What exactly is the dogma of freedom?
Never heard of it.
And you're still getting called a dogmatist for propagating liberties such as a free market.
I'm getting called a dogmatist because of projection. I point out their dogmatic behavior (explaining why it's dogmatic), and they sling it back to me in an effort to distract from it.
I get that.
But freedom does'nt seem to be the worst thing you could be dogmaticaly propagating. Is it?
You can dogmatically propagate good things and bad. The point is, if you're dogmatic, you can't tell if the thing you're propagating is good or bad.
Can you be dogmatic by accident?
What exactly defines "dogmatism"
I have no clue...
Is'nt that awesome!?
From Dictionary.com:
dog·ma·tism
/ˈdɔgməˌtɪzəm, ˈdɒg-/ [dawg-muh-tiz-uhm, dog-]
–noun
dogmatic character; unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truths.
Origin:
1595–1605; < LL dogmatismus, equiv. to L dogmat(icus) dogmatic + -ismus -ism; r. dogmatisme < F
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
******
dog·ma·tism (dôg'mə-tĭz'əm, dŏg'-)
n. Arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
******
How Ambrose Bierce may have put it:
dog·ma·tism
n. The state of mind in which a subjective 'truth', cherished by one, substantially outweighs the subjective truth of another, particularly if that other happens to be a misguided fool. The assertion of dogma as absolute has often been reinforced in past eras with such convincing arguments as immolation at the stake, hanging, immurement, stoning, drowning, beheading, evisceration, drawing and quartering, flaying or impalement. Typically these arguments were preceeded by attempts to extract confessions of heresy or consorting with the devil, repeated duckings in water at the end of a cantilever, various probings, elevations of the body via unnatural displacement of certain limbs, forced draughts of water or heated liquids or metals, and also frequently, the courtesy of excommunication, thereby saving the accused from the arduous and often tedious task of renouncing the good graces of mother church on their own.
I have a simple definition. A dogmatist is someone who cannot/will not answer this one simple question.
What would you accept as proof that your belief is wrong?
Well according to the first definition one cannot be a dogmatist of freedom because freedom is utterly rational, and the second can also be answered. I can't give one to the "dogma of freedom" because among other things it's not worth my time, no one advocates total slavery these days so I don't know what exactly I'd want proven.
However I would probably depend upon a logical proof more than empirical "evidence" becuase I believe that evidence (when dealing with social sciences of course not natural) is very hard to determine the cause to with so many variables existing in human society
Accepting Dogma means accepting something as axiomatic and true based on faith. So in other words, taking a core belief statement based on no evidence. There is no such thing as someone who is dogmatic for freedom. There is overwhelming evidence to support the case that freer societies are healthier societies. Someone who refuses to entertain ideas about totalitarianism are no more dogmatists that people who refuse to entertain notions about placing their hands on a hot stove.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism
Perhaps this is what GumbaMasta is thinking about?