Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

No One Ever Admits They are A Nazi Pig

arroba Email

In her post below Denyse is frustrated that the Darwinists are still refusing to admit the obvious about the Guillermo Gonzalez case — that the tenure process was a sham, the reasons used to justify denial of tenure were a pretext, and the decision to deny tenure had been reached before he even applied. 

I understand Denyse’s frustration.  As a litigator, getting to the facts of a matter is integral to my job, and it never ceases to amaze me the extent to which people will lie or deny the truth, even when they are under oath and even when everyone in the room (except apparently them) knows what’s going on. 

When I was a young lawyer this was especially irritating.  I will never forget a particular deposition of an expert witness.  I had him dead to rights.  I tripped him up on a key point.  He knew it; I knew it; the other side’s lawyer knew it; everyone knew it.  But I went round and round with him asking him question after question, and he would never fess up to the ultimate question.

After the deposition an older lawyer who was mentoring me said “Barry, I know you were frustrated in there, and I’ve felt that same frustration many times, but let me tell you a story that might help.  During the Nuremburg trials the prosecution team had lawyers from England, the United States and Russia.  When a defendant would take the stand, the English lawyer would examine him in the formal English tradition, and in the same way the American lawyer would ask penetrating questions to try to tease out the truth.  But every time the Russian lawyer would just stand up and say ‘Admit you’re a Nazi pig!’ and then sit down.  Of course, no one ever admitted they were a Nazi pig.  The point is, real life is not Perry Mason.  No one ever breaks down on the stand and confesses.  The best you can do is make your points and move on and hope the jury sees what is going on.”

Whether the story about the Nuremburg trials is true is beside the point.  We can never force witnesses on the stand or materialists on this blog to admit the truth, even if the truth is utterly obvious to even the most casual observer.  The best we can do is put the truth out there.  Then the jury (in my cases) or the public (in this blog) can make up their own mind. 

And you know what else I’ve learned?  There is actually a great benefit when a witness denies an obvious truth.  If the jury catches them doing that just once, they lose all credibility and nothing they say from that point on makes any difference to the case.  I advise my clients that if there is a damaging fact, just fess up and move on.  Don’t make the other side drag it out of you; that just exacerbates the problem by highlighting it.  In the long run it is always better to admit the damaging fact than to deny it and lose credibility.

 In the case of the materialist commenters on this blog, I hope they do go on denying the obvious.  Their credibility slips a little more with every denial.

Hi Gerry, Gerry Rzeppa -- "It’s better to work in your garage with your head up than in a huge lab with your tail between your legs." Yes indeed. I spent two and a half years living and working out of a 10ft by 8ft camper trailer -- both my "lab" and my "home." I am doing much better now but that time was somewhat disconcerting for me. Nonetheless, I was able to maintain my dignity and my scientific freedom of inquiry. Wrt infrastructure the first thing ID'ers need is a cafeteria -- to provide both food and shelter. :-) William Brookfield
You are wrong wrong wrong. I'm a Nazi Pig. Gloppy Galapagos Finch
This post reminds me of this poem about Hitler and Nazis: Ten Foot Tall And Bulletproof Ten foot tall and bulletproof He lived by a bloody swords edge, Ten foot tall and bulletproof With the manners of a sledge, To take by force, to have it all Were his only creed and call, Ten foot tall and bulletproof My oh my how hard they fall No love for life, no love to be Save the love he had for he Ten foot tall and bulletproof My oh my he could not see A need for God, A need for Jesus Despite a mothers plea Survival of the fittest and dog eat dog Or so he thought, thought he Thus, Ten foot tall and bulletproof Came to meet his fateful day With no clue of the fate For all of the hate That he had called his play Yes, Ten foot tall and bulletproof Without any slight delay Soon found the cost for all he had lost Was not in his strength to pay Yes, Ten foot tall and bulletproof Despite his own mighty strength to prevail Soon found out without any doubt That he was in the mouth of hell bornagain77
BarryA, I directed a guy to this link to get the point across about the treatment of scientists like Gonzales, because I found your analogy quite interesting. Curiously, this guy, a staunch Darwinian and evolutionist, and an advocate of a "legalistic" approach to finding truth even in science, had the same reaction to it as JWarner. Re 10: "JWarner you are missing the entire point of the post. I am not calling anyone a Nazi." The guy missed the joke and the whole point of your post, got defensive and felt insulted. I guess there are strong preconceptions and beliefs in the minds of these people, and people in general, which preclude many not only from objective critical thinking and evaluation, but which even impede their ability to read and comprehend. (One can see it especially in the "human rights" cases where people get offended very quickly, rather than trying to take things in stride and defuse the situation, for example by turning them into a joke, which in many cases these are.) I think it is due to their strong belief in something which they see as absolutely true and the loss of which would shatter their "small" world or world-view. How do you get the point across when dealing with such "narrow-minded" people? rockyr
I like Wiki's take on Godwin's Law: "However, Godwin's law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons." BarryA
kairosfocus, I was just messing. I kind of like ribbing you because you take everything so seriously. For the record, I think we're both strongly opinionated and have both admitted error (though we have disagreed about what that means vis-a-vis objectivity). getawitness
Gotcha it said on wikipedia that it meant greek for "the right or oppertune moment." I think that is a really cool denotation. Frost122585
Frost I have been watching the CC presentation, and took a break, saw this. GEM is my initials ( I no longer use my full name in blogs as I have reason to believe this has led to abusive behaviour, some of it spam related, but through linking my own site those who need to communicate directly may do so); follow the always linked to see what this means. TKI [The Kairos Initiative] denotes my persona for consultancies and the like. Kairos, in turn is a Greek term that denotes a decisive moment or a season. GEM of TKI kairosfocus
kairos what does GEM or TKI mean? Frost122585
GAW: I see your: You’re mistaking me for KF or BA77 [23] in a context of the accusation of closed-mindedness manifested in refusing to acknowledge objective error. This, as you know form direct interaction with me in previous threads, is objectively false. Kindly cease and desist from such misrepresentations. GEM of TKI kairosfocus
JWarner @ 6,
Any invocation of Naziism (however appropriate, regrettably) is automatically seen by many as a move of desperation.
Like after a teacher allowed some kids to name a teddy bear Mohammed the teacher was automatically seen by many as guilty of some sort of blasphemy and deserving of 40 lashes and a jail sentence? So Godwin's Law has gone from being a "gotcha" in-joke to being such a piety of public discourse that Nazis and Nazism can't be mentioned even when appropriate? I would think that grown-ups should be discouraging such juvenilia rather than bowing before it, with or without regrets. Certainly they should not be trying to extend its parameters as getawitness seems to be doing @ 19. To say that,
Nazis should never be used simply to illustrate a point
particularly when the mention of Nazis was entirely peripheral to the argument put, makes me wonder why the anti-Nazi-mentioning brigade are so dogmatic. Could it be that there are some points related to Nazism (e.g., their (borrowed) idea that some people are less evolved and are therefore subhuman, and therefore can be killed with impunity) that evolutionary propagandists would prefer everyone to forget? Janice
Godwin's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Specifically: Corollaries and usage, fallacious use of Godwin's law. Foxfier
BarryA, I've backed away from at least one claim just in the last day or so. A couple of weeks ago I retracted a claim about the history of Christian schools when someone pointed me to other evidence. And those are just the ones I remember. "Never admits he's wrong?" You're mistaking me for KF or BA77. And you may want to check if there's a mirror nearby . . . :-) getawitness
jerry, I'm not sure I agree. I think you have to be pretty bad to get banned from this site. Throwing out insults, impugning integrity, etc. I don't think mere intransigence gets you kicked off. Witness getawitness's continued presence. He never admits he's wrong even when everyone (including him, I suspect) knows it. But at least he's civil and kicks an occasional joke into the mix. BarryA
BarryA, The moderators here should read your analysis. People are banned too frequently, merely for intransigence. I propose we keep those who are intransigent here and let them slowly squirm in their answers even if they never admit their intransigence. That way all that watch this site can see what they are and what they represent. But we banish them too quickly and never get the effect of watching them continually squirm or equivocate. I have never seen a Darwinist admit the limitations of their beliefs but it fun to point out their inconsistencies and occasionally we learn from them which we should all appreciate. jerry
OT: Anyone used to having Nazi or Fascist thrown at them should read Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism. The cover is priceless. todd
tyke, I don't think BarryA is exactly conforming to Godwin's law. It's more like Godwin's law at one remove. Imagine going to an airport and seeing a sign that reads JOKES ABOUT HIJACKING WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Then go up to a TSA officer, point to the sign, and say, "So, if I were to joke about hijacking a plane, that would be taken seriously, right?" Technically, of course, you haven't joked about hijacking a plane; you've just talked about joking about it. But you'd probably get arrested anyway. There's a figure of speech that means something like "talking about something by not talking about it." Imagine if Mike Huckabee were to say at a Republican debate, "I'm not going to talk about anyone's multiple marriages and city-sponsored trips to the Hamptons. That would be beneath me." I forget the name of that figure of speech, but something like that is going on here. "I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, but if I were, they'd sure as heck not admit it. But I'm not calling anyone a Nazi. Or a pig. Or a Nazi pig. It's just an illustration." It may be worth noting that Nazis should never be used simply to illustrate a point. getawitness
It's not that Barry was calling anyone a Nazi--clearly he wasn't. But it's the abuse of the term that is the problem these days. Even mentioning the word Nazi comes off as a bit tacky. It's a bit like swearing, I guess. Still, the dark part of me had a chuckle over the headline. vrf
What's invalid about my point? I merely quoted Godwin's Law and said that your use of the "Nazi Pigs" illustration in this thread conforms with that law (and that doing it in the first post kick started the process :) ). I wasn't denying that you illustration was relevant, and I wasn't saying that you were calling anyone a Nazi. Heck, if you don't agree, that's fine. I won't bother discussing it further. tyke
Barry, Your mentor gave good advice. The frustration isn't worth it - I find the challenge of illuminating Socratic dialectic to be a fine replacement. A good string of simple questions which get at the root and expose the truth of any given matter will be effective no matter how prideful the defender of error! Even if they deny their National Socialist Swinishness aloud, the intellectually honest ones will know it in their hearts. The dishonest ones will just ignore your points and call you names or niggle over irrelevant details. todd
William Brookfield says, "I personally think that it is 'too late' [to reform the universities] and that we need to look seriously at building new infrastructure — infrastructure that would welcome folks like Gonzalez, Behe etc." I agree. And history, I think, bears this kind of thing out. Martin Luther - right or wrong - found it impossible to merely reform an organization with as much inertia as the Roman Catholic church. What we need are (1) scientists who are not hampered by a materialist world view, and (2) engineers who are willing to do something practical with the results of that research. Since we can assume that the unhindered pursuit of truth will yield better results than dreaming up impossible stories about things that probably never happened, these new research and development enterprises should become self-supporting in short order. It's better to work in your garage with your head up than in a huge lab with your tail between your legs. Gerry Rzeppa
tyke, JWarner did not have a valid point and neither do you. Amazingly, you are demonstrating the very phenomenon I discussed in the post in the comments to post!!!! BarryA
Godwin's Law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
You don't have to call someone a Nazi to satisfy Godwin's Law, it's enough to invoke a "comparison involving Nazis or Hitler", which you did on when you created this thread. Not taking sides, but JWarner has a point. Discussions that invoke Hilter or Nazis are not usually very enlightening. tyke
I must admit Barry that the title of this blog entry and the story behind it had me laughing my huge posterior off. Sometimes I think our friends on the other side of the fence took lessons from those Russian lawyers. angryoldfatman
Hi Rude, Is it too late for the universities? I personally think that it is "too late" and that we need to look seriously at building new infrastructure -- infrastructure that would welcome folks like Gonzalez, Behe etc. I am hopefull that the "Expelled" movie will improve public awareness and provide a support base for ID-tolerant scientists -- who are now in the process of being "expelled" from materialist accademia. William Brookfield
JWarner, you are missing the entire point of the post. I am not calling anyone a Nazi. The point of the post is that the Russian lawyer's question was pointless. Whether they are or not, no one ever ADMITS they are a Nazi pig. BarryA
“How would anyone ever know if the deletions are legitimate? They could be hiding incriminating information and claiming otherwise.” If a party suspects there has been shenanigans, he can request a court to review the unredacted documents and make a determination regarding whether the redactions were appropriate. This very thing happened in the Columbine cases. We filed an Open Records request in which we requested all of the records of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department. They stonewalled for a long time and then caved in and produced over 10,000 redacted pages. We requested a review of the redactions. The judge looked at every page. He was not happy. BarryA
Even The Economist is now invoking Godwin's Law? anonymous3000
Indeed this is the case and all we can hope is that God will open their eyes (preferable) or something like what happened to Dr. Flew would happen. Btw for extra credit, can somebody check my blog entry http://thepredestinedblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/response-to-pharyngula-human-chromosome.html and see if its accurate? Sorry for the self-promo :P jpark320
Interesting point, however as The Economist point out:
"...a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." The Economist, August 16, 2007
Any invocation of Naziism (however appropriate, regrettably) is automatically seen by many as a move of desperation. Yes, we're not directly calling materialist Nazis per se, however this gun will be jumped. JWarner
BarryA: Not everything in every email is a public record. In Colorado, for example, if the email discusses a particular student, the part of the email that discusses that student would have to be redacted. How would anyone ever know if the deletions are legitimate? They could be hiding incriminating information and claiming otherwise. On your topic: As anti-ID zealots become more and more desperate I believe they will progressively erode their credibility to the point of no return. GilDodgen
Wow! Had a look at some of the comments below at Denyse’s Darwinists in real time - a reflection. Most frustrating! If at best man's heart is plagued with shades of Jeremiah 17:9, what must it be like for those who have "drunk the cool ade" of postmodernism? How is communication possible when academic elites no longer believe it is possible? Are we not seeing the fruits of materialism? Hasn't it been said that materialism offers no foundation for logic and ethics? The postmodernists believe language serves only a political purpose, so maybe there's little point in trying to get them to concede a point. I'm reading Anthony Flew's latest--how refreshing! He was a materialist but not a postmodernist. He believed there could be progress in philosophy, but he did distinguish between said progress and the ability to convince every last person. Logic and persuasion are not exactly the same thing. Now that the postmodernists have thrown out logic and honesty all that remains is persuasion and the will to power. Is it too late for the universities? Rude
Gil, the answer depends upon the requirements of the Iowa Open Records Act. Not everything in every email is a public record. In Colorado, for example, if the email discusses a particular student, the part of the email that discusses that student would have to be redacted. BarryA
Didn't the Apostle Paul sat that they suppress the truth in unrighteousness? Robo
Barry, Sorry for the off-topic comment but since you're an attorney I thought I'd pass the following about the ISU e-mails along to you. I posted the following questions to Casey Luskin but they got lost in a flood of comments and he probably never saw them. Gil Casey, I noted that much of the text in some of those e-mails was blacked out. Is there any legal recourse to get the uncensored versions? If ISU is legally obligated to provide the e-mails, how is it that they can legally censor their content? Doesn’t this completely defeat the whole purpose of the freedom of information principle? GilDodgen

Leave a Reply