The teleological argument isn't rational

Ever wonder why the Bunch can be so wrong and still claim they are right?  They are not rational where "right" is demonstrable as a concrete term, they are teleological.  Teleological theories define the "right" in terms of the "good."   Which is why all of their petty little arguments boil down to wishful thinking and "for the common good."  Because they want it to be so (because it is how they define good) it must be right according to teleological thinking.  Accepting that they are completely wrong would destroy their worldview and internal philosophy in a way that a brick destroys a pane glass window. 

Firehand linked back to Days of Our Trailers about how the Brady campaign is now an expert on self defense.  I could not believe that anyone could be so utterly out of touch with reality without being forced to take medication to bring them back from lala land.

Seriously did they even ask a "Self Defense Expert" before speaking with such convicted authority that the magic of self defense makes guns unnecessary?  What if the other guy has a gun and your million dollar black belt becomes useless?  Will the Brady campaign tell us to "Take the Red Pill, then you can dodge bullets, but by the time you can dodge bullets, you won't have to" and claim to free us all from the computer program that has been running our lives?

So I went ahead and googled the phrase "real world self defense" and figured that maybe I was wrong?  Nope, the first hit back is http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Self-defense-Staying-Dangerous/dp/1581600445 which is a manual on things like improvising weapons and using firearms to stay alive.

But wait, the Brady Bunch said "proper self defense" so I googled that.  The first return on that led to this money quote from http://kidshealth.org/teen/safety/safebasics/self_defense.html#

A good self-defense class can teach you how to size up a situation and decide what you should do. Self-defense classes can also teach special techniques for breaking an attacker's grasp and other things you can do to get away. For example, attackers usually anticipate how their victim might react — that kick to the groin or jab to the eyes, for instance. A good self-defense class can teach you ways to surprise your attacker and catch him or her off guard.  AM's note, this was written by an M.D. and not a Self Defense instructor.

 Now I may have a different opinion of "little to no damage" but when you are teaching students moves to catch an attacker off guard so you can do things to get away, those things usually involve lots of pain.

I've studied martial arts under four black belts in four different styles.  I've got Combatives Level II certification from the Army and I've lost track of the mat hours I've accumulated.  I think I've got a pretty broad experience in studying "self defense" and not a single instructor I've ever trained under, EVEN WHEN I STUDIED AIKIDO, was concerned about not hurting a real attacker.  In the dojo we thank our partners for giving us the gift of training, and so we work really hard not to hurt them for real.  But training injuries are very common, because as safe as you make hand to hand combat there is no way to get down to "no damage to the VICTIM."

Why do they even bother?  Even google can't make their fantasy world a reality.  How small minded can someone be when they cannot even face reality?