December 23, 2009

Cowboy as a Pejorative

Buon giorno, Pardners!

Do you ever have that experience where something occurs to you and you ponder it for a while, then it finds its way to the back of your mind and camps out for a while, then it comes back so you can consider it again? It happens to me occasionally. Sometimes, the cycle repeats itself several times. Well, one of those thoughts seems to have come to fruition.

Tommy the Knocker and Nicky hate it when I talk that way ("comes to fruition"), and they don't like my title. Too bad.

There are people that put "The State" above all else. Your liberties do not matter to these Statists. All that matters is government control, making you bow to the state. According to Mark Levin, Statists are not necessarily liberals. I see it that liberals are more likely to be Statists (so I have a slight disagreement with the great one), and in America the extreme leftist liberals do not believe in the rights of the individual. All that matters are their own political power, and also increasing control of the state over our lives.

I was remeCalling someone a "cowboy" is sometimes intended as an insult and a pejorative. Digging deeper, we see that such a handle is a complement.mbering how enemies of George W. Bush referred to him as a "cowboy". Also, Ronald Reagan was called a "cowboy". These were not complements. Rather, they were used in a pejorative sense. That is, they were not only making "cowboy" a dirty word, they were also applying it to each president. It would convey a meaning of stupidity and recklessness. (Yes, cowboys could be stupid and reckless, but that was usually saved up for riding into town at the end of a successful cattle drive or something. The rest of the time, cowboys were and are hard working people.)

But I realized something else: These people hate individualism. Cowboys can be very individualistic. While loyal to the employer and working as a team ("ride for the brand"), they had their own temperaments. They also had values and a code of ethics (although not actually written down on a wallet card).

"Is there are point to this stuff, Cowboy Bob?"

Yup. Statists and leftists hate individuals because they stand in the way of the leftist insistence on state control. And cowboys are strong individualists. To me, it stands to reason that calling Reagan and Bush "cowboys" indicates that they dislike real cowboys, past and present. And they hated those presidents who were individuals, and respected the rights of individuals. Capice? You may want to consider that perhaps cowboys, by their individualistic nature, represent Conservative values!

Calling Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush "cowboys" is, to me, a high complement.

December 21, 2009

Projection of Arrogance

Buon giorno. While doing some follow-up research on my "Arrogant Atheist" series, I came across some interesting bits of projection (where you do something, deny doing it, and then say that someone else is doing it). Also, I find some interesting rationalizations for arrogance.

While skimming an atheist group, I saw some comments by someone that is a "Christian" (I put the term in quotes because this person is so liberal in theology, it's pretty much "anything goes") tells the atheists, "You're so much nicer than the so-called 'Christians' that I run across", and how Christians shame themselves, etc. Meanwhile, the sneering and condescending approaches of the atheists is excused. Why? Because the ultra-liberal "Christian" had more in common with the atheists than with people that believe the Bible to be true. Of course there was agreement! Also, use of deliberately antagonistic expressions such as "xians" is ignored.

I have said that I do not care what someone believes. That is their right. I do care when your unbelief is thrown in my face, and you attempt to make yourself look clever.

I will remind you that I have a problem with the atheists playing intellectual games. They want God to play by their rules (and boy, do they get upset when I point out that the creator of the universe does not have to do that). Further, they play mind games: "Give me evidence for...", and when you offer something for them to think about, it is not admissible because their "rules" are so rigid and narrow, nobody can come up with something worthwhile. Many know enough theology and history to be annoying, and they throw that material at you to make you squirm (because it is a distraction). Then, they analyze you with feigned innocence: "What? Why are you offended? Why are you saying these things? It must be because..." I can spot manipulation from a long ways away, I have an understanding of psychology, and I've studied theology for years. (Ironic, isn't it, that Christians are held to a higher standard to follow what arrogant atheists think it means, but they have no higher standard to follow themselves.) So, that manipulation crap won't work on me, Bubbles. Frankly, I have met very, very few atheists who are intellectually honest.

Another problem that I have with them is that these "intellectual" atheists hold "believers" to a higher standard. That is, they want us to have the character of Jesus himself, and exhibit the intellect of, say Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. They conveniently forget that believers are people, too, and have the same problems that beset the rest of humanity. So, if you show any kind of flaw, your arguments are invalid, and you are invalid.

Then, we have the atheists that cry about how Christians are arrogant. "You shove your religion down my throat!" Yeah, sure. Frankly, there are not very many Christians that share their faith. In the earliest days, the Apostles went door-to-door. If actual Christians do that today, people think that they are with a cult! At any rate, sure, there are rambunctious Christians that have no tact and do not know when to shut up, but they are in the minority. Other Christians share their faith in a kind and loving spirit, but overly-sensitive people will take every utterance as "forcing it on me"; they are projecting their own arrogance on believers. Keep crying, Skippy. Here's a tissue.

Although it is rare, it is possible to have a rational discussion with an atheist, because not all of them are arrogant, wanting to destroy the faith of believers. But one thing I learned long ago, when someone is showing considerable resistance and hostility, just drop it. The conversation is a waste of your time. If they want to talk again later and do not have the attitude or play mental gymnastic games with you, perhaps you will want to try again.

Listen up, Joe Atheist. I keep saying that I do not care what you believe, and I stand by that because where I live (in America), we have that right. Did you notice that it is actually easy to claim to be an atheist? The rest of us have to endure attacks from people like you. Do us all a couple of favors, OK? First, don't come around crying because someone didn't fall for your manipulation and psychological projection tricks. Second, don't try to humiliate those of us who have the courage to believe in God; people like me will make you cry. If you cooperate and get civil, we can get along better.

Subscribe in a reader