesday, April 21, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure [Jim Manzi]

Jonah notes Ross Douthat’s very interesting post, in which Ross had this to say:

Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.

I thought some about this over the past few days, and took this as a direct challenge.

Here goes.

I started to read Mark Levin’s massive bestseller Liberty and Tyranny a number of months ago as debate swirled around it. I wasn’t expecting a PhD thesis (and in fact had hoped to write a post supporting the book as a well-reasoned case for certain principles that upset academics just because it didn’t employ a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tropes). But when I waded into the first couple of chapters, I found that — while I had a lot of sympathy for many of its basic points — it seemed to all but ignore the most obvious counter-arguments that could be raised to any of its assertions. This sounds to me like a pretty good plain English meaning of epistemic closure. The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error.

I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying — global warming — in order to see how it treated a controversy in which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail.

It was awful.

Whole article...

James Manzi is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Where's your evidence this guy is a "conservative?"

I've never heard of this guy, but SUDDENLY he's someone the liberals take seriously because he bashes a real conservative??????

I mean this is typical. This has been happening since I can remember.

When someone agree with conservatives, they are eeeeeeeeeevil. But if they bash a conservative, suddenly they are "see a conservative thinks this is wrong" and suddenly liberals take them seriously and use this tool as a means to "lecture" real conservatives on why we should be more "open minded."

Can anyone say McCain, Voinivich, or Lindsey Graham?

This is such an old tactic.

Manzi was a primary fund raiser for Bill Bradley in 1999. That doesn't exactly give him stellar 'conservative' credentials.

From Wiki:

Bradley ran in the 2000 presidential primaries, opposing incumbent Vice President Al Gore for his party's nomination. Bradley campaigned as the liberal alternative to Gore, taking positions to the left of Gore on a number of issues, including universal health care, gun control, and campaign finance reform.

 

[Mr Natural]

Sit on it and spin like a top you anal fissure.

You are the whiney douche bag.

Oh, and stop being such a sissy, you asstard. You DO care what I think. I made you cry.

Mark Levin is a million times the human being you will ever be.

You are just a turd.

Why don't you run along now back to Hannity's and suck him off also.

I leave homo-perversion to douche rags like you Mr. Queen.

Your feeble and infantile attempt at an insult illustrates perfectly the mentality of the followers of the Whiney Little Douchebag.

Nice try but a clear miss.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Wednesday, April 21, 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure [Jim Manzi]

Jonah notes Ross Douthat’s very interesting post, in which Ross had this to say:

Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.

I thought some about this over the past few days, and took this as a direct challenge.

Here goes.

I started to read Mark Levin’s massive bestseller Liberty and Tyranny a number of months ago as debate swirled around it. I wasn’t expecting a PhD thesis (and in fact had hoped to write a post supporting the book as a well-reasoned case for certain principles that upset academics just because it didn’t employ a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tropes). But when I waded into the first couple of chapters, I found that — while I had a lot of sympathy for many of its basic points — it seemed to all but ignore the most obvious counter-arguments that could be raised to any of its assertions. This sounds to me like a pretty good plain English meaning of epistemic closure. The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error.

I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying — global warming — in order to see how it treated a controversy in which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail.

It was awful.

Whole article...

James Manzi is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Where's your evidence this guy is a "conservative?"

I've never heard of this guy, but SUDDENLY he's someone the liberals take seriously because he bashes a real conservative??????

I mean this is typical. This has been happening since I can remember.

When someone agree with conservatives, they are eeeeeeeeeevil. But if they bash a conservative, suddenly they are "see a conservative thinks this is wrong" and suddenly liberals take them seriously and use this tool as a means to "lecture" real conservatives on why we should be more "open minded."

Can anyone say McCain, Voinivich, or Lindsey Graham?

This is such an old tactic.

Manzi was a primary fund raiser for Bill Bradley in 1999. That doesn't exactly give him stellar 'conservative' credentials.

From Wiki:

Bradley ran in the 2000 presidential primaries, opposing incumbent Vice President Al Gore for his party's nomination. Bradley campaigned as the liberal alternative to Gore, taking positions to the left of Gore on a number of issues, including universal health care, gun control, and campaign finance reform.

Figures.

It's a typical liberal tool. They take some RINO who might slightly lean to the right and and if he disses a real conservative they are "OH look see, why can't you conservatives be more like him, hmmmmm?????"

As if liberals are our mother and we are getting compared to an older brother.

It really is obnoxious.

 

[jillian]

g-d you're a moron.

 

[The T]

You'll notice that even in the article he does NOT state that Levin in wrong, merely states that Levin may not be taking the "Reality" of Progressives positions (i.e "Global Warming") into account in his proposed solutions.

No Frank, Jim Manzi is saying Levin is wrong about global warming. SO wrong and SO incompetent in his analysis, that it draws into question the rest of his book.

'But what evidence does Levin present for any of this amazing incompetence or conspiracy beyond that already cited? None. He simply moves on to criticisms of proposed solutions. This is wingnuttery.

But if you’re someone who read this book in order to help you form an honest opinion about global warming, then you were suckered. Liberty and Tyranny does not present a reasoned overview of the global warming debate; it doesn’t even present a reasoned argument for a specific point of view, other than that of willful ignorance. This section of the book is an almost perfect example of epistemic closure.'

Why don't *YOU* go get the book and read what Mark says? It's in Chapter 8 "On Enviro-Statism" where Mark highlights everything the Enviro_Statists have used trumped up garbage to push their controlling agenda through fear tactics of the enviroment that have been proven patently, absurdly FALSE.

And it covers MORE than Global Warming. WHY be so damned narrow?

All it shows is the intent of the author of this 'Hit Piece' And it speaks to MORE than Global Warming...How about that DDT? eh? How About contaminated food? Ebola? BSE? CFC's? MTBE? Energy policies? 1.6 Gallon Toilets? The *LIST is endless...All scare tactic bullshit the left uses to garner more control .

 

[Liability]

Why don't you run along now back to Hannity's and suck him off also.

I leave homo-perversion to douche rags like you Mr. Queen.

Your feeble and infantile attempt at an insult illustrates perfectly the mentality of the followers of the Whiney Little Douchebag.

Nice try but a clear miss.

No no, Ms. Queen. Your sissy-assed whining reaction demonstrates the deliberate falsity of your attempt at a rejoinder.

Stop sniveling, bitch.

You are a loser. Everyone sees it. Embrace the failure you are.

It's not like you have any choice.