“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind…” (Romans 1:28)
In
popular culture today the words “bias” and “prejudice” are often used as
synonyms. Both, for example, refer to our
propensity to make decisions that can be more-or-less predicted. For this reason, one commonality between the
two is their connection to the state of our “convictions.” Yet that is where the similarity ends. Bias pertains to our inclination to
make decisions on the basis of either our experiences, knowledge that we
have attained, or moral convictions that we not only hold, but also resolve to consistently
put into practice. On the one hand, biases
may be grounded on inadequate knowledge or false perceptions. Yet at the very least they rest on more
than untethered emotions. In
summary, biases are not necessarily negative or immoral, while in certain
circumstances they are, to the contrary, highly laudable. The same, however, cannot be said about the
second term, “prejudice.”
The
meaning of the word “prejudice” is nakedly clear by its very grammatical
constitution. It consists of the
preposition, “pre,” and the root verb, “judge,” so that it
literally means “to pre-judge” or “to judge before taking into
consideration all of the relevant facts.”
I am writing this essay in between the official election day (Nov. 3)
and the final tabulation and, potentially, assessment of the legitimacy of the
ballots cast (who knows when?). One
profound oddity about this particular election was the early demand by the
Democrats; not only that an absentee ballot be made available to whoever applies
for it (all well and good), but further that mail-in ballots be made
available in the broad sense by delivering them to every person irrespective
of whether it was requested by the addressee. The enactment of this charge further
made it possible that masses of people could cast their vote weeks prior to the
official election date. Many concerns
were raised over the logistical dangers that this arrangement posed.
Yet the concern I wish to highlight
is the “moral”[1] aspect
of their motivator for repeatedly urging people to cast their ballots early. The practical (though damaging) result of pressing
voters to get their ballot in “now,” was that votes be completed before the first Presidential debate, and, obviously prior to the 2nd one
too. In other words, Democrats
strongly urged prejudicial voting in choosing the next President of the United
States. By so doing, Democrat
citizenry cast their ballots in virtually willful[2]
ignorance of both the facts and contextual arguments which are crucial for
every single voter to know.
This transgression indeed puts the
Democrat platform into contradiction with science and the
principles that undergird its methodology.
In other words they are in violation of not only conservative standards,
but their very own criteria.
Although the “scientific method” (SM)
varies in the details of its criteria according to the field under
consideration (biology, physics, or geology etc.), one mandate that is
absolutely universal is that in order for a valid conclusion to be reached, all
of the relevant data must both be drawn together and rigorously analyzed. Had the (self-lauded “scientific”) Democrats honored
SM, they would have heeded the bias of caution that it demands so as to scrutinize
the merits of the respective cases, and in the current highly-pressing crisis, rationally
ponder the direction that its Party’s incompetent candidate will lead our
nation. Because they show no signs whatsoever
of doing so, it is not a scientific bias that leads them, but prejudicial
blindness that stupefies them.
[1] I employ the word, “moral” here solely as a category
of potential motivators. I am not
affirming that Democratic principles are based on classical moral values.
[2] Although readers may object to my application of the
word “willful,” by the fact of denunciations of televising the riots by
alphabet stations, Democrats have no excuse
for being in ignorance of their existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment