Bad arguments are a major characteristic of modern, liberal ideals. But one of the worst is the one we've all heard a million times over: why would X do Z when bad would come of it? Why would a person be gay in a world where anyone who doesn't venerate non-heterosexuals is brutally persecuted? No, that's not it. It's 'why would anyone be gay when it's considered so bad to be gay?'
Likewise, as Rod Dreher shows, why would a woman ever make a false accusation about rape? As Rod Dreher seems to agree with, I should say.
Think on that. First, the gay version. Why would anyone do anything that is considered inappropriate or taboo within a society? Why would they rob banks, molest children, wear Vulcan ears, openly believe in Jesus? Why would anyone ever do what a society says not to do? It's as if the argument hopes nobody has paid attention to the world. Ever.
Likewise, consider the notion of 'why would a woman ever do something wrong when it comes to rape?' Duke LaCrosse scandal anyone? Heck, it's just s stupid premise, but shows the power of the #MeToo feminism, that seems to have resurrected all of what used to be called radical feminism and suddenly made it mainstream. So mainstream, even conservative and traditional Christians are embracing its premises, such as women being incapable of wrong doing.
These are stupid arguments by any measure. And yet, in a sign of the times demonstration, they are endorsed and embraced by a growing number of Americans. Obviously gays must be born that way, made that way by God Himself. After all, nobody ever chooses to do what society says is bad! And clearly women would never, ever lie about something like rape. We have to assume honesty. Heck, we just ignore the cases we know for a fact women have lied over the years about rape! It's that easy.
None of this means Kavanaugh is innocent, or shouldn't be ruined for something he did 36 years ago as a teenager. I think the consensus is that anyone should be held accountable without mercy for anything they ever did at any time in their lives. We are an enlightened and liberal society after all. But it is to say that the arguments often used in these cases are, in the end, lousy and demonstrably false, even if they are accepted by a growing portion of our population.
I liken it to alcoholism. After all, nobody's born an alcoholic, right? But then who would choose to be an alcoholic? Yet we have plenty of real alcoholics around. When you've worked out the solution to that paradox, you'll have an answer for the rest (and a lot of Paul's letters will start to make sense).
ReplyDeleteExactly. Though they say alcoholism can be something you're born with a tendency to. In its case, however, that doesn't get you off the hook. Nobody looks at an alcoholic and excuses it by saying 'born this way!' It's almost like most of the excuses we hear aren't really that well thought out.
Delete