No One Ever Admits They are A Nazi Pig
| December 5, 2007 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
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.
35 Responses to No One Ever Admits They are A Nazi Pig
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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, 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?
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
You are wrong wrong wrong.
I’m a Nazi Pig.
Gloppy
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.