A large group of people promote ideas which are at variance with the facts. Understanding why they do this may help in formulating better rebuttals and/or prevent others from being duped.
We can understand those who are paid to lie. They have a (short-term) economic interest in keeping their jobs and thus getting them to change their positions is impossible as long as they want to earn a living.
I'm more interested in the "flat earth" types. These days we see several popular areas. These include all the flavors of Friedman/Rand/Libertarian social and economic policy. Then there are the anti-Darwinists and the climate change deniers.
The last big group seems to be the "clash of civilization" types, but they seem to be motivated by irrational fear.
What all these groups have in common is that one can not "win" an argument with them by providing facts since it is the facts which they are choosing to ignore. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
If you google "Oskari Juurikkala" you quickly get to an Opus Dei "interview with Oskari Juurikkala, from Finland, who is studying Law at the London School of Economics."
From the interview with recently converted 25 year old Oskari Juurikkala:
"What can Opus Dei contribute to European society in the 21st Century?"
Big question... Let's think what Europe needs. It certainly needs hope. Europe has been disillusioned by decades if not centuries of ideologies founded on hope in man alone without reference to God. Not surprisingly, such hopes have never quite lived up to their promises. In a sense we're still in a period of false hopes: hope in the almost salvific nature of material progress, economic growth etc. I don't think anyone deep down believes these things will make them happy, but they are clinging on to them because they have nothing else, and no one can live without hope.
Thanks for spotting that, and welcome on ET, by the way! *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Why do you laugh? Those are plentiful in the European People's Party. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
Depends on how you view conservatism, and whether or not one sees the religious aspect as instrumental (not necessarily consciously so). Traditional nineteenth century conservatism was anti free market liberalism, but a lot of that had to do with defending existing elites whose wealth, power, and status was based on land ownership and blood. Those elites are long gone, long live the new elites - whose wealth, power, and status depends on a different set of social values and rules. Of course plenty of Catholic fundies retain the old view, at least in part, but I don't see the new one as necessarily that outlandish.
Hahahahahahahaha!
Do you want a chastity belt with that? "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
