It seems to me that no matter how long I wander away from reading blogs, I find upon returning to blogdom that some things remain the same that perhaps shouldn’t. A case in point: after a long period of being too caught up in other things, I find myself once more reading some of the blogs I am most likely to turn to, one among them being the Maverick Philosopher of which Bill Vallicella is the maverick philosopher adverted to. And there I read, in his post of March 31, “Zuhdi Jasser, Profile in Civil Courage,” that:

To understand liberals you must understand that theirs is a mind-set according to which a conservative is a bigot, one who reflexively and irrationally hates anyone different than he is.

If we “regiment” the proposition that he says we must understand it we are to understand liberals, by inserting explicitly the “quantifiers” that are present implicitly, I think it has to be read as one telling us that:

All liberals believe that all conservatives are bigots who hate all who differ from them.

I find that hard to believe. Now I find quite plausible the proposition that:

At least some liberals believe that at least some conservatives are bigots who hate at least some who differ from them.

or that:

At least some liberals believe that at least some conservatives are bigots who hate all who differ from them.

or that:

At least some liberals believe that all conservatives are bigots who hate at least some who differ from them.

or even that:

At least some liberals believe that all conservatives are bigots who hate aall who differ from them.

But not that:

All liberals believe that all conservatives are bigots who hate all who differ from them.

I know of at least one counter-example.

Until next time.

Richard