That shouldn't be surprising in Dr. Hussein's case. The man's truly a deviant liar and a despicable partisan malcontent. Excoriating conservatives and Republicans as the scum of the earth makes his world go 'round, and if he has to lie, cheat, steal, and distort to advocate his program of godless postmodern nihilism, that's what he'll do.
As always, don't listen to a word of it. These people have no virtue whatsoever.
Yes, I'm the "Dr. Hussein" he's referring to and no, I have no idea what brought this on. Sure, at the American Nihilist blog, this is the sort of thing I'd say as a complement of myself. But here in the real world, this is just pathetic. I am godless, so he's got me there. But the rest of that sounds like straight-up parody. But honestly, I've yet to meet the conservative who didn't sound like parody.
An ASS of U and ME
But that's really the best Donald's got to offer. The rest of his post essentially consists of him insisting that because it's often assumed that Democrats engage in class warfare, therefore Obama's specific tax plan must be class warfare. And in order to justify this, he cites Isaac Asimov's definition of the word "assumption" to demonstrate that I must accept Donald's assumption as being true.
Yes, it's gotten down to semantic games based on the word "assumption" which, by the way, was never even used in my original post. And first off, Donald's premise isn't an assumption which he can rely upon, because it's the specific topic we're debating. It'd be like if someone tried arguing that the world is flat based upon the assumption that the world is flat. Sorry Donald, but you don't get to use your conclusion as your assumption.
And secondly, while his citation says assumptions shouldn't be considered "true or false," it goes on to say "It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality..."
In other words, Donald's assumption might be useless if it doesn't correspond to reality. And that's exactly the point I was making from the start; that this "assumption" doesn't correspond to reality. But even worse for Donald was the part he failed to include, which went on to say:
"On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible."
Yet, not only is Donald's argument based upon an assumption, it's the entire argument! All he HAS is the assumption. Because this "assumption" is all we're discussing. Of course, that citation was referring to scientific theories and assumptions, but as long as Donald is relying upon this source, it's important to note how badly it undermines him. Not that it was really applicable in the first place.
And the best he can do to bolster his case is to cite more examples of this assumption; as if conventional wisdom can create reality. Somehow, this gets less convincing every time he does that. People assume things to be true all the time, but that doesn't make them true. And for him to suggest that common assumptions are always true based upon their assumed nature, then he's clearly a bigger nihilist than I.
(Disclaimer: That is not a proper usage of the word "nihilist," no matter how often I mock Donald for using it.)
But even if historical class warfare by Democrats was somehow established fact, and it's not, that still doesn't establish how Obama's specific tax plan is class warfare. What would that argument be? Is Donald suggesting that any tax plan a Democrat makes is class warfare? No, because he cites Clinton as someone who rejected class warfare. Is it that anyone who thinks the rich should pay more than the poor is a class warrior? No, because everyone thinks the rich should pay more than the poor; including Donald himself.
So what is the specific basis that Donald can make to show that Obama's engaging in class warfare? Nothing. He assumes it to be true because he must assume it to be true. Because otherwise, he has no argument and ends up proving my initial point: That this "assumption" is false and/or useless. And again, if Donald wants to admit that he can't defend the basis of his assumption, that's fine. It just means he loses and shouldn't have tried to rebut my argument. Because this was my initial point: That conservatives couldn't defend this premise, and sure enough, Donald seems incapable of doing so.
But conservatives do this all the time. Their ideology makes no sense in reality. And for as much as they rely on assumptions to make their arguments, these assumptions rarely correspond with reality and are therefore useless. You either have to blindly accept the assumptions they give you or it'll never make sense. And that's the reason conservatives don't understand us: Because their assumptions are so ingrained into their thinking that they don't even realize they're making them.
And so poor Donald can only imagine I'm some freaky postmodern denialist, simply because I refuse to accept assumptions that have no basis in reality. To even question these assumptions is to be a lying, cheating, stealing distorter. And that's because the entire conservative ideology is built upon a heap of unexplainable fiction. They believe these things to be true. They just can't explain why they think that.