Jason Kuznicki has decided to declare an "opposite day", wherein he defends an idea he disagrees with and attempts to do so without making a parody of that position. He chose to defend the divine right of kings, an idea that is anathema to his libertarian mindset. I was asked to give it a shot as well, but to try and make the strongest argument I can for ID, while an ID advocate would make the strongest argument against it that he can. I have too much on my plate at this point to devote the time to that project, but I might take him up on that offer sometime in the future.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
A couple weeks ago, in response to an article about the Miami police staging random "shows of force" at hotels and banks, surrounding the place with swat teams and forcing everyone to show ID to go in or out for no apparent reason, Radley Balko sarcastically commented that if the terrorists hate us…
There is an interesting exchange going on in the comments after my post on ID and Creationism. I want to move part of that conversation up to the top so it doesn't get lost. In particular, I want to focus on an argument made by Jeremy Pierce, author of the Parableman blog. I want to focus on that…
Sandefur writes:
Yes, I know Brayton claims not to be a Kerry supporter, but so did Andrew Sullivan.
There is a real difference between the two. Sullivan was a Bush supporter who slowly swung over to being a Kerry supporter (rather reluctantly), and for many of the same reasons I've criticized the…
Ross Olson of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association has sent me the results of the survey that was given at the debate. He is trying to spin it as supporting the claim that this kind of debate was "useful" — but I'm unimpressed.
About 500 people attended, 290 returned the survey. The survey…
Sure does sound like parody to me. Interesting idea, but he still makes the argument to a 17th century audience.
Its well written and I think the "opposite day" idea is fantastic, but I would have preffered seeing an argument for absolutism that was not grounded upon belief in God. I got a few lines in and I had already dismissed the argument because it rested upon something I believe does not exist.
Considering today's atmosphere, learning to counter such arguments in their strongest form may prove invaluable.
I agree that it is a good idea, if for no other reason than to further one's understanding of one's own beliefs. I also agree that the argument should have been for some sort of dictatorship rather than "devine right of kings," since that rests on an assumption that there is a divinity. It's hard to make a rational argument for an unprovable belief, as we all know.