Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The End of Reasonable Debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From this 2005 interview:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” – Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

By cleverly utilizing dishonest terms and phrases, we have been manipulated into conceding the debate to leftists/Marxists before it is begun simply because of words are redefined to frame the debate. “Corporate Tax Loophole” and “Legalized Tax Fraud” (see article here) are phrases used by liberals and socialists to make it seem like taking completely legal advantage of tax law is somehow immoral or unethical. Like anyone utilizing tax deductions or laws to pay as little tax as possible, corporations are demonized for doing the same, as if it is somehow their moral obligation not to find ways to pay as little tax as possible.  They are being demonized by the left by the lie of mischaracterization when they use a term to describe something that is not what that term means.

Take the term “hate”.  The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.  Using their domination of the major media and entertainment market, and employing rabid gangs of “Social Justice Warriors”, anyone that simply disagrees with them and states their disagreement publicly is attacked as a “hater” or a “bigot”.  If you call an illegal immigrant “illegal”, you’re a racist – it doesn’t even matter the race of the immigrants in question.  If you express concerns about public bathrooms becoming gender neutral, you can be fired, like Curt Schilling.  In this way, honest debate is avoided and supplanted by emotionally charged false terminology that frames the debate in an entirely dishonest way.

Such as “tax cuts” “budget cuts” [corrected thanks to hrun].  With baseline budgeting, “cutting taxes the budget” can only mean “reduction in the rate of tax budget increase”.  Thus the debate is lost before it begins; the debate is never about actually cutting taxes the budget, but only about reducing the amount of increase.  Your “rights” can mean anything a leftist/progressive thinks you should get for free from the government, or provide you with whatever protections they think one ought to have.  Requiring a photo ID to vote becomes “racism” and “disenfranchisement”.  Refusing to force the public to pay for women’s contraceptives and abortions becomes a hate-filled “war on women” or being “against women’s rights” (while the real war on women, being conducted by Islamists worldwide, goes on unnoticed by leftists).  Performers boycott North Carolina for it’s “anti-LGBT” bathroom law, while the same performers gleefully perform in Dubai where homosexuals are executed.  Those who simply doubt a particular view held by many scientists are framed as “anti-science”.  The term “skepticism” now only applies if one ridicules that which it is politically correct to ridicule and dismiss; if you are skeptical of the wrong things, you are no longer a skeptic, you are a “denier”.

We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, or simply voicing an opinion that contradicts it, is dangerous, because truthful terminology has been politically re-characterized by the leftists in media, politics and academia as hate speech.

“In times of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell.

 

 

Comments
StephenB: A ten-year-old “child” is not innocent. You put "child" in scare-quotes!? That is bizarre. You don't think a ten-year-old is a child? Zachriel
Of watersheds and double, mutually polarised slippery slopes: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/the-perils-of-prolonged-march-of-folly-triggered-crisis/ kairosfocus
ZL, failure or refusal to look at a visually communicated concept . . .
of narrowing down options to a prolonged crisis (navigating a ridge line) and/or a circumstance where such a watershed can trigger a double slippery slope and divide, domineer and destroy end-game
. . . on your part is not a fault on my part. KF PS: As it is now coming on two days since SB raised the challenge for you to document grave and insistent accusations, only to be met with patently studious silence, that silence also speaks. kairosfocus
KF -- "Added remarks (and an image) on a plateau wedging down at a critical point/issue to ridges with two slippery slopes that cause accelerated polarisation as we slide to mutually alienated ruin:" Once more? This time in English? ziggy lorenc
StephenB: Her religion has not been established and I have not assumed anything about it, so you are obviously in error. Zachriel
You just said, “For one thing, she can make her peace with God if she knows the truth.” She’s a child. She’s innocent.
Her age has not been given. A ten-year-old "child" is not innocent. If she was three years old, that would be a different story. Since it was not given that she has reached the age of reason, I am treating her situation as if she had. StephenB: If she is in great pain and wants it to end, she will not be comforted with the lie (that she is not dying).
Add children and human nature to the things you don’t know much about. If she’s the wrong religion, be sure to tell her she’s going to hell if she doesn’t convert.
Bad logic. Your response doesn't address the above point. Each time I refute you, you change the subject. StephenB
Z:
Another example: If the Nazis come to your home looking for Jews, don’t tell them about the hidden closet.
Or do, and, as Corrie Ten Boom's niece discovered, watch God use your honesty to save them. http://characterqualitystories.com/cqs/node/21 Phinehas
StephenB: Her religion has not been established and I have not assumed anything about it, so you are obviously in error. You just said, "For one thing, she can make her peace with God if she knows the truth." She's a child. She's innocent. StephenB: If she is in great pain and wants it to end, she will not be comforted with the lie. Add children and human nature to the things you don't know much about. If she's the wrong religion, be sure to tell her she's going to hell if she doesn't convert. Zachriel
F/N: Added remarks (and an image) on a plateau wedging down at a critical point/issue to ridges with two slippery slopes that cause accelerated polarisation as we slide to mutually alienated ruin: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/fyi-ftr-addressing-ruthless-radicalism-tied-to-evolutionary-materialist-scientism-and-radical-secularism/ Divide and dominate, on steroids. KF kairosfocus
StephenB — “Also, you have not provided me with the information I asked for concerning kairosfocus. Which of his words, phrases, or claims were, in your judgement, uncivil. I would like to evaluate them." ziggy
I must admit, you have a great sardonic sense of humour. Please don’t ever lose it.
Excellent. Why not humor me so that we can both have a good laugh. So far, you have said that kairosfocus is irrational, a hater, and a coward. At the same time, you have invested many hours on this thread telling us how uncivil and abusive he is. Naturally, I am curious about what he could have said that would top your act. Presumably, you can provide a few examples. StephenB
Here we go again. Ziggy is totally obsessed with homosexuality. Why Ziggy? Eugen
StephenB -- "By the way, I haven’t heard from you lately on the subject of gays trying to intimidate those who disagree with them by using the tactic of “jamming.” I gather you are for it. Right?" Off topic. We were discussing the evidence of a reduction in freedom of speech that resulted from SSM. Not a tactic used by activists to gain attention. Do you really want to get into a dick measuring contest on which side of this issue plays dirtier? Which side calls the other side deviants, perverts, sexual predators, pedophiles, etc.? I realize that this is a minority fringe, but it is a very vocal one. Which side involved a homophobic lawyer to prevent a class valedictorian from giving the valedictorian address simply because he was gay? StephenB -- "Also, you have not provided me with the information I asked for concerning kairosfocus. Which of his words, phrases, or claims were, in your judgement, uncivil. I would like to evaluate them" I must admit, you have a great sardonic sense of humour. Please don't ever lose it. ziggy lorenc
ziggy
And Barry. He was the one who coined the phrase.
ziggy, please do not claim that Barry is so stupid as to think that asking someone to define terms is an example of the Definition Deficit Disorder. I am offended on his behalf. Apparently, you are incapable of rational thought. StephenB
StephenB -- "Only ziggy thinks that asking someone to define his terms constitutes Definition Deficit Disorder." And Barry. He was the one who coined the phrase. ziggy lorenc
StephenB: For one thing, she can make her peace with God if she knows the truth. zachriel
Geez. You just said her religion hasn’t been established.
That is correct. Her religion has not been established and I have not assumed anything about it, so you are obviously in error.
Now, you’re making decisions about what to tell a dying child based on your own predilections rather than the comfort of the dying.
Bad logic. Everyone bases that decision on his own predilections. Not just me. You act as if your decision to tell her a lie for the sake of comfort is not based on your predilections. You are also assuming that she would prefer not to die. If she is in great pain and wants it to end, she will not be comforted with the lie. StephenB
StephenB — “First, You have not provided your definition of truth.” ziggy
Isn’t Definitiin Deficit Disorder one of the Darwinian Debating Devices? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Only ziggy thinks that asking someone to define his terms constitutes Definition Deficit Disorder. StephenB
StephenB: For one thing, she can make her peace with God if she knows the truth. Geez. You just said her religion hasn't been established. Now, you're making decisions about what to tell a dying child based on your own predilections rather than the comfort of the dying. Zachriel
SB: For one thing, she can make her peace with God if she knows the truth. If I lie to her, she loses her opportunity to do that. In the name of false compassion, you would misled her.” ziggy
But that assumes that she is religious, which may not be the case. I just know that I couldn’t tell her that she is going to die.
Bad logic. It doesn't assume she is religious in any way. It simply provides her with the opportunity to make her peace with God, either if she is already "religious" (whatever that means) or to change her mind about being non-religious. She can say either yes or no. If you are on the scene, she is given no choice because you presume to make if for her---in the name of false compassion. By the way, I haven't heard from you lately on the subject of gays trying to intimidate those who disagree with them by using the tactic of "jamming." I gather you are for it. Right? Also, you have not provided me with the information I asked for concerning kairosfocus. Which of his words, phrases, or claims were, in your judgement, uncivil. I would like to evaluate them> StephenB
SB: For one thing, she can make her peace with God if she knows the truth. If I lie to her, she loses her opportunity to do that. Zach
Geez. You might want to let her know she’s going to hell because she’s the wrong religion while your at it.
Bad logic. Her religion has not been established. Zach
If the Nazis come to your home looking for Jews, don’t tell them about the hidden closet.
Bad logic. The argument is that truth itself is better than error. No one said that telling the truth is always better than not telling the truth. If Nazi's come to your house looking for Jews, then you tell them nothing. If someone wants you to spread gossip to hurt someone's reputation, then tell them nothing. StephenB
StephenB -- "Truth is always better. If I don’t know the truth (she is going to die) then I can’t even make an informed decision, can I? For one thing, she can make her peace with God if she knows the truth. If I lie to her, she loses her opportunity to do that. In the name of false compassion, you would misled her." But that assumes that she is religious, which may not be the case. I just know that I couldn't tell her that she is going to die. ziggy lorenc
Eugen: We ask Zachriel if this is wrong or right. We are against terrorism. StephenB: You have not provided your definition of truth. We use the usual definition of truth: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality. StephenB: Consequently, you don’t know what you are preferring. Sure we do. We prefer wisdom to foolishness. StephenB: For me (and for everyone) truth is the correspondence between the mind and reality. That's the common definition. StephenB: Second, it is irrational to say that your reason for valuing wisdom is that you value it. As we already explained, we value wisdom because it often leads to greater happiness and contentment for people (but not always!). Why do we prefer people to be happy and content? Well, we're rather fond of Homo loquens. A personal preference, if you will. StephenB: For one thing, she can make her peace with God if she knows the truth. If I lie to her, she loses her opportunity to do that. Geez. You might want to let her know she's going to hell because she's the wrong religion while your at it. ziggy lorenc: If you are in the middle of a war zone and you come across a child who’s injuries are not survivable, and she asks you if she is going to die, how would you answer? Another example: If the Nazis come to your home looking for Jews, don't tell them about the hidden closet. Zachriel
Sobering viewing on the headlined issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7UxYM4aIptc kairosfocus
I don’t always agree that truth is always better than falsity. If you are in the middle of a war zone and you come across a child who’s injuries are not survivable, and she asks you if she is going to die, how would you answer?
Truth is always better. If I don't know the truth (she is going to die) then I can't even make an informed decision, can I? For one thing, she can make her peace with God if she knows the truth. If I lie to her, she loses her opportunity to do that. In the name of false compassion, you would misled her. StephenB
Ari, in Metaphysics 1011b: truth says of what is that it is; and of what is not that it is not. If an implied or explicit definition of truth materially differs, trouble will come of the difference. kairosfocus
StephenB -- "First, You have not provided your definition of truth." Isn't Definitiin Deficit Disorder one of the Darwinian Debating Devices? You should be ashamed of yourself. :) I don't always agree that truth is always better than falsity. If you are in the middle of a war zone and you come across a child who's injuries are not survivable, and she asks you if she is going to die, how would you answer? Is the truth better, or is a falsity? ziggy lorenc
Zach
So we agree that truth more valuable than falsity. Given that, it is quite possible to have a discussion about truth and falsity, without having to agree that truth is “intrinsically” the more valuable.
Under the circumstances, we can certainly agree that truth is more valuable than falsity, but it is not possible to have a rational discussion about it. First, You have not provided your definition of truth. So it is impossible to have a rational discussion about it until you do. To say that it is "peccadillo" wisdom is a meaningless statement. No one knows what peccadillo means in that context. There is no way to connect the correct definition of the word with the reason one might value wisdom. Consequently, you don't know what you are preferring. Consequently, so can't know why you prefer it. For me (and for everyone) truth is the correspondence between the mind and reality. A true statement is one that describes the world as it really is. Accordingly, I can know why I value it. Second, it is irrational to say that your reason for valuing wisdom is that you value it. It doesn't get at the why. As indicated, one cannot know why he prefers or values something if he doesn't know what he is preferring or valuing. What you are projecting is subjectivism, which is irrational. It defines truth as personal preference. StephenB
So Christian is to be beheaded by terrorists. We ask Zachriel if this is wrong or right. He will check his pecadillo and come back to us :-) Eugen
StephenB: Wisdom is an intrinsic good. Bread is not always to the wise. StephenB: Of course. So we agree that truth more valuable than falsity. Given that, it is quite possible to have a discussion about truth and falsity, without having to agree that truth is “intrinsically” the more valuable. Zachriel
Zach
That just turns it into a question as to the value of wisdom. Sure, we value truth because it helps lead to wisdom. We value wisdom because, well, consider it a peccadillo, if you like.
Wisdom is an intrinsic good. I don't understand what you mean by "peccadillo" wisdom. That is not a clear statement.
Or, ah, wisdom leads to better results on average. What do we mean by better?
Better means higher on the scale of good/bad.
What about you? You didn’t answer. Do you value truth over falsity?
Of course. Truth is an intrinsic good. Falsehood is an intrinsic evil. Evil is the privation of good. Falsehood is a privation of truth. Therefore, I value truth over falsehood. StephenB
Phinehas: The vast majority of people have something we’ve labelled a “conscience” to help describe our innate ability to recognize both good and evil, not just in our own actions, but in the actions of others. So we agree that truth more valuable than falsity. Given that, it is quite possible to have a discussion about truth and falsity, without having to agree that truth is "intrinsically" the more valuable. Zachriel
P, Z is a collective. KF PS I see we are in the Boeing range. kairosfocus
Zachriel: we value truth over falsity.
Phinehas: Why?
Z: Personal preference. Call it a peccadillo, if you like.
If it is merely one person's preference, maybe you shouldn't use the pronoun "we" to describe who values it? Just a suggestion. :) I wouldn't like to call it a peccadillo. I'd rather call it what I suspect it is: a decent person's innate ability to recognize something that has intrinsic value. Your insistence on denying this? Well, that I would call a peccadillo. :)
Z: What about you? We suspect you value truth over falsity.
You are right to suspect such, of me and of every other decent person you know. The vast majority of people have something we've labelled a "conscience" to help describe our innate ability to recognize both good and evil, not just in our own actions, but in the actions of others. This is an important distinction, because it helps highlight how much our views on morality are not merely personal preference. After all, though I may personally prefer pineapple sherbet ice cream, the idea that I would expect other free creatures to do the same on pain of sanction or merely deep disapproval is both foreign and even obnoxious to me. Phinehas
SB, some interesting facts and views on the homosexuality issue, here. Just the 1st ch is an eye opener. KF kairosfocus
Z, we cannot survive on zero truth, or even an envt which is so deceptive it would rapidly exhaust us. KF kairosfocus
kairosfocus —
“PS: Your attempt to call me a coward is illustrative.”
ziggy
No, just factual.
So, you are back to maligning someone's character again. And for what, stating facts? Why don't you be specific and tell me exactly which words kairosfocus used that would qualify as an act of cowardice.
His pathological inability to interact civilly with those he disagrees with is there for all to see.
I have already explained to you that hating bad ideas is not uncivil. It is the act of hating people that is uncivil. Tell me exactly and in what words kairosfocus mistreated you.
If you need any more evidence of this, just look to his post above where he links to a new article in which he criticizes me and others who disagree with him of scorched earth tactics, and sets the comments to “off” so that nobody can question him in it.
The scorched earth policy is the primary tactic that the gay lobby uses to intimidate its opponents. All these facts have been well-documented. Have you never heard of "jamming," which is one of the consistent and well-thought out means that gays use to silence opponents? This kind of behavior really is hateful. Yet you apparently condone it. Why? The object of jamming, by the way, is to shame gay opponents into silence by accusing them of bigotry and hate for merely disagreeing with them. If anyone says that gays are not born that way, or that they can change, they will be so labeled. Are you also going to call me a coward for pointing out these facts?
That, my friend, is the act of a coward.
So, in your judgment, anyone who states facts is a coward. Got it. StephenB
kairosfocus: it is not just that we value true over false but we cannot survive without it Of course you can. Humans are very adaptable. Perhaps you mean modern civilization. Lies and truth seem to both coexist in modern society. Zachriel
ZL, a simple suggestion; do not write a comment online that you would not be willing to say to me in my living room in the presence of my family. That would remove a lot of the problem caused by a thread that began with accusations of bigotry, hate and hate speech and has continued with a pattern of attack comments and personalities that show the relevance of the concerns and analysis I and others have put on the table. The onward tone here also underscores the reason why I felt it wise not to open up a further thread likely to fall into the same spiral of distract distort denigrate and turnabout that has marred this one. KF PS: The headlined post, with embedded vids, link to a 43 pp paper and several illustrations also shows limits of comments and underscores that a supplementary full post can be helpful. For just one illustration, I am fairly sure that it is an eye opener to see the point made by Ms Gessen, and listen to it in context (including her summary of her family life, which can be compared to the testimony of victims above), noting the applause. kairosfocus
KF -- "PS: Your attempt to call me a coward is illustrative." No, just factual. ziggy lorenc
Z, it is not just that we value true over false but we cannot survive without it, which then points to the issue of root of value and norms and moral government. The only level where that can be found is in a world root being that is necessary [frameworking for a world to exist] and inherently good. KF kairosfocus
Z, there is now another thread for that, but I suggest that without that we cannot analyse or communicate. Logic systems that set up a sandbox in which to some limited extent we have fuzzy set memberships etc, are just that, sandboxes in a wider world in which to get to the sandbox we have to rely on the premise of distinct identity. KF kairosfocus
StephenB: Essentially, you are saying, I value truth because I value it. That's essentially correct. We prefer truth. You may consider it a peccadillo, but there it is. StephenB: I value truth because it helps me to make wise decisions. That just turns it into a question as to the value of wisdom. Sure, we value truth because it helps lead to wisdom. We value wisdom because, well, consider it a peccadillo, if you like. Or, ah, wisdom leads to better results on average. What do we mean by better? We mean greater happiness and contentment for people. So why do we prefer happiness and contentment for people? We're rather fond of Homo poetica. Call it a foible, if you like. As Eugen says, "Zachriel is practicing peccadillo wisdom". What about you? You didn't answer. Do you value truth over falsity? kairosfocus: Take some distinct A in the world (I usually use a red ball on a table) imposing a partition: W = {A|~A} That assumes that such dichotomies can be made. That is an assumption that may or may not apply in a given logical system — or reality. Zachriel
OK kairosfocus
KF, Thanks, replying in the other thread. daveS
DS, to get to fuzzy logic, you have to use things that have distinct identity starting with alphanumeric characters. The same obtains for quantum theory. Refining a partial set member concept requires thought using distinct identity and its immediately present co-laws. Try to conceptualise and communicate or reason without marking distinctions -- impossible. So, the way we think about fuzzy logic has to reckon with that or fall into incoherence. KF PS: It may be best to continue this in that thread that I have long intended to get back to. We are both guests here. But this point does model how a reasoned discussion with disagreement can be entertained by way of contrast with the problem the OP headlines. kairosfocus
KF,
DS, there is no need for a specific source. Take some distinct A in the world (I usually use a red ball on a table) imposing a partition: W = {A|~A} LOI is there, A is A as it holds a distinct identity. LNC and LEM follow as any x in W will be A or not A but not both or neither.
I would prefer to see a source, because I believe your above argument does not hold in fuzzy logic, which is the context in which your original statement was made. Let's say the ball on the table is 0.5 red and 0.5 not red. Then it is not true that the ball is either red or not red, but not both or neither. Mathworld states that LEM does not hold in fuzzy logic:
A law in (2-valued) logic which states there is no third alternative to truth or falsehood. In other words, for any statement A, either A or not-A must be true and the other must be false. This law no longer holds in three-valued logic or fuzzy logic.
daveS
ZL, the rhetorical game on your part continues. Sad, but the problem is plain. KF PS: Your attempt to call me a coward is illustrative. I explicitly pointed out that I headlined a comment here and that onward discussion would continue here. The link back was provided and I linked the headlined comment from here. Anyone interested in the onward exchange would know where to look. Imagine, if you had started the thread there with a comment in the tone and hostile accusatory substance you just used? Indeed that is effectively what you just did. In other words, you just proved the point of the headlined comment and showed why it was advisable to headline and refer back. PPS: You will also note that I have spoken to a trend and a problem and specifically refrained from targetting individuals by name or handle. I suggest the following point may be helpful:
Now, most of those caught up in such games do not know the underlying cultural agenda or geostrategic power games connected to it. If they did, they would take serious pause before becoming part of a front group or turning footsoldiers in someone’s astroturf game. Many caught up in such may even take umbrage at being identified as caught up in such an agenda. But they need to understand that taking part in attack comments here is indeed footsoldier activism. (Notice, still no distancing from the accusations of bigotry, hate etc? What message do you think you are sending?) Those who are serious, should instead take the approach of responsible dialogue at worldviews level, informed by relevant science and history etc.
PPPS: If you think I have failed or refused to answer to a very broad range of the relevant issues directly or through links and now illustrations and videos, that is a serious oversight. kairosfocus
DS, there is no need for a specific source. Take some distinct A in the world (I usually use a red ball on a table) imposing a partition: W = {A|~A} LOI is there, A is A as it holds a distinct identity. LNC and LEM follow as any x in W will be A or not A but not both or neither. LEM is actually any x in W is in (A XOR ~A). LNC is in effect there is no y such that y is in A AND in ~A. Here is Ari's discussion in Metaphysics 1011b:
. . . if it is impossible at the same time to affirm and deny a thing truly, it is also impossible for contraries to apply to a thing at the same time; either both must apply in a modified sense, or one in a modified sense and the other absolutely. Nor indeed can there be any intermediate between contrary statements, but of one thing we must either assert or deny one thing, whatever it may be. This will be plain if we first define truth and falsehood. To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.
KF kairosfocus
StephenB -- "To call someone irrational and full of hate is far more insulting than to identify a leftist is a leftist. To judge one’s character and intent is far more aggressive than to assess one’s mindset." You are correct. I stepped out of line making this statement about you and I sincerely apologize to you for it. However, I'm afraid that it still applies to KF. You have always been forthright and replied to my questions and comments in good faith. KF, on the other hand, has not. If I were the only one commenting on this, I would suspect my own appraisal of the situation. But I am not. His pathological inability to interact civilly with those he disagrees with is there for all to see. If you need any more evidence of this, just look to his post above where he links to a new article in which he criticizes me and others who disagree with him of scorched earth tactics, and sets the comments to "off" so that nobody can question him in it. That, my friend, is the act of a coward. ziggy lorenc
KF, I realize this is a bit of a tangent, but do you have anything to say about my post #732? I'm curious whether you found any sources supporting your position. daveS
Added stuff on REAL slippery slopes vs the strawman version often dismissed as a fallacy. kairosfocus
Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/fyi-ftr-addressing-ruthless-radicalism-tied-to-evolutionary-materialist-scientism-and-radical-secularism/ kairosfocus
F/N: it is quite clear that there is a scorched earth radical socio-cultural and policy agenda in our civilisation, rooted in progressivism and cultural marxism -- the radical, politically messianistic left in a nutshell. One of its core strategies is that ever increased dependence on Government intervention, control and subsidy advances its broad programme, and that ever rising government social welfare expenditures joined to regulations (especially in the name of environment concerns at local and global levels) drains a free enterprise system of its dynamism as a major alternative. It routinely resorts to media and education manipulation, is allied with evolutionary materialistic scientism, and has repeatedly used lawfare to hijack a chief means of justice to its agenda. At global level it is part of a red, double green alliance: the radical environmentalists (who often overlap) and the IslamISTS . . . agreeing in effect with the latter that the enemy of my enemy is my ally. Likewise, it targets the Judaeo-Christian heritage of our civilisation as the main worldview alternative. It is in this context that conjugal marriage and family systems have become a major target across decades, including the calculated undermining of traditional sexual morality. Those who want to get an idea of the end game here for marriage will find this tape of a talk by a Russian-Australian Lesbian activist, Masha Gessen, illuminating. Notice what the audience applauds. Yes, the utter destruction of marriage and family, thus of its stabilising influences. Across time, the mob of the ill-brought up angry and frustrated, confused young men will rise up, cannon fodder for the ruthless nihilistic strategic level Alcibiades of our time. Ponder the Sicilian expedition and its fate, and how Alcibiades operated. In that context, there are common tactics and underlying principles, some of which have been identified above . . . and which explain the theme in the OP, the end of reasonable discussion:
1: Rules for radicals, Alinsky style polarisation and attacks (which often exploit media penetration of progressivism], esp. no's 5 and 13:
5] “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy [--> notice, the scorched earth mentality] into concessions [--> no reasonable agreement can be had with those determined to destroy you as their declared enemy, only deterrence and breaking their power to destroy]. 13] “Pick the target [--> notice again], freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
2: The triple-pronged Kirk-Madsen mainstreaming of a radical agenda (= Kupelian's marketing of evil) strategy:
-- desensitising (including "normalising" and "glamourising" or making the bizarre seem sympathetic or even a "right") -- jamming out sources of questioning or objection (often using Alinsky's tactics to induce a spiral of silencing or at least marginalisation, derogatory labelling, scapegoating and dismissal) -- conversion to accepting, enabling, or participation (exploiting cognitive dissonance and the way we respond to the perceived wave of the future, cf. the discussion by Schein)
3: As a major facet of this, the creation of a pattern: the caught up naive, enabling activists [and attack-commentry in or around a significant blog is such activism], front groups including pseudo grassroots activism, astroturfing. (A lot of politically connected trolling on the Internet is actually astroturfing.) 4: The distract, distort, denigrate idea/implementer hitman tactic (and women can be hitmen, too . . . ): distractive red herrings, led away to strawman caricatures of ideas soaked in attacks to the man and set alight rhetorically to distract, confuse, cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating serious discussion. Part of jamming out. 5: The turnabout/ turnspeech "he hit (back) first" tactic. If a target for jamming out tries to defend himself, this will be used. After all if the attacker in reality can present himself as acting in self-defence that is a double advantage. (Notice, how the thread above began and how within the first ten comments the pattern of projecting hate and bigotry to those who would try to support things like conjugal marriage was set up. Notice, were I in the US or the like, such would be a basis for dis-employment.) 6: Spiral of escalation: core radicals of the nature we are discussing are essentially totalitarian and nihilistic. So, they have no limits other than what they sense they cannot get away with just now. (Hence the importance of a firm defense that blocks and deters attacks [even when the actual battle is at best a stalemate or even a fighting retreat -- a bloody nose is very instructive to a bully and when things escalate someone who stands with almost suicidal courage at a Thermopylae can set up a decisive victory at a Marathon by example and by buying crucial time], and then going over to the initiative to break the power of the radicals and fellow travellers.) 7: Fanatical, even irrational, locked in enmity -- often based on the disaffected native or immigrant minority or the urban poor (in Maoist style variants, the rural poor). One of the key steps is the creation of exhausting long haul conflict . . . often by guerilla/terrorist fish swimming among the sea of a mass of the disaffected . . . that will often wear down and trigger a home front defeat by demoralisation and retreat which seems to be or is presented as a moderate compromise solution. Sufficient retreats at strategic points can be fatal, such as is now playing out with Iran in the Middle East. (Those who imagine that an America under a Trump or a Clinton can turn to domestic matters will prove to be sadly mistaken. You are in World War IV, playing out as a slow burn global conflict.)
So, those who spent months trying to goad UD into entertaining a debate on homosexualisation of marriage need to understand that this is where it seemed necessary to take a stand. Take due note: when you -- come here under an umbrella of projecting accusations of bigotry and hate and hate speech, -- use selective hypersketicism in the face of serious discussion, -- try distract-distort-denigrate idea/implementer hitman games, -- use Alinsky style polarisation tactics, -- try turnabout accusations and play at he hit back first -- play at desensitise-jam out-convert mainstreaming of evil agendas and the like, . . . you will (for cause) be quite correctly read as being part of a known radical, destructive, nihilistic agenda at work in our civilisation. Now, most of those caught up in such games do not know the underlying cultural agenda or geostrategic power games connected to it. If they did, they would take serious pause before becoming part of a front group or turning footsoldiers in someone's astroturf game. Many caught up in such may even take umbrage at being identified as caught up in such an agenda. But they need to understand that taking part in attack comments here is indeed footsoldier activism. (Notice, still no distancing from the accusations of bigotry, hate etc? What message do you think you are sending?) Those who are serious, should instead take the approach of responsible dialogue at worldviews level, informed by relevant science and history etc. For instance, a pivotal issue above was, what is a right. Let's go back to 310, bearing in mind 248:
7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature. 8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature. 9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked. 10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving. 11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture. In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly.
Is there such a thing as morally governed human nature involving responsible, rational freedom? (If you are taking part in a discussion, that is implied. If you are playing manipulation tactics, it is still implied as you are exploiting our sense of duty to fairness etc. Of course, the import is, such is delusional and to be manipulated as with Plato's Cave of shadow shows . . . now improved through modern electronic media technologies. Such is cynical and nihilistic.) The premise of rational responsible discussion is that we are under moral government and there is thus an inherent worth in the human person that leads to governance based on principles such as those in the US DoI, 1776. And yes that raises serious worldviews questions. But we can here speak in terms of generally recognised sound principles, as Locke did when he cited Hooker in his 2nd treatise on civil govt:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
This already decisively undercuts the sort of scorched earth radicalism we have been seeing. In terms of the attack-point, marriage, it is clear that conjugal marriage is a time tested approach to building families based on our biology as male and female, the requisites of sound child nurture and moral governance. Homosexualism violates biology, brooks identity confusion, destabilises [imagine what happens as the agenda gets ever more deeply embedded in education] and is a patent perversion of sexuality that is prone to the spreading of disease through abuse of body parts not meant or well suited to such things. The demand of a right to such imposes a violation of principled conscience now backed up by lawfare. Don't even bother with the usual blame the victim games, the pattern is clear. Such can only be sustained through oppression and indoctrination that crushes the conscience. All of which points to the slippery slope headed over a cliff we are now on, and to the march of folly headed over that cliff. Bland denials and demands that we prove such to the satisfaction of those determined to advance that march are patently absurd. Enough has been long since shown for the prudent. It is time to wake up and turn back. Unless, it is already too late. KF kairosfocus
Zachriel is practicing peccadillo wisdom Eugen
ziggy to kairosfocus
You refer to people who disagree with you as “people of your ilk”, or “fellow travellers”, and worse.
I think you are overreacting here. That kind of phrasing is mildly impolite and mildly accusatory, but it doesn't rise to the level of raw incivility. In this exchange, at lest, no one called you a name, maligned your character, or judged your motives. Essentially, kairosfocus is saying that you fall into the category of leftists. That's not exactly scorching the earth. Here is a better example of incivility: ziggy
But the idea of the irrational hatred expressed by KairosFocus and StephenB towards homosexuals concerns me even more.
To call someone irrational and full of hate is far more insulting than to identify a leftist is a leftist. To judge one's character and intent is far more aggressive than to assess one's mindset. StephenB
Zachriel: "we value truth over falsity." Phinehas: "Why?" Zachriel: "Personal preference. Call it a peccadillo, if you like." Essentially, you are saying, I value truth because I value it. A rational answer would go something like this: I value truth because it helps me to make wise decisions. StephenB
Zachriel: we value truth over falsity. Phinehas: Why? Personal preference. Call it a peccadillo, if you like. What about you? We suspect you value truth over falsity. Zachriel
KF -- "ZL, you need to realise..." Could you possibly be any more condescending? The only thing I need to realize, and I realized it a long time ago, is that you are completely incapable of interacting on a mature level with anyone who disagrees with your cherished views. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, by numerous people, yet you blame your inadequacies on me (and others). I have debated SB quite fruitfully, sometimes heatedly. Somewhere along the line I offended him and apologized for it. Because he did not deserve it. With respect to SB, he has responded to the request to provide evidence that SSM has been negative for society. I happen to disagree with him that his examples are the result of SSM or that they are an indication of anything systemic. You, on the other hand, have been asked to provide evidence that we are heading towards the cliff (repeatedly) and have done nothing but throw abuse at the people making the request. You refer to people who disagree with you as "people of your ilk", or "fellow travellers", and worse. SB and Mr. Murray and Aleta and Clavdivs and Phinehas and Origenes are able to disagree with each other and keep it civil. You, on the other hand, come across as a spoiled little brat who is not used to having anyone disagree with him. I have wasted far too much of my time trying to have some sort of meaningful communication with you. I should have heeded my earlier advice and ignored you. Much in the same way that I would avoid a piece of dog shit on the sidewalk. ziggy lorenc
Kairosfocus,
ZL, you need to realise you have been championing a side that began with projections of hate speech and bigotry (...)
There you go again ... Let's say, arguendo, that I agree on a particular topic with Adolf Hitler. Just one topic. Now does that imply that I "champion" all Adolf's ideas? Obviously NOT I would say. It does NOT follow. So why do you keep insisting (and warning) that I (and anyone else who accepts SSM) side with Marxists, nihilists, evolutionists and so forth?
CLAVDIVS: If you continue with the “fellow traveller” rhetoric I will not refrain from reminding you that, by your logic *not mine*, someone who opposes gay marriage is a “fellow traveller” with the KKK.
What is unclear about this? Why is this not a wake up call? Origenes
ZL, you need to realise you have been championing a side that began with projections of hate speech and bigotry and which took the view that a significant paper that took a principled view on a major topic was to be dismissed as a tissue of bigotry and fallacies. In a context where hate speech laws point to where that goes. Discussions that examined substantial issues were swept away under accusations of hate and bigotry. I never saw where you distanced yourself from that pattern. In that context I simply point out that there has been on your side a consistent pattern of distract, distort, denigrate, multiplied by techniques very familiar from the track record of marxist agit prop agitators. Earlier today, I played the tape that showed what went on. SB has just had to make a very similar comment. As at now I can only conclude that your side has lost on substance but hopes to score a rhetorical win by projecting further accusations to those who are not going to take the time to see what has happened step by step. . In short the substantial discussion is effectively over. KF kairosfocus
Z:
No, we value truth over falsity.
Why? Phinehas
Aleta:
Many children in single parent families have no active father, or one they see seldom. Hopefully they have other male role models, but that is the same for same-sex couples.
Would you not agree that single-parent families are not optimal and should be avoided in favor of two-parent families where possible? Phinehas
Silver Asiatic: Is this the same as saying you do not value truth? No, we value truth over falsity. Silver Asiatic: In a rational argument, citing evidence that exists is not intrinsically more valuable than evidence that does not exist? Evidence is not just something that exists, but something that exists that supports a claim. In other words, the value is contingent. Bubonic plague exists, but has little value for most people. Silver Asiatic: Would I be correct in stating that you deny the value of truth? No, you would not be correct. Silver Asiatic: That would explain a number of arguments where an equality is given to “an object” and “exists”. Or, “an event” and “was observed”. Equality is a logical concept, and there are conventions concerning the use of equality which the vast majority of people understand. Indeed, equality has different uses in different areas of mathematics. Zachriel
StephenB -- "ziggy @733, as I mentioned earlier, I am not going to waste any more time providing abundant evidence of free-speech violations, (and other outrages that stem from same-sex marriage”) while you carefully sift through the bunch to find one that you feel is easier than the others to rationalize and misrepresent, while ignoring everything else. I am not going to continue playing that stupid game." Have I not addressed all of your examples? I have not denied that there have been abuses, but to characterize a few examples as a wholesale degradation of free speech caused by SSM is just an extrapolation that is not supported by the evidence. StephenB -- "You disingenuity surpasses that bar by a country mile. Early and often, you characterized my statements of incontestable fact as b*** s*** and my motives as “hateful.”" I do not recall repeatedly calling your incontestable facts as b*** s***. I just disagree with the claim that they are incontestable. In many cases they are stories told from one side, he said she said, or examples where their rights of free speech were upheld. When I said "if the shoe fits", I intended it as a smart-ass comment, not to seriously imply that you are hateful. I do apologize if it came across in that way. ziggy lorenc
ziggy @733, as I mentioned earlier, I am not going to waste any more time providing abundant evidence of free-speech violations, (and other outrages that stem from same-sex marriage") while you carefully sift through the bunch to find one that you feel is easier than the others to rationalize and misrepresent, while ignoring everything else. I am not going to continue playing that stupid game. Under the circumstances, I am being very generous to characterize your behavior as a refusal to argue in good faith. You disingenuity surpasses that bar by a country mile. Early and often, you characterized my statements of incontestable fact as b*** s*** and my motives as "hateful." Have you, as the psychologists describe it, been "projecting" your own faults on to me? StephenB
William J. Murray
(I think some of SB’s arguments take the form of adopting arguendo that morality is about relieving or preventing suffering in order to make a case for those who have that view of morality. Correct me if I’m wrong, SB.)
WJM, thanks for the input. I just discovered your comment or I would have responded sooner. Just a quick note since I have little time at the moment. I could probably have unified all my self-contained points under a common theme, but I haven't really done that. Here are only three of what I consider to be separate self-contained arguments, thought they may share some comment elements: Example1 Same-sex marriage is metaphysically impossible, and therefore not real, because it cannot duplicate heterosexual complementarity and the possibility of two people becoming "one flesh." The latter is similar to the covenant between Christ and his Church. By contrast, a same-sex union is not a covenant; it is a mere "social contract." To falsely characterize the latter as the former does not make it so. Example2 Same-sex marriage does not simply destabilize society, it militates against the possibility of any well-ordered society. On the other hand, SSM blends very well with, and would not destabilize, a tyrannical government that reduces morality to the whims of elitists. As far as the tyrant is concerned, anyone can have sex with anything, anyone, at any time. That is the only freedom they will grant because they use sex as a means of political control, inflaming sexual passions in order to destroy internal freedom and curb resistance. Example3 The children of same-sex couples suffer needlessly and in a disturbingly unusual way. Unlike some heterosexual relationships, which can also harm children, it is the very nature of the same-sex union that does the harm. Thus, the argument that heterosexual parents can also harm children is irrelevant. Bad behavior from any parent or anyone playing that role will harm children. StephenB
StephenB, this is a response to the second example you provided. Headline -- Canada Holds American at Border for Being ChristianCanada Other than the fact that the headline is a complete lie, all we have to go on are LaBerbera's words.
We were treated fairly and reasonably. They said they didn’t have sufficient grounds to prosecute (based on) the hate propaganda code. That’s gratifying,
It is clear that he was investigated at customs for his reason for entering Canada, presumably on a tip from someone claiming that he violates Canada's anti-hate laws. But what you are overlooking is the fact that he was allowed to enter Canada in spite of his very public opposition to homosexuality. So, nobody's rights were violated. He was inconvenienced, but have you ever crossed a border lately? Claim -- LaBarbera later arrested for presence at university, jailed for a day, and finally booted from Canada He was arrested with Bill Whatcott and charged with mischief for refusing to leave university grounds when requested by University officials. The same Bill Whatcott who was charged with distributing hateful materials. The charges were dismissed, as most mischief charges are. And his departure from Canada was voluntary, he was not kicked out. Let's be honest here. Both LaBberbera's and WhatCott's actions were intended to get media attention so that they could play the martyr role. Personally, it is my opinion that the best way to counter views that most people disagree with (e.g., referring to homosexuals as pedophiles) is to let them rant and demonstrate to everyone that they are fools. So, again, who's free speech rights were denied? The fact that there may be consequences to what you say is just a fact of life. You are free to wear a KKK hood and robe at a Black Panthers rally, but I wouldn't advise it. Now I am not suggesting that there aren't people on the pro SSM side who use dirty tactics, because there are. As there are on the other side. But to suggest that SSM has resulted in the loss of free speech is just not backed up by the evidence. There are plenty of people writing articles, and blogs, and giving speeches, and hosting TV shows who are very critical of SSM and homosexuality. And they are protected in doing this as long as they are not inciting hatred in doing so. ziggy lorenc
KF,
DS, LEM and LNC are corollaries of LoI. Once distinct identity exists all are present. KF
Eh? I don't think so. Do you have a published source for that? daveS
VS, a society of 100% liars could not have communication and trust so would instantly disintegrate. Could not form in fact. KF kairosfocus
ZL, If you feel pinched when the shoe is on the other foot to the level of describing what has been going on, ponder what your ilk have been doing. And, I have not endorsed, but it brought out how it pinches. KF kairosfocus
DS, LEM and LNC are corollaries of LoI. Once distinct identity exists all are present. KF kairosfocus
KF: Using the CI, a society where everyone is lying all the time would instantly collapse. In such a society the only lie would be telling the truth. velikovskys
KF,
PS: Partial set membership as a concept depends on the prior point of distinct identity (which immediately brings in LOI, LNC and LEM).
Do you really want to include the Laws of Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle here? daveS
KF -- "You can be safely categorised as an idea and implementer hitman, in a strategic change context. In the online context, as a troll. BA77 suggests a very familiar identity resurfacing under another pseudonym." First, I am a woman. Secondly, thank you for again providing another example of Mr. Murray's argument about using inflammatory labels for the purpose of stifling discussion. Thirdly, to you always believe unsubstantiated accusations made by BA77? Who is William Spearshake? If you don't like him, I get the feeling that I might. Origenes -- "The continuous stream of ad hominem attacks on Ziggy Lorenc and others is hard to stomach." Thanks for the support. Personally, I just find it embarrassing. Not for me, but for KF. Why he thinks that 6,500 words spread over several comments is going to be read by anyone is the biggest mystery. ziggy lorenc
Zach
You do understand that equality is an abstraction? The real world is more of an A is similar to B type of world, in which case, equality is partial.
That would explain a number of arguments where an equality is given to "an object" and "exists". Or, "an event" and "was observed". It would be interesting science to work with equalities are only partial. Silver Asiatic
Zach
Silver Asiatic: But you cannot offer a rational argument about anything without accepting this fact of reality. We value truth. We just don’t accept your argument that truth has an intrinsic value.
Is this the same as saying you do not value truth?
Existence doesn’t have intrinsic value either.
In a rational argument, citing evidence that exists is not intrinsically more valuable than evidence that does not exist?
No. Truth has value to Zachriel, and we hope it has value to you too.
Would I be correct in stating that you deny the value of truth? Silver Asiatic
Lawfare protection guide from ADF: http://www.afa.net/pdfs/sogi-handbook.pdf kairosfocus
Silver Asiatic: Let A = B. You do understand that equality is an abstraction? The real world is more of an A is similar to B type of world, in which case, equality is partial. Zachriel
KF
Partial set membership as a concept depends on the prior point of distinct identity (which immediately brings in LOI, LNC and LEM).
True. Take LOI for example and then any first logical premise. We say, Let A = B. The intrinsic value of truth is required. Otherwise, the conclusion "therefore A does not equal B" is perfectly valid. Additionally, in a supposed consensus to "agree that truth has value", it would have to begin with truth having the same value as false. "I do not give truth more value than falsehood". Is that statement true or false? Silver Asiatic
Z, Aristotle in Metaphysics 1011b: truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. KF PS: Lying parasites off the fact that most of the time we speak the truth, indeed it is the fraud of passing off the false as if it were true, showing the superior value of the genuine over the counterfeit. Using the CI, a society where everyone is lying all the time would instantly collapse. kairosfocus
Silver Asiatic: You have to accept that truth has value before you can respond. In order to affirm anything, you have to accept that truth has a greater value than falsehood. That's clearly not correct as any unrepentant liar knows. Silver Asiatic: Truth has intrinsic value. That's nice that you think so, but your saying so doesn't make it so. Silver Asiatic: But you cannot offer a rational argument about anything without accepting this fact of reality. We value truth. We just don't accept your argument that truth has an intrinsic value. Silver Asiatic: To claim that truth does not have intrinsic value is the same as to claim you see no value-distinction between that which exists and that which does not exist. Existence doesn't have intrinsic value either. Silver Asiatic: To claim “we agree on the value of truth” while at the same time denying that truth has intrinsic value, is to say that the statement “we agree” has the same value-equivalency as the statement “we do not agree” No. Truth has value to Zachriel, and we hope it has value to you too. Silver Asiatic: None of us is in a position to agree that truth has value. Of course we do. Truth has value to Zachriel, and we hope it has value to you too. Zachriel
kairosfocus: Z, are you implying “it is true [= accurate to reality] that . . . “? or just, “it is pragmatically useful to accept that . . . “? See the difference? We're using the word truth as an abstract concept. If someone says he says he rejects climate change, but actually believes otherwise, then he is not telling the truth, regardless of the facts about climate change. Zachriel
Zach
Silver Asiatic: It is impossible to respond to me, in any way at all, without demonstrating the intrinsic value of truth. No. We just have to agree that truth has value.
You have to accept that truth has value before you can respond. In order to affirm anything, you have to accept that truth has a greater value than falsehood. That is given as part of reality, not as something you decide upon. In fact, you can't make a decision without already having accepted that truth has an intrinsic value. To decide means to affirm a selection. That's a distinction based on truth. Did you choose or not? "Yes, I chose". That affirms the intrinsic value of truth.
Silver Asiatic: Truth is a Necessary component of rational thought. Then fuzzy logic isn’t rational thought.
Fuzzy logic is not possible unless truth has intrinsic value. Rational thought requires a distinction between truth and falsehood - with truth accepted as a higher-order value. That's how we arrive at any conclusions, any decisions or even making any affirmative proposals. Truth has intrinsic value. As I said above, this is something you've denied. You do not recognize the intrinsic value of truth. But you cannot offer a rational argument about anything without accepting this fact of reality. Truth is given, in the same way something either exists or it doesn't. To claim that truth does not have intrinsic value is the same as to claim you see no value-distinction between that which exists and that which does not exist. To claim "we agree on the value of truth" while at the same time denying that truth has intrinsic value, is to say that the statement "we agree" has the same value-equivalency as the statement "we do not agree". In order to agree on anything, you are required to accept that truth has value, outside of your own subjective opinion. You cannot even have a subjective opinion without accepting the value of truth. None of us is in a position to agree that truth has value. You have to accept it before you can make a rational, intellectually coherent statement. Silver Asiatic
Z, are you implying "it is true [= accurate to reality] that . . . "? or just, "it is pragmatically useful to accept that . . . "? See the difference? KF PS: Partial set membership as a concept depends on the prior point of distinct identity (which immediately brings in LOI, LNC and LEM). kairosfocus
Silver Asiatic: It is impossible to respond to me, in any way at all, without demonstrating the intrinsic value of truth. No. We just have to agree that truth has value. Silver Asiatic: Truth is a Necessary component of rational thought. Then fuzzy logic isn't rational thought. Zachriel
StephenB, thank you for doing the leg work for me. Just to make it clear that Canada does not have freedom of speech in our constitution the same way that you have in the US. It never has. We also have hate speech laws that are more extensive than any in the US. These are not new either. StephenB `` "The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that citizens are NOT free to quote the Bible regarding the sin of homosexual behavior." What the ruling actually said about the bible:
While use of the Bible as a credible authority for a hateful proposition has been considered a hallmark of hatred [by the commission], it would only be unusual circumstances and context that could transform a simple reading or publication of a religion’s holy text into what could objectively be viewed as hate speech.
Not quite what the headline claims. In fact, it sounds opposite to what the headline claims. The supreme court upheld the commissions ruling for two pamphlets and overruled them on several others. The offending pamphlets were: 1--Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools! and 2--Sodomites in our Public Schools From the court ruling -- about the offending pamphlets"
It delegitimizes homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles, a traditionally reviled group in society. .
You may disagree with our hate speech laws, but the court clearly ruled that Whalcot violated the law when he distributed these pamphlets. I have concerns with our hate speech laws, mostly that I can see the danger of them being abused. But from what I have read in the ruling, this was not one of those abuses. I will look at the others and provide my opinion on them. ziggy lorenc
F/N: It is necessary to clarify what has actually happened, so I have taken time to clip the record. Pardon, needed. KF kairosfocus
PPPS: How ZL joined the exchanges:
319 ziggy lorencApril 29, 2016 at 8:34 am KF, with all due respect, I think that you are doing exactly what the article is complaining about. rather than discuss issues with Clavdivs, you use phrases such as: Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection in the teeth of a point by point exposition of relevant principles (of course you are just picking up odd points you are ignoring substance) shows, inadvertently why you can only see bigotry etc in those who question you. First, you already served notice that you are playing the ignore and push the narrative talking points game, so I mostly speak for record. Clavdivs, You now are saying, as you bigots and hypocrites — you dare to differ with ‘right thinking people’ I think that your responses are far out of proportion to Clavdivs’ comments. He appears to be able to discuss fairly with Eugen and others. I saw a similar thing with your interactions with Indiana Effigy. He was able to have a civil discussion with others but not with you. As far as I can tell, there is only one common factor in this behaviour. If you can’t discuss without being abusive, dismissive and hypocritical, it might be better if you took a break from commenting until you have calmed down. Just some friendly advice from a lady who has seen far too much ugliness than she would care to admit. 320 kairosfocusApril 29, 2016 at 8:48 am ZL, I can only pause a moment. Please look closer at what I have actually done, which includes first reluctantly pointing to a source that gives a principled discussion and endorsing it. I knew that a controversial issue would receive attack rather than serious engagement. Such is why I normally refuse to discuss this matter beyond the level of pointing to a key source. That is what happened, a major peer reviewed paper rooted in principle and law was blanket dismissed as bigotry and fallacies. I took time to clip how it opened and to outline the key elements of a case, responding to the assertion, fallacies. All along the tune was, oh you are bigots, which is a loaded accusation in a day of hate speech law and lawfare. I pointed out the patterns of agit prop at work, and that enabling behaviour for such is dangerous and destructive. FYI, that is a major problem of long standing, agit prop works because those who know better do not expose it and it takes in the naive. Often we then move to the point where the spiral of silencing sets in, reinforcing the march of folly through message dominance. And you will find Barbara Tuchman on that issue significant. Note, I took further time to outline the framework of natural law morality and its connexion to law, justice, rights and genuine liberty. Ignored, the better to indulge in accusation. The pivot of this, is that I have pointed out a characteristic pattern in discussions of issues too often indulged by progressivists and fellow trvellers: red herring distractors led away from the focal issue, to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and rhetorically ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating serious discussion. You will see that his same agenda was used to attack the thread owner when he pointed out the same pattern. I now point to some principles from Alinsky that may further help you interpret what is going on and has long been going on: RFR 5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. Now, I have to go. G’day KF 321 EugenApril 29, 2016 at 8:50 am Hi Effigy, (ahem) Ziggy, look what you have done Klaudius What word games? I think “any” is as bad as “all”….but whatever. I used your own simplified principle to come to conclusion that human society may end up in disarray. I’m not trying to be psychohistorian but looking at progression of events, my guesstimate is 70% chance over next few generations. I understand your point which is to keep things limited to one particular group – homosexuals. Before I stop talking about this topic I would like you to understand my point: when you let one group have something you cannot deny it to the other group, otherwise you will be called a bigot.
Where, context: >> 315 kairosfocusApril 29, 2016 at 7:51 am Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection in the teeth of a point by point exposition of relevant principles (of course you are just picking up odd points you are ignoring substance) shows, inadvertently why you can only see bigotry etc in those who question you. You are not listening, you are full of an agenda and have sacrificed principle in its pursuit. Just how the communists operated. Those who refuse to learn form history doom themselves to repeat its worst chapters. Over a hundred million ghosts of victims of communism join me in that warning. KF >> Above: >> 310 kairosfocusApril 29, 2016 at 7:16 am Clavdivs, First, you already served notice that you are playing the ignore and push the narrative talking points game, so I mostly speak for record. Second, we can all see the thread and recognise that you are utterly blind to dismissing anyone who does not toe the latest progressivist lawfare partyline as a bigot, irrational and worse in the teeth of this Girgis paper as the designated endorsed example of informed principled questioning of the agenda narrative. You and your ilk knew this is a controversial and polarising issue but you insisted on it as you imagined you and those who would hasten to join you held the rhetorical high cards, here and elsewhere. This, you did in a day of hate speech and the like laws being abused to get people fired, fine businesses into bankruptcy or inability to operate, subjecting people to agenda indoctrination in the name of sensitivity and tolerance training, and soon outright criminalisation of Christians. (Yes, the end game is that obvious.) You adopted a line of talking points with little or no daylight between you and self-referentially incoherent, intrinsically amoral evolutionary materialism. Then you issued a bland statement no you are not one of these. That fits with being an enabling fellow traveller, I am afraid. To date, you and ilk have yet to show that you have seriously engaged issues, the list of alleged fallacies starting with naturalistic fallacy revealing only the most superficial reading to dismiss. Your latest tactic is projective ad hominems, running in the circle that only bigots and hypocrites object to wrenching marriage under false colour of law into a mocking parody that plays with the fire of destabilising further a pivotal social-moral-legal institution that is the foundation of stable decent community. You find it offensive that I use direct language to describe what is going on: lawfare and destructive, cultural marxist [oops, we are only supposed to say “critical theory”] agit prop by radicals targetting our civilisation, their enablers, fellow travellers and useful naifs in front groups. Already, they have had astonishing success in triggering a march of folly across our civilisation. FYI, when I speak in these terms, you need to recognise that I had to deal with these tactics decades ago, and so all of this is so very familiar. Likewise, I had to deal with brainwashing cults — and yes, ruthless effective manipulation on the grand scale is real especially in the hands of ruthless agenda driven activists and their overlords. (I keep calling attention to Edgar Schein, whose work provided the key insights decades ago. This on the spiral of silence will also help; including in understanding why I refuse to be silenced despite namecalling and the like.) I will give a few pointers to a more sound view: 1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities. 2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding. 3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience. 4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds. 5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges. 6 –> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy): When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature. 8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature. 9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked. 10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving. 11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture. In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly. It seems, yet again, plain that we inhabit a civilisation hell bent on cultural suicide by march of folly. KF 311 Silver AsiaticApril 29, 2016 at 7:28 am StephenB: Many values are intrinsic, that is, they have value in themselves. Examples would be life, truth, unity, and health. Zach: You can say it, but can’t show it. What you can do is find common ground with those who also find those things to have value. I’m afraid you guys are going to let Zachriel get away with this. Zachriel is on record saying he can’t show the intrinsic value of truth. Got that? I can prove the intrinsic value of truth by simply making an affirmation. For example, I just posted something here on UD. It is impossible to respond to me, in any way at all, without demonstrating the intrinsic value of truth. Think about it. Did a new post appear here or not? To respond to the question is to prove the intrinsic value of truth. Then of course, if truth has no intrinsic, demonstrable value, then you can’t explain anything. What do we call people who think there is no intrinsic value-difference between truth and falsehood? I mean, besides psychotic? It’s not only, as Stephen rightly says, we can’t help him, but a person who gives equal value to lies and fantasies as to truth statements has removed himself from intelligent discourse. Knowing Zachriel, he won’t back away from this. I’m afraid some of us also will cut him some slack. “Well, he just meant that what is true for you might not be true for me.” No – if you can’t recognize that any, even the most trivial and simplistic, evaluations of reality (“I just posted a statement on UD”), require and Prove, the intrinsic value of truth, then there is nothing further that can be said. If truth is intrinsically equivalent to lies then there is no way to evaluate anything. There’s no way to even affirm that there is “common ground with those who also find those things to have value”. Affirmative statements are statements of truth. Proof? It is logically impossible to affirm “I will always speak (to myself or others) think and affirm what is false”. This is too obvious. It can’t be done. There’s nothing subjective about it. The intrinsic value of truth is demonstrated (to demonstrate anything requires the same). Truth is a Necessary component of rational thought. It’s not concept that is given value by the subjective agent. When the intrinsic, non-subjective value of truth is denied, then rationality is not possible. But as others have said, giving Zach some credit, that’s materialism. It’s beyond idiotic. 312 CLAVDIVSApril 29, 2016 at 7:36 am kairosfocus @ 310 More argumenta ad hominem. As if whatever happened to you years ago excuses your rudeness today. Hilarious! *Ignore*>> kairosfocus
PPS: Note 248, which dealt with the main reference on manipulation of marriage though lawfare and how it was dismissed:
Clavdivs, It is interesting to see how you snipped and cited my actual comment in 227 above:
C: Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Don’t you agree? K: Nope … Hilarious!
The actual remark at 227 above:
Nope, you are falling under no true scotsman. In effect, assuming that evo mat scientism has cornered the market on rationality instead of recognising its self-referential incoherence, radical relativism and amorality leading to might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘reason’ and ‘truth’ tactics. Necessarily false. Ex falso quodlibet then kicks in, and you are measuring truth by a yardstick that embeds falsity. Truth as that which accurately describes and corresponds to reality will differ from such a flawed yardstick but if the yardstick is imposed truth will seem false and false true at least until one is falling over the cliff. Instead, start from the premise that any A is there because B is acceppted (often implicitly) thence, C, D etc. Infinite regress is impossible and question begging circularity is futile. We face finitely remote first plausibles at world roots level. Thence, worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). In this context, responsible dialogue would start by recognising that the Judaeo-Christian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome is foundational to our civilisation. It would on this topic recognise that marriage has been a global pattern across civilisations and time, with inferior variants and wrenchings such as Nero being obvious by contrast. Further, it would recognise that committed heterosexual conjugal bonding creates a stable context for child nurture and social stability. Especially, by restraining and guiding society’s built-in ticking time bomb: young men. Instead of worshipping fashionable social engineering, it would recognise that it is possible to destructively monkey with things that are foundational. And, that slippery, crumbling slopes next to cliffs are real. In this context, a principled discussion is on the table.
Now, you tried to categorise Girgis et al under several fallacies: >>K:… you are falling under no true scotsman. I {C] showed @ 205 how the George, Girgis and Anderson paper is irrational because of its logical fallacies: – It derives an ought from an is – the naturalistic fallacy>> a: Nope, of course you first here that the evolutionary materialistic worldview has no IS capable of grounding ought, i.e. that it is inherently amoral; thus, a menace to a race that is necessarily governed by ought. b: Actually, Girgis et al start from prior moral precepts, such as that human stability and committed family structures that foster same are vital to human thriving, and that such thriving of humans in society across time is an inherent value. c: For instance in their opening words they describe the conjugal view:
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate)and renew their union by conjugal acts —acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.
d: Thus we see principles of commitment to permanent union that serves the welfare of children and the advancement of stable, sustainable society. Those are norms that are historic and generally accepted, so if you find them questionable and dubious to the point of your next objection . . . alleged question begging, that is quite informative about the consequences of the agenda you advocate. >>– It begs the question>> e: That is, you imply but do not wish to openly state rejection of the above norms, showing the antisocial, nihilistic character of the alternatives you evidently support. f: It is thus a very relevant point for serious questions to be asked on underlying principles, this is not at all irrational. >>– It reifies the ‘essence’ of marriage – a fallacy of ambiguity, specifically the pathetic fallacy>> g: Reification is one of those fashionable dismissive assertions that is usually dubious, boiling down to an implied commitment to extreme nominalism, often rooted in evolutionary materialism where the only actual natures are those of core particles. h: Instead, we can infer, you reject stability of the heterosexual bond and the stable environment it provides for children, promoting in its stead an inherently unstable emotional bond, and relationships that are so diverse relative to fidelity and commitment of union that they are of alien character. (Of course the easy divorce game which went through in a previous generation set the stage for such and this shows just how unwise it was.) >>These fallacies derive from the rules of right reason. You cannot deny these are irrational without falling into self-refuting absurdity.>> i: The issues here neither hinge on identity nor assertion of contradictions, instead they pivot on rejection of fundamental values hidden behind the rhetoric of selective hyperskepticism and an implicit evolutionary materialism. >>You do agree these fallacies are irrational, don’t you?>> j: C, you have asserted fallacy where in fact the problem is you disagree with core principles of commitment, conjugality, stable child nurture and the thriving of people in society, due to a combination of naturalism and ill advised excessive individualism. k: The issue now pivots on the key values at the root of the conjugal view of marriage, and it is quite evident that the open rejection of such would instantly red fag the dangers, so instead a rhetoric of bigoted religiously motivated exclusion from “rights” and a redefinition of marriage based on nominalism [it is only a word, unconnected to anything essential to being human so can be redefined at will] has been used to manipulate law to the detriment of all.
kairosfocus
PS: My comment 12 in reply to that pattern:
12 kairosfocusApril 24, 2016 at 4:30 am HR, there are always conspiracies [massively plural], there is always manipulation, there are always ambitious agendas in a community. Too often, such amount to a march of blinded rage and folly of lemmings led by wolves in sheep’s or shepherd’s clothing, headed over the cliff. Hence Machiavelli’s hard bitten point that political disorders are like hectic fever; at the first easy to cure but hard to diagnose and so when at length for want of prompt diagnosis and proper treatment the course of the disease becomes manifest to all it is far too late to cure. And it is my dad who explicitly taught that to me, many years past, as a national and regional policy thinker and technical leader. Where also, in my faith tradition (which happens to be foundational to our civilisation . . . as in Pauline-Augustinian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome), there is a key historical example and warning of what can happen with democratic consensus under such influences, Ac 27. In contrast, we have soundness, soundness of reason, of knowledge, of morality. Where, a pivotal component of soundness is truth, correspondence of what is said or suggested with reality. Just so Aristotle — that redneck ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked Bible-thumping Right wing, theocratic Creationist and Fundy . . . NOT — in Metaphysics 1011b (2300 years ago) aptly defined truth: that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. I defy you to come up with a sounder precise, short and apt description . . . definition . . . of what truth is. Where, too, as the sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears — a point literally written into my name and also inscribed in martyr’s blood over the door of my homeland’s parliament — those who dismiss, reject or neglect them doom themselves to pay the same price again and again, often at ruinous cost. I put it to you, sir, that our civilisation has begun to cut itself off from its roots. Instead, it has begun to listen to the long running siren song of evolutionary materialism (it was already old in Plato’s day) — latterly, dressed up in a lab coat, it used to wear philosopher’s robes — and it has dismissed the foundations of reason, truth and morality. Just as Plato warned us against 2350 years ago. The direct consequence of such, is that we are left in the hands of those who have largely usurped control of the commanding heights of community influence and are ruthlessly playing the nihilistic game: might and manipulation make ‘right’ and ‘truth’ and ‘consensus’ and ‘good strategy/policy’ etc. Our civilisation is becoming increasingly suicidally insane, out of touch with reality. Little Red Riding Hood, look at yourself in the deadly mirror of the wolf’s eye! (Never mind, he is dressed in Grandma’s clothes and is lying in her bed, that does not change the fact of wolfish nature.) Now, above, I have already pointed to the dynamics of change and silencing that can oh so easily be used by the ruthless to impose folly which seems to serve their agendas. (Let us just say that when I had to deal with rescuing victims of manipulative cults, Schein’s thought was a key insight. Notice his context of how the Chinese Communists tried to reprogram a whole society and what they did to achieve that goal. Not without some significant success, though in the aftermath of the so-called Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution of the Red Guards, the cost was ruinous. China has recovered after a generation of sounder policies, but that was at a cost of what 70 mn lives or more.) In further answer, I point out that in AD 59, mid October, it should have been plain to all on abundant experience and history that sailing out late in the year was ill advised. But Mr Moneybags was not happy with the port for his ship and cargo. His technico, the kubernete knew who buttered his bread. The passengers were unhappy with the rusticity of the nearby town and wanted a more comfortable port to winter in. So — never mind that IDiot in chains (who had by then survived three shipwrecks) saying that the risk was not reasonable to gain the rewards of an easy afternoon’s sailing — the democratic majority decision was, if a suitable wind comes up, we sail for the next port 40 miles away. Soon enough, a sweet little south wind came up. Technico was not about to say, this is often a precursor to a nor’easter. Playing the risky game. They set sail, and were maybe half way when just such a nor’easter hit them with typhonic force. And after a nightmare fortnight, they were glad to shipwreck on it seems the north side (possibly the east end) of Malta. Of course that same despised IDiot in chains was the one who had to spot the ruse the technical folks were taking to abandon the helpless passengers to their fate. That is the difference between manipulated march of folly driven pseudo-consensus and sound decision making, in a democratic context. A lesson of history. Coming from the most common book in our civilisation, from 2000 years ago. Will we wake up and heed it, or will we have to go over the cliff and break our backs before we will be willing to listen? On long track record of the stubbornness of such marches of folly, I doubt that we will listen to soundness until it is too late or almost too late. Hence, the bite of Machiavelli’s counsel. So, now, I suggest to you that appeal to the ‘consensus’ of a march of folly is trumped by the back-breaking force of foundational reality at the foot of the cliffs. (And I come from a country that broke its back through just such a mad march over a cliff in the heady days of socialist progressivism. And cultural marxism is little more than repackaging of the same.) I further suggest to you that our civilisation is headed for the cliffs. Again. KF
kairosfocus
F/N: Let's roll the record from the first several comments, which tell us what went down from day 1:
1 kairosfocusApril 23, 2016 at 5:33 pm WJM, always important to hear from you. And, a sobering topic. Look up the spiral of silence concept, I have to run. KF PS: Cf Schein on Lewin’s ice cube change theory taken in a ruthlessly manipulative context and blend it with the spiral of silence: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20001212204800/http://www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/10006.html cf too on silencing: https://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/spiral-of-silence/ This agit-prop march of rage and folly attack survival guide is also worth a pause to ponder on its own merits never mind its source’s deep problems: http://www.voxday.net/mart/SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide.pdf This bit of law of tort may help depending on jurisdiction: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tortious_interference as may public mischief laws: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tortious_interference cases: http://www.nrlawyers.com/Recent-Successes/Perjury-Public-Mischief-Mischief-to-Property-and-Breach-of-Court-Orders.shtml . 2 hrun0815April 23, 2016 at 8:18 pm Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your “truths” aren’t in fact hate speech after all. ???? Just some food for thought. 3 kairosfocusApril 23, 2016 at 9:08 pm HR, truth is not determined by opinions or popularity. Truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Aristotle got that right in Metaphysics 1011b, 2300 years past. KF 4 hrun0815April 23, 2016 at 9:38 pm KF, did I suggest it was a matter of opinion? I’m not suggested everybody else voted on what is truth, I’m suggesting that WJM might erroneously believe something to simply be truth when in fact it is not. But don’t worry, judging both him and you, assuredly neither one of you will consider this option to be possible and rather assume there is a giant conspiracy including media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population to deny and obfuscate certain truth for some nebulous nefarious reasons. 5 Robert ByersApril 23, 2016 at 9:45 pm Amen. This is so right about these times we live in. Future people can quote the author of this thread. How to fight and conquer it? The same way as the fathers left us tools to do it. The bad guys are not that clever. They use words to define the argument. like we all do with our parents, spouse, kids, friends. Its not to deny HATE accusations against those opposing something. I am against legal immigration as well as illegal. its an identity issue to me. they are foreigners i don’t want any more of or ever did. The accusation of hate is just a accusation. The accuser might be the hater actually. Probably. What must be done to fight and conquer is go back to the contract behind the whole civilization of truth, freedom, and getting your way. We have no excuses. its up to free men to defend freedom. The bad guys have lost credibility. We must accuse that truth on important matters is being interfered with. That from this truth comes important decisions in a nation and so this interference breaks the social contract of the governed with those who govern. truth must be expressed and so speech must be allowed without punishment from anyone. In short freedom of speech must not be interfered with by any power. government or mob. we must stop defending our character and motives. We must attack them as invaders of our nation(s) as long as they seek to punish, silence, or bring any judgement, without trial, on our speech. Back to the contract. its the absolute right of the people to the truth. So why is the source of truth, SPEECH, being attacked and punished!! Why is this allowed? I say because eVERYBODY has sinned and agreed to punish wrong speech. So a empire is built to control speech. back to the contract. Cease and desist on all punishment or interference on speech about important things or everything. i undetstand free speech is the law!! 6 CannuckianYankeeApril 23, 2016 at 10:03 pm HR: [ “Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your “truths” aren’t in fact hate speech after all.” ] KF: [ HR, truth is not determined by opinions or popularity. Truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Aristotle got that right in Metaphysics 1011b, 2300 years past. KF ] HR: [ KF, did I suggest it was a matter of opinion? I’m not suggested everybody else voted on what is truth, I’m suggesting that WJM might erroneously believe something to simply be truth when in fact it is not. ] Hmm. No, it seems you rather DID suggest that media, politics and academia, and a “sizable chunk of the population” (what size, you fail to articulate) are the rightful measures for truth in our society; and that we had better get in line, or we are guilty of hate crimes. IOW, truth is entirely subject to the will of the people. That seems to be what you ARE, in fact, suggesting. 7 Indiana EffigyApril 23, 2016 at 10:48 pm All of this argument over truth yet what we consider to be truth is different in different cultures and different religions. And over time within the same cultures. 8 AndreApril 24, 2016 at 12:04 am Yes and a few like HR’s is nothing more than might makes right and one of the fundamental differences between a Christian and a materialist. The materialist is happy if something makes the majority happy the Christian on the other hand will say “Even if something might make the majority happy we can’t do it as it is unjust” That is the biggest difference in our worldview. For materialists it is about the group, or the nation for a Christian it is about the individual. 9 William J MurrayApril 24, 2016 at 3:42 am hrun0815, Do you agree that in order to properly discuss what is true one must employ reason, facts and evidence? Do you agree that believing a position or action to be based on “hate” or “racism” or “bigotry” simply because figures of cultural authority characterize it as such is a poor policy? And that those who simply parrot and attempt to enforce those characterizations via intimidation, shaming, etc. are acting irrespoonsibly? Indiana Effigy, Just because different cultures believe different things are true doesn’t mean there is no truth to be found to discern between them. If you have given up on the idea that actual truth exists and humans can understand it as such, then you’ve abandoned reasoned debate for rhetoric and manipulation.
In short the you are bigots and haters line of attack was set up by members of the circle of design objectors within the first ten comments. That has been sustained since and when the irresponsibility of this and its fitting a standard distract, distort, denigrate line of rhetoric was pointed out, that was twisted into turnspeech accusations -- yes, that is a propaganda technique -- and in effect see you have no evidence and substantial points all you have is bigotry against progress. Of course, great offence was obviously taken at the thought crime of pointing out that evolutionary materialistic scientism is inherently and multiply self-referentially incoherent [thus necessarily false], that it has in it no foundational IS capable of sustaining OUGHT [thus is amoral and invites nihilistic ruthless factionalism], that it is deeply institutionalised in halls of power and influence across our civilisation, that we are seeing linked fellow travellers, enablers and activists in an agit prop and lawfare pattern that is rooted in agendas of cultural marxism, and that our civilisation as a whole is on a slippery slope with a cliff engaged in a march of folly. Which is a common enough historical theme. All of these points were supported during the course of the thread. I could continue, but the point is clear enough. The onlooker would be well advised to note who has provided sustantiating argument all along and who have uses personalising and polarising tactics from the outset and have mostly failed to actually cogently address substance. KF PS: Of course, in comment 1, I provided useful reference material, which would give a lot of context. Where I do not like a source but find its advice relevant, I ring fenced the source. kairosfocus
The continuous stream of ad hominem attacks on Ziggy Lorenc and others is hard to stomach. Origenes
F/N: In case you thought progressivist lawfare was a cooked up notion, notice what Glenn Reynolds has to say in USA today:
Federal law makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).” I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they’re doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, I am sure they each have it somewhere in their offices. Here’s what’s happened so far. First, Schneiderman and reportedly Harris sought to investigate Exxon in part for making donations to groups and funding research by individuals who think “climate change” is either a hoax, or not a problem to the extent that people like Harris and Schneiderman say it is. This investigation, which smacks of Wisconsin’s discredited Putin-style legal assault on conservative groups and their contributors, was denounced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader as unconstitutional . . . . After Bader’s critique, Walker, the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general, subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s donor lists. The purpose of this subpoena is, it seems quite clear, to punish CEI by making people less willing to donate. This all takes place in the context of an unprecedented meeting by 20 state attorneys general aimed, environmental news site EcoWatch reports, at targeting entities that have “stymied attempts to combat global warming.” You don’t have to be paranoid to see a conspiracy here.
Lawfare is an act of war actually, tyrannical and violent abuse of the state power of the sword in defence of the civil peace of justice, to attack targetted individuals, groups, organisations and movements. yet another sign of the march of folly. Notice, TWENTY US State AG's were involved in a relevant meeting. This is directly parallel to the way groups conspired to out and attack or intimidate and threaten people who donated to campaigns or voted in favour of preserving under state laws the historic, biology-anchored conjugal understanding of marriage. All of these and many more are indicators of the march of folly that is now in progress. KF kairosfocus
ZL, all that means is that you chose to attack SB and me. That's all. The facts above speak for themselves. You can be safely categorised as an idea and implementer hitman, in a strategic change context. In the online context, as a troll. BA77 suggests a very familiar identity resurfacing under another pseudonym. It is to be noted that you have yet again failed to deal with the substance on the table. KF kairosfocus
ziggy
Given the timeline, and the fact that the number of frivolous complaints being heard by these commissions has decreased over the last several years, it would be extremely difficult to argue that SSM has resulted in a decrease in free speech. The worst you can say is that there was a “liberal” abuse of the commission system that was followed by a correction.
No doubt you think all those frivolous complaints were coincidences. No doubt you think I don't have other examples. No doubt you think it has nothing to do with so-called "gay marriage." No doubt you think that parental rights have not been affected. No doubt you think I have no examples of same. While you are busy denying and rationalizing all these affects of same sex marriage, lets put another one out there for you to dismiss: (2013) "The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that citizens are NOT free to quote the Bible regarding the sin of homosexual behavior. Bill Whatcott's pamphlets (from 2001) using the word "sodomites," and criticizing the Gay Agenda in public schools, were deemed to incite hatred against homosexual people. The ruling requires Whatcott to pay a fine to two homosexuals who claimed to be offended, plus six-figure loser-pays legal costs." There you go, ziggy. The Bible is hate speech. No doubt you think it has nothing to do with gay marriage. No doubt you think I am running out of examples. Here we go, ziggy. One more, just for fun. Saturday, April 12, 2014 Canada Holds American at Border for Being Christian The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) was tipped off by homosexualists that Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was bound from Chicago to the Regina airport en route to speak at the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association (SPLA) conference in Weyburn. When LaBarbera's plane landed Thursday night, customs officials detained him for several hours while they rifled through his luggage, books, paperwork, cellphone, computer files, and interrogated him about his Christian beliefs and alleged "hatred of gays" until 1am Friday morning. Later that afternoon, LaBarbera was allowed a hearing to appeal the detention, which he won, and then proceeded to Weyburn (where angry homosexualists stood ready to "greet" him)." Great stuff, don't you think, ziggy. No doubt you think this has nothing to do with gay marriage. No doubt you think this has nothing to do with the gay lobby's long-term agenda. No doubt you think I am a "hater" for producing this evidence. I'll stop for now. Well, no, I will add one more just for fun. Since you understand that I can fill cyberspace with examples, I will just provide summaries of the updates rather than provide the whole story--now that you know that I could if I wanted to. Here we go, ziggy UPDATE 4/16/14: LaBarbera later arrested for presence at university, jailed for a day, and finally booted from Canada (see article excerpts at bottom) You don't really need the whole article, do you? No doubt you don't think I could provide it if II wanted to. OK, I will really stop for now. No wait, maybe it's time to start discussing, in detail, the erosion of parental rights. No doubt you think I can't provide numerous examples. OK. I will really stop for now. StephenB
ziggy lorenc = William Spearshake = banned troll bornagain77
StephenB, thank you for providing this. I am responding on my phone with slow wifi so I can't do adequate research on this. However, I can provide some background on Canadian human rights commissions. They were originally established with the best of intentions and were intended to be non-judicial commissions that would hear complaints about abuses such as discrimination in employment without tying up the courts. Sadly, they were taken to rediculous extremes early this century with rulings against journalists and others for writing articles (or giving speeches) about Islam, or gay pride parade, etc. Subsequently there was significant public backlash as well as court rulings that have resulted in the gradual reining in of these commissions over the last decade or so. Given the timeline, and the fact that the number of frivolous complaints being heard by these commissions has decreased over the last several years, it would be extremely difficult to argue that SSM has resulted in a decrease in free speech. The worst you can say is that there was a "liberal" abuse of the commission system that was followed by a correction. ziggy lorenc
ziggy
Based on the headlines alone, absolutely. Do you have links to the actual articles?
I am temporarily having trouble with those two links, so here is another one of many. I just copied from the link. - From "'Hate speech' penalties tossed by appeals court" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 12/8/09 "A Canadian administrative judge's demand for a $5,000 penalty and a written apology from a man who criticized homosexuality in a letter to his local newspaper has been overturned on appeal, but experts on such "hate speech" disputes say the case is not a complete victory for free speech. The judgment was announced this week by the Alliance Defense Fund in the case of [Christian pastor] Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition, which had been determined by the Alberta, Canada, Human Rights Commission to have violated a "hate speech" law. Boissoin wrote the letter to the "Red Deer Advocate" in central Alberta criticizing those who "in any way support[s] the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s." [Click here to read the entire letter.] A University of Calgary professor, Darren Lund, reported Boissoin to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, accusing him of breaking the national human rights law. The commission ruled in Lund's favor, ordering the $5,000 payment and written apology from Boissoin, as well as instructions to Boissoin not to express his beliefs further. On appeal, Justice E.C. Wilson said the commission didn't acknowledge the actual law, which states, "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject." Wilson said the commission went too far, basing its decision on assumptions and granting relief to Lund that it did not have the authority to provide. "The remedies … are without legal foundation or beyond the authority granted," Wilson wrote, citing the commission's orders that Boissoin "cease and desist" his statements, issue the apology and pay Lund. Bull told WND the reversal is important in that homosexual activists will not be able to cite it as a precedent for damages when someone expresses an opinion opposing homosexuality, but the case is not a complete victory. "Stephen Boissoin was in litigation for four years," he said. "If anyone is tempted to write a letter to the editor, that right is now chilled." "Homosexuals got exactly what they wanted. In the marketplace of ideas, one side has now been censored," he said. "This [situation] is exactly what homosexual activists have in mind," he said. The appeals court ruling did not strike down the "hate speech" law, but it sets limits for its use. The Alberta ruling means "hate speech" laws cannot be used to silence religious expression or public debate simply because someone takes offense. Such a provision would, in fact, violate the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, the ADF said." StephenB
KF -- "I add that actual ad homs distract attention from the issues by playing shoot at the messenger instead of dealing with the issue — no fair and truthful description of my arguments can reasonably conclude that I and others dodged the issues in a festival of bigotry and hate tantamount to KKK racism . . . which is a standard tactic that was used above to attack me and others esp SB." Yet SB and I and Clavdivs and Origene and Mr. Murray and Eugen are able to debate each other In a reasonably civil fashion, even though there is little that we all agree on. You, on the other hand, have a long history of being incapable of accepting that someone might disagree with you on anything. Whenever this happens, you resort to lecturing, patronizing, sermonizing name calling and massive cut-and-pasta orgasms that would put BA77 to shame. Nobody has to take my word for it. All they have to do is read your comments throughout this thread and they can make up their own mind. And I am not the only one who has pointed this out to you. Clavdivs and Origene, have said the same thing. I realize that these are harsh words, but sometimes harsh words are necessary. ziggy lorenc
RICO-style games, not good: http://freebeacon.com/issues/dem-ag-targets-90-conservative-groups-climate-change-racketeering-suit/ kairosfocus
StephenB -- " Would you acknowledge that the following examples qualify as [violatiins of] free speech in Canada:" Based on the headlines alone, absolutely. Do you have links to the actual articles? ziggy lorenc
Klaudius I'm not researcher on this subject so I cannot provide measurable for optimum. We have to use common sense sometimes. In your past comments I accepted your reasonable points without demanding deep PhD research of terminology on the subject. If we go that way we would be splitting hairs and be stuck on couple of simple terms for months. I have other stuff to do, too. There certainly is the optimum or most favorable or best posible environment for development of a child not to mention the only one that can reproduce. What would you guess first? Yes, that is male/female for sure. I don't know too many (rather any) people who need more clarification on this. Eugen
ziggy
Are you serious? You will provide me with with examples of free speech violations only if I agree in advance that they are free speech violations? I have to give you credit for an approach to winning a debate that I have never thought of. Well played young man, well played.
OK, I have a soft heart (In spite of all those reports that I am a hater). Would you acknowledge that the following examples qualify as free speech in Canada: 1/11/14: Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin 6/11/08: Government Bans Pastor from Speaking Against Homosexuality StephenB
StephenB: No one who understands the natural law would make such an error. They appealed to natural law. StephenB: they merely showed their ignorance of the natural moral law, which is based on reason–not faith. They appealed to reason. ziggy lorenc: re you serious? You will provide me with with examples of free speech violations only if I agree in advance that they are free speech violations? I have to give you credit for an approach to winning a debate that I have never thought of. Well played young man, well played. Indeed! We are in the presence of a master. Zachriel
ZL, the irony is actually yours. I started from addressing the worldview level problem, went to dealing with a major paper, pointed out dynamics and known sources for cultural marxist tactics that are at work. I have discussed the worldview level issues and how these give rise to characteristic problems with evo mat pointed out since Plato. I discussed the natural law roots of rights and of marriage, which ground why nominalist word magic under false colour of law cannot turn a pig's snout into a silk purse. BTW, evo mat scientism is self refuting and if adherence to such is driving your notion of evidence, that is part of the corruption and clouding of thought at work. Likewise, I add that actual ad homs distract attention from the issues by playing shoot at the messenger instead of dealing with the issue -- no fair and truthful description of my arguments can reasonably conclude that I and others dodged the issues in a festival of bigotry and hate tantamount to KKK racism . . . which is a standard tactic that was used above to attack me and others esp SB. I also took time to outline standard change dynamics i/l/o the issue of ideas and implementers hitmen and to point to why you need sound people to get sound strategic level change -- where evolutionary materialism is inherently self falsifying so is unsound and undermining of soundness: ex falso, quodlibet. I pointed out that turnspeech is a propaganda tactic, in fact one of the key forms of Hitler's big lie (too big not to be true) stratagem. In fact in the classic text describing the big lie it was projected unto the british. Others have provided more evidence starting with testimonies of the victims. And more, but what seems to have triggered distract, distort, denigrate, polarise etc is pointing out the radical agendas and tactics at work. You are actually simply further demonstrating that my concern is justified. Not that such will make a dime's difference to those determined on business as usual headed for the cliff. The sweet south wind is blowing. KF kairosfocus
CLAVDIVS
I have no axe to grind either way on gay marriage.
All leftists have an ax to grind with respect to gay marriage, yourself included. No one is neutral on the issue, yourself included. The very fact that you don't admit the biased nature of your second-hand resources makes the point.
I just know sound, reliable, unbiased research when I see it because that is my professional training.
If you are professionally trained, as I am, you should know that you cannot make a final judgment on any empirical study without making an unfiltered investigation.
The Witherspoon paper you cited does not cite any evidence for its conclusions … it consists purely of assertions.
I found this the following in five seconds: Five years ago in Alberta, Canada, a former pastor and head of a Christian organization, Stephen Boissoin, sent a letter to a local paper on the issue of sexual orientation. Two weeks later a gay teen was beaten up, and the pastor was charged with violating human rights law because the letter likely exposed gays to hatred and contempt - despite the fact that he had never advocated violence of any sort in his letter or otherwise. UPDATE 3/18/13: Supremes Rule Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada UPDATE 4/12/14: American Christian Arrested for Speaking at Canadian University UPDATE 10/19/14: Idaho Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding' UPDATE 1/11/14: Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin UPDATE 6/20/15: Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Wedding Chapel UPDATE 12/10/09: Famous Canadian Hate Speech Ruling Reversed UPDATE 6/11/08: Government Bans Pastor from Speaking Against Homosexuality Feel free to follow up at your leisure. Just follow the links from the Wetherspoon report. Be sure and tell me if you think it represents right-wing extremism. There is plenty more where that came from. When you return, you can rationalize all if it, even as you continue to claim that you have "no ax to grind."
This is why the courts and a majority of the US population, including Christians, now support gay marriage — they are not fooled by the ridiculously biased and methdologically flawed “research” like the papers you’ve cited.
LOL Widespread ignorance hardly counts as a solid reference. A majority of Americans don't know the difference between a normal marriage and a so-called same sex marriage.Indeed, you don't know the difference. Thus, your opinion on the subject is hardly relevant. In the final analysis, empirical methods about SSM and children can be questioned, but the rational arguments against SSM cannot. No one has refuted or even addressed my arguments (I am not referring here to any empirical reports or testimonies) StephenB
StephenB -- "When I have time, I will provide the evidence if and only if you promise that it does, indeed, represent a free speech violation." Are you serious? You will provide me with with examples of free speech violations only if I agree in advance that they are free speech violations? I have to give you credit for an approach to winning a debate that I have never thought of. Well played young man, well played. :) ziggy lorenc
KF -- "Zl, that’s attack the man not dealing with the issue, which you and others have consistently maintained." It is astounding that you don't see the irony in this statement. Well, not that astounding. KF -- "Remember, you are the folks who have to defend assertions that ALL objections to your agenda are motivated by hate and bigotry equivalent to the KKK.." Why do I have to defend assertions that I have never made? You really are not making any sense. KF -- "The shrill projections alone reveal that the analysis you wish to dismiss is fundamentally correct." Again with the abuse. You really need some help. Please seek it, for your own good. ziggy lorenc
kairosfocus ZL, you obviously have not seriously read the thread above, starting with actual testimonies of victims. Frankly, the behaviour above gives abundant reason to point to the widespread effect of the breakdowns highlighted. Right, you finally get around to presenting some "evidence". And what is it? I tiny, statistically irrelevant handful of anecdotes. You've got 25+ countries with years and years of experience of legal gay marriage, and this is the only evidence you can scrape together to support your fear-mongering. Hilarious! CLAVDIVS
StephenB — “If you can’t speak freely without being taken to court at your own expense by the government, which includes the burden of paying for your attorney, or of being forced to recant, or for tweeting your opinions, then you don’t have free speech.”
I’m curious, can you provide any examples of Canadians being taken to court by the government for voicing their objection to SSM? Or are you just making crap up?
When I have time, I will provide the evidence if and only if you promise that it does, indeed, represent a free speech violation. I am not going to all that trouble if you just pull another one of your. "I don't believe it" or "that doesn't count" stunts. I don't appreciate providing answers to all your questions while you dodge all of mine. SB: “Meanwhile, you have not responded to my report on the testimony of children harmed by living with same-sex couples.”
What’s to comment on? The fact that some same sex parents can be as poor at parenting as some opposite sex parents? Why should that be surprising?
As poor? You had better reread the report. Poor parenting from heterosexual adults do not produce results like that. StephenB
Clavdivs, operational definitions are not the only valid ones. Verificationism collapsed in self referential incoherence a half century past. KF kairosfocus
CLAVDIVS
The methodological flaws in the paper are so horrendous that the sample size is irrelevant anyway.
Why don't you just admit that you do not know the sample size. It is my understanding that it began at 15,000 and was pared down to 3000 in order to manage the difficulties of addressing multiple and inconsistent variables. To leave it at the large number would be an indication that he was not sympathetic to these vairables. It appears that his critics tried to make something else out of it to keep their pro-gay narrative alive.
Basically Regnerus only sampled children who stated their biological parents did not remain together for their entire childhood. He then picked out the ones who said a parent had a homosexual relationship of any sort for any duration (including perhaps a weekend fling). And then he compared the results of this subgroup to children of married, straight couples who raised their kids for a full 18 years.
Most likely, that was not the issue with the sample size and most likely the AMA report is skewed, especially on that last alleged statistic. What I am trying to tell you is that I don't accept their word anymore than you accept the word of the authors who gave us the Witherspoon report. The difference is this: I have aspect to all portions of the latter. Neither of us has access to Regnerus' detailed report. If you do, then pass it along to me. I have every confidence that I can make sense of it. I cannot make sense out of what the gay lobby and its sympathizers say about it. Too many contradictions. Once they claimed that the sample size was too small, they lost all credibility with me. StephenB
Zl, that's attack the man not dealing with the issue, which you and others have consistently maintained. Remember, you are the folks who have to defend assertions that ALL objections to your agenda are motivated by hate and bigotry equivalent to the KKK, that there is no evidence that there is a problem with the agenda and more. The shrill projections alone reveal that the analysis you wish to dismiss is fundamentally correct. KF kairosfocus
Eugen Operationally (i.e. measurably) define optimal. CLAVDIVS
KF -- "ZL, you obviously have not seriously read the thread above..." You obviously have not taken heed of the many appeals that have been made in this thread for you to stop lecturing, patronizing and sermonizing. When you post a comment that does not do this, I will respond. Until then, you are best to be ignored. ziggy lorenc
Eugen, and for those who will have to deal with the broken-backed wreckage of our civilisation at the foot of the cliff. KF kairosfocus
Claudius I don't understand... What family environment could be more optimal than mother/father? If you have something on your mind please give in your own words. Only mother/father combo can give children complete role models. Beside that, male and female have different but complementary skill preferences which are still important but probably more so in the past when humans were living closer to nature. Eugen
StephenB -- "If you can’t speak freely without being taken to court at your own expense by the government, which includes the burden of paying for your attorney, or of being forced to recant, or for tweeting your opinions, then you don’t have free speech." I'm curious, can you provide any examples of Canadians being taken to court by the government for voicing their objection to SSM? Or are you just making crap up? StephenB -- "I won’t respond to your other three comments since they are all dismissed on the basis of fantasy." i agree. Your examples should be dismissed on the basis of fantasy. It is refreshing that you would admit it. "Meanwhile, you have not responded to my report on the testimony of children harmed by living with same-sex couples." What's to comment on? The fact that some same sex parents can be as poor at parenting as some opposite sex parents? Why should that be surprising? ziggy lorenc
StephenB CLAVDIVS, you are a riot. You think that any evidence against you, no matter how well established, consists of a right-wing hit piece and all claims that serve your purpose, no matter how biased, come from disinterested, well respected sources with no ax to grind. Nope. I have no axe to grind either way on gay marriage. I just know sound, reliable, unbiased research when I see it because that is my professional training. The Witherspoon paper you cited does not cite any evidence for its conclusions ... it consists purely of assertions. This is why the courts and a majority of the US population, including Christians, now support gay marriage -- they are not fooled by the ridiculously biased and methdologically flawed "research" like the papers you've cited. CLAVDIVS
CLAVDIVS
Oh, you mean this evidence-free, right-wing propaganda attack piece?
CLAVDIVS, you are a riot. You think that any evidence against you, no matter how well established, consists of a right-wing hit piece and all claims that serve your purpose, no matter how biased, come from disinterested, well respected sources with no ax to grind. StephenB
StephenB you mean the many members and sympathizers of the gay-lobby machine that maligns and slanders anyone who disagrees with them and misrepresents the methodology of perfectly good empirical study in order to flee from its well-warranted conclusios. Hilarious. Regnerus' study is garbage. Regnerus himself admitted, under oath, that "any suboptimal outcomes may not be due to the sexual orientation of the parent" and that the "exact source of group differences” are unknown. You have been avoiding our discussion about that very same methodology. No I haven't -- you missed my response @ 509. The methodological flaws in the paper are so horrendous that the sample size is irrelevant anyway. Basically Regnerus only sampled children who stated their biological parents did not remain together for their entire childhood. He then picked out the ones who said a parent had a homosexual relationship of any sort for any duration (including perhaps a weekend fling). And then he compared the results of this subgroup to children of married, straight couples who raised their kids for a full 18 years. This is statistical nonsense - he's comparing stable vs unstable households, not gay vs straight. The criticism by the AMA, et al, about sample size was likely because Regnerus sampled only two families where the gay parents remained together for the childrens' entire upbringing ... and the result: children of those two families flourished, according to Regnerus. CLAVDIVS
StephenB: I can’t imagine any law of nature that would forbid interracial marriage Zachriel
Whether or not you can imagine it, centuries of people held the belief that the mixing of races was an obvious affront to natural law.
No one who understands the natural law would make such an error. There are some, mostly in the southern United States, whose misguided appeals were based on a ridiculous interpretation of the bible, but they merely showed their ignorance of the natural moral law, which is based on reason--not faith. StephenB
Right — four (or was it five?) isolated, subjective, anecdotal stories, which could easily be dug up from any group gay or straight. That’s not a reliable research methodology –
Yes, it is. Interviews count as evidence. The difference is that they can't be measured quantitatively. You are confusing measurable quantitative evidence with non-measureable qualitative evidence. Both count. Sometimes, the quantitative information is more important. It has sent a lot of people to the gas chamber. I may not necessarily indicate a trend, but it dramatizes the special nature of a category of events. Besides, there is more where that came from.
--which could easily be dug up from any group gay or straight
. Excellent! Go ahead and dig it up. Make sure that your examples consist of public statements that are legally actionable if they are not true. StephenB
StephenB: I can’t imagine any law of nature that would forbid interracial marriage Whether or not you can imagine it, centuries of people held the belief that the mixing of races was an obvious affront to natural law. Zachriel
CLAVDIVS
It is preposterous to think this testimony undermines the vastly overwhelming professionally run, statistically sound studies showing children are not harmed by gay marriage.
Oh yes, you mean the many members and sympathizers of the gay-lobby machine that maligns and slanders anyone who disagrees with them and misrepresents the methodology of perfectly good empirical study in order to flee from its well-warranted conclusios. By the way, that reminds me. You have been avoiding our discussion about that very same methodology. @503, I asked: "You say that you are competent in statistics and that the sample size was too small. In your judgment, what is a appropriate sample size for this kind of study, what was the sample size for this particular study, and what was the rationale for using it? Was that rationale justified. If not, why not?" @537, I asked again: Do you even know the sample size? Or are you taking your experts word for it that it was too small? Do you know why it was trimmed down? Do you know the first sample size and the final sample size/ Do you understand the trade off that was required in order to address inconsistencies in the length of time that children lived with their parents? Do you know how and why these necessary trade offs were misrepresented by the gay lobby as “flaws?” If you are familiar with statistics, you should know how these things work and how good methodology can be falsely characterized as bad methodology. I think I asked another time or two, but who is counting. Are you ready to discuss the matter? StephenB
ZL, you obviously have not seriously read the thread above, starting with actual testimonies of victims. Frankly, the behaviour above gives abundant reason to point to the widespread effect of the breakdowns highlighted. The ongoing corruption of rationality, ethics, law, institutions and more in a context where much better performance is needed is abundantly clear warning for those willing to acknowledge it. For too many, at this point it is only after things have undeniably gone over the cliff that there will be some willingness to rethink. For too many, not even then. And such will forever be dismissing the insights that point where they do not want to go. Idea and implementer hitmen. That is part of why change theory speaks in terms of originators and champions, sponsors and godfathers as well as what I prefer to call incubators. The determined stubborn march of folly and business as usual on a slippery slope is usually that entrenched. And when state power, lawfare and ruthless amoral policy/cultural agendas are involved the challenge shoots through the roof. Which is exactly what this case is seeing. Your denial, dismissal, denigration, targetting and selective hyperskepticism do not change the evident realities. KF kairosfocus
Origenes, I apologize for missing your comment @603,
Does your answer imply that, according to you, natural moral law is neutral on interracial marriage?
Yes. I can't imagine any law of nature that would forbid interracial marriage
To be clear, am I correct to assume that if natural moral law is not silent on a matter it automatically trumps/overrules studies, similar to the Regnerus paper?
I don't think that the natural moral law bears on Regnerus' paper in any way. The former is an objective principle about right and wrong; the latter is a study of cause and effect(i.e. same sex partners cause harm to children). Since the study is morally neutral, there are no moral claims to be overruled. The paper represents a conclusion about what is, not a claim about what should be. Also, I apologize for my earlier comment concerning your attempt to anticipate what I might say. On reflection, I don't mind at all. I only object when people misrepresent what I do say. StephenB
StephenB In addition to an empirical study, which was dismissed ... Rightly dismissed, because it was garbage. ... I provided the testimony of children who have been harmed by same-sex marriage. Right -- four (or was it five?) isolated, subjective, anecdotal stories, which could easily be dug up from any group gay or straight. That's not a reliable research methodology - its a joke. It is preposterous to think this testimony undermines the vastly overwhelming professionally run, statistically sound studies showing children are not harmed by gay marriage. From the Witherspoon Institute ... You mean, the Witherspoon Institute that bought and paid for Regnerus' study, and was found by a judge to have influenced and biased the results in line with their conservative agenda by pulling the money strings until they got the results they wanted ... that Witherspoon Institute? ... Same-sex marriage in Canada had led to —restrictions on free speech rights, -parental rights in education, -autonomy rights of religious institutions, -and a weakening of the marriage culture. Oh, you mean this evidence-free, right-wing propaganda attack piece? The one based on irrational fear-mongering rather than empirical research? That's your evidence? No wonder the anti-gay lobby always lose in court. Always. CLAVDIVS
Aleta
Where? People are as free as ever to voice opposition to SSM as they were before. I think what you are looking at is a restriction on consequence free speech.
If you can't speak freely without being taken to court at your own expense by the government, which includes the burden of paying for your attorney, or of being forced to recant, or for tweeting your opinions, then you don't have free speech. I won't respond to your other three comments since they are all dismissed on the basis of fantasy. Meanwhile, you have not responded to my report on the testimony of children harmed by living with same-sex couples. Why is that? Is it because you are impervious to all evidence that proves you to be wrong? So it appears. StephenB
Eugen: occured to me because one of our neighbor’s sister is lesbian raising two lab conceived kids with her partner. When I asked him(my neighbor) if kids have a male role model he replied it was him but only once per month when they visit for couple of hours. Wouldn't that be an argument for polygamy? Multiple male and female models should be more optimal than one. velikovskys
Eugen @ 661 The logic is valid but not sound, because the first premiss is counter to the overwhelming weight of evidence. CLAVDIVS
Aleta you got the 666, what coincidence! In every situation we know, father is involved and children are unhappy about divorce. I understand that there are more difficult situations where father or mother is not involved, drug addicts, abusive or even died. We should discourage that behavior especially dying :-) Male/female role modeling is the ideal situation for development of children. In reality there are other situatinons, but I think society should encourage the most ideal setup and discourage less ideal ones. Eugen
StephenB -- "From the Witherspoon Institute: Same-sex marriage in Canada had led to —restrictions on free speech rights," Where? People are as free as ever to voice opposition to SSM as they were before. I think what you are looking at is a restriction on consequence free speech. Consequence free speech has never been a right protected by the constitution. StephenB -- "[restrictions on] parental rights in education," Parental rights have not changed. The ultimate right for any parent who disagrees with the curriculum is home schooling or private institutions. Parents have input into setting the curriculum, as they always have. The Provincial governemnts set the curriculum based upon consultation with the public and with experts. The public elects the government and can get rid of them if they disagree with anything. The public also elects the school boards who are responsible for implementing the curriculum. StephenB -- " [reduction of] autonomy rights of religious institutions," Religious institutions have not lost any autonomous rights. Churches do not have to marry any homosexuals. They do not even have to let them in the building if they want to be that pig-headed. They do not have to allow homosexuals to serve as elders, or as ministers, or priests. When employment in these institutions is open to the public, regardless of religion, they must follow the law, which means not discriminating based on sexual orientation, and providing spousal health coverage to homosexual spouses if they offer it to opposite sex spouses. A religious institution has never had an autonomous right to break the law. StephenB -- "and a weakening of the marriage culture." Now, this one is precious. Divorce rates amongst opposite sex couples have not increased since SSM was made legal. Opposite sex couples are still getting married at the same levels. Is your marriage any weaker because of SSM? I know that mine isn't. ziggy lorenc
Eugen: Many children in single parent families have no active father, or one they see seldom. Hopefully they have other male role models, but that is the same for same-sex couples. And no, all children aren't unhappy about the family breakup. Of course it is emotionally hard, but it often is also clearly for the better, and the children know that. Aleta
Hi Aleta What I meant is does the reasoning /logic make sense? It should be either valid or invalid. If it's invalid please point why. We know children from divorced families, they still have male/ female role models. Unfortunately all children we know in that situation are unhappy about family break up. #661 occured to me because one of our neighbor's sister is lesbian raising two lab conceived kids with her partner. When I asked him(my neighbor) if kids have a male role model he replied it was him but only once per month when they visit for couple of hours. Eugen
ziggy
For me to conclude with certainty that SSM is a bad thing all I would need is: some evidence that it does harm to others.
In addition to an empirical study, which was dismissed, I provided the testimony of children who have been harmed by same-sex marriage. That way, no one would be able to hide behind false claims about "flawed methodology," So far, no one on this thread who supports SSM has responded to these facts. I interpret that to mean that they will not address them because they choose not to face the truth of the matter.
Since we have over a decade of experience with this in Canada, there should be piles of evidence available if was as harmful as some would have us believe. Feel free to provide evidence for any of this. Not opinion. Not hypotheticals. Evidence.
From the Witherspoon Institute: Same-sex marriage in Canada had led to —restrictions on free speech rights, -parental rights in education, -autonomy rights of religious institutions, -and a weakening of the marriage culture. "Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage. If you need more details, let me know. StephenB
To Eugen: No. Many children are being raised without male/female role models because of the number of single parent families - many, many more than children being raised with a set of same-sex parents If we had to choose between having one female parent and two female parents, I would think the two parent family would be "more optimal." Aleta
KF -- "Clavdivs, more than enough evidence to point to credible harm ..." followed by the presentation of no evidence. SSM has been legal in Canada for well over a decade. Where is all this evidence that you keep alluding to? You asserting that it exists does not make it so. ziggy lorenc
1. Children raised by male/female role models are in optimal developmental environment 2. Children raised by homosexuals are not exposed to male/female role model environment 3. Children raised by homosexuals are in sub optimal developmental environment Does this make sense? Eugen
to Clavdivs at 651 and elsewhere: well done. Aleta
PaV: I concur, and -- sadly -- I cannot see where this ends well for our civilisation also. Those who have come to this thread do not even see how they contribute to the concern by how they have argued. Nor, do they understand the roots of those patterns. KF kairosfocus
Vividbleu @ 584: Very well said. WJM:
In this post-modern narrative, morality is deliberately replaced by sentiment, conscience is redefined as empathy and reason itself is left behind in favor of embracing a narrative that demands certain political and social investments or else being branded negatively as evil with code words like “racist”, “bigot”, and “hate”.
Very well said. This is exactly where we find ourselves. I don't see how it ends well. PaV
Clavdivs, more than enough evidence to point to credible harm -- from individuals to institutions of power, law, governance and education to worldviews and to our souls -- has been put on the table, from multiple sources. Including sobering reports by victims. You are not listening, through the force of dismissive selective hyperskepticism even as you have now indelibly stained yourself by trying the cheap shot of guilt by invidious and unwarranted association with the KKK (which speaks volumes on your actual capacity to evaluate arguments) . . . I notice, you studiously avoided projecting guilt by association with Jesus of Nazareth, who would be a much more plausible influence on my views; though, in fact the points are based on natural law, observation of the impacts of radical, ruthless agendas, and on knowing what broken and distorted families do especially to boys. Sadly, it is shattering pain that lies ahead on the current track due to a march of folly off a cliff but even at that price many will not listen. Oh, how sweetly the South wind blows. (And yes, that is -- too often -- how the world works. I ask, how much history have you seriously read, and if so, what history? Did it include say the Peloponnessian war and Alcibiades?) KF kairosfocus
kairosfocus It is patent that unless something intervenes to turn us back, only the massive shattering pain of a civilisation going over the cliff will suffice to wake many up. Right ... no citation, no actual evidence of social breakdown from the 25+ jurisdictions around the world where gay marriage has been legal for years. Its just "patent" to you, because its an idea you have in your head and we all know that in your opionion it could not possibly be wrong - no evidence required. Sorry but the world doesn't really work that way. If you want to give some people rights that other people don't have, you need to have a good reason. Hint: "It's an idea in my head without any evidence" doesn't count as a good reason. CLAVDIVS
William J Murray Again, objective evidence cannot tell us what is morally right in the first place. I agree completely. However, what are we to do when the population disagrees as to what is morally right in the first place? It's very easy for all (or almost all) to agree that murder is wrong. No problem there. But when 50% believe gay marriage is morally right and 50% are opposed, what then? We have no magic wand to tell us what the really real morally right thing is. Therefore, we have developed institutions to resolve these sorts of issues - politics, law and science, broadly speaking. The foundation stones of these institutions are universally accepted moral precepts, such as equality, honesty and peace. The job of these institutions is to decide how to apply these universal precepts in particular cases. And great weight is placed on objective evidence in order to guide these decisions, in accordance with the principles of equality and fairness. CLAVDIVS
Clavdivs and Origines, it is obvious that you are playing very familiar agit prop games which have now spread far and wide. Let me again cite where they come from, Alinsky:
5] “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 13] “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
It is patent that unless something intervenes to turn us back, only the massive shattering pain of a civilisation going over the cliff will suffice to wake many up. And those who will have the challenge to rebuild a broken backed world will call our generation accursed, even as we look at the Germany of the 1920's and 30's with pained astonishment. We are playing with fire. KF PS: Since part of the demonising game is to try to slander with the claims bigotry and racism, including a specious and grossly offensive attempt to tie me to the KKK, let me clip Girgis et al on one of the points not cogently responded to:
 antimiscegenation was about whom  to allow to marry, not what marriage was essentially about;  and sex, unlike race, is rationally relevant to the latter ques? tion. Because every law makes distinctions, there is nothing  unjustly discriminatory in marriage law’s  reliance on genu? inely relevant distinctions.  Opponents of interracial marriage typically did not deny that  marriage (understood as a union consummated by conjugal acts)  between a black and a white was possible any more than propo? nents of segregated public facilities argued that some feature of  the whites?only water fountains made it impossible for blacks to  drink from them. The whole point of antimiscegenation laws in  the United States was to prevent the genuine possibility of inter? racial  marriage  from  being  realized  or  recognized,  in  order  to  maintain the gravely unjust system of white supremacy. 9   By contrast, the current debate is precisely over whether it is  possible for the kind of union that has marriage’s essential fea? tures to exist between two people of the same sex. Revisionists  do not propose leaving intact the historic definition of marriage  and  simply  expanding  the  pool  of  people  eligible  to  marry.  Their goal is to abolish the conjugal conception of marriage in  our law 10 and replace it with the revisionist conception. 
I hope you have enough shame left to understand what you did and how indelibly it taints you. kairosfocus
CLAVDIVS said:
That said, I disagree profoundly that nothing can be resolved unless all agree on what constitutes the good. The history of civilization involves the incremental development of political and legal institutions with a key function of adjudicating between competing claims as to what is best for society. And our modern institutions perform pretty well, all things considered, in maintaining harmonious cooperation whilst respecting individual freedom and equality.
Having our competing social propositions adjudicated by the legal system is not the same as a rational argument being resolved. A legal ruling doesn't resolve any rational argument, it simply endorses (with the power of law) one side, the other, or something in-between. William J Murray
CLAVDIVS said:
But when people of good conscience differ on a matter like gay marriage, what is the point of repeating our subjective moral opinions? I feel the only way to resolve such a situation is by appeal to objective evidence.
Again, objective evidence cannot tell us what is morally right in the first place. There may be other ways to resolve issues that require admitting that "people of good conscience differ" and not attempting to characterize opposition with incendiary terms. For example, in the case of the County Clerk that didn't want to sign SSM licences, the county has since instituted a new process that doesn't require county clerks to sign the licenses. Thus, same-sex couples can get their license and the clerk can follow their religious belief and still be employed by the state. Perhaps that should have been the first course of action instead of turning it into a huge media event labeling that person as a bigot or hater. Navigating a path between what is morally right and what we should allow even if it is not morally right is often a very problematic issue. First we must agree on some basics, and we must agree to admit common-sense truths without hiding behind defensive narrative and PC shielding, and to interpret others we are debating as charitably as possible. William J Murray
William J Murray Until we agree what fundamentally constitutes a soundly good, moral society, no argument can be resolved, nor can we determine what forms and cases of harm and suffering in a good society are necessary to accept to maintain and protect that society. Plato argued in Republic that the ideal state is that which maximises harmonious cooperation amongst its citizens and institutions. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Which, let's face it, it pretty close to Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That said, I disagree profoundly that nothing can be resolved unless all agree on what constitutes the good. The history of civilization involves the incremental development of political and legal institutions with a key function of adjudicating between competing claims as to what is best for society. And our modern institutions perform pretty well, all things considered, in maintaining harmonious cooperation whilst respecting individual freedom and equality. CLAVDIVS
CLAVDIVS (to Kairosfocus): It’s your behaviour that’s grossly offensive — don’t try to blame me when I hold up a mirror so you can see clearly the logical consequences of your ridiculous “fellow traveller” rhetorical nonsense. You have repeatedly and viciously attacked my character and others’ as amoral and immoral. Your pretense of taking offense doesn’t fool anybody. If you continue with the “fellow traveller” rhetoric I will not refrain from reminding you that, by your logic *not mine*, someone who opposes gay marriage is a “fellow traveller” with the KKK.
Very well put. Origenes
KF,
DS:
Is it not cogent to suggest that the assertion:
To form a real marriage, a couple needs to establish and live out the kind of union that would be completed by, and be apt for, procreation and child-rearing.
has yet to be demonstrated?
Boils down to your accepting the extreme nominalism and arbitrary redefinition under colour of law that flows from materialistic influences.
Again, is my suggestion cogent or not? You can psychologize all you want, provided you actually answer the yes/no question. daveS
kairosfocus Clavdivs, evidence of harm including from the harmed was already put into play above but was brushed aside Citation please, showing actual evidence of social breakdown from the 25+ jurisdictions around the world where gay marriage has been legal for years. In the absence of such, we can safely assume your prognostications of disaster are based solely on your own subjective fears and prejudices that do not actually obtain in the real world. CLAVDIVS
To continue from #632: And so, whether some or most are harmed or suffer is not, and cannot be, a sound basis for determining if a thing is moral or not. Evildoers and their loved ones are harmed and suffer when things are put to right; it's unavoidable. Also, some societies need to be undermined and overturned, so whether or not a society suffers or is harmed cannot be a sound basis for determining if a thing is moral or not. That is putting the cart before the horse. Until we agree what fundamentally constitutes a soundly good, moral society, no argument can be resolved, nor can we determine what forms and cases of harm and suffering in a good society are necessary to accept to maintain and protect that society. At least SB and KF have provided their basis for what constitutes a soundly good society whether anyone agrees with them or not, but who else here has provided their basis for what is morally good - what a moral society should be based on? A claim that a thing is immoral, unjust or unfair (like not providing for SSMs and SSM adoption) is just the hollow bleating of opinion based on subjective sentiment until someone provides a presumed objective basis for their moral framework. William J Murray
William J Murray Yes, I agree with much of what you say. It does rather depend on what one means by materialism which is not entirely straightforward. Around 50% of academic philosophers are materialists and I think materialism can be a sophisticated and defensible metaphysical position given a broad enough definition of 'material'. For example, some materialists hold that there remain undiscovered 'psycho-physical laws' that ground objective morality. I am not a materialist, by the way. But when people of good conscience differ on a matter like gay marriage, what is the point of repeating our subjective moral opinions? I feel the only way to resolve such a situation is by appeal to objective evidence. CLAVDIVS
DS:
Is it not cogent to suggest that the assertion: To form a real marriage, a couple needs to establish and live out the kind of union that would be completed by, and be apt for, procreation and child-rearing. has yet to be demonstrated?
Boils down to your accepting the extreme nominalism and arbitrary redefinition under colour of law that flows from materialistic influences. Your problem is not whether men can SAY that social arrangements X,Y and Z etc are "marriage" but that you are failing to see that there is something essential about the covenantal bond between husband and wife that marks a qualitative distinction from whatever may be said under colour of law influenced by clever manipulation and power games. It is the underlying realities that -- if current politically correct innovations are left uncorrected -- will lead us over the cliff. And, getting back up from the foot of the cliff is very hard. Where realities of our morally governed nature are involved, word magic under colour of law fails. I add, that failure also implies breakdownof governance, undermining of stable society and individuals, corruption of law, legislatures, courts, policymaking, education and so forth. The slippery slope heading for the cliff is real. But as Machiavelli warned, political disasters are at first hard to recognise when they would be easy to avert. By the time the disaster is obvious, it is too late. And that is one of the major dilemmas of democracy. KF kairosfocus
Clavdivs, evidence of harm including from the harmed was already put into play above but was brushed aside so I have but little confidence that anything short of civilisation going over the cliff and breaking its back will have much effect. Even so, there will be bitter enders. I have pointed to the onward deeper issues of corruption of premises for justice, ethics, rights, law and policy, but there is little inclination to listen. The issue of correspondence between marriage and our biological nature multiplied by requisites of sound child nurture has been brushed aside also, with much evidence of false accusations of hate and bigotry tantamount to racism; which have not been withdrawn when corrected. Not a good sign. This is a very sadly familiar pattern to one who saw marxism in its heyday and during its collapse. Posterity, on current track, will rise up and call this generation an accursed, benighted generation that chose the road of a march of folly over the cliff. KF kairosfocus
Aleta said:
But, I reply, if there is no God and thus no objective source of morality, and in fact human beings are as I describe them, then your argument is empty.
If there is no objective source of morality, my argument doesn't "fail", because what I argue about what that presumed state of affairs rationally entails is still valid.
In that case, the things I have to say about about an innate evolved moral nature are relevant.
No. If there is no god and no objective source of morality, then everything you say about morality is as irrelevant to others as someone expressing what they feel about the taste of peaches or their preferred color. You're just another agglomeration of physics and chemistry making the noises such processes cause. I might as well consider what a babbling brook has to say on the matter of morality and how it came to be. But, that's what you seem to not be able to grasp. Your worldview of what morality is and what human beings are utterly undermines any potential validity or relevance and makes the whole debate process a meaningless spectacle as physics and chemistry march on to whatever end happens to be made manifest. If physics and chemistry commands it, my views or yours will change, whether words you say happen to be the magic ingredient to effect such a change, or whether it was that piece of roasted squirrel I ate yesterday. For all you know, through physics and chemistry whiff of a new perfume will make you become a devout, fanatical muslim tomorrow and you will put on a suicide vest and go blow something up. That is the absurd, necessary ramification of your naturalist worldview. William J Murray
KF,
DS, disagreement is not the issue, cogency in answer is.
Is it not cogent to suggest that the assertion:
To form a real marriage, a couple needs to establish and live out the kind of union that would be completed by, and be apt for, procreation and child-rearing.
has yet to be demonstrated? daveS
kairosfocus Clavdivs, do you see the setting up of a tainted strawman target to mischaracterise principled objections to the attempt to impose homosexualisation on marriage under false colours of law? I suppose you did this to bait, as you know I have Afro-Caribbean ancestry. Nope - didn't know that. It's irrelevant. Bait you did, your behaviour is grossly offensive and needs to be walked back . . . you have tried to taint people with racist bigotry without any proper warrant, shame on you. It's your behaviour that's grossly offensive -- don't try to blame me when I hold up a mirror so you can see clearly the logical consequences of your ridiculous "fellow traveller" rhetorical nonsense. You have repeatedly and viciously attacked my character and others' as amoral and immoral. Your pretense of taking offense doesn't fool anybody. If you continue with the "fellow traveller" rhetoric I will not refrain from reminding you that, by your logic *not mine*, someone who opposes gay marriage is a "fellow traveller" with the KKK. CLAVDIVS
StephenB -- "Interesting. I ask you what arguments would have persuaded you and you say no arguments were made. Do you understand what is missing in your answer? Here is the flaw: There is no answer." OK, I will try to answer your question. I have pasted your question below so that there will be no confusion.
I think you are just fooling yourself with that claim. Exactly what could have been said that would have persuaded you that gay marriage is a bad thing.
For me to conclude with certainty that SSM is a bad thing all I would need is: 1 -- some evidence that it does harm to others. Being harmful to the couple involved is not sufficient unless we are going to ban everything that is potentially harmful. This being said, there is no evidence that it is harmful to the couples involved. 2 -- some evidence that it does harm to others. 3 -- some evidence that it does harm to society. Since we have over a decade of experience with this in Canada, there should be piles of evidence available if was as harmful as some would have us believe. Feel free to provide evidence for any of this. Not opinion. Not hypotheticals. Evidence. ziggy lorenc
ZL, homosexuality is strongly associated with many high risk lifestyle choices independent of degree of social support. Encouraging people in damaging behaviour is not advisable. KF kairosfocus
DS, disagreement is not the issue, cogency in answer is. Clavdiv's attempted critique failed from its outset, on dismissive appeal to the naturalistic fallacy and question-begging. And I am particularly concerned as to the underlying views of the nature of human nature, responsible rational freedom, the world and the import for justice, rights, duties, ethics, law and governance, given some sobering history not just inferences and debate talking points. KF kairosfocus
CLAVDIVS asks:
But is there good reason to think materialists are any more or less clouded in their conscience and reason, on average, than people of any other metaphysical persuasion?
I think some metaphysical frameworks are more conducive to properly using conscience and reason than others, and may provide a better opportunity to correct understanding of moral oughts and ought-nots. The current majority form of Islam, for example, eschews logic and conscience as arbiter of truth and proper behavior so I think that is good reason to believe muslims are, generally speaking, more susceptible to clouded reason and conscience. It really depends on what one means by materialism and whether or not materialists are committed to reason and conscience as objective arbiters of right and wrong (as opposed to, say anti-foundationalism and subjective empathy), but ultimately I don't see how materialism can offer such a position on reason and conscience. I'd say materialism is definitionally a poor metaphysic for providing access to clear reasoning and access to conscience, but that doesn't mean any particular materialist (or person using that label) has less access, or a more clouded moral view, than anyone else, or are necessarily less rational than anyone else. William J Murray
ZL -- "You have not presented any arguments that have merit". StephenB -- "If that was true, you would have been able to refute them." They have been soundly refuted by others. Repeating what they have said is a waste of my time. StephenB -- "Sorry, but your comment is both evasive and illogical. It is evasive because you fail to take on the challenge squarely. It is illogical because your non-answer is really a quiet way of saying that you would let the homosexual die prematurely rather than warn him, which would violate your politically correct sensibilities." It wasn't evasive. You provided two options and completely ignored a third. I assume that this was not intentional. It is true that, on average, homosexuals die prematurely. But this is an average. You refuse to address the root cause of this. 1 -- If the shorter life-span is due to the fact that they are attracted to people of the same sex then all the warning will do nothing to help. 2 -- If it is due to promiscuity and STDs, then good luck trying to resolve that one. That statistic affect the gay and straight communities alike. For the straight community we encourage committed relationships and marriage. Why shouldn't that be the approach for homosexuals as well? 3 -- If it is due to the increased stress resulting from people's reaction to their being gay, then why don't we make every effort to remove those stresses? ziggy lorenc
KF,
PS: The paper which is still being dodged after 500 comments: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp.....eFinal.pdf
I really don't think it has been dodged. Many of us just disagree with it. I pointed out one such disagreement in #531, which Zachriel elaborated on. CLAVDIVS has posted more comprehensive criticisms. daveS
Clavdivs, you know there are NO arguments on matters of consequence with only undisputed premises. So, on serious matters the real dispute soon is alternative first principles or first plausibles, and the ones for evolutionary materialism are where its troubles come from. As for evo mat and its self referential incoherence that is abundantly implied by key admissions against interest by many major advocates. In skeletal form, I can point out:
a: Evolutionary materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature; from hydrogen to humans by undirected chance and necessity. b: Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws of chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of happenstance initial circumstances. (This is physicalism. This view covers both the forms where (a) the mind and the brain are seen as one and the same thing, and those where (b) somehow mind emerges from and/or "supervenes" on brain, perhaps as a result of sophisticated and complex software looping. The key point, though is as already noted: physical causal closure -- the phenomena that play out across time, without residue, are in principle deducible or at least explainable up to various random statistical distributions and/or mechanical laws, from prior physical states. Such physical causal closure, clearly, implicitly discounts or even dismisses the causal effect of concept formation and reasoning then responsibly deciding, in favour of specifically physical interactions in the brain-body control loop; indeed, some mock the idea of -- in their view -- an "obviously" imaginary "ghost" in the meat-machine. [[There is also some evidence from simulation exercises, that accuracy of even sensory perceptions may lose out to utilitarian but inaccurate ones in an evolutionary competition. "It works" does not warrant the inference to "it is true."] ) c: But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this meat-machine picture. So, we rapidly arrive at Crick's claim in his The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994): what we subjectively experience as "thoughts," "reasoning" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as the unintended by-products of the blind natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains that (as the Smith Model illustrates) serve as cybernetic controllers for our bodies. d: These underlying driving forces are viewed as being ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance shaped by forces of selection [["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning [["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [[i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism]. And, remember, the focal issue to such minds -- notice, this is a conceptual analysis made and believed by the materialists! -- is the physical causal chains in a control loop, not the internalised "mouth-noises" that may somehow sit on them and come along for the ride. (Save, insofar as such "mouth noises" somehow associate with or become embedded as physically instantiated signals or maybe codes in such a loop. [[How signals, languages and codes originate and function in systems in our observation of such origin -- i.e by design -- tends to be pushed to the back-burner and conveniently forgotten. So does the point that a signal or code takes its significance precisely from being an intelligently focused on, observed or chosen and significant alternative from a range of possibilities that then can guide decisive action.]) e: For instance, Marxists commonly derided opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismissed qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? Should we not ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is little more than yet another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? And -- as we saw above -- would the writings of a Crick be any more than the firing of neurons in networks in his own brain? f: For further instance, we may take the favourite whipping-boy of materialists: religion. Notoriously, they often hold that belief in God is not merely cognitive, conceptual error, but delusion. Borderline lunacy, in short. But, if such a patent "delusion" is so utterly widespread, even among the highly educated, then it "must" -- by the principles of evolution -- somehow be adaptive to survival, whether in nature or in society. And so, this would be a major illustration of the unreliability of our conceptual reasoning ability, on the assumption of evolutionary materialism. g: Turning the materialist dismissal of theism around, evolutionary materialism itself would be in the same leaky boat. For, the sauce for the goose is notoriously just as good a sauce for the gander, too. h: That is, on its own premises [[and following Dawkins in A Devil's Chaplain, 2004, p. 46], the cause of the belief system of evolutionary materialism, "must" also be reducible to forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity that are sufficiently adaptive to spread this "meme" in populations of jumped- up apes from the savannahs of East Africa scrambling for survival in a Malthusian world of struggle for existence. Reppert brings the underlying point sharply home, in commenting on the "internalised mouth-noise signals riding on the physical cause-effect chain in a cybernetic loop" view: . . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
And much more can be shown. Indeed WJM above has elaborated one facet of the above. KF kairosfocus
Clavdivs, do you see the setting up of a tainted strawman target to mischaracterise principled objections to the attempt to impose homosexualisation on marriage under false colours of law? I suppose you did this to bait, as you know I have Afro-Caribbean ancestry. Bait you did, your behaviour is grossly offensive and needs to be walked back . . . you have tried to taint people with racist bigotry without any proper warrant, shame on you. Maybe you need to know that the Girgis in the paper that after 500 comments you have yet to seriously engage is IIRC Egyptian. KF PS: The paper which is still being dodged after 500 comments: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf kairosfocus
CLAVDIVS:
I agree with this. But when the population is split 50-50 on whether a course of action is truly morally right or wrong, what are we supposed to do other than fall back on rational argument?
Is what is moral decided by popular opinion? Whether the split is 99-1 or 50-50, our view on a thing should be decided rationally.
When it comes to assessing which arguments are strongly supported, why should we not rely on the mechanisms we already have established to settle such questions, such as rigorous scholarship, expert consensus, and adversarial legal proceedings?
Because none of those things can ground what morality should be in the first place, and all of those things are corrupt institutions of men and subject to politics and agendas in the second place. You might as well ask me why we cannot settle such questions by asking a congress of clergymen. Let's look at the question this way: did the children of mixed-race marriages (in most areas) suffer after such marriages became legal? Of course they did. Do children raised by SSM's suffer as a result in most areas? It's just common sense that they do in this time when SSM's raising children about as accepted as M-R marriages were through most of the 20th century. So, if children must endure some suffering because an immoral aspect of our culture has been righted, so be it. We all agree that is a necessary downside to a greater evil being righted. Denying that the children raised by gay adoptees largely suffer negative consequences, in most geographical areas, due to the nature of their parents seems to me to be a position held against common sense and for political reasons (much like denying that abortion isn't killing a human being). Of course they suffer negative effects. The question is, is their suffering a price paid in service of eliminating an unjust, even evil, law? The question of if SSM and MRM are "the same thing" in principle (a moral good that should be adopted regardless of the consequences on the children) is the real question, not whether or not anyone suffers because of changed laws. So, claiming that the children suffer is, to me, a largely irrelevant argument here (bear with me, KF and SB) because "reducing suffering" is not necessarily an indication that something is moral. Sometimes, to do the moral thing, people - even children - have to suffer. Even the argument that our society will destabilize and fall into ruin in itself is not fundamentally relevant here because some societies need to be destabilized and ruined because they embrace and enforce evil (I'm looking at Iran & Syria). There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and suffering (yes,even by children) if what is morally right begins to undermine those oppressive, evil societies/governments. KF's and SB arguments only become relevant after one has adopted a meaningful moral foundation by which such arguments have meaning and in which debate can be grounded. We must first agree what morality should be about and what it is essentially rooted in before we can judge if a society should be saved and before we can know if the children suffering because of some marriage law is a preventable evil or a necessary outcome of overcoming evil. Until there is fundamental common ground reached, arguments are not really arguments, they are really just statements about personal views. (I think some of SB's arguments take the form of adopting arguendo that morality is about relieving or preventing suffering in order to make a case for those who have that view of morality. Correct me if I'm wrong, SB. And KF's arguments are almost always about establishing a sound basis for such arguments to ensue from because otherwise, they're not really arguments at all, just political and emotional posturings (ie, Aleta not debating, but issuing "statements"). That's why here at UD we tend to draw the argument back to foundational assumptions that ground the debate in the first place.) William J Murray
kairosfocus Still waiting on any actual evidence of social breakdown from the 25+ jurisdictions around the world where gay marriage has been legal for years. In the absence of such, we can safely assume your prognostications of disaster are based solely on your own subjective fears and prejudices that do not actually obtain in the real world. CLAVDIVS
kairosfocus given [materialism's] inherent self falsification I'm yet to see materialism's self-falsification formally demonstrated via a logical argument with undisputed premisses. When you get around to it, be sure to tell the ~50% of academic philosophers who haven't figured it out yet. CLAVDIVS
to wjm: Your arguments boil down to "if everything is just physics and chemistry, one doesn't have any ground for morality." But, I reply, if there is no God and thus no objective source of morality, and in fact human beings are as I describe them, then your argument is empty. In that case, the things I have to say about about an innate evolved moral nature are relevant. Origenes wrote above:
Materialism cannot ground morality. Sure. No argument here. But which is it? Has everyone the same access to the Natural Law, as PaV suggests, whether they acknowledge its existence or not, or are materialists cut off from Natural Law and are they therefore, by definition, wrong about SSM and everything else?
This remark brings up an important point: what we believe about the metaphysical foundation about the world doesn't change reality. It may change how we think and act: as wjm said later, it "it can cloud your conscience and reason just as any unsound belief can, just as emotions can", but whatever the truth about human nature is, it applies to us all irrespective of the differences in our beliefs about it. So I consider the standard "it's all just physics and chemistry" objection to the fact that we are biological, material creatures (in my opinion), to be part of the "cloud" produced by a belief that there is an objective morality and we have access to it. PaV wrote a long reply to me yesterday that I may not get back to completely responding to, but there was one part appropriate to this reply. Note the "in my opinion" in the above paragraph. PaV wrote,
Speaking of opinions, this is no more than your opinion.
My response: True. On topics like this, all we can offer is our opinions. We can offer supporting logical arguments, and support our arguments with facts, but unless we have something that can really be nailed down with empirical facts, what we have to offer each other is our opinions. We all try to rationally defend our opinions, but all rational arguments include premises, value judgments, and assumptions that others might not agree with, so ultimately what we do is exchange opinions and hope to influence people to move their opinions closer to ours. This question of the ultimate, metaphysical nature of human beings is not decidable through empirical investigation, and without empirical facts, rational explanations will always be grounded on unverifiable premises and assumptions. So all we can do is share our perspectives with others, learning through the interaction of doing so, and hope to grow in our understanding as best we can, according to our own lights. Aleta
kairosfocus So, the readily identifiable strategic source of the Ku Klux Klan's narrative of anti-gay sentiment is their goal of restoring a Christian nation free from drugs, homosexualilty and racial mixing. Its chains of influence spread through primarily religious channels, as they have adopted a "saviour mentality" that promises through Christianity to rescue their country from its impending downfall. By your logic, we can brand as a "fellow traveller" of the KKK anyone who sympathises with their agenda to stave off moral and social disaster via the adoption of strict Christian principles. Now, does that sound reasonable to you? CLAVDIVS
PS: Plato's warning in The Laws Bk X, c 360 BC:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.
kairosfocus
Clavdivs:
is there good reason to think materialists are any more or less clouded in their conscience and reason, on average, than people of any other metaphysical persuasion
Yes, given its inherent self falsification and amorality multiplied by institutional dominance and agendas of radical secularisation at work. But it is not just those who formally identify as such but the fellow travellers influenced by this. Especially when they begin to follow the blunders of Lewontin:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
Notice the aim to embed evo mat influences in the popular mindset, in the name of Big-S science. Which, is just what we are seeing. leading to the march of folly Plato warned against 2350 years ago. KF kairosfocus
Clavdivs, there is always the issue of the adherence to the narrative that comes from a readily identifiable strategic source and its chains of influence. By now the cultural marxism agenda and the classical marxist tactics are all too well known. So are the worldview axioms, influences on thought and morality, agenda and institutional dominance of evolutionary materialist scientism and linked radical secularisation. Particularly, when the pattern of self referential incoherence, amorality, radical relativism, extreme nominalism and the game of manipulation and intimidation, denigration and polarisation come to the fore backed by the characteristic selective hyperskepticism. Such signs have long been quite evident, here and all over UD. The old saying is likely too fast in concluding but has a point: once, accident; twice, coincidence; three times, enemy action. And yes this is a simple form of design inference on signs and patterns. KF kairosfocus
William J Murray @ 620 Calling yourself a materialist or believing in materialism doesn’t cause your access to natural law via conscience and reason to be revoked, but it can cloud your conscience and reason just as any unsound belief can, just as emotions can. That's a good point. But is there good reason to think materialists are any more or less clouded in their conscience and reason, on average, than people of any other metaphysical persuasion? CLAVDIVS
kairosfocus Clavdivs, perhaps you now recognise that there is such a thing as the fellow traveller who goes with the evo mat dominated narrative and agenda, starting with being caught up in cultural trends and influences then going on to being part of front groups or movements etc. Such often provide cover for the agenda by lending it their faces and voices. KF So ... by your logic, if you support something, and somebody else supports the same thing, that makes you a fellow traveller? Atheists support the idea that 2+2=4. So do you. So you're a fellow traveller with atheists? The Ku Klux Klan opposes gay marriage .... See where this is going? It appears to me like your "fellow traveller" concept is just substanceless rhetorical nonsense -- a bogeyman ad hominem term you throw indiscriminately at anyone who disagrees with you on anything. It makes your position look weak ... didn't you know? CLAVDIVS
WJM, Yup, that is why I stress the issue of responsible rational freedom as an endowment of God, and the accessibility of the natural law to certainty on core principles. One can reject self evident first principles, but at the price of embracing absurdity, which is what we see. Likewise, an oligarchic power -- typically in reaction to the threat of anarchic chaos -- can take power and impose its will, but that violates responsible rational freedom. That said, I highlight that modern democracy was not possible until mass literacy and a free widespread easily accessible press existed. Prior to that, the most we could hope for was a lawful state responding to a corpus of reasonable and just law, the classic cases being Common Law and Corpus Juris Civilis. It is no accident that both of these are specifically Christian, though they also reflect other influences and have their flaws, some of them serious. I fear, as we move away from a print based media culture, we may inadvertently be undermining the foundations of democratic self government -- electronic media are far more liable to be principally emotive in impact and so are much more prone to being manipulative and are far less easy to analyse and correct. KF kairosfocus
Zeroseven -- "Ziggy, I think I am in love with you." That is flattering, but I am already spoken for. ziggy lorenc
Origenes asks:
Materialism cannot ground morality. Sure. No argument here. But which is it? Has everyone the same access to the Natural Law, as PaV suggests, whether they acknowledge its existence or not, or are materialists cut off from Natural Law and are they therefore, by definition, wrong about SSM and everything else?
Calling yourself a materialist or believing in materialism doesn't cause your access to natural law via conscience and reason to be revoked, but it can cloud your conscience and reason just as any unsound belief can, just as emotions can. I think command authority theism can also easily cloud one's perception of natural law and do as much harm as materialism over time. William J Murray
William J Murray Most of these are basically good, moral people willing to act in defiance of society and law according to what they believe (even unadmitted) to be true moral right and wrong. I agree with this. But when the population is split 50-50 on whether a course of action is truly morally right or wrong, what are we supposed to do other than fall back on rational argument? Character attacks and logical fallacies are not rational arguments. That goes for both sides. Simply repeating one's religious or moral opinions is not going advance things either. When it comes to assessing which arguments are strongly supported, why should we not rely on the mechanisms we already have established to settle such questions, such as rigorous scholarship, expert consensus, and adversarial legal proceedings? CLAVDIVS
WJM, well put. KF PS: Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
kairosfocus
Aleta said:
William, I know that your view is that unless morality is somehow grounded (purportedly) in some objective reality to which we have access, then it is merely subjective, and that then people have no reason not to to do anything they want: it’s not just a slippery slope, but rather a black-and-white precipice to nihilism. So actually discussing this with you, which we did at length one other time, is not worth my time.
It's odd that you say that it is not worth your time apparently because you already know my position. If the only thing that makes a discussion "worth your time" is finding out the other person's position on a matter, then surely most of what you write here is "not worth your time" because you already know the views of most of the participants here you engage with. Correct? Is it "not worth your time" to engage in a discussion in order to demonstrate to onlookers (and this site has quite a few thousand onlookers)the rational soundness of your views?
1. I believe human beings have evolved to have moral nature, and that this has been part of our evolution as a social animal. ... But I believe we are materially-based biological organisms, and that there is no non-material dualistic aspect to our existence.
There are questions here, right off the bat, to consider about your worldview. First is the question of if whether or not a being produced entirely from unliving, material forces and necessarily, entirely obeying the naturalistic forces of chemistry and physics can even meaningfully be said to have a "moral" nature at all. This depends on what one is using the term "moral" to mean. If one uses the classic definition, then morality is about how one ought behave; but under the naturalist view of human behavior, humans always act how they must act - according to what physics and chemistry demands. Indeed, under the naturalist view, there is no other available cause for any thought or behavior. The idea that an entirely physics and chemistry-driven being ought do something other than what physics and chemistry actually drive that entity to do cannot, to my knowledge, be rationally supported. Care to give it a try? Also, you appear to definitionally link morality to the social aspect of human interaction, when the classic definition of morality draws no such parameter around what "morality" entails. You're free to believe that, of course, but the rest of us have no reason to consider that limitation valid.
2. I believe that our moral belief system, and our desire to behave morally (which varies among individuals), develops just as many other aspects of us do: through a combination of developmental biology (nature) and learning from our surroundings (nurture.) So morality is a combination of innate tendencies to judge right from wrong with a great deal of cultural influences about the particular details of right and wrong.
Here you have terminologically strayed from your original premise of humans being the result of the evolutionary processes of material forces acting in biology. IMO, re-labeling "physics and chemistry" as "innate tendencies", "nurture" and "cultural influences" serves to obfuscate what is actually going on in your worldview: physics and chemistry generating effects via the interaction of various physical commodities. So, when you say: "judge right from wrong", it invokes a classical perspective that is unavailable to you. Perhaps you mean it in a different way, but the problem is what the terms appear to mean. Under your worldview, it is perhaps more accurate to say that a physical entity is driven by physics and chemistry to feel it ought do one thing, and ought not do another, and that you are calling this aspect of physics & chemistry driven activity "morality".
However, also people mature, and just as children go from concrete to abstract thinking, morality goes from being primarily influenced by feeling pressure from the judgments of adults and the desire to avoid punishment (external sources) to an internalized sense of willful choice informed at least in part by reason and education.
Under your naturalism, all of the above is nothing more than terminological re-characterizations of the same fundamental, exclusive driving force of human behavior (energies and particles interacting according to physics and chemistry) in order to gain conceptual distance from the naturalist facts of your view of morality. In other words, calling some group of those forces interacting "nurture" and "judgement" and "morality" and an "internalized sense of willful choice" doesn't change the fact that what is going on is nothing more than the brute, ongoing effects of the processes of physics and chemistry. For example, because I might terminologically refer to what computer-generated characters do in a video game as their "judgement" and "internalized sense of choice" and "nurture" doesn't change the fact that everything in the video game is just acting as the code dictates. I can say the code is "making a choice" or "making a judgement", but under the classic understanding of those terms, it is no more making a "choice" or a "judgement" than river water makes a choice or a judgement about which way to go; the outcome is dictated by physics (and/or chemistry). You go on through your statements furthering your re-characterization of "physics and chemistry" in broader terms to make it seem like something else is going on, but the problem is that everything you say later is rationally laid to ruin by the nature of your premise: naturalism ultimately insists that all human behavior is generated by physics and chemistry and not by a locus of consciousness that has any top-down free will power. The terms you use throughout your statements to re-characterize your naturalist premise are terms that deeply implicate, classically and traditionally speaking, metaphysics your naturalism doesn't have access to. So, what you must mean by them boils down to "the cause and effect of physics and chemistry", which ruins renders the moral judgement of humans equitable to the moral judgement of rocks rolling down hills or the choice of river water about where to flow. That physics and chemistry happen to also make humans feel as if they have some sort of top-down choice and feel as if they are responsible and feel as if they have a conscience and moral obligations is irrelevant because all of those sensations are also physics and chemistry driven instances of physical cause and effect, just like the actions of rocks rolling down hills and river water taking any particular curve. You say in your statement that you think I and others are "wrong" about where we think morality comes from and what it is. Why should I care what a physics and chemistry-driven biological automaton utters? Like anyone else under your paradigm, you would think and say whatever physics and chemistry commands; you would feel and believe whatever physics and chemistry dictate. If chemistry and physics dictate that you bark like dog and believe you have said something profoundly wise, that is what you will do. If physics and chemistry dictate that you rape little boys and mutilate little girls an believe that to be a good, moral thing, that is what you will do. Period. If those things are what physics and chemistry commanded, that is what you would be doing and arguing for today, and there would be absolutely no external standard by which you, let alone anyone else, could judge your behavior and beliefs wrong, nor would you have any objective, top-down access or capacity for making such a judgment even if such a standard existed, let alone change your behavior. That is the sad dilemma you find yourself in, Aleta, whether you know it or not. Under your paradigm, you and KF and Stephen and Gandhi and Obama and George Wallace and everyone else are just streams of water going wherever physics and chemistry dictates - yet here you are, arguing as if any of us could do anything other than what physics and chemistry commands. Do you also try to argue rivers out of their course, or try to convince the weather to change? William J Murray
Clavdivs, perhaps you now recognise that there is such a thing as the fellow traveller who goes with the evo mat dominated narrative and agenda, starting with being caught up in cultural trends and influences then going on to being part of front groups or movements etc. Such often provide cover for the agenda by lending it their faces and voices. KF PS: Above you dismissed Girgis et al as being fallacious, you started with the so called naturalistic fallacy. I pointed out that they started from generally acknowledged principles and worked from there. I further argue that IS and OUGHT can be fused at world foundation level. But not on materialism. PPS: Homosexualisation of marriage under false colour of law, rights and equality, destabilises marriage, corrupts -- further corrupts -- law and our capacity for moral reasoning. It will destabilise children and society across time, amplifying the already in progress decline with mass bloodguilt in the context of abortion on demand as a major component. kairosfocus
kairosfocus Who, exactly, are the "fellow travellers" of evolutionary materialism? CLAVDIVS
kairosfocus Why are you babbling on about evolutionary materialism? I'm not a materialist, and neither are you, and I bet neither are Girgis et al. This is the third time I have had to point this out. Piercing through your opaque, repetitive and maundering prose, I note you have failed to grasp the nettle of the criticism at 519. Did you even read it? I agree Girgis et al speak about "principles of commitment to permanent union that serves the welfare of children and the advancement of stable, sustainable society." I agree these are relevant and worthy principles. But Girgis et al do not claim gay marriages are any less committed to permanent union, serving the welfare of children, or advancing stable, sustainable society. They agree gays and straights are equivalent in this respect. The only significant difference between gay and straight marriage that Girgis et al point to is child-bearing capacity. This is a factual matter of biology, *NOT* a matter of principle. Yet they purport to derive an ought - marriage ought to be procreative - from the is that only straight couples can procreate. This you have failed to address, let alone rebut. The Girgis et al paper is fatally flawed. CLAVDIVS
Origines, by embracing as a yardstick what is inherently self-falsifying and amoral, evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers unfortunately warp their ability to reason soundly on the matter at hand. For instance as truth accurately describes reality but will thus contradict false claims that are in use as a yardstick, to the one endarkened by such falsities, the truth (and the right) will seem false or even absurd. This is tied to the principle of explosion and it is one reason that modelling theory stresses validation and not going outside the range of validity of a model -- all models (being "simplifications" of reality) are false, some are useful. I suggest the just above may be helpful. KF kairosfocus
Clavdivs, Sadly, you have just now spoken with patent disregard to truth and fairness in hope that what you have said or suggested will be taken as so. It seems I will need to roll the tape from 248 in answer to you (bearing in mind what I have noted above): __________________ >>It is interesting to see how you snipped and cited my actual comment in 227 above:
C: Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Don’t you agree? K: Nope … Hilarious!
The actual remark at 227 above:
Nope, you are falling under no true scotsman. In effect, assuming that evo mat scientism has cornered the market on rationality instead of recognising its self-referential incoherence, radical relativism and amorality leading to might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘reason’ and ‘truth’ tactics. Necessarily false. Ex falso quodlibet then kicks in, and you are measuring truth by a yardstick that embeds falsity. Truth as that which accurately describes and corresponds to reality will differ from such a flawed yardstick but if the yardstick is imposed truth will seem false and false true at least until one is falling over the cliff. Instead, start from the premise that any A is there because B is accepted (often implicitly) thence, C, D etc. Infinite regress is impossible and question begging circularity is futile. We face finitely remote first plausibles at world roots level. Thence, worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). In this context, responsible dialogue would start by recognising that the Judaeo-Christian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome is foundational to our civilisation. It would on this topic recognise that marriage has been a global pattern across civilisations and time, with inferior variants and wrenchings such as Nero being obvious by contrast. Further, it would recognise that committed heterosexual conjugal bonding creates a stable context for child nurture and social stability. Especially, by restraining and guiding society’s built-in ticking time bomb: young men [--> notice, how consistent my underlying analysis has been by comparing the just above]. Instead of worshipping fashionable social engineering, it would recognise that it is possible to destructively monkey with things that are foundational. And, that slippery, crumbling slopes next to cliffs are real. In this context, a principled discussion is on the table.
Now, you tried to categorise Girgis et al under several fallacies: >>K:… you are falling under no true scotsman. I {C] showed @ 205 how the George, Girgis and Anderson paper is irrational because of its logical fallacies: – It derives an ought from an is – the naturalistic fallacy>> a: Nope, of course you first here [fail to recognise] that the evolutionary materialistic worldview has no IS capable of grounding ought, i.e. that it is inherently amoral; thus, a menace to a race that is necessarily governed by ought. b: Actually, Girgis et al start from prior moral precepts, such as that human stability and committed family structures that foster same are vital to human thriving, and that such thriving of humans in society across time is an inherent value. c: For instance in their opening words they describe the conjugal view:
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate)and renew their union by conjugal acts —acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.
d: Thus we see principles of commitment to permanent union that serves the welfare of children and the advancement of stable, sustainable society. Those are norms that are historic and generally accepted, so if you find them questionable and dubious to the point of your next objection . . . alleged question begging, that is quite informative about the consequences of the agenda you advocate. >>– It begs the question>> e: That is, you imply but do not wish to openly state rejection of the above norms, showing the antisocial, nihilistic character of the alternatives you evidently support. f: It is thus a very relevant point for serious questions to be asked on underlying principles, this is not at all irrational. >>– It reifies the ‘essence’ of marriage – a fallacy of ambiguity, specifically the pathetic fallacy>> g: Reification is one of those fashionable dismissive assertions that is usually dubious, boiling down to an implied commitment to extreme nominalism, often rooted in evolutionary materialism where the only actual natures are those of core particles. h: Instead, we can infer, you reject stability of the heterosexual [--> for clarity/emphasis: covenantal, conjugal] bond and the stable environment it provides for children, promoting in its stead an inherently unstable emotional bond, and relationships that are so diverse relative to fidelity and commitment of union that they are of alien character. (Of course the easy divorce game which went through in a previous generation set the stage for such and this shows just how unwise it was.) >>These fallacies derive from the rules of right reason. You cannot deny these are irrational without falling into self-refuting absurdity.>> i: The issues here neither hinge on identity nor assertion of contradictions, instead they pivot on rejection of fundamental values hidden behind the rhetoric of selective hyperskepticism and an implicit evolutionary materialism. >>You do agree these fallacies are irrational, don’t you?>> j: C, you have asserted fallacy where in fact the problem is you disagree with core principles of commitment, conjugality, stable child nurture and the thriving of people in society, due to a combination of naturalism and ill advised excessive individualism. k: The issue now pivots on the key values at the root of the conjugal view of marriage, and it is quite evident that the open rejection of such would instantly red fag the dangers, so instead a rhetoric of bigoted religiously motivated exclusion from “rights” and a redefinition of marriage based on nominalism [it is only a word, unconnected to anything essential to being human so can be redefined at will] has been used to manipulate law to the detriment of all. >> ____________________ In short, your dismissals fail and have been pointed out as failing for some days now. In 514, I went on to warn:
what was shown above — cf 248 — was that in your haste to disagree it was you who failed to recognise the generally accepted first moral principles at work, that you projected question begging as though you could assume dismissal of first moral principles without severe worldview consequences of such dismissal and more. Drumbeat repetition of your errors does not justify dismissal of what you disagree with. KF PS: Given the nature of human moral government, the biology of reproduction, requisites of long term stable family and community environments for child nurture and more, the modern day fiction under colour of law is not marriage but a deliberate and damaging distortion. To sustain it, there will be denial of evidence of harm done until there is undeniable collapse. And even then there will be scapegoats everywhere but in the radical secularist, lab coat clad evolutionary materialist hollowing out of moral governance and the radical ill advised sociocultural engineering now underway. As to the damage of warping identity, breaking down primary relationships, tainting education and society, silencing and increasingly persecuting those who differ, that is not even seen as harm done. The damage to legal systems, government and liberty, that is not even on the radar screen. As to the distortion of understanding that as rights are moral claims to have a right you must be in the right or you wickedly impose evil on others as claimed duty, that is ignored even as it brings creeping tyranny and irreconcilable conflict and alienation in its train. The tipping point where a sense of loyalty is fatally eroded is coming.
In 521, I went on to speak in more details to the IS-OUGHT gap, answering the so-called naturalistic fallacy by showing how Hume's guillotine argument analysis fails to adequately address the issue of a necessary being, world root level IS that can and does properly ground OUGHT: ________________ >>You cannot derive an ought from a material is. Likewise, we cannot ground ought at any level above world-foundations, or world roots. But we are not locked up to material entities as serious candidate root reality. What evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers never wish to acknowledge is that moral government points to a different order of being and to a world root level IS that readily grounds OUGHT. Indeed, the only serious candidate that does so; and, that did so long before Hume et al put up the idea of an impassable gulch between IS and OUGHT. For years at UD the answer has been repeatedly put on the table but has been consistently ignored. A look at it can be had through Dembski’s remark about Boethius:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” . . .
In short, goodness is the answer. Specifically, moral government and responsible rational freedom would be perfectly grounded in a world root is that at the same time is the perfectly good giver of purpose and freedom. Where, evil would then be the perversion, frustration or privation of the good out of proper purpose, ending in chaos and harm. I summarise that IS who grounds OUGHT:
the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, Just and good Lord of all Worlds, fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
Where, conscience is a moral sense that when properly nurtured guides reason and will to the right in light of first principles of moral reasoning. As to the irretrievable flaws of evolutionary materialism, I again cite Will Hawthorne:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the ‘is’ being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from [[a material] ‘is’.
And again, I point to a discussion on the objectivity of morality here on. As to the imposition of so-called same sex marriage under false colour of law, it is a manifest frustration and twisting out of proper end of the framework of marriage and family. And if you cannot see the harm and chaos imposed by undermining moral governance in our civilisation it would indicate that you are in the position corrected by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
>> _________________ In short, you have tried to sustain an ill founded dismissal based on a strawmannish misreading in the teeth of cogent correction. I suggest, a better reading of Girgis et al is in order. KF kairosfocus
William J Murray, Materialism cannot ground morality. Sure. No argument here. But which is it? Has everyone the same access to the Natural Law, as PaV suggests, whether they acknowledge its existence or not, or are materialists cut off from Natural Law and are they therefore, by definition, wrong about SSM and everything else? Origenes
Ziggy said:
When I started reading articles and comments here, I expected to have my beliefs reinforced and supported. Instead, thanks to people like StephenB and KairosFocus, my views on same sex marriage are changing. I think for the better. Before I started reading their comments, I was mildly opposed to SSM. But if StephenB and KairosFocus are presenting the best arguments available against SSM, then I am forced to rethink my views on this subject. The idea of homosexuality still concerns me. But the idea of the irrational hatred expressed by KairosFocus and StephenB towards homosexuals concerns me even more.
If the perceived "hatred" and "intolerance" of others towards a proposition can move you to accept that proposition, then I suggest your original opposition to that proposition wasn't based on anything except emotion in the first place. Do you really think emotion is the best tool to use in sorting out these kinds of issues? William J Murray
PaV said:
I don’t believe in the least that I have “superior access” to moral knowledge. I believe in the Natural Law, which means that EVERYONE has the same “access.” It’s universal; it’s in all peoples, which underlines what I wrote above about how all cultures view marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. For the sake of perspective: if I insisted that the true color of the sky is orange, and you insist that it is blue, does that mean you have “superior access” to colors? And if 300,000 people signed a petition declaring the color of the sky to be orange, would you change your mind?
Indeed. And Aleta and others know this because they will surely disobey the law and society when their moral knowledge obliges them to do so, even in some cases putting their own safety at risk. But she and others will on the one hand deny that an objective moral law exists and that even if it did, no one has reliable access to interpreting it, while on the other hand they act entirely as if such a moral foundation exists and they have reliable access to it. If not, from whence comes their right and willingness to act against the law or public opinion if they believe the current moral law or code immoral? Most of these are basically good, moral people willing to act in defiance of society and law according to what they believe (even unadmitted) to be true moral right and wrong. The problem is when the desire to be seen and known as a "good" person falls prey to a sustained media indoctrination bent on portraying an issue in a manner that makes one side of the issue appear to be intolerant, bigoted, prejudiced or "hateful", and insists on portraying the other side as victims worthy of our heartfelt, intrinsic moral desire to protect and support those we are largely manipulated to see as outcast, downtrodden, isolated or shunned. In this post-modern narrative, morality is deliberately replaced by sentiment, conscience is redefined as empathy and reason itself is left behind in favor of embracing a narrative that demands certain political and social investments or else being branded negatively as evil with code words like "racist", "bigot", and "hate". William J Murray
kairosfocus Still waiting on any actual evidence of social breakdown from the 25+ jurisdictions around the world where gay marriage has been legal for years. In the absence of such, we can safely assume your prognostications of disaster are based solely on your own subjective fears and prejudices, and do not actually obtain in the real world. CLAVDIVS
kairosfocus Again, Girgis et al (and note from 248 above, the replies to distortions and dismissals) You did not reply to the devastating criticism of Girgis et al, that it commits the naturalistic fallacy. Let me remind you, from 519: The only significant difference between gay and straight marriage that Girgis et al point to is child-bearing capacity which is not a moral precept, it is a factual state of affairs. Claiming a factual state of affairs entails a moral obligation to maintain that state of affairs is a classic instance of the naturalistic fallacy. CLAVDIVS
Vivid, 584:
It seems to me that there is a certain naïveté in the West and most certainly in the US that somehow tyranny is something that cannot happen here. Ideas have consequences and over time they inexorably progress to their logical conclusions. If rights and what is just ultimately rests in the power of the state, ones opinion shared by the masses or any other subjective form then we will go from soft tyranny to hard tryanny of that I am certain. It will be their own world view and grounding that will devour them, if not them their children and grandchildren.
Sadly true. We do not understand the matches we are playing with. I do disagree that the homosexualisation of marriage will be a non issue in 20 years -- abortion and the in progress holocaust of now about 60 millions in the US is not a non issue over 40 years later -- though the corruption of mind, conscience, reasoning and law as well as policy that traces to mass bloodguilt is but poorly understood. The wrenching of marriage under false colour of law is the watershed line that will drive an irreconcilable wedge into our civilisation and in that time (if it is not firmly corrected very shortly . . . which is increasingly unlikely) we will be seeing consequences of especially confused angry young men who lack nurture. We forget that the number one problem of any civilisation is to nurture young men and channel their energies and sexuality constructively. And it does not take any great number of such alienated, ill-nurtured young men to form an unstoppable wolf-pack or even army of destruction and chaos. And the games being played with foundations of moral government will undermine the basis for appeals to moral suasion as such nihilistic factions vie for power then seize control and impose warlordism. Nor should we forget the IslamIST global conquest agenda, which sees growing weakness and recognises the opportunity to pounce. The moves of Iran towards nukes and missiles are a sobering sign, and it is no accident that the man of the left elected in the US on the progressivist agenda is the one who has dismantled the sanctions regime that have held back this tidal wave for 30 and more years. Too many are willfully blind to the fire we are playing with here. KF kairosfocus
PS: Again, Girgis et al (and note from 248 above, the replies to distortions and dismissals). I note, that it has been explicit above, that this is the major presntation of a case that has been pointed to, the limitations of a blog discussion thread are such that only a skeleton and excerpted points can be addressed with any degree of responsible argument. It is highly significant to note how this was distorted and dismissed as mere bigotry -- which directly implies hate rather than principle -- instead of read, pondered, taken seriously. The approaches we see above including the I am one of you but dismiss your argument tactic that is now well worn and threadbare, speak volumes. I suspect that those who are using it do not realise that this is one of the key signs of a fellow traveller and/or a manipulated, cat's paw front group. kairosfocus
ZL, This inadvertently reveals the underlying projections and indoctrination behind your rhetoric . . . also exposing the exact tactics that are why there has now been an effective terminus to reasonable discussion in large sectors of our civilisation:
I never mentioned violence. But with respect to hate, if the shoe fits, wear it. Neither you [SB] nor that bastion of tolerance and rational discussion, KairosFocus, have expressed anything other than hatred towards homosexuals. That is a claim that I will sadly stand behind. The evidence, unfortunately, is there for all those reading this thread to see.
On the contrary, this reflects the exact rhetorical pattern that triggered IE and you when it was identified as fallacious by naming the three key fallacies involved -- who may well be the same -- distract, distort, denigrate. Or, as I put it more explicitly previously, the trifecta fallacy: dragging a red herring across the track of truth, leading it towards a strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion. It also reflects the basic challenge you have: you have lost the exchange on the facts and logic tied to the underlying worldviews problem. In your mind, it seems, a right is an entitlement conferred by successful power games, and imposed on others under colour of law. So, once a sufficient coalition wants something, it gets its way by might and manipulation and that is the end of the matter. Apparently, it has not registered with you that this is nihilism, and that it is extremely dangerous for our civilisation. Indeed this is precisely why I have said that we are on a slippery slope heading for a cliff, but seem to be locked into a march of folly that may already be beyond the point of no return. It does not seem to have registered with you and ilk, that when I spoke about the two countries I have had experience of going off cliffs and when I spoke about the case of Communism, I spoke from experience and concern for a civilisation that has been a great advance for the peoples of the world ( despite its many sins) and I spoke in concerned warning based on analysis and principle, not hate. All you can do in reply is to evade the merit, deny that they have been presented over and over again, then project false and loaded accusations, which speaks volumes. And, I find it deeply saddening that you have proceeded to do so with SB, a man whose personal life is a living refutation of your accusations. (And yes, I am proud to own him as a friend and colleague -- a man of proved worth in character and argument alike.) You should be ashamed of your behaviour. But I fear, you are not nor are you inclined to be. It also seems that it is necessary to highlight exactly what the Judaeo-Christian tradition foundationally teaches about HOW one is to love one's neighbour. As, even the meaning of love itself has become twisted into indulgence driven by emotions and perceptions rather than concern and nurture that may require tough action:
Lev 19:13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the Lord. 15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life[a] of your neighbor: I am the Lord. 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. [ESV]
You, sir, with all due respect, have indulged slander and have put stumbling blocks before the blind. And because we have been straightforward in dealing with a dangerous trend in our civilisation, you have repeatedly reacted with resentment and lashed out in accusations that in an age of politically correct hate speech laws [itself another bad sign], are dangerous. You have projected hate when there is only disagreement rooted in principled concern for both individuals and communities. As there has been a consistent refusal to address it, let me bring up again the points first highlighted in 310 and then again and again, as a summary of principles at stake in the attempt to homosexualise marriage under colour of law:
1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities. 2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding. 3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience. 4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christian premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds. 5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges. 6 –> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature. 8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature. 9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked. 10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving. 11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture. In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly.
Tell us, ZL, how on any reasonable basis, this is hate and utter want of responsible reasoning that frankly addresses matters of concern for community that are leading our civilisation into dangerous circumstances. Tell us why it is that this, and the similar point by point discussion in 248 of why the accusations of naturalistic fallacies and question-begging etc thrown up against Girgis et al fail, have not been reasonably discussed by proponents of homosexualisation of marriage. Instead, we find drumbeat repetition of cogently answered talking points, and accusations such as you have now indulged. You explain to me why I should not conclude that you have here spoken with disregard to truth and duties of care of fairness, in hope of what you have said or suggested being taken as true. Let me go further, and note that in 600 just above you accuse SB and by extension the undersigned, of being judgemental. Please, go look in a mirror, despite your protests to the contrary, your projections of hate are a manifestation of exactly what you decry. I again pint to Girgis et al as a voice of reason and principled discussion of the attempt to impose a leagalistic redefinition of marriage under false colour of law and rights and equality in the teeth of the fact that marriage is not an arbitrary label but is deeply connected to key requisites of human reproductive biology, child nurture, stability of the individual and community. Which is precisely why it is in the interests of the people and state alike to keep it recognised in law as what is has historically been known to be, as I cited from Webster's 1828:
marriage [.] MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death …
We tamper with this at peril, but with much insistence and manipulation, we are indulging just this experiment as a civilisation. If this imposition stands, posterity -- who will bear the brunt of consequences of such a march of folly -- will arise and rightly call us benighted and accursed. For clutching to our bosoms a system of thought that is inherently self-refuting and amoral, dressing it in a lab coat and establishing it as our chief counsellor on policy matters, namely evolutionary materialist scientism and associated radical secular humanism, with fellow travellers. For thus tampering with the premise of moral government, that we are created equal and are endowed by our Creator with responsible, rational, morally governed freedom. For ignoring the evidence that here are indeed self evident first moral truths that serve as plumb-line principles that regulate our understanding of the moral law of our nature, starting with the quasi-infinite value of the individual, the equality of moral worth, the reciprocal relationship between rights and duties such that one cannot properly claim as a right that which would impose a duty to do or to uphold wrong on others. For ignoring the evidence that we are responsibly free and rational beings, and seeking to impose novelties under false colour of law that are instead rooted in extreme nominalism, the pretence that law is a matter of whatever we wish to indulge collectively by might and manipulation making 'right,' 'truth,' 'worth,' and more. For a long train of abuses and usurpations that led us in a march of folly over a cliff in defiance of warning, reasoning and remonstrance alike, that then leaves posterity with a broken backed civilisation to try to restore from shattered condition. Our generation and the last, have much to answer for. KF kairosfocus
StephenB,
Origenes: StephenB, would you be inclined to base your position on interracial marriage on a study similar to the Regnerus paper? Would you allow such a study to sway your position on such a matter?
StephenB: If such a study showed that children from interracial marriage are harmed as much as the children from same sex marriage, I would be against it. Since I have no good reason to believe that it does, I accept interracial marriage.
Does your answer imply that, according to you, natural moral law is neutral on interracial marriage? To be clear, am I correct to assume that if natural moral law is not silent on a matter it automatically trumps/overrules studies, similar to the Regnerus paper? Origenes
ziggy
KairosFocus may understand the difference. But he doesn’t practice it. I’m not sure about you yet, but I suspect you do, for the most part.
The main thing is to internalize the principle. We are supposed to tolerate people. We are not supposed to tolerate bad ideas. Try to grasp the point. It’s important.
You have not presented any arguments that have merit.
If that was true, you would have been able to refute them. Obviously, you cannot. Indeed, you appear fearful about the prospect of even confronting them. I would present one and ask you to evaluate it, but you would simply insult me and run away again. SB — “I think you are just fooling yourself with that claim. Exactly what could have been said that would have persuaded you that gay marriage is a bad thing.”
It is more the way that things were said by you and KairosFocus. Neither of you were providing rational arguments.
Interesting. I ask you what arguments would have persuaded you and you say no arguments were made. Do you understand what is missing in your answer? Here is the flaw: There is no answer. You will learn much more through good faith arguments than from running and hiding each time someone asks you a fair question. StephenB — “Here is a little something else to think about. The life expectancy of the average male homosexual is 8-20 years shorter than that of the average male. Who loves him more? Is it the person who warns him of the danger he is in even if means being unpopular? Or is it the one who is perfectly willing to let him die early in order to remain popular?”
Or is it the person who attempts to remove the stresses in his life by not being a judgmental a-hole and not contributing to depression and feelings of guilt? I chose the third option because I am not good at being a judgmental a-hole, except in rare circumstances.
Sorry, but your comment is both evasive and illogical. It is evasive because you fail to take on the challenge squarely. It is illogical because your non-answer is really a quiet way of saying that you would let the homosexual die prematurely rather than warn him, which would violate your politically correct sensibilities. StephenB
Ziggy, I think I am in love with you. zeroseven
StephenB -- "We are not supposed to tolerate bad ideas. We are supposed to tolerate people. Kairosfocue understands the difference. I don’t think you do." KairosFocus may understand the difference. But he doesn't practice it. I'm not sure about you yet, but I suspect you do, for the most part. StephenB -- " If you are a Christian, as you claim, you should know better than that." I certainly don't need you to tell me how to be Christian. I was one long before you were born. StephenB -- "Well, yes, you are using that tactic. Let’s face facts. You cannot address my arguments on the merits, so you simply start attacking me. Believe me, that is a sign of weakness, not strength. You have not presented any arguments that have merit. Others have already demonstrated this. I happen to believe their arguments over yours. StephenB -- "You will get very little respect that way."" I certainly don't need advice from you on how to gain respect. I have all the respect that I desire. StephenB -- "I think you are just fooling yourself with that claim. Exactly what could have been said that would have persuaded you that gay marriage is a bad thing." It is more the way that things were said by you and KairosFocus. Neither of you were providing rational arguments. You were both lecturing and sermonizing. When that didn't work you both were patronizing and abusive. That caused me to examine by reasons for not being in favour of SSM. What I saw was myself reflected in your words. And I didn't like what I saw. Apparently I am not too old and ignorant to change (much to my surprise). StephenB -- "Have you ever heard the Christian policy: “hate the sin, love the sinner.” " Yes. It is usually followed by some fundamentalist bull that involves imposing your religious views on others that don't want the. StephenB -- "You have a lot to learn about the religion you claim to embrace." Absolutely true. Which is where you and I differ. You are certain that you know everything about the religion you claim to embrace. My stance is far more tenable. As you mature, you may gain wisdom. You certainly couldn't lose any. StephenB -- "Here is a little something else to think about. The life expectancy of the average male homosexual is 8-20 years shorter than that of the average male. Who loves him more? Is it the person who warns him of the danger he is in even if means being unpopular? Or is it the one who is perfectly willing to let him die early in order to remain popular?" Or is it the person who attempts to remove the stresses in his life by not being a judgmental a-hole and not contributing to depression and feelings of guilt? I chose the third option because I am not good at being a judgmental a-hole, except in rare circumstances. ziggy lorenc
ziggy
But with respect to hate, if the shoe fits, wear it.
The shoe doesn't fit. Perhaps you don't know the difference between loving people and rejecting their bad ideas.
Neither you nor that bastion of tolerance and rational discussion, KairosFocus, have expressed anything other than hatred towards homosexuals.
We are not supposed to tolerate bad ideas. We are supposed to tolerate people. Kairosfocue understands the difference. I don't think you do.
That is a claim that I will sadly stand behind.
You cannot stand behind that claim because I hate no man or woman, or even a man who thinks he is a woman. You are presuming to look inside my soul and judge my character. If you are a Christian, as you claim, you should know better than that.
If your defence is to claim that I am using the tactic that Mr. Murray cautions against, go for it.
Well, yes, you are using that tactic. Let's face facts. You cannot address my arguments on the merits, so you simply start attacking me. Believe me, that is a sign of weakness, not strength. You will get very little respect that way.
What is really sad is that the two of you, who share common religious beliefs to mine, have convinced me that I am wrong with respect to SSM. And you did so by displaying a level of intolerance and hatred that I am ashamed to admit exists in some fellow Christians.
I think you are just fooling yourself with that claim. Exactly what could have been said that would have persuaded you that gay marriage is a bad thing. We already know that rational arguments don't do it. So what would? Nothing, I suspect. Also, I must ask this: Where did you ever get the whacked-out idea that Christians are supposed to be tolerant of gay marriage? Christianity is about the truth of the Gospel and the Bible, both of which condemn homosexuality. Christianity is about loving people. It is not about loving bad ideas or bad behavior. Have you ever heard the Christian policy: "hate the sin, love the sinner." You have a lot to learn about the religion you claim to embrace. Here is a little something else to think about. Suppose, as some say, the life expectancy of the average male homosexual is 20 years shorter than that of the average male. Who loves him more? Is it the person who warns him of the danger he is in even if means being unpopular? Or is it the one who is perfectly willing to let him die early in order to remain popular? StephenB
VB -- "What point do you think I am making other than this is the topic of WJMs thread." I apologize. I obviously misinterpreted what you wrote. ziggy lorenc
StephenB -- "Also, thank you for demonstrating one important facet of WJM’s thesis—– “Take the term “hate”. The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.”" I never mentioned violence. But with respect to hate, if the shoe fits, wear it. Neither you nor that bastion of tolerance and rational discussion, KairosFocus, have expressed anything other than hatred towards homosexuals. That is a claim that I will sadly stand behind. The evidence, unfortunately, is there for all those reading this thread to see. If your defence is to claim that I am using the tactic that Mr. Murray cautions against, go for it. If you have read my comments, you will note that in very rare occasions, I believe that calling a person out on their bullsh__ is a valid approach and serves to focus the debate. What is really sad is that the two of you, who share common religious beliefs to mine, have convinced me that I am wrong with respect to SSM. And you did so by displaying a level of intolerance and hatred that I am ashamed to admit exists in some fellow Christians. ziggy lorenc
ziggy
Before I started reading their comments, I was mildly opposed to SSM. But if StephenB and KairosFocus are presenting the best arguments available against SSM, then I am forced to rethink my views on this subject. The idea of homosexuality still concerns me. But the idea of the irrational hatred expressed by KairosFocus and StephenB towards homosexuals concerns me even more.
Be sure and limit your comments to mindless adhominem arguments on me, because that is a lot easier than actually confronting my arguments. Also, thank you for demonstrating one important facet of WJM's thesis----- "Take the term “hate”. The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group." Perfect. StephenB
Ziggy RE 594 What point do you think I am making other than this is the topic of WJMs thread. Vivid vividbleau
VB #592, if you are going to quote out of context to make your point, your point is not worth listening to. If you would like to address my entire comment, I am all ears. ziggy lorenc
VB -- "I think your right but probably for different reasons. At the rate this culture is deteriorating this will indeed seem tame." People have been forecasting the downfall of society for centuries. Someday, maybe, it will come to pass. But, with the exception of some very serious backslides, society has progressed for many centuries. Sadly, for some reason, it is human nature for people to resist change with vigour. There is this mistaken feeling that things were better in the past. But it is the past that gave us slavery, segregation, conditions that led to the holocaust, polio, smallpox, residential schools, the head tax, women without the vote, Japanese resettlement camps, the KKK, turning a boat full of Jewish people back to Europe to die, jailing homosexuals, etc. Etc. Forgive me if I much prefer the future than the past. But I am selfish in that way. ziggy lorenc
WJM We have come full circle and here we are back to the subject of the threads topic. Ziggy "But the idea of the irrational hatred expressed by KairosFocus and StephenB towards homosexuals concerns me even more" Vivid vividbleau
When I started reading articles and comments here, I expected to have my beliefs reinforced and supported. Instead, thanks to people like StephenB and KairosFocus, my views on same sex marriage are changing. I think for the better. Before I started reading their comments, I was mildly opposed to SSM. But if StephenB and KairosFocus are presenting the best arguments available against SSM, then I am forced to rethink my views on this subject. The idea of homosexuality still concerns me. But the idea of the irrational hatred expressed by KairosFocus and StephenB towards homosexuals concerns me even more. ziggy lorenc
Ziggy "What is shocking today, nobody will think about in twenty years. For good reason." I think your right but probably for different reasons. At the rate this culture is deteriorating this will indeed seem tame. Vivid vividbleau
Aleta: This is all an anthropologically based view of human nature in general, and morality in particular. So then, let's say we could eliminate all religious influences from everyone, eliminate all the effects of political correctness, and all ideologies with an agenda beyond this basic "human nature", and let's say we conduct a poll of the unspoiled "inner core" of each person in the world, and let's say the vast majority professed that in their heart of hearts they believe homosexuality is "wrong", it is bad for the human species in general. In other words, anti-homosexuality is the default human feeling and belief. You would go along with this? mike1962
Aleta -- "That is, those disapproving of the relationships are a primary source or stimulus for the harm." As was masterfully demonstrated in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. What was shocking in the sixties, nobody thinks about today. For good reasons. What is shocking today, nobody will think about in twenty years. For good reason. ziggy lorenc
RE 584 I should have written " ideas if allowed to go on unchecked...." Vivid vividbleau
One thing that should be obvious is that when society highly disapproves of an arrangement such as mixed race or same-sex marriages, children will suffer because of all the negative emotions and actions aimed at their families. Normalize the social status of those arrangements and some, if maybe not all, of the harm that is done will dissipate. That is, those disapproving of the relationships are a primary source or stimulus for the harm. Aleta
StephenB -- "If such a study showed that children from interracial marriage are harmed as much as the children from same sex marriage, I would be against it." Really? Are you sure you want to make this claim? Are you sure that I will be unable to find a similar study that shows that children of interracial marriages are harmed relative to same race marriages? Are you willing to place a bet? $1000 to the charity of my choice? ziggy lorenc
Pav RE 581 Well said. It seems to me that there is a certain naïveté in the West and most certainly in the US that somehow tyranny is something that cannot happen here. Ideas have consequences and over time they inexorably progress to their logical conclusions. If rights and what is just ultimately rests in the power of the state, ones opinion shared by the masses or any other subjective form then we will go from soft tyranny to hard tryanny of that I am certain. It will be their own world view and grounding that will devour them, if not them their children and grandchildren. Vivid vividbleau
Origenes
In post #557 I posed the following question to StephenB:
would you be inclined to base your position on interracial marriage on a study similar to the Regnerus paper? Would you allow such a study to sway your position on such a matter?
If such a study showed that children from interracial marriage are harmed as much as the children from same sex marriage, I would be against it. Since I have no good reason to believe that it does, I accept interracial marriage. On the other hand, I know that same-sex marriage harms children, and society, and the institution itself. So my reasons against it are not limited to the harm it brings to children.
Obviously it is a rhetorical question. I expect Stephen to answer something like:
Please don't speculate about what I would say. StephenB
Eugen -- "Did you choke up Ziggy, Origenes, Aleta , hold back tears, are you emotional, how are your feelings? ????" I am sure that you feel that placing a happy face at the end of an insult makes it OK. Please don't place yourself in the same category as people like Gordon Mullings. You are much better than that. Unless you deserve a good mouth soaping as Mullings does. ziggy lorenc
Aleta:
I didn’t answer this because it didn’t seem clear to me what you were asking, as the laws have already been changed to reflect what I think is morally right. Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, and now they can.
Well, the larger point I was making was this: Rosa Parks acted out of what she felt to be a moral obligation to violate the law. Shouldn't Christians refuse to obey a law they consider to be immoral, just like Rosa Parks? And, since they did change the law(s) Rosa Parks refused to follow, then don't Christian's have the right to expect government to change the laws to reflect what is "morally" right? Your answer is basically: since I think Rosa was right, then, yes, the law should have been changed. Because I think same-sex marriage is good, then they should change the law to reflect that. So, then, it's all about votes. Is that what determines morality, votes? Can't you see the problem with this?
Next, in response to my comment that “God’s Law, written in our hearts” is not a principle upon which our country is based, you quoted the Declaration of Independence. However it is the Constitution, along with over 200 years of additional laws, that is the legal basis of our country, and I don’t believe you’ll find anything there that mentions God’s law as the rationale for our laws. You certainly wouldn’t find any court today that would invoke God’s law.
You miss the point I'm making: the very "grounds" upon which the Founding Fathers justified what they were doing was on the ground of the "Law of Nature." If you choose, along with modern society, to jettison the "natural law," then you're also jettisoning the 'ground' upon which the country was founded. Is it no small wonder, then, that as years go by since this country set itself free from the Natural Law (back in the middle 40's) we see more and more a decline in civilized behavior, as well as a decline in society in general, not to mention patriotism.
PaV writes, When throughout the entire history of mankind, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, would you call this a “detail of God’s law”? You have this entire history of what civilization has understood as marriage, crossing over all manner of divides: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, stone-age cultures, all understand marriage to be between a man and a woman, and now this is like some kind of obscure “detail”?
This is quite wrong. The range of arrangements that societies have considered “marriage” is very broad. Obviously there are lots of situations where one man is married to multiple women (including in the Bible), there are societies where brothers share wives, there are societies where men with wives also have mistresses with legal rights, and so on.
Have you said anything here at all about "same-sex" marriage? No.
And, as has been often pointed out, there are other things that have long historical precedents that we have abandoned in modern times: slavery, women as property, child labor, etc. In my opinion, it’s a sign of increased morality to recognize that people who love others of the same sex should get the benefits of marriage.
When I spoke of "intuition," that which we "intuit" are moral principles. These principles are then applied to various situations and circumstances. Situations and circumstances can change, and, hence, how the principles are applied. This doesn't mean that the principle is in any way defeated, or, overruled. If a child gets up at 4:00 AM on a farm to milk a cow, is that "child labor"? Why, because they don't receive remuneration? Immanuel Kant used his Categorical Imperative, which was to 'universalize' a behavior, and then assess it. Should the whole world involve itself in "same-sex" marriages, humanity would vanish quickly. Do you consider that good? This is one way of applying moral principles.
You write, Instead, the natural law is something that we “intuit.” It is a moral knowledge that is given to us. I’m not expressing my opinion; I’m expressing God’s opinion.
This “intuition” is just as nebulous and unverifiable as a “true” source of knowledge as the “conscience and reason” that Stephen invokes. What you consider your intuition of God’s law is just you putting a facade of external validity on beliefs of yours that come from no different source than mine.
Speaking of opinions, this is no more than your opinion. OTOH, I have first-hand experiences, first-hand recollections of acting in a moral way as a child. I had had no guidance whatsoever as to how to act given the circumstances of the situation I found myself in. I now understand what I was thinking; but, at the time, I simply did what was morally correct. How was I able to do that? I didn't even know what religion was, nor what a opinion was. I was 4 or 5. Can you explain this for me?
I just don’t try to hide my personal responsibility for my beliefs by invoking an verifiable “intuition of God’s law.”
Well, if you think people should not hide behind what you consider to be no more than religious belief, then why should people be allowed to hide behind what is no more than popular opinion? Further, if you think people should be held responsible for their beliefs, then if people who want to marry "believe" that it is morally "right" to do this, well, according to your position, they should be willing to be refused services to their "same-sex" marriages. Isn't that what "taking responsibility for your beliefs" means? In what way can forcing the legal system to do something to people who don't hold your views be considered taking personal responsibility for your views? They don't want to pay the price of their views; they want everyone else to pay the price. When gays were "let out of the closet," the net result was to put the Boy Scouts of America in "the closet." They became the outcasts. Morality divides. It divides good from evil. Someone always ends up "in the closet." So how do we choose? It is not a matter of indifference---as we see happening in our country.
PaV: We simply live in a day-and-age when people want to play God. It reminds you of the Garden of Eden, doesn’t it? I believe there was a serpent that lived there. And he lied to the inhabitants. Aleta: And I believe that is an entirely unbelievable myth. Invoking it as if it is relevant to the discussion substantiates my point above about the flaws in the idea of intuiting God’s law.
If this so-called "myth" substantiates your position, then tell me, where do your beliefs come from if they don't come from God, or the Bible? Who do you listen to exactly? Now, as to the comment I was making, the point was that to go in the direction of defining a morality independent of God is to go in the direction the Devil wants to lead us. Now, I don't know how old your are, but I'm old enough to have seen, to have witnessed with my own eyes and ears, the rise of the demonic in this country. Why has this happened? Shall we pretend that it didn't happen? Shall we pretend that the Devil doesn't exist, just like God doesn't exist, and therefore be set free to do what we want? Which is the real 'myth': in the creation account; or, you thinking that selecting some brand of morality as you go along, independent of the natural law, won't have consequences? Again, which is the real 'myth'? Maybe you should read about the French Revolution. The American Revolution was a revolution of the God-fearing, and the French Revolution was a revolution of the God-denying. I urge you to compare the two: what happened, and the aftermath. PaV
velikovskys
Childless marriages are not real? Can one enter into a covenant when one is forced to marry?
Childless marriages are real. Recall that I said marriage is ordered to the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. If a marriage is childless or lacks unity, its purpose does not change. The purpose of medicine is to cure. If it doesn’t cure, its purpose does not change. No one who is forced to marry can enter into a covenant. Only when both parties give their free will consent is a marriage valid.
Sorry don’t see how nature has anything to do with it, please elaborate.
Well, you have made a good distinction. The origin of marriage comes from God. Nature plays a role insofar as the laws of nature limit procreation to relationships between men and women. Still, the married couple makes vows to God and each other, not to nature. Only men and women can marry because only men and women, by virtue of their complementarity, can become “one flesh.” Obviously, two members of the same sex cannot become one flesh. The marriage between man and woman is the same as the relationship between Christ and His Church. That is why same-sex marriage is impossible, even if it is given that name.
While civil contract component may lack some “essence” it required for legal standing . The essence is not. And civil contracts are determined by the laws of man.
A civil contract may be required for legal standing, but that contract does not define a marriage. It simply defines the relationship of the state to the marriage, or the imagined marriage as the case may be. StephenB
Re 577 Mung How do we know that it was a mistake then? :) Vivid vividbleau
You're just playing, Mung, aren't you. Aleta
Aleta: And if people were mistaken then, why not now? Good point! The earth might be flat after all. Mung
William ask,
It’s kind of hard to make the case that anyone is right or wrong about anything when you won’t even tell us what the standard should be for deciding if a thing is right or wrong.
William, I know that your view is that unless morality is somehow grounded (purportedly) in some objective reality to which we have access, then it is merely subjective, and that then people have no reason not to to do anything they want: it's not just a slippery slope, but rather a black-and-white precipice to nihilism. So actually discussing this with you, which we did at length one other time, is not worth my time. With that said, and possibly against my better judgment, I'll make a statement. 1. I believe human beings have evolved to have moral nature, and that this has been part of our evolution as a social animal. I say this without regard to whether life itself was designed or not in the beginning, and to whether some type of creative Taoist-like force may or may not have had an influence in that evolution. But I believe we are materially-based biological organisms, and that there is no non-material dualistic aspect to our existence. 2. I believe that our moral belief system, and our desire to behave morally (which varies among individuals), develops just as many other aspects of us do: through a combination of developmental biology (nature) and learning from our surroundings (nurture.) So morality is a combination of innate tendencies to judge right from wrong with a great deal of cultural influences about the particular details of right and wrong. However, also people mature, and just as children go from concrete to abstract thinking, morality goes from being primarily influenced by feeling pressure from the judgments of adults and the desire to avoid punishment (external sources) to an internalized sense of willful choice informed at least in part by reason and education. All cultures nurture a sense of wisdom about living wisely and correctly, and pass that on through socialization and education. Thoughtful, educated adults, especially in the modern world, have access to a very broad range of thought on moral issues. But ultimately, each person does the best job they can (or desire to) to integrate all this into a personal belief system that they can willingly choose to uphold. All of this is the normal course of development for a human being, although, as I've said, there is a great deal of variation in people, just as there is with many other skills such as language, math, music, athletic skill, etc. FWIW, this development of moral sense has been extensively studied: I used to teach about Kohlberg's stages of moral development the few years I taught psychology. So I believe every person makes moral choices from this complex of innate tendencies, cultural influences that go back to parental and community socialization, and more mature independently reached conclusions as one's abstract thinking skills and education broaden. 3. This is why I think the beliefs of William et al about the relationship between their notions of morality and God are their particular cultural framework within which they ground their understanding of their own moral nature. However, for a variety of reasons, they don't see it as their own particular chosen perspective, but rather as one that is objectively true, and that is where I think they are wrong. All religious views, including those that are considering purely rational by people like Stephen and kf, are cultural artifacts. They embody important principles about intangible human knowledge about such things as morality. but they are not objectively true. They are stories we tell ourselves to add substance and structure to our sense of self, and to help us live well. This is all an anthropologically based view of human nature in general, and morality in particular. 3. More philosophically, my own outlook is existential: we are, to borrow from Sartre, "doomed to be free." We are responsible for our choices: they emanate from us - from our human nature and the person we have built ourself to be. This is what I mean when I say we are equally moral agents. And, to forestall a comment, the freedom I am talking about is not some metaphysical "divorced from the material world" dualistic freedom, but rather a freedom that we face as biological organisms, every moment of our life: the necessity of acting from our own internal sense of what is best for ourselves and the world around us. This question of what will means in this context, what is the nature and source of our choices, and how this all relates to our conscious sense of self is a whole other topic. ----- I know this is just a quick, somewhat rambling summary of assertions about how I see the world, and I don't expect it to make a dime's worth of difference to all you "objective morality" folks. But at least it's a response to William's question. Aleta
Did you choke up Ziggy, Origenes, Aleta , hold back tears, are you emotional, how are your feelings? :-D Eugen
In post #557 I posed the following question to StephenB:
would you be inclined to base your position on interracial marriage on a study similar to the Regnerus paper? Would you allow such a study to sway your position on such a matter?
Obviously it is a rhetorical question. I expect Stephen to answer something like: No, a study won't change my position on interracial marriage. Whatever the outcome of such a study may be, race is not an issue when it comes to marriage. Period. And then I would say: And so it is with SSM. Also here we base our positions on principles not studies. This is why a study, such as the Regnerus paper, is irrelevant. Origenes
Aleta -- "to Ziggy: I know a number of 60 year old lesbian couples, a few who have recently been married, and I’m really happy for them" Don't get me wrong. I would be happy for them as well. True love should always be celibrated. The fact that it makes me uncomfortable is my problem. Not theirs. Unlike KF, I am honest enough to admit this. ziggy lorenc
Mr. Murray -- "You do have the legal right to impose your religious beliefs on others as long as you go through the legal process to do so." I think we are just quibbling over semantics. When I say "impose" I am assuming that I am bypassing the normal processes. ziggy lorenc
velikovskys
Yes, I understand.Do you feel that you are capable of making a impartial judgement about the objections and objectors?
I think I can if I exercise the requisite discipline. Indeed, that is one of the things that scientific methodology is supposed to do--impose discipline on the researcher so that he does not indulge in wishful thinking, or worse, commit fraud. Unfortunately, the very reverse can happen. Too often, the methodology is not designed to filter out personal bias, but rather to provide a result that will satisfy the partisan who bankrolled the project. On the other hand, If someone presents me with a detailed scientific study on a subject that I am familiar with, as opposed to a one paragraph summary, I believe that I can make the distinction between an honest search for truth and an fraudulent attempt to stack the deck. If it is a subject that I am not familiar with, it is much harder. StephenB
KF -- "All I will say at this stage..." Only if we are lucky ziggy lorenc
to Ziggy: I know a number of 60 year old lesbian couples, a few who have recently been married, and I'm really happy for them. Aleta
kf writes,
Aleta, just what actual natural law was violated when a man of one race and a woman of another were married.
60 years ago many people believed it was a natural law that black people shouldn't marry - shouldn't mix. There were people then for whom the idea of a black person having sex with a white person was just as distasteful and morally wrong as are your feelings about two men or two women having sex together. In fact, I do believe a number of people got hanged over this issue. Aleta
Aleta said:
Agreed, William is interested in my views – interested in telling me unequivocally that they are irrational and unsupportable.
I'm not interested in telling you anything. What I am interested in is pursuing ideas to their rational conclusion. Please don't speak on behalf of my motivations.
But, as I said then and others have said, this same-sex marriage issue is about political science and the law, not about philosophy: there are Christians and atheists united here in defending same-sex marriage, and many religious people in the US support same-sex marriage. You may think they are all wrong, but they’re not all wrong because they have what you considered an unsupportable moral foundation.
It's kind of hard to make the case that anyone is right or wrong about anything when you won't even tell us what the standard should be for deciding if a thing is right or wrong. William J Murray
Kairosfocus: (...) your remarks are in fact quite offensive and out of order. You need to walk them back.
Which remarks? In my question to StephenB is neither accusation nor offense. You sir, on the other hand, have continually accused me of bad motives, which necessitated considerable self-restraint on my part.
Ziggy Lorenc: If you were one of my children, you would receive a good mouth soaping.
I second that. And this one as well:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Origenes
PaV writes,
First, let me point out that you have still not answered my last question to you. I’m pointing you in the direction of an important distinction/realization, and you resist. What does that mean?
Looking back, the question I see I didn't answer was this:
So, since Rosa Parks was morally right, and laws were subsequently changed, then do you favor the changing of the law on same-sex marriage?
I didn't answer this because it didn't seem clear to me what you were asking, as the laws have already been changed to reflect what I think is morally right. Same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, and now they can. Next, in response to my comment that "God’s Law, written in our hearts" is not a principle upon which our country is based, you quoted the Declaration of Independence. However it is the Constitution, along with over 200 years of additional laws, that is the legal basis of our country, and I don't believe you'll find anything there that mentions God's law as the rationale for our laws. You certainly wouldn't find any court today that would invoke God's law. PaV writes,
When throughout the entire history of mankind, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, would you call this a “detail of God’s law”? You have this entire history of what civilization has understood as marriage, crossing over all manner of divides: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, stone-age cultures, all understand marriage to be between a man and a woman, and now this is like some kind of obscure “detail”?
This is quite wrong. The range of arrangements that societies have considered "marriage" is very broad. Obviously there are lots of situations where one man is married to multiple women (including in the Bible), there are societies where brothers share wives, there are societies where men with wives also have mistresses with legal rights, and so on. And, as has been often pointed out, there are other things that have long historical precedents that we have abandoned in modern times: slavery, women as property, child labor, etc. In my opinion, it's a sign of increased morality to recognize that people who love others of the same sex should get the benefits of marriage. You write,
Instead, the natural law is something that we “intuit.” It is a moral knowledge that is given to us. I’m not expressing my opinion; I’m expressing God’s opinion.
This "intuition" is just as nebulous and unverifiable as a "true" source of knowledge as the "conscience and reason" that Stephen invokes. What you consider your intuition of God's law is just you putting a facade of external validity on beliefs of yours that come from no different source than mine. I just don't try to hide my personal responsibility for my beliefs by invoking an verifiable "intution of God's law."
We simply live in a day-and-age when people want to play God. It reminds you of the Garden of Eden, doesn’t it? I believe there was a serpent that lived there. And he lied to the inhabitants.
And I believe that is an entirely unbelievable myth. Invoking it as if it is relevant to the discussion substantiates my point above about the flaws in the idea of intuiting God's law. Aleta
Aleta, just what actual natural law was violated when a man of one race and a woman of another were married? What is the difference when two men or two women represent themselves as married, and what are the consequences of imposing the latter under colour of law? Or, are we back to might and manipulation make 'right' 'truth' etc. Which, should give us all sobering pause. KF kairosfocus
Ziggy said:
I apologize. It was probably a poor choice of words on my part. What I intended to say was that I, as an individual, do not have the legal right to impose my religious beliefs on others. That doesn’t mean that I do not have the legal right to provide input (lobby) for laws that reflect my religious beliefs. You do have the legal right to impose your religious beliefs on others as long as you go through the legal process to do so.
William J Murray
ZL (attn VS): After 500 + comments, you are still caught up in word magic and odd case casuistry to try to break something rooted in the nature of human beings, coming in complementary sexes and with the pivotal issue of child nurture and social stability in the stakes. All I will say at this stage is there is a reason why marriage has been taken hostage under false colour of law, and is being manipulated by agenda driven activists. The cumulative consequences of that process will be grim, whether or not you are inclined to believe it and whether or not you are inclined to congratulate one another on clever, wise in our own eyes, might and manipulation make 'right' 'truth' etc rhetoric. KF kairosfocus
V responding to KF-- "You still have not made a very convincing argument why two 60 year old lesbians getting legally married in any way contributes to moral decay or why it is any of your [damned] business." With a slight modification, and pardon my language, these are probably the wisest and truest words I have heard in this 500+ comment thread. When it comes right down to it, this is the reason that I can't get worked up about SSM. Because it has no negative impact on me, my loved ones, or society, it is none of my business. The world would be a much better place if the self-righteous would concentrate on their own behaviour and stop worrying about what consenting adults do behind closed doors. ziggy lorenc
kf writes,
Such marriages are marriages and do not break the natural law, only some human prejudices of people who do not understand that all nations are of one blood. (No fault of the scriptures I just alluded to.) There is simply no comparison to trying to impose on marriage what cuts across nature under false colour of the power of law and your remarks are in fact quite offensive and out of order. You need to walk them back. KF
At the time, inter-racial marriages were considered going against natural law, and against God's laws also. Now you say they are just erroneous "prejudices". What changed? And if people were mistaken then, why not now? Aleta
Origines, inter racial marriages are between men of one particular race, and women of some other particular race. They produce children who go on to have other children. In my case, likely early on it was more like common law relationships and the like, but Europeans, Africans and Indians were involved to my knowledge, maybe more. Such marriages are marriages and do not break the natural law, only some human prejudices of people who do not understand that all nations are of one blood. (No fault of the scriptures I just alluded to.) There is simply no comparison to trying to impose on marriage what cuts across nature under false colour of the power of law and your remarks are in fact quite offensive and out of order. You need to walk them back. KF kairosfocus
Aleta, your superiority complex is showing. Mung
StephenB, would you be inclined to base your position on interracial marriage on a study similar to the Regnerus paper? Would you allow such a study to sway your position on such a matter? Origenes
Aleta: First, let me point out that you have still not answered my last question to you. I'm pointing you in the direction of an important distinction/realization, and you resist. What does that mean? You wrote:
PaV writes,
Lawmakers do NOT have the right to contradict God’s Law, written in our hearts, because God is the Law-Giver, not man.
No, that is not a principle upon which our country is based.
Is this true, Aleta? Here's our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, and its opening words:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Founding Fathers ground their decision-making in the Natural Law ("Laws of Nature"), and God ("endowed by their Creator," "truths . . . [that are] self-evident"). They point out that Government is subservient to these "natural" rights. And, in the Constitution, what is the FIRST "right" they enunciate? Of course, it's the "right" to freely practice their faith. Aleta:
And, PaV, there is no consistent, reliable shared way for knowing the details of “God’s law”, or what is “written in our hearts.” If there were, we wouldn’t have these disagreements among Christians.
When throughout the entire history of mankind, marriage has always been between a man and a woman, would you call this a "detail of God's law"? You have this entire history of what civilization has understood as marriage, crossing over all manner of divides: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, stone-age cultures, all understand marriage to be between a man and a woman, and now this is like some kind of obscure "detail"? If you consider this to be a detail, then there is no such thing as morality; only consensus. And when a vote is taken, and a majority reached, to kill children in the womb, or to kill young children with defects, or people who are depressed, or to legalize drugs, is this what we should call morality? Is this the brave, new world you want to see ushered in?
The pervasive problem with the arguments and attitudes of William, Stephen, PaV, kf, etc. is that they disguise the fact that their opinions are just that, opinions like everyone else’s, behind an invalid facade of supposed superior access to knowledge.
First, it's not an opinion. I think the Golden State Warriors will win the NBA Championship; I think Donald Trump will win the general election; I think that they won't find life on other planets. These are some of my opinions. Instead, the natural law is something that we "intuit." It is a moral knowledge that is given to us. I'm not expressing my opinion; I'm expressing God's opinion. Three-year-olds have a moral sense. Where did they get it from? They intuited it. Second, you need to look carefully at what you're saying/writing:
We’re all in the same boat in respect to moral judgments. Having a belief that one has superior access to moral knowledge does not make it so: such a belief is in all cases wrong.
I don't believe in the least that I have "superior access" to moral knowledge. I believe in the Natural Law, which means that EVERYONE has the same "access." It's universal; it's in all peoples, which underlines what I wrote above about how all cultures view marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. For the sake of perspective: if I insisted that the true color of the sky is orange, and you insist that it is blue, does that mean you have "superior access" to colors? And if 300,000 people signed a petition declaring the color of the sky to be orange, would you change your mind? All of this discussion turns on what is the ultimate source of truth. And that source is God. (Today, people say it is "science". So, I guess that means there must be an "infinite set of infinite universes") We simply live in a day-and-age when people want to play God. It reminds you of the Garden of Eden, doesn't it? I believe there was a serpent that lived there. And he lied to the inhabitants. I'm sure you get my point. PaV
VS, you can set up something under colour of law, you can enforce it with that state power that in the end comes out of the barrel of a gun, but when you are doing the social and cultural equivalent of jumping off a 40 storey building and flapping your arms on the formal declaration that arms are now wings, it will not change the result one whit. Marriage is locked into human nature, sexual complementarity of male and female, the need for proper sustained child nurture for years on end and for social stability rooted in sound families and individuals. No declaration of a Judges bench or of a parliament or a chief executive or even vote in a referendum can change what marriage is. Such can try to fly in the face of reality but the predictable result -- chaos and destruction -- will not be pleasant. But, follytricks is nothing if not stubbornness backed up by power. KF kairosfocus
Velikovsky (attn SB), I have never spoken of any past or future utopia built by man. I know too much painful history for that. Besides, going to a Marxism dominated uni will cure any sane person of hopes for a human-built utopia. But, I did come from a country which, for all its flaws had real hopes. Squandered in a march of folly down a slippery slope that ended in economic and social chaos on steroids and a mini civil war that ended in creating drug funded warlordism and another mini civil war a few years ago to break the most entrenched of the warlords. I now live in another country that had a capital town, suburbs and key infrastructure on the flanks of a volcano. For several years, there was thunder under the mountain, and in the usual managed news environment the truth of the risks being run was not sufficiently understood. Eruptions, building up across two years, leading to destruction of the town and officially 19 dead. Much was lost, and again I saw a community go over a cliff. So, I think I know a thing or two about the difference between a flawed but realistically hopeful situation, and what happens when a march of folly on a slippery slope leads over a cliff. Which is what our civilisation faces. But of course, Machiavelli long ago warned on how political disasters are like hectic fever, at the first fairly asy to cure but hard to diagnose. But then when at length the course of the disease is undeniably obvious to all, it is far too late to cure. In embracing lab coat clad evolutionary materialist scientism, radical secularism and its fellow travellers, our civilisation made a grave, easily fatal error. What we see with all sorts of bizarre agendas seizing power under false colours of law, rights, equality and whatnot, are the results that flow from that central blunder. Blunder, as evolutionary materialism is inherently self-refuting by incoherence and due to its core commitments can have in it no IS capable of bearing the weight of ought. This irrationality -- often brazenly declaring itself the touchstone of reason (Capital S science) -- and this amorality then draws ruthless radical agendas that manipulate institutions and people to seize power and rule based on will to power. That is what we are seeing with the radical agendas alliance that is increasingly domineering its way with our whole civilisation. And, that is what Plato -- with the live memory of Alcibiades and the ruin of Athens in mind warned about. But of course, many think the lessons of history that were bought with blood and tears have nothing to teach us. We are on a slippery slope, headed for a cliff, and we refuse to learn the grim lessons of the past. Not even the ghosts of over 100 million victims of radical regimes in the past century joined by the cries of the ghosts of hundreds of millions of victims of the still in progress abortion holocaust can get our attention. As for the survivors of the new model "marriage" that is being forced on us under false colours of law, they have nothing to tell us. The future on the business as usual track is predictable, and it will not be pretty. The question in my mind is, is it already too late? I hope not, but this I know, time is not on our side. KF kairosfocus
Stephen: Actually, kairosfocus is quite right. So-called “gay marriage cannot be marriage. It isn’t real. Marriage, by definition, is a covenant between a man and a woman that is ordered to the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. Childless marriages are not real? Can one enter into a covenant when one is forced to marry? This covenant is a product of the laws of God and nature. The civil contractual component is not the essence of marriage because it does not reflect the purpose and origins of the institution. A homosexual union simply cannot qualify as that kind of covenant or institution. Sorry don't see how nature has anything to do with it, please elaborate. While civil contract component may lack some "essence" it required for legal standing . The essence is not. And civil contracts are determined by the laws of man. velikovskys
Stephen: I think the study is sound and so do those sociologists and social scientists who are not already all in for the gay lobbyists. Possibly though your position is subject to the same criticism. At best then the study results are inconclusive which also undermines your evidence.Perhaps there exists more studies which could lend support one way or the other. In other words, what are being called researcher errors are really nothing more than false characterizations of the methodology, which I have no reason to believe is flawed. Yes, I understand.Do you feel that you are capable of making a impartial judgement about the objections and objectors? velikovskys
kairosfocus "The manipulation of marriage under false colour of law" velikovskys: "Marriage is a legal contract subject to the law. There is no false color." Actually, kairosfocus is quite right. So-called “gay marriage cannot be marriage. It isn’t real. Marriage, by definition, is a covenant between a man and a woman that is ordered to the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. This covenant is a product of the laws of God and nature. The civil contractual component is not the essence of marriage because it does not reflect the purpose and origins of the institution. A homosexual union simply cannot qualify as that kind of covenant or institution. Heterosexual marriage promotes the common good because it elevates the nuclear family as the primary institution of society. Accordingly, it reflects the proper purpose of sex and establishes the limits of how it ought to be used. The so-called union of “gay marriage” cannot play that role at all. It simply trivializes and perverts the real thing. Accordingly, it harms society in many ways: First, it denies a child either a mother or a father. I have already provided the scientific evidence of the harm it does to children @332 and personal testimony of it @548. These latter examples cannot be shrugged off in the name of "false methodology." Thus, there can be no principle of “equality” at stake because there can be no second or third kind of marriage. There can be only one kind of marriage. Worse, gay marriage celebrates and justifies the homosexual lifestyle. When the secular state promotes this perversity, especially when it brainwashes children to accept it at an early age and pushes them to become a part of this perverse movement. In fact, gay marriage violates the common good of all members of society by frustrating the states purpose for benefiting heterosexual marriage. If the latter is just one among many, then there is no reason why the state cannot marginalize parents by usurping their role to raise children. To grant a right to one person is take away the right of another. This is true in all cases. To grant one man the right to a free college education is to take away another man’s right to keep some of his tax money. Similarly, to grant homosexuals the right to marry is to take away societies right to give heterosexual marriage a special place. There is no question of equality here becasue something that is unreal does not deserve the same consideration as something that is real. Gay marriage cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage because it isn’t real. StephenB
velikovskys
Again they could, but since you are using the study as evidence for harm to children, the researchers errors undermine your point. Bad behaviour by critics is another issue
I think the study is sound and so do those sociologists and social scientists who are not already all in for the gay lobbyists. In other words, what are being called researcher errors are really nothing more than false characterizations of the methodology, which I have no reason to believe is flawed. StephenB
KF: Yes, in the USA — a very important point — marriage has long been under assault. If you had looked above before commenting you would see that I long since spoke to that. Apologies, since time is finite one must use it wisely. My point was the length of a marriage affects any kind of marriage and children, using it as an objection to gay marriage is misleading since straight marriage suffers from the same problem. The manipulation of marriage under false colour of law Marriage is a legal contract subject to the law. There is no false color. is a reflection and extension of a trend of socio-cultural decay that in turn reflects the fundamental breakdown of moral principle in our civilisation. If you mean people are not punished for non conformity as much yes. But you should take comfort that there still exist places where enforcement of moral principles is rampant. You still have not made a very convincing argument why two 60 year old lesbians getting legally married in any way contributes to moral decay or why it is any of your business. Our civilisation is on a slippery slope, headed for the cliffs, in a march of folly. One that may already have passed the point of no return. Oh brother, KF. Please provide for comparison when society was at it peak? Greeks, Middle Ages, 1930's ,1800's , when was this golden age? velikovskys
kairosfocus
Where, frankly, to make up words like “same sex marriage” cannot create realities. Marriage has a proper, natural meaning that has been long recognised and the usurpations and abuses under false colour of law cannot change that reality. Poison cannot be made into food by word magic, and the attempted imposition of social chaos and oppression under false colour of law will only wreak havoc and harm, especially on children.
Kairosfocus, Yes, this is the key point that the gay lobby militates against. They hate the idea that the purpose of marriage comes both from "The laws of nature," and "nature's God," Indeed, the very words "nature" and "purpose" sends the prosame-sex bunch into a crying fit. So, as a way of rationalizing behavior that makes nature cry out for vengeance, they hijack the word "marriage" to create the "new normal." Still, poison is poison, and when children are forced to consume it they are harmed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court, in New Orleans, La., heard arguments on Jan. 9 as it considers whether to uphold traditional marriage – defined as being between one man and one woman -- in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. B.N. Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz, and Katy Faust all grew up with homosexual parents. All four argued that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would harm children by depriving them of a mother or father. In her brief, Dawn Stefanowicz described her experience living in a same-sex household. “I wasn’t surrounded by average heterosexual couples,” she says in her court brief. “Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.” “There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and innocence were violated.” “As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion,” Stefanowicz explained. “Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.” “I grew up with a parent and her partner[s] in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.” Klein said she was taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent,” and that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic” because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’” “At the same time I was given the message that if I did not agree (which I did not), I was stupid and damned to a life of punishing hostility from my mother and her partner,” she recounts. “They did this with the encouragement of all their gay friends in the community and they were like a cheering squad. I was only allowed out of my room to go to school. This could go on for weeks.” “I was supposed to hate everyone based on what they thought of my mother and her partner,” said Klein. “People’s accomplishments did not matter, their personal struggles did not matter, and their own histories were of no consequence. The only thing that mattered was what they thought of gays.” Robert Oscar Lopez who was also raised by a lesbian mother and her partner, had a different experience which he described as the “best possible conditions for a child raised by a same-sex couple.” “Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting ‘experts’ in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life,” Lopez wrote, but then went on to argue against same-sex marriage saying that, “behind these facades of a happy ‘outcome’ lay many problems.” He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager.“I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males,” he recounted, saying he “wanted to have sex with older men who were my father’s age, though at the time I could scarcely understand what I was doing.” “The money I received for sex certainly helped me financially because it allowed me certain spending money beyond what I earned with my teenage jobs at a pizzeria and in my mother’s [psychiatric] clinic,” he states in the brief. “But the money was not as impactful as the fact that I needed to feel loved and wanted by an older male figure, even if for only as short as a half hour.” “As early as ten years ago, I developed a clear stance on homosexual relationships. A civil union or some kind of state recognition would have helped my mother and her partner,” Lopez writes. “Yet the traditional marriage laws in New York State as they existed back then prevented my mother and her partner from entirely cutting my father out of my life,” he explained. “The latter reality proved pivotal because my re-establishment of ties to my father in 1998 led to a transition in my life, from being lost and sexually confused to being stable and romantically fulfilled.” “When we institutionalize same-sex marriage,” Faust writes, “we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households. In doing so, we ignore the true nature of the outcropping of marriage.” “Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent,” she explains, “Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.” StephenB
To mike: no, because I already know what William thinks, and I think he is wrong. We've had previous discussions about this. Aleta
And, PaV, there is no consistent, reliable shared way for knowing the details of "God's law", or what is "written in our hearts." If there were, we wouldn't have these disagreements among Christians. The pervasive problem with the arguments and attitudes of William, Stephen, PaV, kf, etc. is that they disguise the fact that their opinions are just that, opinions like everyone else's, behind an invalid facade of supposed superior access to knowledge. We're all in the same boat in respect to moral judgments. Having a belief that one has superior access to moral knowledge does not make it so: such a belief is in all cases wrong. Aleta
Aleta: Agreed, William is interested in my views – interested in telling me unequivocally that they are irrational and unsupportable. If they are irrational and unsupportable wouldn't you want to know why, and be grateful that you were thus corrected? mike1962
Stephen: If partisanship is involved in the analysis, then it goes both ways This seems like faulty logic,it could but it does not follow. If he can stacked the deck in his favor, his opponents can stack the deck against him. That is what appears to have happened. Again they could, but since you are using the study as evidence for harm to children, the researchers errors undermine your point. Bad behaviour by critics is another issue. velikovskys
PaV writes,
Lawmakers do NOT have the right to contradict God’s Law, written in our hearts, because God is the Law-Giver, not man.
No, that is not a principle upon which our country is based. Aleta
Alaeta: You haven't responded to my last post. The resolution to the questions I've asked is this: law ought to legislate that which is morally good and right. Lawmakers do NOT have the right to contradict God's Law, written in our hearts, because God is the Law-Giver, not man. This, in fact, is the revolt we see taking place in society. And it will destroy us. We will have 'hell' to pay for. PaV
kf writes,
You may be trying a baiting game to say see he is quoting Bible and can be tossed as spouting religious drivel. In fact, you will see that I have primarily spoken to worldview, ethics/justice and policy issues i/l/o ideologies, agendas and implications. Howbeit as you seem to want to know how I would find a specifically Christian basis that rules out attempted homosexualisation of marriage.
The first two sentences are pretty incomprehensible to me. And no, I have no interest in knowing how you would provide a "specifically Christian basis that rules out attempted homosexualisation of marriage." My point is that lots of other Christians disagree with you, and thus would disagree with the conclusions you draw from the Bible verses you offer. Your argument is with them, not me, as I don't consider the Bible an authority on anything. Aleta
Aleta, You may be trying a baiting game to say see he is quoting Bible and can be tossed as spouting religious drivel. In fact, you will see that I have primarily spoken to worldview, ethics/justice and policy issues i/l/o ideologies, agendas and implications. Howbeit as you seem to want to know how I would find a specifically Christian basis that rules out attempted homosexualisation of marriage I will answer. So, I give three key texts:
INCOMPATIBILITY OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTS WITH REPENTANCE AND DISCIPLESHIP, AND REPORTS OF TRANSFORMATION FROM SUCH LIFESTYLES BY SANCTIFYING GRACE: 1 Cor 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing [--> active partner] homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. [NET, which brings out the specific Gk force here] HOMOSEXUALITY, MALE AND FEMALE, AS MARKS (AMONG OTHERS) OF REBELLION AGAINST GOD: Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them. [NET] MARRIAGE AS WHAT GOD JOINED IN CREATION AND LET NO MAN PUT WHAT GOD JOINED ASUNDER: Matt 19:3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He [Jesus[ answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” [NET]
Those texts are clear and foundational. In Rom 1 there is also a pointing to the issue of what is naturally evident. Again, this is not my basis of argument, that has to do with the rise of evolutionary materialist scientism and radical secularism, the linked rise of ruthless activist factions pursuing might and manipulation make 'right' 'truth' etc in the teeth of the naturally evident complementarity of the sexes and needs of stable and sound primary relationships. This, multiplied by the inherent force of a rights claim that one is in the right and expects duties of others such that when the morally questionable and damaging is imposed under false colour of law as though it were a right it leads straight to mounting injustice and oppression. Where already the mass bloodguilt of 60 million unborn children has utterly corrupted jurisprudence, legislatures, policy, executive, media, education and much else in the USA. This is the beginning of the corruptions, the wrenching of marriage marks the watershed that has set the clock of irreconcilable breakdown ticking. Every day that these corrupt rulings and laws stand, the wider the wedge driven into society. The degree of corruption of governance, multiplied by alienation, marginalisation, slander & bigotry targetting people of principle and conscience and more points in awful directions. And every day, consciences are progressively benumbed, hearts are ever more hardened and calloused, minds are ever more enmeshed in en-darkenment posing as enlightenment. The woes on such have long since been spoken. I cannot beat Isaiah for saying it powerfully:
Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! 22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strong drink, 23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right! [ESV]
Where, frankly, to make up words like "same sex marriage" cannot create realities. Marriage has a proper, natural and patent meaning reflecting realities that have been long recognised and the usurpations, manipulations and abuses under false colour of law cannot change that reality. Poison cannot be made into food by word magic, and the attempted imposition of social chaos and oppression in the name of "equality" and "rights" under false colour of law will only wreak havoc and harm, especially on children. But of course, that sweet south wind is blowing, let us sail out never mind that Cassandra off there saying something is wrong. KF kairosfocus
Agreed, William is interested in my views - interested in telling me unequivocally that they are irrational and unsupportable. But, as I said then and others have said, this same-sex marriage issue is about political science and the law, not about philosophy: there are Christians and atheists united here in defending same-sex marriage, and many religious people in the US support same-sex marriage. You may think they are all wrong, but they're not all wrong because they have what you considered an unsupportable moral foundation. Aleta
Mr. Murray -- "Where do you live? In America you can try to establish any legislation you wish, whether or not it is motivated via ones religion." I apologize. It was probably a poor choice of words on my part. What I intended to say was that I, as an individual, do not have the legal right to impose my religious beliefs on others. That doesn't mean that I do not have the legal right to provide input (lobby) for laws that reflect my religious beliefs. ziggy lorenc
CLAVDIS
And when they line up in court – where expert witnesses have to be recognised experts, evidence is given under penalty of perjury, testimony is cross-examined to reveal any flaws and biases, and professional adjudicators make the decisions – the pro-gay research is recognised as credible, convincing and overwhelming, and the anti-gay research is pilloried as biased, pathetic and entitled to essentially no weight.
Pro-gay research is recognized as credible by pro-gay partisans. A pro-gay judge will interpret the evidence the same way pro-gay partisans do. Also, court decisions involve factors other than who is right and who is wrong. Issues such as constitutional interpretation. For that matter, pro-gay partisans will not hesitate to be pro-gay partisans under oath. We ID people have been through this kind of thing before. Anti-ID partisans lied under oath to promote their nonsense. An anti-ID judge also misrepresented the facts in his final decision. This is a fact because I studied the transcript, which means that I can tell you exactly how an when the judge revised the testimony of pro-ID advocates by literally putting words in their mouths. So unless you provide me with a transcript, I don't accept the rantings of a pro-gay judge who, like his cronies, will make the evidence way what he wants it to say. Meanwhile, you are silent about the fact that mainstream sociologists, defined as those who are not already in the tank for pro-gay marriage, tell a different story. As I said, I can provide my own list of pro-family organizations who, relying on, and produce, their own experts, find the methodology of the report credible. So, its really between you and me. Accordingly, unless I missed it, you have not addressed my questions to you about the sample size and the rationale for it. Do you even know the sample size? Or are you taking your experts word for it that it was too small? Do you know why it was trimmed down? Do you know the first sample size and the final sample size/ Do you understand the trade off that was required in order to address inconsistencies in the length of time that children lived with their parents? Do you know how and why these necessary trade offs were misrepresented by the gay lobby as "flaws?" If you are familiar with statistics, you should know how these things work and how good methodology can be falsely characterized as bad methodology.
The pro-gay research is recognised as sober, scholarly and factual, based on reliable methodology, and backed by prestigious academic and professional institutions.
It is recognized as such by organizations who are in the tank for pro-gay causes. Not a single source that you cite is objective on this issue. Cam you provide me with a critique from someone or some organization that is not already sympathetic with the pro-gay movement? So far as I can tell, they all support the methodology and findings of this report. I have heard this argument by authority before. (The Darwinist "experts" are recognized as authoritative and the IDiots are out in left field. Sound familiar? So please, no more arguments from authority. My authorities are just as authoritative as your authorities. Also, and this is consistent with WJM's post, leftists (including pro-gay sympathizers) are famous for maligning their adversaries. This does not happen nearly as often from the other side. StephenB
Aleta said:
But William has no interest in entertaining the possibility that there are other possible views: like Stephen, he has a superiority complex about these matters.
There are not only other "possible" views, there are many, many other actual views. The question is not if such views exist, but rather if they are logically arguable and supportable. Even if they are not, you are certainly entitled to have whatever views you wish, even if they are irrational. As far as my supposed lack of interest, that accusation is demonstrably untrue. Earlier in this thread I asked Aleta several times where her notions about fairness, justice and morality came from - what they were founded upon or within, and she is the one that refused to discuss the matter. When someone says they are against slavery or for SSM on moral grounds, or that they consider certain applications of the law fair and others not fair, or certain illegal actions based on personal morality laudable and others despicable, the reasonable, even essential debate to have is about where such notions come from, what standard do they refer to, if any, and whether or not one is behaving consistently wrt their beliefs about these things. William J Murray
But William has no interest in entertaining the possibility that there are other possible views: like Stephen, he has a superiority complex about these matters. Good one! Mung
William offers the following, which I think is baloney.
On what grounds would you oppose slavery or advocate for equal rights other than on the religious concept that all humans are of equal value and are imbued with equal rights? How can you advocate for any law which requires people to be held accountable for their actions unless you are motivated by the religious concepts of free will and moral responsibility?
But William has no interest in entertaining the possibility that there are other possible views: like Stephen, he has a superiority complex about these matters. Aleta
Ziggy said:
Yes, I mean legally.
Where do you live? In America you can try to establish any legislation you wish, whether or not it is motivated via ones religion.
That doesn’t mean that I can’t lobby to have it enacted, but I would have to convince the majority of ministers that it is the right thing for everyone.
So you do have the legal right to try and establish such legislation, but like any legislation, you must convince others about the worthwhile nature of the proposed legislation. That's just the legal process; your motivations are irrelevant when it comes to the process.
To not inform them of my motivation would be dishonest.
I just don't understand this aspect of your argument. Your motivation for getting the law passed is utterly irrelevant to whether or not you can successfully argue that it should be passed. My motivation to get legislation passed might be based purely on something personal, like the tragedy of having a child abducted or because I personally want to smoke marijuana (which I don't), but so what? How many laws do you think were originally nothing more than personal issues? Do you not think many civil rights laws began as personal or religious issues? What matters is if you can successfully make a sound case for your proposed law. Others should judge your argument on its merits and not dismiss it simply because you have some personal motivation driving you. There's nothing dishonest about not providing motivations for bringing a proposed law up when the proposed law should be left to be judged on its own rational and factual merits.
My Sunday closing example is a good example. I could argue that everyone should have a day off with their family, but how could I argue that it should be Sunday without bringing up my religious reason? How could I argue that Jews would also have to follow this law? Or atheists?
You argue it by making a case that Sunday is the best day for the shop to close on rational, evidence-based reasoning. BTW, Ziggy, you do realize that the laws and protections we have in Western civilization are in fact religious concepts imposed into law by deeply religious people, right? On what grounds would you oppose slavery or advocate for equal rights other than on the religious concept that all humans are of equal value and are imbued with equal rights? How can you advocate for any law which requires people to be held accountable for their actions unless you are motivated by the religious concepts of free will and moral responsibility? It's easy to live in the ivory tower of western civilization, cut out of the savage landscape by religious forefathers imposing religious doctrine and concepts upon the populace, and then take those rights, laws and social structure for granted as if they are not founded in religious thought. William J Murray
daveS: I flatly disagree. Girgis et al.'s rejection of the Revisionist view is ironic, because it comports with most people's understanding of marriage, straight or otherwise.
Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people … who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable
Or we could just refer to a traditional marriage vow:
I, {name}, take you {name}, to be my lawfully wedded {spouse}, to have and to hold from this day forward; for better or for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish from this day forward until death do us part.
Zachriel
KF,
DS, Girgis et al discuss all that in detail in the relevant peer reviewed literature, why not look there and address it. I find it astonishingly revealing that after over 500 comments no objectors have seriously and cogently done so. Cf 248 above for the errors in a dismissal attempt. And I have just above addressed the so called naturalistic fallacy in more detail.
The Girgis paper seems to be chock-full of assertions which I don't agree with. For example:
To form a real marriage, a couple needs to establish and live out the kind of union that would be completed by, and be apt for, procreation and child?rearing.
which the authors support by citing a passage from earlier in the paper:
As many people acknowledge, marriage involves: first, a comprehensive union of spouses; second, a special link to children; and third, norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity. All three elements point to the conjugal understanding of marriage.
I flatly disagree.
The fundamental issue is a worldview agenda that is driven by an inherently self refuting, inescapably amoral worldview, evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat. Our civilisation is on track to go over the cliff through unwisely embracing this view.
Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with "evolutionary materialism". I'm more interested in the proper role of government here. When I got married, I didn't have to answer any questions about whether I agree with the conjugal understanding and the like. At that time, you and your partner had to be of opposite sex, of course, but other than that, my wife and I simply had to say that we wanted to be married, and the state left us to work out the rest. Other than the requirement to be of opposite sex, the same-sex couples I know, as far as I am aware, would have been fully qualified to marry, and the couples that have done so seem just as "married" as I am to my wife. daveS
StephenB: The fourteenth amendment has absolutely nothing to say about equality for gay marriage. Let's look at the text: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." No citizen shall be deprived of their liberty without due process, and no person shall be denied the equal protection of the law. StephenB: It was established solely to confirm the point that blacks are fully American and deserve equal protection under the laws–nothing more. Maybe it was a typo. http://gregshead.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/typewriter.jpg The Fourteenth Amendment refers to all citizens and all persons. Zachriel
kf, you may think the religious people here have "erroneous views", but it is not because of "evolutionary materialism." You should at least accept the fact that lots of Christians accept same-sex marriage even if you think it is wrong. To dismiss me as an atheist is one thing, but to dismiss literally millions of your fellow Christians is another. To call their views "erroneous" delegates to you the right and ability to be the judge of their moral judgments, and that's not a very Christian thing to do. To say that you disagree is one thing: to presume to tell them they're wrong is another. Who are you to judge? Aleta
KF -- "ZL, refusal on your part to examine or take seriously facts, reasoning and relevant worldviews analysis does not constitute want of evidence as presented and linked." There is that willingness to engage in fair and open discussion that we have come to know and love in KF. KF, obviously you are incapable of listening to other people's opinions and views without resorting to a patronizing and arrogant tone. If you were one of my children, you would receive a good mouth soaping. I disagree with StephenB and Phinehas and Mr. Murray, and they are capable of responding in a civil manner. If you can't do this, maybe it is time for you to seek other avenues of communication. ziggy lorenc
DS, Girgis et al discuss all that in detail in the relevant peer reviewed literature, why not look there and address it. I find it astonishingly revealing that after over 500 comments no objectors have seriously and cogently done so. Cf 248 above for the errors in a dismissal attempt. And I have just above addressed the so called naturalistic fallacy in more detail. The fundamental issue is a worldview agenda that is driven by an inherently self refuting, inescapably amoral worldview, evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat. Our civilisation is on track to go over the cliff through unwisely embracing this view. Aleta, that people may come to hold an erroneous view in no wise affects the underlying realities addressed by marriage. I cite Websters 1828, to point out the historic consensus that was not in question until radical activists in our time found a marketing strategy for their agenda:
marriage [.] MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death ...
ZL, refusal on your part to examine or take seriously facts, reasoning and relevant worldviews analysis does not constitute want of evidence as presented and linked. __________ Grand conclusion: the sweet south wind is blowing, let us sail out! KF kairosfocus
As someone who has been married for quite some time, it is a strange experience reading some of the arguments against ssm here. Neither bearing children nor engaging in a particular form of sexual relations is a requirement of marriage. I assume we all agree on that. There are celibate marriages including those where there is no possibility of sexual relations. I don't know of any activities which are essential to marriage that same-sex couples cannot participate in. I know just a few same-sex couples, but as far as I can tell, they are just as capable of being married as my wife and I are. More precisely, I can't point to any particular thing which disqualifies them from marriage but not my wife and I. daveS
Clavdivs -- "kairosfocus I asked if gay marriage is bad for society as you say, where is the evidence to back this up? Or is it all in your head?" Maybe this will help KF Evidence: [noun] - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. I am not crazy about the idea of SSM, but I have not been able to find a shred of evidence that it is bad for society. It has been legal in Canada for over a decade and I have not seen any negative consequences that I could conclusively say were the result of it. I read through Girgis' paper, and although I agree with much of it, there is no way that I can separate it from the religious perspective. It is far from being an objective examination of the issue. When you distill it down, it is an opinion piece. And opinions can be had on any street corner. ziggy lorenc
I know many Christians who feel they way I do (and ziggy, clvdivs, and other here) and reject the arguments that kf and sb are making. This has nothing to do with kf's big bad bogeyman "evolutionary materialism." Aleta
Clavdivs, did you realise that you just effectively agreed that evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral? Where, that matter interacting mechanically and/or by chance is then irrelevant to the grounding of moral governance then points to either grand delusion in our minds and discredit of mind or else to the reality of an IS that can ground OUGHT. That you are patently unwilling to discuss the latter speaks volumes. And your nominalism, it's just about names imposed by might and manipulation, then finds a chilling explanation. It is a question of who runs the shadow show in the Plato's Cave. Girgis et al would do you a lot of good, but you have distorted and denigrated then dismissed. The implications are patent: slippery slope heading for a cliff. KF PS: Two clips from Locke speak to us, first citation from Hooker as Locke grounds modern liberty in Ch 2 sec 5 of 2nd treatise on civil govt:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
And in his intro sec 5 of his essay on human understanding:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2 & 13, Ac 17, Jn 3:19 - 21, Eph 4:17 - 24, Isaiah 5:18 & 20 - 21, Jer. 2:13, Titus 2:11 - 14 etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. [Emphases added. Text references also added, to document the sources of Locke's biblical allusions and citations. Yes, they are indeed patently there.]
The emerging chaos and harm from imposing under false colour of law a radical distortion of marriage, in light of a claimed right that would try to impose duty to support evil in violation of conscience on others, while distorting the self-understanding and primary relationships needed by young children though perverting family, speaks volumes for itself. Not one word of it to the good. kairosfocus
kairosfocus So you agree you cannot derive an ought from a material is. "Gay marriage is not procreative therefore we ought not to call it marriage". That's a fallacy. CLAVDIVS
Clavdivs You cannot derive an ought from a material is. Likewise, we cannot ground ought at any level above world-foundations, or world roots. But we are not locked up to material entities as serious candidate root reality. What evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers never wish to acknowledge is that moral government points to a different order of being and to a world root level IS that readily grounds OUGHT. Indeed, the only serious candidate that does so; and, that did so long before Hume et al put up the idea of an impassable gulch between IS and OUGHT. For years at UD the answer has been repeatedly put on the table but has been consistently ignored. A look at it can be had through Dembski's remark about Boethius:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” . . .
In short, goodness is the answer. Specifically, moral government and responsible rational freedom would be perfectly grounded in a world root is that at the same time is the perfectly good giver of purpose and freedom. Where, evil would then be the perversion, frustration or privation of the good out of proper purpose, ending in chaos and harm. I summarise that IS who grounds OUGHT:
the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, Just and good Lord of all Worlds, fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
Where, conscience is a moral sense that when properly nurtured guides reason and will to the right in light of first principles of moral reasoning. As to the irretrievable flaws of evolutionary materialism, I again cite Will Hawthorne:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'.
And again, I point to a discussion on the objectivity of morality here on. As to the imposition of so-called same sex marriage under false colour of law, it is a manifest frustration and twisting out of proper end of the framework of marriage and family. And if you cannot see the harm and chaos imposed by undermining moral governance in our civilisation it would indicate that you are in the position corrected by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:
Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
KF PS: Apart from what is already manifest, SB, above gave a significant summary, which -- predictably -- was haughtily dismissed and tossed aside by those utterly bent on a radical agenda. I suggest to you the harm begins at world foundation level and is directly tied to the imposition of an inherently self falsifying, amoral worldview that then leads to undermining of moral governance, substituting might and manipulation. kairosfocus
kairosfocus Still waiting on evidence (something other people can measure) that gay marriage has caused social problems. CLAVDIVS
kairosfocus I don't pretend you're barely literate. You are one of the worst writers of English I have ever had the misfortune to read. Why don't you do a course on writing concisely and lucidly - there are lots online. Your alleged "response" @ 248 completely misses the point. You burble on about moral precepts like stable family structure, commitment and child welfare. But Girgis et al do not claim gay relationships are any less stable, committed or suitable for child-rearing. The only difference between gay and straight that Girgis et al point to is child-bearing capacity which is not a moral precept, it is a factual state of affairs. Claiming a factual state of affairs entails a moral obligation to maintain that state of affairs is a classic instance of the naturalistic fallacy. QED CLAVDIVS
Clavdivs, you have an adequate response and have reacted through the habitual tactic, distract, distort, denigrate (in this case by pretending I have written barely literate gobbledygook). You multiply this by drumbeat dismissal based on distortion of Girgis et al corrected ever since 248 above. You aptly show the point of the OP that reasoned discussion is fast coming to an end. You show the view of your faction, that might and manipulation make 'right' 'truth' 'value' etc. Nihilism, rooted in self-referentially incoherent and amoral evolutionary materialism and the enabling of fellow travellers. It is high time to wake up and do better. KF kairosfocus
kairosfocus @ 515 What does all that gobbledygook have to do with the naturalistic fallacy committed by Girgis et al? You cannot derive an ought from an is. No amount of long-winded rhetoric can cover up this simple fact. CLAVDIVS
kairosfocus I asked if gay marriage is bad for society as you say, where is the evidence to back this up? Or is it all in your head? You responded with a barely literate, stream-of-consciousness diatribe that didn't cite any evidence. Principles, moral outrage, forecasts, conjectures and rhetoric are not evidence. I want to know if there is any evidence of social breakdown in the 25-odd jurisdictions globally where gay marriage has been legal for several years (in some cases over 10 years). CLAVDIVS
PPS: On the so called naturalistic fallacy and the consequent infinite regress of Plato's Cave world grand general delusions vs self evident first moral principles tied to the quasi-infinite value of the human individual and sensed by conscience cf here on. kairosfocus
Clavdivs, what was shown above -- cf 248 -- was that in your haste to disagree it was you who failed to recognise the generally accepted first moral principles at work, that you projected question begging as though you could assume dismissal of first moral principles without severe worldview consequences of such dismissal and more. Drumbeat repetition of your errors does not justify dismissal of what you disagree with. KF PS: Given the nature of human moral government, the biology of reproduction, requisites of long term stable family and community environments for child nurture and more, the modern day fiction under colour of law is not marriage but a deliberate and damaging distortion. To sustain it, there will be denial of evidence of harm done until there is undeniable collapse. And even then there will be scapegoats everywhere but in the radical secularist, lab coat clad evolutionary materialist hollowing out of moral governance and the radical ill advised sociocultural engineering now underway. As to the damage of warping identity, breaking down primary relationships, tainting education and society, silencing and increasingly persecuting those who differ, that is not even seen as harm done. The damage to legal systems, government and liberty, that is not even on the radar screen. As to the distortion of understanding that as rights are moral claims to have a right you must be in the right or you wickedly impose evil on others as claimed duty, that is ignored even as it brings creeping tyranny and irreconcilable conflict and alienation in its train. The tipping point where a sense of loyalty is fatally eroded is coming. kairosfocus
:D Mark Dice, check his Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxbvVPMUXU4 Eugen
kairosfocus I again point to Girgis et al. You mean the paper chock full of logical fallacies, like deriving an ought from an is? Tell me, kairosfocus, if gay marriage is bad for society as you say, where is the evidence to back this up? Or is it all in your head? CLAVDIVS
VS (et al), Yes, in the USA -- a very important point -- marriage has long been under assault. If you had looked above before commenting you would see that I long since spoke to that. The manipulation of marriage under false colour of law is a reflection and extension of a trend of socio-cultural decay that in turn reflects the fundamental breakdown of moral principle in our civilisation. Our civilisation is on a slippery slope, headed for the cliffs, in a march of folly. One that may already have passed the point of no return. Many will wake up when we are at the foot of the cliff, broken-backed but by then it will be too late. And from what I saw in my homeland, not even that will be enough for many others, full of confusion and the manipulation they have been subjected to while having been robbed of a sound education that would equip them to think straight about morally tinged matters and matters in general. As to recovering and getting back from such a collapse, that is a project of a century, of two to three full length generations. Ask the French about the chaos their nation experienced for 150 and more years after their radical revolution, especially across C19. And, to my mind, it seems there is still something fundamentally unstable about France; already on its FIFTH republic. Ask the Russians, pausing to examine the history of the purges and deliberate starvation of millions across the 1930's. As for the Chinese, even now they cannot speak the frank truth about their own case. As for the Cubans, in our own neighbourhood . . . Now, it is not without significance that a generation ago, divorce was made much more easy to come by under colour of law, and gradually the sense that divorce must be the rare exception was lost. The rot had set in. Likewise, we must never underestimate the morally corrupting effect of mass blood guilt, with a global total that is shocking . . . multiply the numbers Guttmacher gives, ballpark 40 or 50 mn by 40 years and see where you end up, even allowing for a much lower figure formerly. In the case of the USA, approaching 60 million unborn children in a generation -- half a generation -- have been slaughtered in the womb, mostly for reasons that cannot bear any even basic moral scrutiny. A generation corrupted and traumatised (hidden survivor guilt) by that slaughter under false colour of law literally cannot think straight when morality impinges on law and justice. Indeed, they will forget that justice is a moral principle that cannot be severed from its roots without sobering consequences. Mix in the pervasive perception that IS and OUGHT cannot be bridged, even, that it is a fallacy to suggest that they are. It is significant to see the name for that fallacy as called: naturalistic fallacy. What they forget, we are inescapably morally governed, as even the import of concepts such as 'equality,' 'rights,' 'fairness' and 'justice' have long tried to tell us. These point to a terrible alternative: morality s a grand delusion that brings the credibility of our minds into deep doubt, or else it does have a root at foundation level of our world. There is but one serious candidate for that, but that candidate is He with whom the secularist magisterium decrees we must not deal. Namely . . . and this is a philosophical inference in the context of best explanation . . . the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature and conscience guided reason. Where, there is no more good reason to doubt that our consciences on the whole (if not benumbed and beclouded) do sense something real, the government of OUGHT. But men would banish God, having scapegoated and slandered him first. And, as for those who would dare bring up God as root of morality, rights and justice . . . ! Never mind the US DoI, 1776 (as was already pointed out above):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Compound that fundamental breakdown by the further warping of a society increasingly saturated with perverse sexual influences through pornography and through increasingly widespread unrestrained sexual behaviour, save for oh remember to use a condom, it's safety equipment for the favourite sport. Then, mix in the clever strategic manipulators, corporate and ideological. Exponentiate by the general failure of those who should be providing sound moral and intellectual leadership to society, in academy, in church, in state, in the media, in the court room. Bring to bear a ruthless agit prop driven, cultural marxism influenced long term strategy of:
-- desensitising to the bizarre, destructive, immoral and amoral -- jamming out (and increasingly punishing) those who dare to speak out -- conversion to passive or active enabling or even participation.
Don't forget the warping of science, and its decoupling from ethics. With evolutionary materialist ideology in the driver seat. Oh, nothing is wrong or harmful with the willful exposure of children by embedding them in 'marriages' that are fundamentally at odds with human nature. Nothing, with utterly confusing sexual identity and principles through wrenching and distorting and frustrating the most profound primary relationships a child will have. Nope, there is no human nature or real moral obligation, such are ancient God-shadowed superstitions to be discarded. Nothing is wrong with depriving children of balanced stable nurture by their parents or to the patent fact that it takes a father and a mother to have a child. Nothing to see there about evidence of damage, tut tut, move along, trust our CONSENSUS of experts. We dominate the prestigious institutions after all and wear the lab coats, how dare you challenge our expertise and knowledge. (Never mind the statistics and other evidence that points to utter domination by ideological, imposed a priori evolutionary materialism and how that is likely to warp judgements, especially where a particularly unwelcome shadow may darken the doorstep. But then you see those IDiots and ignorant, stupid, insane of wicked Creationists can be dismissed as right wing fundy Christofascists hoping to inflict a theocracy on us. Thus saith the evolutionary materialist oligarchic establishment.) The resulting benumbing of conscience and the resulting en-darkening of mind set up a context in which it is all but impossible for many to think straight about matters of morality, justice, law and the requirements of the long term good. The solution to that is profound reformation, not worsening the decline by arbitrary might and manipulation make 'right'-'truth'- 'worth' etc based redefinition of marriage under false colour of law; whether by court or by parliament or by referendum manipulated by the clever strategic marketers and agit prop experts. Marriage reflects what many, under the influence of extreme nominalism and radical relativism (driven by the self referential incoherence and want of a foundational IS that grounds OUGHT of evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat), deny or dismiss: that there is such a thing as a morally governed human nature that is tampered with at peril. The ongoing tampering will predictably have sobering consequences, but by the time such are evident to all (where the manipulation that has been ongoing for decades is a material factor in how we have by and large been led to think), we will have gone over the cliff and it will be too late. The sweet south wind is blowing, let us take advantage of it and sail for a more comfortable port. I again point to Girgis et al. KF kairosfocus
StephenB There are plenty who disagree with all these pro-gay organizations. It is just a matter of lining them up as you lined yours up. And when they line up in court - where expert witnesses have to be recognised experts, evidence is given under penalty of perjury, testimony is cross-examined to reveal any flaws and biases, and professional adjudicators make the decisions - the pro-gay research is recognised as credible, convincing and overwhelming, and the anti-gay research is pilloried as biased, pathetic and entitled to essentially no weight. Every time. That's because, as recognised by multiple courts, the anti-gay research is biased by irrational prejudice, draws unwarranted conclusions and is backed by right-wing propaganda machines. The pro-gay research is recognised as sober, scholarly and factual, based on reliable methodology, and backed by prestigious academic and professional institutions. CLAVDIVS
StephenB All you have provided me is a series of complaints from organizations that were already committed to pro-same sex marriage. What would you expect them to do, congratulate the author who draws conclusions that offend their gay-friendly sensibilities? I find noting objective in the whole lot. Your argument that all the eminent doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists are biased against you is ridiculous and not credible. Regardless, the methodological flaws in the Regnerus paper are objectively clear and totally undermine his conclusions. You say that you are competent in statistics and that the sample size was too small. In your judgment, what is a appropriate sample size for this kind of study... I didn't say the sample size was too small, the AMA et al did. I didn't pay attention to the sample size because the flaws in sample selection and design are so glaring and preposterous that even with a gigantic sample the paper would still be fatally flawed. CLAVDIVS
CLAVDIVS
And the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Assocation, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Sociological Association agree with me. So does a judge in Michican who heard Regnerus in person and, I repeat, found his study and testimony to be “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration”.
Well of course they do. They, like you, were all in for same sex marriage before the study was done. I don't expect pro-gay partisans to take it all sitting down. I expected this response. There are plenty who disagree with all these pro-gay organizations. It is just a matter of lining them up as you lined yours up. Here is a report from focus on the family, a pro traditional marriage organization. "It (the report) is accompanied by published responses from mainstream sociologists, which while critical of a few important points – as academics always are - they are generally in praise of his methodology as well as his unique and needed ground-breaking contribution to the literature on the topic of same-sex parenting. This is key and will go far to rebut the activist’s severe, but largely base-less criticisms." Did you get that? A number of mainstream sociologists, who know something about how to conduct this same kind of study, were generally "in praise of his methodology." There is plenty more where that came from. However, lining them all up is a useless enterprise. So I attribute all this hand wringing to the rantings of bruised egos of politically-correct partisans who cannot stand to have their pro-gay biases challenged. You have provided no objective reasons to reject this study. StephenB
velikovskysIt seems another possible explanation is that since the exceedingly strange response supported his position, the researcher allowed it stand. Any evidence of dubious responses that did not support the researcher’s position being allowed to stand? If partisanship is involved in the analysis, then it goes both ways. If he can stacked the deck in his favor, his opponents can stack the deck against him. That is what appears to have happened. StephenB
ziggy
My thesis was that there was no global conspiracy to silence anti-evolution speech. You are the one who is insisting that I said that all people fired or denied advancement signed a code of conduct.
That, of course, is a false statement. Not one word in our exchange had anything to do with a global conspiracy. I invite you to check the record.
With regard to the threats of jail for people who deny climate change, we are talking about a small number of people.
So, even as we wind it down, you still cannot bring yourself to provide an honest answer to my question. Interesting. StephenB
KF : Instead, I put it to you that two men or two women or a human and an animal, or whatever bizarre onward combination will be dreamed up, simply cannot be married due to the nature of what is implied and bound up in that word. Let's see, 40-50 percent of marriages end in divorce, 24 percent of children experience divorce. For much of the history of marriage women was basically property of the man. Let's not forget laws prohibiting mixed race marriage Instead, we are indulging an exercise that subverts or even mocks what marriage is, and that such will not end well for our civilisation, precisely because of the foundational nature of marriage and family. If “marriage” means any and every thing, in the end it means nothing It seems divorce is a greater threat to marriage than a few gay people seeking to be treated the same under the law as mixed marriage. velikovskys
Stephen : The very fact that this one response was exceedingly strange is an indication that the researcher allowed it to stand as it happened without trying to dress it up. If the sample size is large, as this one was, there will be many dubious responses.That the critics of this study didn’t take that fact into account, leads me to believe that they, not the researcher, were trying to achieve a result that was inconsistent with the data. It seems another possible explanation is that since the exceedingly strange response supported his position, the researcher allowed it stand. Any evidence of dubious responses that did not support the researcher's position being allowed to stand? velikovskys
CLAVDIV
@494 is my summary of the resources that I provided links to in the post
All you have provided me is a series of complaints from organizations that were already committed to pro-same sex marriage. What would you expect them to do, congratulate the author who draws conclusions that offend their gay-friendly sensibilities? I find noting objective in the whole lot. I have examined the Cheng study, which provides more detai, and the authors response to it, which I find credible. Indeed, the hysterical language of your sources prompts one to say, "Me thnketh you protest to much." You say that you are competent in statistics and that the sample size was too small. In your judgment, what is a appropriate sample size for this kind of study, what was the sample size for this particular study, and what was the rationale for using it? Was that rationale justified. If not, why not? StephenB
StephenB -- "Does this mean that you will never answer my question about how five evolutionary critics are supposed to have signed and agreed to a code such that they would not critique evolutionary theory? Does this mean that you do not intend to defend your thesis?" My thesis was that there was no global conspiracy to silence anti-evolution speech. You are the one who is insisting that I said that all people fired or denied advancement signed a code of conduct. With regard to the threats of jail for people who deny climate change, we are talking about a small number of people. If this ever becomes a serious concern, you can ask me again. Until then, I suggest that you put another layer on that tinfoil hat of yours. ziggy lorenc
ziggy
it is what you consider to be obvious that we are debating.
Does this mean that you will never answer my question about the attempt to put dissenting climate scientists in jail or the prospect that they had agreed to a code by which they would remain silent on the matter? Does this mean that you will never answer my question about how five evolutionary critics are supposed to have signed and agreed to a code such that they would not critique evolutionary theory? Does this mean that you do not intend to defend your thesis? StephenB
StephenB -- "I would be a little more impressed with your sincerity and willingness to argue in good faith if you did, at least, acknowledge the obvious:" it is what you consider to be obvious that we are debating. ziggy lorenc
StephenB Send me to the website that provided this summary. @494 is my summary of the resources that I provided links to in the post -- please pay attention. CLAVDIVS
StephenB I have done this kind of research myself, so I am qualified to comment on it. I have a degree in statistics and I am qualified to say Regnerus' study is garbage. And the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Assocation, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Sociological Association agree with me. So does a judge in Michican who heard Regnerus in person and, I repeat, found his study and testimony to be "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration". CLAVDIVS
CLAVDIVS
Nonsense. That study is a joke.
Send me to the website that provided this summary. Which of these organizations, if any, are not pro-gay marriage. StephenB
Stephen writes,
Your knowledge base is incomplete. That is the answer to your specific question. Do you have a substantive response to my comments?
I have had adequate knowledge - as good as yours, about the subject and very different reasoned judgements than you do. But there is no sense in discussing with you, and I've explained why. Aleta
Seversky
There has been a re-analysis of Regnerus’s findings reported here. A couple of choice morsels:
Regnerus does not check for, or apparently even consider the possibility of, inconsistent, uncertain, and unreliable cases in his data—even though some other items in the NFSS offer some limited means to assess this possibility. For example, Regnerus (2012c) acknowledges that, according to the aforementioned calendar data, over half of the respondents never lived with a parent’s same-sex partner, but fails to mention that many respondents—approximately one-third—also never lived with their same-sex parents or lived with them very briefly. [emphasis original]
Regnerus has analyzed this criticism and found it wanting. He said the results of his study hold true. I agree. -The parental same-sex relationships reported by adult children are not, on average, long-term ones. --The longer those parental relationships lasted, the better—on average—were the outcomes for adult children. --Very few same-sex relationships lasted the entirety of the respondents’ childhood. Critics cried foul. I cried, “Reality!” -The stability afforded by continuously intact mom-and-dad families pays benefits, on average, well into adulthood. They remain the standard against which all other forms ought to be compared. Regnerus says, “These conclusions hold true, whether you read my original study, its follow-up, Simon Cheng and Brian Powell’s new analyses, or crunch the numbers yourself.” Apparently, his critics didn’t do that. They didn’t crunch the numbers.
"The most blatant example of highly suspicious responses is the case of a 25 year-old man who reports that his father had a romantic relationship with another man, but also reports that he (the respondent) was 7-feet 8-inches tall, weighed 88 pounds, was married 8 times and had 8 children. Other examples include a respondent who claims to have been arrested at age 1 and another who spent an implausibly short amount of time (less than 10 minutes) to complete the survey."
I have done this kind of research myself, so I am qualified to comment on it. There are at least four ways to bring methodology in to assess these kinds of issues: surveys, interviews, reports, and observations. Surveys provide quantitative results and interviews provide qualitative results. Usually, both are needed. With respect to the qualitative component, it is important to let the subject describe his experiences without leading him in the direction of an outcome that you would prefer. The very fact that this one response was exceedingly strange is an indication that the researcher allowed it to stand as it happened without trying to dress it up. If the sample size is large, as this one was, there will be many dubious responses. That the critics of this study didn't take that fact into account, leads me to believe that they, not the researcher, were trying to achieve a result that was inconsistent with the data. StephenB
StephenB I have already provided the scientific evidence of the harm it does to children [@332].. No one has refuted that study. Nonsense. That study is a joke. - The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Assocation and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among other august institutions, unanimously reject the validity of Regnerus' data and his conclusions because, unlike previous studies, his sample size was both tiny and selected in a statistically flawed manner -- noting "... the Regnerus study sheds no light on the parenting of stable, committed same-sex couples – as Regnerus himself acknowledges". - 200 social scientists published a letter in the same journal pointing out severe methodological flaws in the paper and raising serious questions about its peer review. - A member of the journal's editorial board subsequently conducted an audit of the paper's review process and concluded it should never have been published because - and I quote the auditor - "It's bulls**t." - Regnerus attempted to use his research when giving expert evidence in the Michigan Marriage Amendment case. The judge completely lambasted Regnerus' study and testimony, finding it was "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration", biased by its funding sources to give the result paid for (i.e. anti-gay-marriage), not a scholarly effort at all and "flawed on its face" as it purported to study children raised in different family environments "but in fact did not study this at all." CLAVDIVS
Aleta
Hah. What an arrogant, self-righteous thing to say. There is no way to discuss this any further with you. My conscience is just fine. I can accept us disagreeing with each other, but for you to think that you have a superior view of the subject is laughable
You asked me a direct question, so I provided a direct answer. Your knowledge base is incomplete. That is the answer to your specific question. Do you have a substantive response to my comments? StephenB
Aleta: So, since Rosa Parks was morally right, and laws were subsequently changed, then do you favor the changing of the law on same-sex marriage? PaV
kairosfocus Seversky, raising children with confusion about sexuality, identity, family and marriage as well as wider morality and society does neither the children nor the society good. False. All quotes below from the judgement’s summary in Perry v Schwarzenegger and represent the unrebutted testimony of leading scholarly experts:
“Social epidemiologist Ilan Meyer testified about the harm gays and lesbians have experienced because of Proposition 8 [outlawing gay marriage]. … According to Meyer, Proposition 8 increases the likelihood of negative mental and physical health outcomes for gays and lesbians.” “Economist Lee Badgett provided evidence that same-sex couples would benefit economically if they were able to marry and that same-sex marriage would have no adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on opposite-sex couples.” “Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships.” “Egan explained that Proposition 8 decreases the number of married couples in San Francisco, who tend to be wealthier than single people because of their ability to specialize their labor, pool resources and access state and employer-provided benefits. Proposition 8 also increases the costs associated with discrimination against gays and lesbians. … Badgett explained that municipalities throughout California and the state government face economic disadvantages similar to those Egan identified for San Francisco.” “Psychologist Letitia Anne Peplau testified that couples benefit both physically and economically when they are married. Peplau testified that those benefits would accrue to same-sex as well as opposite-sex married couples. To Peplau, the desire of same-sex couples to marry illustrates the health of the institution of marriage and not, as Blankenhorn testified, the weakening of marriage.” “Peplau pointed to research showing that, despite stereotypes suggesting gays and lesbians are unable to form stable relationships, same-sex couples are in fact indistinguishable from opposite-sex couples in terms of relationship quality and stability.” “Historian Nancy Cott testified about the public institution of marriage and the state’s interest in recognizing and regulating marriages. … The state’s primary purpose in regulating marriage is to create stable households. … Cott testified that the state would benefit from recognizing same-sex marriage because such marriages would provide “another resource for stability and social order.” “Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent.”
CLAVDIVS
Origines, I suggest you look at 485 just above, and that you look onward at Girgis et al. We all know the history of this push to create a redefinition of marriage under colour of law. The idea roots that made such even remotely plausible are clear and are rooted in evolutionary materialist scientism, associated radical secularism, and its wider influence. The sweet-seeming south wind is blowing. KF PS: Seversky, raising children with confusion about sexuality, identity, family and marriage as well as wider morality and society does neither the children nor the society good. But of course when might and manipulation make 'right' 'truth' 'value' etc, and seem to be successful, the sweet south wind is blowing. kairosfocus
Stephen,
Because your knowledge of slavery is reasonably complete while your knowledge of the role of marriage is incomplete. Thus, your conscience is not sufficiently informed by reason to make moral judgments on the matter.
Hah. What an arrogant, self-righteous thing to say. There is no way to discuss this any further with you. My conscience is just fine. I can accept us disagreeing with each other, but for you to think that you have a superior view of the subject is laughable. Aleta
StephenB @ 485
First, it denies a child either a mother or a father. I have already provided the scientific evidence of the harm it does to children @342. No one has refuted that study...
Yes, they have. There has been a re-analysis of Regnerus's findings reported here. A couple of choice morsels:
Regnerus does not check for, or apparently even consider the possibility of, inconsistent, uncertain, and unreliable cases in his data—even though some other items in the NFSS offer some limited means to assess this possibility. For example, Regnerus (2012c) acknowledges that, according to the aforementioned calendar data, over half of the respondents never lived with a parent’s same-sex partner, but fails to mention that many respondents—approximately one-third—also never lived with their same-sex parents or lived with them very briefly. [emphasis original]
The most blatant example of highly suspicious responses is the case of a 25 year-old man who reports that his father had a romantic relationship with another man, but also reports that he (the respondent) was 7-feet 8-inches tall, weighed 88 pounds, was married 8 times and had 8 children. Other examples include a respondent who claims to have been arrested at age 1 and another who spent an implausibly short amount of time (less than 10 minutes) to complete the survey.
Seversky
Correction, the science on the negative effects of same sex marriage on children is summarized @332 not @342 StephenB
StephenB: The Supreme Court sure couldn’t make it, and they recognized that fact. It was a totally arbitrary decision based on leftist ideology and whim. Zach
That is incorrect. The decision determined that bans on same sex marriage violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The fourteenth amendment has absolutely nothing to say about equality for gay marriage. It was established solely to confirm the point that blacks are fully American and deserve equal protection under the laws--nothing more. If the Fourteenth Amendment, as written, had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and therefore still doesn't, that should end the discussion. Unfortunately, activist judges are always trying to create new rights that do not exist. StephenB
Aleta
Stephen, I also say it is wrong to deny marriage to same-sex couples. I don’t say “in my opinion, it is wrong ….” Why am I right about slavery, but wrong and same-sex marriage?
Because your knowledge of slavery is reasonably complete while your knowledge of the role of marriage is incomplete. Thus, your conscience is not sufficiently informed by reason to make moral judgments on the matter. So-called “gay marriage cannot be marriage. It isn’t real. Marriage, by definition, is a covenant between a man and a woman that is ordered to the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. This covenant is a product of the laws of God and nature. A homosexual union simply cannot qualify as that kind of institution. Heterosexual marriage promotes the common good because it elevates the nuclear family as the primary institution of society. Accordingly, it reflects the proper purpose of sex and establishes the limits of how it ought to be used. The so-called union of “gay marriage” cannot play that role at all. It simply trivializes and perverts the real thing. Accordingly, it harms society in many ways: First, it denies a child either a mother or a father. I have already provided the scientific evidence of the harm it does to children @342.. No one has refuted that study. Thus, there can be no principle of “equality” at stake because there can be no second or third kind of marriage. There can be only one kind of marriage. Worse, gay marriage celebrates and justifies the homosexual lifestyle. When the secular state promotes this perversity, especially when it brainwashes children to accept it at an early age and pushes them to become a part of this perverse movement. In fact, gay marriage violates the common good of all members of society by frustrating the states purpose for benefiting heterosexual marriage. If the latter is just one among many, then there is no reason why the state cannot marginalize parents by usurping their role to raise children. To grant a right to one person is take away the right of another. This is true in all cases. To grant one man the right to a free college education is to take away another man’s right to keep some of his tax money. Similarly, to grant homosexuals the right to marry is to take away societies right to give heterosexual marriage a special place. There is no question of equality here becasue something that is unreal does not deserve the same consideration as something that is real. Gay marriage cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage because it isn't real. Thus, the question of equal protection under the law is not even relevant. StephenB
Kairosfocus, my view on SSM is neither shaped by evolutionary materialism, nor communism, nor by the wish to end civilization. I have explained my position in #347. Origenes
She was legally wrong, and morally right. She suffered some negative consequences, but also helped make a difference in making our world a better place. Aleta
Rosa Parks, motivated by her religious sentiments, refused to give up her seat in a bus to a white bus rider. She was breaking the "law." Was she wrong? PaV
ziggy
From the little reading that I did on this, she did not just utter the words “Intelligent Design” in a classroom, contrary to what is projected in the “documentary”
This is all very mysterious. What else is she alleged to have done? When and where did she promise not to do it? What makes you think it was not part of the curriculum if the information is relevant? Since you chose not to accept her account and rely solely on the report of her adversaries, why not give me your account? Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the other examples? When and where did any of them sign on to a code and then go back on it? You have not even come close to making your case. I would be a little more impressed with your sincerity and willingness to argue in good faith if you did, at least, acknowledge the obvious: Politically correct thought police seek to compromise the free speech of those climate scientists whose evidence-based opinions are different from theirs by threatening them with jail time. Show your good faith by conceding the obvious point. StephenB
F/N: Bill Muehlenberg gives us pause to understand how the sort of manipulation I have discussed can be (and has been) carried forward, through the dynamics of desensitising to what was objectionable, jamming out of those who dare to object, and conversion to embracing or enabling what the strategic planners -- corporate or ideological -- want. In his review of Kupelian's The Marketing of Evil, we find:
. . . with such activist marketing of evil taking place, a much stronger response is required than is presently being offered. Now those who are familiar with the culture wars will not find too much new material here, as much of it has been presented elsewhere. But the angle which the author takes is well worth considering. That is, there is an agenda being pushed, and there are those actively working to foist their tarnished vision of society on the rest of us . . . . [For one instance,] We do not just have millions of young people who seem to have all descended upon common clothing, entertainment, and consumer culture. They have been carefully studied, marketed to and manipulated by vast entertainment conglomerations. These international corporations are making multi-millions by actively targeting our young people, creating in them a demand for their products. Take just one small example. Are we really to believe that overnight millions of teens decided they wanted to mutilate their flesh with body piercing? Hardly. Kids are being sold the idea that such things are cool, and they need to have the ‘look’. They are being programmed – duped into thinking – that they must go to such extremes to be with it. And big bucks are being made along the way. Peer pressure has always had an enormous influence on young people, but when the pressure is effectively created and manipulated by multinational corporations lining their pockets, then the pressure becomes a form of brainwashing. And millions of our kids today are little more than walking, talking zombies, slavishly following the latest trends and fashions created by these big firms. Other meaty chapters in this book deal with the media, the abortion industry, the sexualization of our young people, the assault on marriage, and the secularist attempt to de-Christianize America. While the topics discussed here are in the context of the US, they are of relevance to the West in general. There is a war going on, and the marketers of evil seem to be making big inroads. Being aware of their strategy and tactics is an important part of how we can resist these attacks . . . . And as Kupelian reminds us, every transaction has two parties: a buyer and a seller. While this book mainly focuses on the sellers and advertisers of evil, he reminds us that too many of us have been willing buyers of these transactions, or have been complicit bystanders.
That is just a small sampler of what is going on. Remember, with much less advanced techniques, generations were sold on the notion that wrapping shredded leaves in a paper tube, lighting same and inhaling the smoke was the adult, sophisticated, relaxing etc thing to do. And that for something that often makes the new smoker sick while his body adjusts to nicotine poisoning. Something that has huge destructive health consequences. And yet, I recall my 6th form general studies teacher, puffing away and challenging us to overturn his views. (It was quite a lesson in the challenges of persuasion and warrant. Including, addressing, I have been smoking for many years with no significant ill-effects.) We need to do some serious re-thinking. That sweet south wind is blowing. KF kairosfocus
Origines (Attn Aleta), It is the environment dominated by evolutionary materialist scientism and linked radical secularism which set up the extreme nominalism and subjectivism or relativism that are the key steps to what has been done in the teeth of the patent law of our moral nature as it relates to our sexuality and the needs of children. To imagine that you can look at an institution rooted in our morally governed -- a key modifier -- biological nature as complementary sexes whose children require prolonged nurture in a stable committed environment supportive of their own sexual identities and with the most profound moral, psychological and social connexions and then imagine we can overturn all of that with clever word games and agit prop moves under false colour of law and in the name of imagined rights . . . a term deeply rooted in moral obligations such that to properly claim a right one must be clearly in the right . . . speaks saddening volumes. Instead, I put it to you that two men or two women or a human and an animal, or whatever bizarre onward combination will be dreamed up, simply cannot be married due to the nature of what is implied and bound up in that word. Instead, we are indulging an exercise that subverts or even mocks what marriage is, and that such will not end well for our civilisation, precisely because of the foundational nature of marriage and family. If "marriage" means any and every thing, in the end it means nothing . . . reflecting the utter might and manipulation make 'right' 'truth' worth' etc incoherence of what is going on. I of course can here only give pointers, I suggest that you work through Girgis et al, here to begin the process of recovering what is being swept away. KF PS: We should all note the power of cognitive dissonance, social pressure and the spiral of silencing to induce us to act as though something is true then find ourselves internally destabilised and moving to a point where we come to believe it is so to restore internal equilibrium. kairosfocus
Mr l. Murray -- "What do you mean, “you have no right”? Do you mean legally?" Yes, I mean legally. That doesn't mean that I can't lobby to have it enacted, but I would have to convince the majority of ministers that it is the right thing for everyone. To not inform them of my motivation would be dishonest. My Sunday closing example is a good example. I could argue that everyone should have a day off with their family, but how could I argue that it should be Sunday without bringing up my religious reason? How could I argue that Jews would also have to follow this law? Or atheists? ziggy lorenc
StephenB -- "To simply utter the words “Intelligent design” in abbreviated fashion is not to teach intelligent design..." From the little reading that I did on this, she did not just utter the words "Intelligent Design" in a classroom, contrary to what is projected in the "documentary" that you pulled the names from. She went into great detail. But the issue is that she was told by her employer not to do that again. And she did. Disobeying your employer, the last time I looked, is grounds for dismissal. StephenB -- "Steinberg did not sign any agreement or agree to any code that would forbid him from publishing a well-researched scientific paper of this kind." My understanding is there is a disagreement as to whether or not he followed the procedures for selecting the reviewers. If he did not, then he failed to follow the terms that he agreed to. But, I admit. There is enough uncertainty here to make me question it. StephenB -- "Meanwhile, what about the other four." You had better brush up on your math skills :) there were only two others named: Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzale. Gonzale did not obtain any major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant papers and only had one student complete a dissertation. No academic is going to get tenure with a record like that. Robert Marks posted a web page on the universities website in violation of the university rules. Again, a case of not following the rules of the employer. Look, I am not saying that there have never been any unethical actions taken in academia. I was there for a few years and their are politics and back stabbing just as you find in any large organization. But to claim that this is some type of global conspiracy is just preposterous. ziggy lorenc
Ziggy Aleta Zachriel etc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFxAnbJD8A :D Eugen
StephenB: The Supreme Court sure couldn’t make it, and they recognized that fact. It was a totally arbitrary decision based on leftist ideology and whim. That is incorrect. The decision determined that bans on same sex marriage violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Zachriel
Kairosfocus #456, I agree with you that materialism cannot ground morality, personhood, rationality, life and what have you. Materialism is totally self-referentially incoherent. I honestly don't see how we could agree more on this. However, in my view, that fact has absolutely no bearing on issues like SSM. None. Zip. Origenes
Ziggy said:
No. The goal would be to focus rational debate.
You cannot focus rational debate by bringing in something irrelevant, like motivation.
Do you really think that the civil rights debates would have proceeded at the speed they did if racism wasn’t put on the table?
I have no idea how that would have turned out if public figures were not accused of being racists or bigots. Neither do you. Faster proceedings doesn't mean better conclusions.
should we have completely avoided the term and allow rational debate to be taken off on several tangents and take generations to arrive at the rational and correct conclusion?
Tangential to what? It seems to me that the quickest way to get a debate off on a tangent is to start making assertions about the character of those involved in the debate.
What do you tell the black kid in the early sixties? Just accept your inferior position in society because things will be better for your grandchildren?
Why would I tell them that?
These terms should not be used on a routine basis. But I can see circumstances when they should be used.
So do I. And I appreciate your answers to these questions.
With regard to your question about whether motivation should be taken into account. Of course it should. I believe many things because of my religious beliefs. But if I am going to argue for one of these in order to enact a new law, of course my motivation should be taken into account. I have no right to impose my religious beliefs on others.
What do you mean, "you have no right"? Do you mean legally? Of course you do, legally. You can advocate for laws that reflect your religious beliefs and get them passed if you can. Do you mean morally? If you are in the middle east and you see a child or woman being or about to be legally raped, and in their culture it is completely acceptable, do you have no moral right to impose your religious beliefs on them by intervening? Or do you have a moral obligation to do so?
For example, when I was young, all businesses were closed on Sundays. The only trucks allowed on the road were those that carried perishable goods. When Sunday opening was allowed, I was not in favour of it. But my opposition to it was religiously based. So, of course the motivation for my disagreement should be taken into account.
Your logic here is flawed. Your motivation was irrelevant. What mattered - and what ultimately matters (in terms of rational debate) - is the reason and evidence-based argument one presents for or against a proposition. Bringing motivation into the mix can only move attention away from the merits of the argument. The motivation you have for a law makes no difference when it comes to assessing the rational, factual merits of the proposal. William J Murray
ziggy
Caroline Crocker had a contract to teach to a curriculum
I have no reason to believe that Caroline Crocker "deviated" from the curriculum. To simply utter the words "Intelligent design" in abbreviated fashion is not to teach intelligent design. However, you must surely be suspicious of any such code or rule that would forbid an expert om any subject to remain silent about her relevant and evidence-based convictions on matters of substance.
Sternberg is a he said, she said issue and nobody has all the answers. The little that I have read sounds like a shady deal. Egnor is a respected surgeon and full professor. His career has not suffered. He has been severely criticized for his beliefs, but what is wrong with that.
Let's not lose track of the argument. Steinberg did not sign any agreement or agree to any code that would forbid him from publishing a well-researched scientific paper of this kind. Clearly, he was persecuted. That he survived hardly justifies the actions taken toward him. Meanwhile, what about the other four. And what about the war to put dissenting meteorologists in jail? Where did any of these people agree in advance to refrain from expressing their views? The fact is that anyone who holds traditional values, or any scientific, social, religious, or philosophical paradigm in support of them, is unjustly persecuted, while those who militate against those values in the name of postmodernist ideology, are given a free pass. Politically-correct thought police use institutional power to curb free expression, and are beginning to pass laws to that effect. That dynamic plays out every day when the subject of gay marriage is brought up. If you are against it, even for good reason, you are branded as a hateful bigot; if you are for it, even without any semblance of an argument in its support, you are celebrated as a tolerant, loving human being. StephenB
So, here again is the end of reasonable (read: rational) debate: when fairness, justice and morality means nothing more than how any particular individual feels about those things. Thus, there can be no rational argument about what is fair, or just, or moral because the values for those concepts is informed subjectively, individually. Aleta cannot argue about what is fair, or what is just, or what is moral; because for her those things are not objective commodities that lie external to her and inform her rights and obligations on those matters. They are, apparently, subjective notions, feelings, proclivities. How can one rationally argue that one's subjective behavior preference is more just or fair than another, when all of those things are entirely subjective commodities? The answer is that they cannot. William J Murray
Aleta said:
That’s because this discussion is about the rights and responsibilities of people in American society, not about the topic of where moral values come from.
What discussion is about "the rights and responsibilties in American society"? The one you and Stephen are having in my thread? That's not what the OP is about. Apparently you are not opposed to discussing what are at best tangential ideas relating to the OP, so why refuse to answer a simple question? BTW, I'm not complaining. I'm just calling you out on what appears to be a rather convenient desire to not go 'off topic", especially since you asked me exactly the same question.
Ive been there and done that at times, and am not interested in this becoming a discussion of that right now, at least for me.
So you wish to argue about justice and ethics and morality and fairness, but avoid discussing the basis for such arguments? It seems to me that you wish to: 1. Invoke the law as if it is an answer to how people should behave when it comes to justice, fairness and ethics; 2. Reserve some superior, a priori right to defy the law if you personally disagree that the law is moral, just or fair; 3. Refuse to explain what informs your sense of justice, fairness or morality if not the law and why, if you reserve the right to ignore the law if you see fit, you should not also champion those who disobey the law because they find the law unjust, unfair or immoral. IOW, if you are not willing to argue what morality, justice, and fairness are and where they come from and what informs your view on them, you really have no footing for engaging in any debate on the matter at all. You say something isn't fair - fair by what standard? You refer to the law, but obviously the law doesn't set the standard, so why refer to it at all? You refer to what is just, but just by what standard? You refer to the law, but do not hold the law as the standard. So, it seems, you use the law when it suits you, but abandon it when it does not.
My position is “Our society, and our law, recognize each person as an equal moral agent irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever.”
"Your position is...?" So, you have no argument, evidence, or facts to support your assertion that society and the law "recognizes" what you claim, you are only asserting that it it is your position that it does so. IOW, a bald assertion, without any evidence or facts provided to back it up. Perhaps what you meant to say is that in your view this society and our law should "recognize each person as an “equal moral agent” irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever”?
Nothing external to me gives me that right, but it is a right I’m willing to give myself if circumstances are extreme enough. I’m free to do that, if I chose. Ultimately, each one of us is responsible for every action. Same for you.
There we go - your final arbiter of what is moral, ethical, just and fair is you. When you refer to some form of fairness found in the law, it is a diversion because that is not the final arbiter of fairness in your worldview; you are. All this reference to the law and public opinion is a diversion because when it comes right down to it, what decides what is fair, moral, right or just is Aleta. Correct? That really wasn't so hard. A thing is fair, in your worldview, if you consider it fair; moral if you consider it moral; just if you consider it just. If you change your mind, then what is just or moral changes. William J Murray
Mr. Murray -- "But then, isn’t that really the point, Ziggy? To undermine rational discourse and instead utilize virtue-signalling and political correct mob mentality to shut down debate by utilizing such terminology to categorize people and their views as racist or bigoted before one even enters the court of rational debate?" No. The goal would be to focus rational debate. Do you really think that the civil rights debates would have proceeded at the speed they did if racism wasn't put on the table? Or should we have completely avoided the term and allow rational debate to be taken off on several tangents and take generations to arrive at the rational and correct conclusion? What do you tell the black kid in the early sixties? Just accept your inferior position in society because things will be better for your grandchildren? I have made my point very clear. These terms should not be used on a routine basis. But I can see circumstances when they should be used. With regard to your question about whether motivation should be taken into account. Of course it should. I believe many things because of my religious beliefs. But if I am going to argue for one of these in order to enact a new law, of course my motivation should be taken into account. I have no right to impose my religious beliefs on others. For example, when I was young, all businesses were closed on Sundays. The only trucks allowed on the road were those that carried perishable goods. When Sunday opening was allowed, I was not in favour of it. But my opposition to it was religiously based. So, of course the motivation for my disagreement should be taken into account. ziggy lorenc
StephenB -- "Where or when did any of these people sign an agreement to refrain from making this criticism?" Caroline Crocker had a contract to teach to a curriculum, and didn't. She was warned and persisted to deviate from the curriculum. Her contract wasn't renewed. Did she not sign a contract? Sternberg is a he said, she said issue and nobody has all the answers. The little that I have read sounds like a shady deal. Egnor is a respected surgeon and full professor. His career has not suffered. He has been severely criticized for his beliefs, but what is wrong with that. I haven't read anything on the others, but I will. ziggy lorenc
Stephen, I also say it is wrong to deny marriage to same-sex couples. I don't say "in my opinion, it is wrong ...." Why am I right about slavery, but wrong and same-sex marriage? You write,
As you progress in your analysis, other natural truths will become clear to you—unless you are so emotionally invested in secularism that reason cannot surface, or unless your conscience has not been informed by reason
Arrogant, condescending self-righteousness is not a rational argument. Aleta
Eugen -- "OTOH when I call Aleta, Zachriel, Ziggy etc intolerant haters because they hate Christians and are intolerant of our views I’m just describing the reality." Then you are incorrect. I am a Christian. I am not a supporter of homosexuality or SSM. I have said this repeatedly. Where I differ from you and a couple others here is that I can't force myself to get all worked up about it. If the government wants to legalize it, I fail to see how that is going to have any impact on my marriage or anyone else's marriage. A marriage is only as strong as the commitment of the two people involved. In fact, there are many Christians who actively support SSM, and some churches that will preside over SSM. Does that mean that they are no longer Christian? And who are you to make that judge. I know that I certainly won't make that judgement. ziggy lorenc
Aleta, WJM is asking you for your worldview level first principles that ground morally freighted positions such as equality and worth of individuals, justice, and more. Glance just above at Plato on The Laws to see the contexts of cultural relativism. KF kairosfocus
Aleta.
Again, my belief is that it is unjust to deny the legal status of marriage to two people because they are the same sex.
Fine. Make your case. The Supreme Court sure couldn’t make it, and they recognized that fact. It was a totally arbitrary decision based on leftist ideology and whim.
I know it is not a status that has historically been accepted, but then neither was the abolition of slavery or women’s suffrage at one time. Those things, slavery and no voting privileges for women, were morally wrong but widely accepted at one time, and my position is that our denial of same-sex marriage rights falls in the same category
.
Last time I asked you this question you mentioned something about using our conscience and our reason, but that didn’t really answer the question, because we return to the question of how to decide if my conscience and reason disagrees with yours.
You answered your own question above when you rightly said that policies such as slavery and no voting privileges for women are morally wrong. Notice that you didn’t say they are wrong “in your opinion.” You know they are wrong. They violate your conscience as informed by reason, “laws of nature,” and “Nature’s God” (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence). That is where moral truth comes from—God and nature. Rights do not come from the state or from consensus opinion. Both of those sources provide standards that change daily and are, therefore, unreliable. Consensus decisions will promote slavery at one time and anti-slavery another time, depending on the public mood. Interestingly, slavery was abolished only when Martin Luther King Jr. asserted, rightly, that slavery violates the natural moral law and that the majority opinion is irrelevant. As you progress in your analysis, other natural truths will become clear to you—unless you are so emotionally invested in secularism that reason cannot surface, or unless your conscience has not been informed by reason. Informed consciences are rare these days. That is why so few recognize that there are no rational arguments for gay marriage. The whole idea of a rational argument eludes them. StephenB
When I wrote, "William, you say morality and justice comes from the innate nature of God. I disagree," you answered,
That’s fine, but you failed to answer the same question when I asked you.
That's because this discussion is about the rights and responsibilities of people in American society, not about the topic of where moral values come from. Ive been there and done that at times, and am not interested in this becoming a discussion of that right now, at least for me. My position is "Our society, and our law, recognize each person as an equal moral agent irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever." You replied,
Where do you get this from? Can you show me where “the law” recognizes each person as an “equal moral agent” irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever”? Can you explain how you came to the understanding that our society “recognizes” this?
All people are equal under the law. There is no place where the law is going to distinguish its actions based on a person's religion or lack thereof. We all have equal rights and responsibilities as citizens. You may have a different rationale as to why you think something is right or wrong, but we have an equal right to make moral judgments for ourselves. You write,
You still didn’t answer my question. Do you just not want to answer my question? You have said that you will disobey laws and even public opinion if you do not consider those things just or moral. ... If laws and public opinion do not decide what is just and moral, what does?
Actually, I have said that I would balance the extent to which I think something is unjust with the consequences of disobeying. I think some of the things that my tax dollars come to support are unjust, but I still pay taxes: it, like most things in life, is a matter of balancing priorities and perspectives. And I've explained above why I'm not interested in taking this discussion out of the realm of political science and into the realm of metaphysics. You write,
Additionally, what gives you the right to disobey laws when you consider them immoral or unjust?
Nothing external to me gives me that right, but it is a right I'm willing to give myself if circumstances are extreme enough. I'm free to do that, if I chose. Ultimately, each one of us is responsible for every action. Same for you. Aleta
PPS: A reminder, from Pastor (and before that WW 1 U Boat Captain_ Martin Niemoller, a leader of the Confessing Church and of the Barmen Declaration of 1934 . . . then, a Concentration Camp inmate:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
kairosfocus
William J Murray: The point I’m making is that using those terms in ways I described in the OP and have elaborated upon later ends or circumvents or is a detriment to rational debate and discussion, and are used deliberately to signal certain groups into a mob-like mentality to attack certain people or ideas/positions You mean like, "By cleverly utilizing dishonest terms and phrases, we have been manipulated into conceding the debate to leftists/Marxists ..." Zachriel
Stephen, I answered your question about Springsteen and the baker in 412 and 416: they are not comparable situations. Springsteen is not "withholding services" in the same way the baker is. You say,
Please do not, as in the past, answer by alluding to the law. My question has nothing to do with the law. Also, please do not, as in the past, answer that you don’t know what the word “fair” means?
Well, if I don't think it is fair to let someone break the law because they think it is wrong, how am I to answer your question? One of the ways in which fairness comes into play is through equal treatment under the law. I think it is fair for Springsteen to not hold a concert, just as I think it is fair for someone to boycott Target, because those are personal actions that someone has the complete right to make. It is not fair for the baker to withhold services for reasons of legal discrimination. There is no way to discuss the fairness of that without reference to the baker's legal obligations. If I just bake cakes at home for friends, and someone asks me to bake a ckae for a friend of theirs for a same-sex marriage, it is perfectly fair for me to say no thank you, I don't approve. But if I have a business, laws apply. I've said all this before, by the way. And my question to you is, "So how do you propose that we decide what the natural moral law is?" Aleta
Zachriel said:
Are you trying to say that no one should have pointed out that George Wallace was a bigot?
I haven't argued anything about how anyone "should" behave in any circumstance or situation. The point I'm making is that using those terms in ways I described in the OP and have elaborated upon later ends or circumvents or is a detriment to rational debate and discussion, and are used deliberately to signal certain groups into a mob-like mentality to attack certain people or ideas/positions AS inherently racist or bigoted. Since then, I've asked pointed questions to people here about what they consider to be fair use of the terms in order to let them describe for themselves why the would use the terms in the context they themselves offer in order to find out what they are hoping to accomplish by using the terms in that context. I'm asking them what their reasoning is in their own terms. William J Murray
PS: What Plato had to say about evolutionary materialism 2350 years ago in The Laws Bk X (reflecting on the fall of Athens through the Peloponnesian War and its aftermath, with Alcibiades as implied exhibit A and with the ghost of Socrates at his shoulder) -- yeah, it's not just me as some ignoramus IDiot out there on a soapbox:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.
See why I speak about lemmings proverbially caught up in a march over the cliff [and no the image works even if Disney did something awful], about activists and useful idiots -- Lenin's word -- caught up in agit prop and front operations (boy did I get my fill of seeing this in action and Eugen lived under established dictatorships), and the primary people involved at strategic level? And yes, I know this closely follows the assessment of Germans post 1945. Go look up that pic of a march of shame through Buchenwald camp to understand where I am coming from. kairosfocus
Aleta said:
William, you say morality and justice comes from the innate nature of God. I disagree.
That's fine, but you failed to answer the same question when I asked you.
However, for the sake of this discussion, that is irrelevant. Our society, and our law, recognize each person as an equal moral agent irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever.
Where do you get this from? Can you show me where "the law" recognizes each person as an "equal moral agent" irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever"? Can you explain how you came to the understanding that our society "recognizes" this?
We all have different ideas about where our moral natures come from, but as members of society no one perspective as any special privilege over the others.
You still didn't answer my question. Do you just not want to answer my question? You have said that you will disobey laws and even public opinion if you do not consider those things just or moral. If laws and public opinion do not decide what is just and moral, what does? Additionally, what gives you the right to disobey laws when you consider them immoral or unjust? I answered the question when you turned it back on me, even though you did not. Will you answer the question now? William J Murray
Origines, did you notice how unresponsive you have been to the context that points out exactly how:
a: a very specific ideology, descriptively called evolutionary materialism (with linked scientism), b: because it is rooted in matter-energy acted on by blind chance and necessity ____________________________ c: THEREFORE has in it no root-level IS that can ground OUGHT, as well as d: reducing responsible rational freedom of the individual to blind cause and effect driven by chance and necessity? That, e: as a consequence this view is self-referentially incoherent and amoral, thus f: opening the door to nihilism? (Where there is in fact a long and bloody history costing in the past 100 years over 100 million lives tracing to precisely this worldviews frame.)
If you or others have a cogent answer on the facts and merits (instead of the strawman caricature, the how dare you call some things by their right -- and admittedly painfully ugly -- names) you could quite easily do so, and that would suffice to refute the arguments that have been presented. And such would be responsive on the merits. So, patently the attempt to project, you are cutting off discussion by tossing verbal grenades fails. Not at all, I am giving a warning on reasons that if you disagree needs to be answered on reasons. Otherwise, you are simply indulging the same habitual pattern . . . distract, distort, denigrate . . . that when I have pointed it out by stringing together the names for three fallacies involved, has been ever so often responded to with a fourth (and one which actually moves beyond fallacy to propaganda technique), turn-speech accusation joined to a fifth tactic that exploits lack of imagination on the part of those who are standing by as to what can be done by the sufficiently nihilistically ruthlesss -- before things move to the much more menacing dimension of stalking [and FYI in my case that has included remote family]. You would not like it at all if I were to name and give examples of the specific historical antecedents. Let's just say that the typical effect of the tactic is to confuse the naive onlooker and to taint the attacked with the false blame of attacker. He hit back first. Instead of going there why not simply show us how evolutionary materialism grounds responsible, rational freedom. Apart from on might and manipulation make 'right' truth' 'consensus' 'values' etc. Which, is the core principle of nihilism. Where, too, justice is a moral issue, rights are moral issues and marriage, sexuality and family are heavily freighted with moral issues. And no, I am not speaking from hate and irrationality, I am speaking from deep concern for a civilisation that may already be past the point of no return on a slippery slope, heading straight for a cliff. (Remember, I have seen two countries go over cliffs.) And, if you don't like the language, march of folly, why not take it up with Barbara Tuchman? Or, St Luke in Ac 27? Try out Schein on China in the run up to the Great Leap Forward and by extension the cultural revolution . . . ponder the price paid in lives. Or even Plato in his parable of the cave looked at from the perspective of propagandistic manipulation of the public? Yeah, Plato's Republic. First point of departure for my thinking on both Phil and political forces and influences. KF kairosfocus
Eugen: when I call Aleta, Zachriel, Ziggy etc intolerant haters because they hate Christians and are intolerant of our views I’m just describing the reality. That would be inaccurate. We neither hate Christians, nor are we generally intolerant of Christian views, though we do reject some views of some Christians. StephenB: It is if the black asks me to to order or decorate a cake with Nazi-like symbols. But that wasn't the question, was it? Political speech and obscene speech are not protected. Do you think there should be laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations? Zachriel
Origenes said:
So, it’s okay to use terms like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ as long as there is a proper mix with rational arguments?
Depends on what you mean by "okay". It's certainly "okay" and even necessary to use the terms in certain situations, depending on what you trying to do and the context. The context of this thread and my OP is that of using certain terms as signals that shut down rational debate and instead move towards PC condemnation and a mob mentality through various media/cultural outlets before a reasoned, fact-based debate is even had on the subject.
Okay. So, why exactly do you question the use of terms like bigot or racist? Or is your objection solely aimed at the lack of proper mix with rational arguments?
My point is about the end of rational debate, as made clear in the OP. I"m not "objecting" to the use of rhetoric and term-signalling, I'm pointing out that it puts an end to rational debate when such terms are used to avoid or derail reasoned debate and when they are used to deter personal investigation or poison the views of others before those people have any real understanding of the subject. When those terms are used by the PC police or SJWs or some right-wing Evangelical group or the NAS or one of the political parties to rhetorically sway public opinion against a thing without due rational consideration of facts and on merits, we have reached the end of logical debate. William J Murray
ziggy and Aleta, both of you have evaded my question: If it is fair for Bruce Springsteen to withhold services because he disagrees with the pro-Christian, anti-gay world view, then why is it not fair for Christians to withhold services because they disagree with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view? Please do not, as in the past, answer by alluding to the law. My question has nothing to do with the law. Also, please do not, as in the past, answer that you don't know what the word "fair" means? StephenB
Stephen, you write,
The broader and constitutional principle is this: The law does not forbid us to refuse service to gays in an absolute sense. It says that we may not refuse service for unjust or prejudicial reasons. If we refuse service for reasons that are not prejudicial or unjust, then we are within the law.
The law has declared that refusing service because someone is gay is a prejudicial reason, and therefore discriminatory and illegal, at least in Colorado. In other states, sexual orientation may not be a category protected by anti-discrimination laws. I don't think there is any federal judgement on this issue, but IANAL. You write,
To refuse special service to a gay because my religious convictions forbid me to participate in a same-sex wedding, directly or indirectly, is not unjust and prejudicial.
I don't believe the law supports that interpretation, nor do I. Again, just because your actions are based on your religious conviction that it is not unjust or prejudicial to refuse service does not excuse you from following the law. The law says your action is unjust and prejudicial, and your religious convictions don't excuse from the law. Also, when I wrote, "Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Please tell me how you do that", you answered
A law is just if it conforms to the natural moral law. It is unjust if it doesn’t.
And how does one know what this "natural moral law" is? I know you believe strongly that such exists, but I don't think I've seen you offer details as to how this is ascertained. Again, my belief is that it is unjust to deny the legal status of marriage to two people because they are the same sex. Why is this not the natural moral law? I know it is not a status that has historically been accepted, but then neither was the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage at one time. Those things, slavery and no voting privileges for women, were morally wrong but widely accepted at one time, and my position is that our denial of same-sex marriage rights falls in the same category. So how do you propose that we decide what the natural moral law is? Last time I asked you this question you mentioned something about using our conscience and our reason, but that didn't really answer the question, because we return to the question of how to decide if my conscience and reason disagrees with yours. Aleta
Ziggy said:
It could direct people to look at a person’s motivations with regard to an opinion.
Why would you want to direct them to look at their motivations? Isn't what really matters the logic, evidence and facts of the argument, regardless of the motivation? Doesn't looking at the motivation prevent or distract one from examining the argument on its own merits?
For example, arguments to justify slavery and subsequent segregation and laws against inter-racial marriages were many. Some used scripture, some argued that blacks were inherently less intelligent and that it was our responsibility to look after them, etc. And many people using these arguments were sincere about their arguments. But if you argue that their arguments are based in racism (or bigotry), you force them, and others, to view their views through a different lens.
Is logic, facts and evidence not the lens through which one should evaluate an argument? How does calling someone a racist change anyone's ability to rationally assess the merit of he argumet? How does thinking someone might be a racist because someone else called that person a racist affect one's ability to rationally assess that person's argument on the merits? It seems to me that hearing someone else call a person a racist, or claiming that the argument is racist, can only serve to undermine the capacity of third parties to objectively evaluate the argument in question. But then, isn't that really the point, Ziggy? To undermine rational discourse and instead utilize virtue-signalling and political correct mob mentality to shut down debate by utilizing such terminology to categorize people and their views as racist or bigoted before one even enters the court of rational debate?
If racism or bigotry was not one of the motivations then they will be easily defended. If not, their arguments are suspect.
Their arguments can either be defended or or cannot whether they are bigoted or not. Just because the person is a bigot doesn't mean their argument fails; however, refusing to debate a bigot or give their argument any credence before even hearing because they are a bigot, or because you believe they are or might be a bigot, is a failure on your part and a fallacy.
Another example. As a little girl we used to refer to liquorice candies as n__ babies, and Brazil nuts as n__ toes. Although we did not use those terms with any malice, they were definitely motivated by racism. When this was pointed out, we stopped using the terms.
This is where you are just wrong and your logic flawed; if you were a racist, it wouldn't have mattered to you when you discovered the terms were racist - you would have gleefully kept using them, at least in private with your racist friends. I suggest you used the terms because everyone did, not because you were racist, and when the racist nature of the term was pointed out, you stopped using the term because you were not a racist to begin with. Or are you admitting here that you are a racist, and only stopped using the term because you don't want other people to know you're a racist? William J Murray
ziggy, you have been silent on my questions. Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Michael Egnor, Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzalles were, maligned, blacklisted, persecuted, or unjustly refused a tenure track because they dared to question Darwin's theory. Where or when did any of these people sign an agreement to refrain from making this criticism? Also, several politicians and professors have indicated that scientists who deny climate change should be put in jail. I don’t need to provide names here since the directive is aimed at all who dare question the establishment. Where or when did these scientists agree to remain silent about their evidence-based convictions? StephenB
Zach
If a baker refuses to sell a cake to a black citing religion, is that fair?
It is if the black asks me to to order or decorate a cake with Nazi-like symbols. StephenB
Aleta
No, it’s not. You don’t have the right to break the law because it conflicts with your religious convictions. Is this really what you are saying?
State laws are varied, but the broader and constitutional principle is this: The law does not forbid e us to refuse service to gays in an absolute sense. It says that we may not refuse service for unjust or prejudicial reasons. If we refuse service for reasons that are not prejudicial or unjust, then we are within the law. If the law was absolute, then I could not refuse service to a gay couple even if they walked into my establishment naked and singing show tunes. To refuse routine service to a gay because he is a member of a social group is unjust and prejudicial. To refuse special service to a gay because my religious convictions forbid me to participate in a same-sex wedding, directly or indirectly, is not unjust and prejudicial.
Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Please tell me how you do that,
A law is just if it conforms to the natural moral law. It is unjust if it doesn't. Again, I ask you. How do you distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Or, do you hold that all laws are just simply because they are laws? Please answer. StephenB
Word bigot doesn't mean much to me at least. It's used to supplement weak logic or reasoning. That's why our side is not using it while the atheist Liberals are using it frequently. When someone on Facebook or here calls me bigot I shrug and say " your reasoning and logic still suck". OTOH when I call Aleta, Zachriel, Ziggy etc intolerant haters because they hate Christians and are intolerant of our views I'm just describing the reality. They should appreciate that. Eugen
Mr. Murray -- " Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by “warning” others”) where rational debate is avoided altogether? I’ve seen many people through the years here at UD on both sides abandon reason for such tactics, but I don’t see either side doing that right now in this thread." You have obviously never tried to have a discussion with KairosFocus when you disagree with him. But regardless. It took a few exchanges with him for me to realize that the best course of action for those who disagree with him is to just ignore him. ziggy lorenc
Zachriel: Which is why there are laws against racial discrimination in public accommodations, and why there is a movement to enact similar laws against LGBT discrimination.
Excellent. Why are you telling me this? Origenes
Mr. Murray -- "What purpose does it serve to call someone a bigot or a racist, whether or not it is true?" It could direct people to look at a person's motivations with regard to an opinion. For example, arguments to justify slavery and subsequent segregation and laws against inter-racial marriages were many. Some used scripture, some argued that blacks were inherently less intelligent and that it was our responsibility to look after them, etc. And many people using these arguments were sincere about their arguments. But if you argue that their arguments are based in racism (or bigotry), you force them, and others, to view their views through a different lens. If racism or bigotry was not one of the motivations then they will be easily defended. If not, their arguments are suspect. Another example. As a little girl we used to refer to liquorice candies as n__ babies, and Brazil nuts as n__ toes. Although we did not use those terms with any malice, they were definitely motivated by racism. When this was pointed out, we stopped using the terms. ziggy lorenc
William, you say morality and justice comes from the innate nature of God. I disagree. However, for the sake of this discussion, that is irrelevant. Our society, and our law, recognize each person as an equal moral agent irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever. We all have different ideas about where our moral natures come from, but as members of society no one perspective as any special privilege over the others. Aleta
Origenes: No, not fair. And it is equally unfair if a baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to a homosexual. I never meant to suggest otherwise. Which is why there are laws against racial discrimination in public accommodations, and why there is a movement to enact similar laws against LGBT discrimination. Zachriel
Zachriel:
Origenes: so is a baker who refuses service to homosexual customers.
If a baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to someone because of their race, is that fair?
No, that is not fair. And it is equally unfair if a baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to a homosexual. I never meant to suggest otherwise. Origenes
Origenes: so is a baker who refuses service to homosexual customers. If a baker doesn't want to sell a cake to someone because of their race, is that fair? You do understand that it is illegal in the U.S? Zachriel
William J Murray: And the question is, why point out that (presumed arguendo) truth? Saying that it is a truth is non-responsive. Saying that it is a “salient” truth doesn’t express what that salience is. It's in the dictionary. salient, of notable significance William J Murray: And they will after you have notified them? Some of the time, certainly. William J Murray: How will they avoid the bad aspects of interacting with a bigot other than by not interacting with him at all? It's called human interaction. It is complex, and if you are not familiar with it (perhaps you are from elsewhere), then it can be confusing at first. But with practice, people do learn to communicate. Are you trying to say that no one should have pointed out that George Wallace was a bigot? Zachriel
William J Murray,
WJM: Well done! A direct, good answer!
Thank you. However, I am already with you on many points. I have stated (#322) that I do agree with you when you state that:
We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, or simply voicing an opinion that contradicts it, is dangerous, because truthful terminology has been politically re-characterized by the leftists in media, politics and academia as hate speech.
Surely, you are addressing a very important point. It’s an outrage that skepticism towards evolutionary theory, climate change and Islam is being criminalized. Indeed we live in dangerous times. However, to me, opposition towards SSM is something else entirely (see #347), and so is a baker who refuses service to homosexual customers.
WJM:
Origenes: During this debate, here at UD, a similar attempt has been made by the usage of terms like “nihilist”, “communist”, “nazi”, “unnatural”, “on an agenda” and so forth. Or am I mistaken and is that something entirely different?
Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by “warning” others”) where rational debate is avoided altogether?
So, it’s okay to use terms like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ as long as there is a proper mix with rational arguments?
WJM: It’s not the use of rhetoric and emotional pleading and demagoguery and polemic that are in themselves necessarily bad things, but when they are used instead of rational debate altogether to advance or attack unexamined positions and views that it has become they lamentable end of rational discourse.
Okay. So, why exactly do you question the use of terms like bigot or racist? Or is your objection solely aimed at the lack of proper mix with rational arguments? Origenes
Aleta said:
Laws codify the collective judgment of the members of society about a subset of issues in respect to morality and justice, although there are lots of moral issues to which laws do not apply.
Non-responsive to my question. I didn't ask how laws came to exist or what they reflected. You have pointed out that even if such a law reflects the collective judgment and you don't agree with it, you will not obey it because you find that law unjust or immoral regardless of what the collective judgement says. So my (somewhat rhetorical) question is, for you, what or who decides what is just and moral, since it is obviously not the law or the collective judgement of the people?
What is your answer to that question, William?
The innate, absolute, universal nature of God. William J Murray
Zachriel:
No, but it’s often appropriate to point out salient truths.
And the question is, why point out that (presumed arguendo) truth? Saying that it is a truth is non-responsive. Saying that it is a "salient" truth doesn't express what that salience is.
Believe it or not, some bigots don’t think they’re bigots.
And they will after you have notified them?
So they can avoid the bad aspects of interacting with a bigot. Also, perhaps so that the bigot can be encouraged to change.
How will they avoid the bad aspects of interacting with a bigot other than by not interacting with him at all? How does warning others about a person's bigotry encourage that person to change? William J Murray
wjm asks,
If laws do not decide what is just and moral, what does?
Laws codify the collective judgment of the members of society about a subset of issues in respect to morality and justice, although there are lots of moral issues to which laws do not apply. What is your answer to that question, William? Aleta
Origenes, Well done! A direct, good answer!
The answer is, I suppose, that it serves the purpose to end debate, as in, there is no sense in debating a bigot or a racist.
I don't think that's the whole answer, because public labeling serves another purpose. I mean, one can just end their personal debate after they realize or come to believe the other person is a racist or a bigot by just walking away from the debate. One certainly doesn't need to announce the other person's bigotry or racism in order to end their personal debate with that person.
During this debate, here at UD, a similar attempt has been made by the usage of terms like “nihilist”, “communist”, “nazi”, “unnatural”, “on an agenda” and so forth. Or am I mistaken and is that something entirely different?
Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by "warning" others") where rational debate is avoided altogether? I've seen many people through the years here at UD on both sides abandon reason for such tactics, but I don't see either side doing that right now in this thread. It's not the use of rhetoric and emotional pleading and demagoguery and polemic that are in themselves necessarily bad things, but when they are used instead of rational debate altogether to advance or attack unexamined positions and views that it has become the lamentable end of rational discourse. William J Murray
William J Murray: Do you point out all truths No, but it's often appropriate to point out salient truths. William J Murray: On notice about what? Believe it or not, some bigots don't think they're bigots. http://luimbe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ColbertAlan.png William J Murray: What is the purpose of “warning” others that someone is a bigot or a racist? So they can avoid the bad aspects of interacting with a bigot. Also, perhaps so that the bigot can be encouraged to change. Origenes: The answer is, I suppose, that it serves the purpose to end debate, as in, there is no sense in debating a bigot or a racist. That can happen also. Zachriel
Aleta, If laws do not decide what is just and moral, what does? William J Murray
to William, 427: No. Criminalizing homosexual activity would take us back to the way things were some decades ago. I would object to that law, although it wouldn't directly affect me because I'm not homosexual. I would work to repeal the law, though, and would care about the effect on my friends who are homosexual. I certainly wouldn't turn people in, although that would be a hard law to enforce. And any society that expected people to turn others in would be on a scary path to fascism, and would probably objectionable for more than that reason. As I just wrote, "Balancing moral responsibilities is something everyone is faced with at times, and at least in some occasions not following the law will be one’s choice." Aleta
WJM: What purpose does it serve to call someone a bigot or a racist, whether or not it is true?
The answer is, I suppose, that it serves the purpose to end debate, as in, there is no sense in debating a bigot or a racist. During this debate, here at UD, a similar attempt has been made by the usage of terms like "nihilist", "communist", "nazi", "unnatural", "on an agenda" and so forth. Or am I mistaken and is that something entirely different? Origenes
Zachriel said:
We’ll venture an answer. Because it’s true.
Do you point out all truths, then, like hair color, age, etc? Unless you do, this part of your answer is irrelevant.
Because it puts the person on notice.
On notice about what? This is pretty vague. What is the purpose of putting them "on notice"? What does that achieve?
Because it warns others.
What is the purpose of "warning" others that someone is a bigot or a racist? William J Murray
I am trying to sort out the issues here, Stephen. You say,
If you say no because you cannot compromise your religious principles, that is lawful.
No, it's not. You don't have the right fo break the law because it conflicts with your religious convictions. Is this really what you are saying? You write,
You have to know what justice is before you can establish a just law. Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Or, do you labor under the illusion that all laws are just simply because they are laws?
Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Please tell me how you do that I think a law allowing the baker to refuse service to the same-sex couple would be unjust. You think, perhaps, that a law requiring the baker the provide service is unjust. We obviously differ. How do we decide who's right? And no, I don't believe all laws are just simply because they are laws. But I do believe that laws are the foundation of what our society as a whole believes best represents justice, and if one believes we have unjust laws then one should work to change the laws. I've also said several times in theses discussion, for the record, that there is always the possibility that there will be a law that one feels is so wrong that one chooses to not obey it, despite the consequences. We have a moral responsibility to ourself to consider that possibility, but we also have the moral responsibility to support the structure of society by following the law. Balancing moral responsibilities is something everyone is faced with at times, and at least in some occasions not following the law will be one's choice. But having a moral objection to a law, for whatever reason, doesn't give one a legal right to break a law. You write,
Having decided that the proprietor’s true motive was his disapproval of the customer’s sexual orientation, as opposed to the proprietor’s commitment to his own religious convictions, the judge ruled against him. Everything turned on why the proprietor did what he did.
So are you saying that if the judge had decided that the baker's true motive was to follow his commitment to his religious convictions, it would have been legal to refuse service? Aleta
A question for Aleta: If a law was passed criminalizing homosexuality and required the reporting of anyone you suspect might be engaging in homosexual activity, would you obey the law? If not, why not? William J Murray
StephenB: A baker cannot deny cake baking services to a homosexual couple even though he disagrees with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view. If he dares to try it, he will be sued. Is that fair? If a baker refuses to sell a cake to a black citing religion, is that fair? StephenB: Is it just that those who have gay values (Springsteen) should be able to refuse service to Christians Springsteen didn't refuse service to Christians, but to all residents of the state because of what he sees as legalized discrimination. William J Murray: What purpose does it serve to call someone a bigot or a racist, whether or not it is true? We'll venture an answer. Because it's true. Because it puts the person on notice. Because it warns others. Zachriel
Ziggy said:
But, if true, you are not making an accusation, you are stating a fact. But I think we mostly agree. Where we differ is that in very clear and in circumstances that are beyond dispute, is it always wrong to use such words.
Why will you not answer my question? I've asked you several times now. What purpose does it serve to call someone a bigot or a racist, whether or not it is true?
For example, we have no qualms about calling ISIL a terrorist organization. Does this fall into the same category as calling a white supremacist a racist? What is gained by calling them terrorists? Should we apply your logic to all circumstances?
What logic are you talking about? Yes, calling some group terrorists might fall into the same category as calling someone a bigot or a racist. Now will you answer my question? William J Murray
PS: I should add that in an age where an inherently self referentially incoherent and amoral ideology dressed in a lab coat -- what we may descriptively term evolutionary materialism -- becomes a yardstick of what is deemed acceptable knowledge, we will increasingly see the manipulation of science, scientific "consensus" [that's a red warning flag, science proceeds on quality of evidence and analysis not quantity of votes], logic and mathematics, especially statistics (which then becomes little more than "statistricks") as that is used in so many investigations. PPS: It is worth amplifying the just linked:
though materialists will often try to pointedly ignore or angrily brush aside the issue, we may freely argue: if such evolutionary materialism is true, then (i) our consciousness, (ii) the "thoughts" we have, (iii) the conceptualised beliefs we hold, (iv) the reasonings we attempt based on such and (v) the "conclusions" and "choices" (a.k.a. "decisions") we reach -- without residue -- must be produced and controlled by blind forces of chance happenstance and mechanical necessity that are irrelevant to "mere" ill-defined abstractions such as: purpose or truth, or even logical validity. (NB: The conclusions of such "arguments" may still happen to be true, by astonishingly lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” or "warranted" them. It seems that rationality itself has thus been undermined fatally on evolutionary materialistic premises. Including that of Crick et al. Through, self-reference leading to incoherence and utter inability to provide a cogent explanation of our commonplace, first-person experience of reasoning and rational warrant for beliefs, conclusions and chosen paths of action. Reduction to absurdity and explanatory failure in short.) k: And, if materialists then object: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must immediately note that -- as the fate of Newtonian Dynamics between 1880 and 1930 shows -- empirical support is not equivalent to establishing the truth of a scientific theory. For, at any time, one newly discovered countering fact can in principle overturn the hitherto most reliable of theories. (And as well, we must not lose sight of this: in science, one is relying on the legitimacy of the reasoning process to make the case that scientific evidence provides reasonable albeit provisional warrant for one's beliefs etc. Scientific reasoning is not independent of reasoning.) l: Worse, in the case of origins science theories, we simply were not there to directly observe the facts of the remote past, so origins sciences are even more strongly controlled by assumptions and inferences than are operational scientific theories. So, we contrast the way that direct observations of falling apples and orbiting planets allow us to test our theories of gravity.
PPPS: As well as pointing out the import for morality by way of a point argued by Will Hawthorne, But first Ruse and Wilson on ethics as grand delusion:
The time has come to take seriously the fact [[--> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. [[Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991. ]
Hawthorne:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions. [Of course, ethical theism holds by contrast that the IS and OUGHT fuse in the root of reality, the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and service by doing the good in accord with our evident nature including as morally governed as opposed to mechanically compelled or chance driven beings.]) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'.
. . . we have clutched an asp to our chests. kairosfocus
Aleta, First, I note on orientations and behaviour that we need to acquaint ourselves with some evidence and argument that is -- as now seems usual -- not in the public debate. For instance, there are three different identified major patterns of male same-sex oriented sexual conduct that are observed to be changeable in the course of decades and centuries, such conduct is often observed to shift drastically across a few years in individual cases, and in the case of females is typically an additional pattern, where also the frequencies, times of onset and the like are too variable and/or of the wrong order of magnitudes for genetic behaviours; i.e. these are credibly not genetically stamped patterns but instead socio-cultural and socio-psychological ones that can indeed be deeply habituating and entrenched (hence the significance of 12 step type approaches and the principle that if one does not bite one cannot be hooked . . . ); genes determine one's sex, circumstances and behaviours and habits formed affect how that is expressed. Likewise, for heterosexual patterns. (Start with the First chapter here, noting especially the pattern of the samba, the evolution of western patterns, and the observation on Orthodox.) Moreover, "sexual orientation" is a terribly vague and broad term, one that opens some very dangerous and destructive doors, as we are now seeing with the next items on the agenda, transvestism etc. Remember, law sets precedents that then can go into some very strange places through cumulative pushes -- especially with activist judges sitting on the bench. This is one case of the much broader slippery slope concern, and one that is particularly dangerous. Next, the issue is not "orientation" but the moral evaluation and regulation of behaviour. To put in simple terms, to fall in love with an attractive and seemingly pleasant woman is a heady experience, but to fall in love with one's sister or step mother or one's neighbour's wife or someone like that is to face a major moral challenge that calls for strenuous effort to deal with the behaviour and the underlying attitude. Human behaviour, I repeat, is inescapably morally governed. In this context it is no accident that one of the key examples of falling in love provided in the Judaeo-Christian scriptural tradition is a case of a prince falling in love with his half-sister. At that time and place, incestuous marriages among royalty were commonplace, starting with Egypt. This case ended in rape, revenge-driven murder of the rapist by the victim's full brother, and then exile, return and in the context of the king's own lustful misbehaviour which did huge damage to his credibility, civil war. Likewise, the tradition later speaks of behaviour driven by out of control lust as motivating unnatural and improper sexual behavior. It firmly stipulates that such behaviour is immoral and wrongful, incompatible with a life that seeks to be morally pure and upright. It calls for profound change of attitude through turning from wrong, and speaks in terms of lists of behaviours that were and must remain in one's personal past if one is to be a Christian. Notice, the focus on lusts, improper and immorally directed often out of control desires, and behaviours that act out lusts and other improper motivations. The implication is that we are responsibly free and rational, and have a duty to act towards the right, as well as to support others in the right. Not, to uphold or enable them in wrong. I again draw attention to a series of points I have highlighted above:
7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature. 8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature. 9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked. 10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving. 11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.
In our civilisation, we seem to be losing sight of this crucial insight and the implications of failure of the community at large to support sound moral governance of our behaviours, including through just law. Instead, driven by the rise of irrationality and amorality dressed in the lab coats of evolutionary materialistic scientism, we are increasingly playing with the destructive nihilistic principle, might and manipulation make 'right' and 'truth' etc. In this context, law is now being used to attack and marginalise and outright persecute dissidents, those who take the former position seriously. Now, I am not going to go into a long exposition of the ins and outs of these cases, but a key pattern is that we have people who have served homosexual customers in the normal course of business, but draw the line at behaviour that implies or manifests support for a morally deeply questionable pattern of behaviour and for the perversion of law in support for it. Sometimes, with the same customers. Where, as I noted above, we are not dealing with the only source of food and water in a desert, such that to refuse service is to threaten life or the like. Not at all, we are talking of circumstances where there are significant alternatives readily available. But, instead -- because of an aggressive lawfare agenda -- Christians are being targetted due to their moral convictions about the destructive and wrongful nature of certain sexual behaviours. It is being demanded -- on pain of robbing us of the means of daily bread, and at the expense of acting in contradiction to principled, conscience based convictions -- that Christians support and uphold and even celebrate morally questionable behaviour and the ongoing twisting of marriage in highly questionable ways under false colour of law. Perhaps, you are unfamiliar with this foundational Christian teaching:
Rev 13:16 Also it [the second beast] causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[e] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.[ESV]
In context, 666 or the alternative 616 are veiled references to Nero Caesar and thus to the Nero returns legend. The stamping is a demand for loyalty in defiance of loyalty to God such that the one who takes that infamous number -- and so licences himself to buy and sell in the community as a member deemed to be in good standing, having declared loyalty to the beast over God -- has tainted his soul to damnation. We may compare and contrast this with a pivotal teaching of Jesus, when he was challenged on payment of taxes to an oppressive, unpopular and hated colonial state:
Matt 22:15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.[b] 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.[c] 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” [ESV]
That is, the state has a legitimate role under God, even an oppressive state, one that should be respected and funded through taxation. But the implication is also plain: the state may not legitimately demand of us what belongs to God. And that is the line which has been crossed in our civilisation and is being crossed with defiant willfulness in the teeth of warning and remonstrance. This sets in motion a long train of abuses and usurpations that destroys the legitimacy of the state, and is grounds for calling for reforms, and for reformation or replacement of unjust and failed government. The principle here is the ballot box is a peaceful means to make such changes, but there further problem is that we often deal with a manipulation of the ill informed and foolishly self willed public. Acts 27 as I have several times drawn attention to (but where this has been studiously ignored in the thread -- I know the flimsy excuse, oh I only skim what you say . . . ) gives a clear warning by historical example of marches of manipulated folly that abuse the ballot box to insist on doing the ill advised thing, and where they predictably end up. I began my remarks:
Entrenched highly ideological orthodoxies — and this includes successful revolutionaries, whether on institutional or community scale — that control resource flows to their benefit and which exert enormous power in institutions and society [I was speaking here about today's evolutionary materialism dominated science], tend to be very resistant to what is new and unsettling to their comfort zones and interests. Where there has been indoctrination and polarisation, we can see this multiplied by the problem of lack of logical thinking ability and sheer lack of awareness of the true state of the balance of warrant on the merits of facts and evidence. The perceived heretic, then is a threat to be fought off, marginalised, discredited and if necessary destroyed. By any and all means, fair or foul. (I find the obsession with suggestions of a threat of religious subversion of [scientific, political, education, media and cultural] institutions long since subverted by radical secularists slightly amusing but quite sad in the end. The key threat is unaccountable, out of control power in the hands of elites prone to corruption, not that this once happened with religious elites. In the past 100 years, we saw major secularist movements and neopagan movements of political messianism that did much the same to horrific cost. And the welfare state of the past generation has not been a whole lot better. [Just ask the ghosts of the dozens of millions who have been aborted for convenience.]) Where is there a solution?
I went on:
Frankly, at this stage, I think things are going to have to crash so badly and some elites are going to have to be so discredited by the associated spreading failure, that media propaganda tactics cannot cover it up anymore. My model for that comes from one of the red-flag sources that will give some of the objectors [to the design theory movement in science] the vapours. Acts 27. What, how dare you cite that, that . . . that . . . textbook for theocratic tyranny by the ignorant, insane, stupid and/or wicked followers of that bronze age misogynistic homophobic genocidal racist war god! (Do you hear how your agit-prop talking points are enmeshing you in the classic trap of believing your own propaganda?) Let’s start with, Paul of Tarsus, c. AD 59, was not in the Bronze Age but was an appellate prisoner in chains on early Imperial era grain ships having a hard time making way from the Levant and Asia Minor to Rome, in the second case ending up in a bay on Crete. What followed is a classic exercise in the follies of manipulated democracy, a case study that will well repay study in our time. It was late in the sailing season, and the merchant-owner was worried about his ship in an open bay at Fair Havens, given what winter storms can do. The passengers were not too impressed by the nearby settlements as a wintering place. (Sailing stopped in Autumn and opened back up in Spring.) The key technico, the kubernete — steersman, more or less like a pilot of an airliner — knew where his bread was buttered, and by whom. In the middle was a Centurion of the elite messenger corps. We are at ship’s council, and Paul, in chains, is suggesting that the suggestion to venture our with a favourable wind to try to make it to a more commodious port down-coast was excessively risky not only to boat but life. The financial and technical talking heads and the appeal of comfort allowed him to be easily marginalised and dismissed. Then we saw a gentle south breeze, that would have allowed a reach down the coast. (The technicos probably knew this could be a precursor to a storm, but were not going to cut across the dominant view.) They sailed out. Bang, an early winter noreaster hit them and sprang the boat’s timbers (why they tried to hold together with ropes [--> called frapping]) so the ship was in a sinking condition from the beginning. Worse, they were heading for sandbars off the coast of today’s Libya. For two weeks all they could do was use a sea anchor to control drift and try to steer vaguely WNW. Forget, eating. That is when Paul stood forth as a good man in a storm, and encouraged them with a vision from God. By this time, hope was to be shipwrecked on a coast. (Turned out, [probably] north coast of Malta [possibly, east end].) While the ship was at risk of being driven aground and set out four anchors by the stern from midnight on, the sailors tried to abandon the passengers on a ruse, spotted by Paul and/or Luke his travelling companion. By this time, the Centurion knew who to take seriously and the ship’s boat was cut away. He then took the decision to save Paul and refused the soldiers’ request to kill the prisoners to prevent escape (for which their lives would have been forfeit). So, they made it to a beach on Malta, having lost the ship in any case AND nearly their own lives. All of which is full of lessons from history for us in our own decaying democratic polities today, and in the face of polarised voices and all sorts of hidden agenda, half- truth- at- best counsels. It is going to take a noreaster to sort out the mess, and there is going to be a lot of serious loss to those beguiled by the bewitching counsels of those inclined to tickle itching ears with what they calculate we want to hear.
Fire deh pon mus muss [= mouse] tail but him think seh a cool breeze deh dere. The sweet south wind is blowing. Never mind that silly doom and gloom Cassandra off there in the corner, all is well and the voyage will be easy and beneficial. Oh, sure. KF kairosfocus
The legal question with respect to discrimination is not, what did you do? The legal question is, Why did you do it?
These are contradictory statements. The law is concerned with what you do, not why you do it.
No, you don't understand. When you refuse to give service to someone, it matters why you say no. If you say no because you don't like gays, that is unlawful. If you say no because you cannot compromise your religious principles, that is lawful. The difference is in why you do it.
Therefore, you are correct that in the Colorado case it was the refusal to serve the couple that broke the law. But the baker offered as a reason that his religious convictions should allow him to be able to do that, and the judge disagreed: the law was broken, and the motivation as to why the law was broken was irrelevent.
No, you still don't understand. The proprietor said it was his own religious convictions that prompted him to say no. The judge said, no it wasn't. It was because of the customer's sexual orientation. In other words, the judge decided that he knew better than the proprietor what the proprietors true motives were. Having decided that the proprietor's true motive was his disapproval of the customer's sexual orientation, as opposed to the proprietor's commitment to his own religious convictions, the judge ruled against him. Everything turned on why the proprietor did what he did. StephenB
And, again, who is to decide what is just if we abandon the details of justice that are built into the laws that underlie our society, and let each person decide for themselves?
Are you cuckoo? The law is supposed to be based on the principles of justice. You have to know what justice is before you can establish a just law. Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Or, do you labor under the illusion that all laws are just simply because they are laws? StephenB
Aleta
Really? Earlier you said, “Religious convictions do not give people the right to break the law without consequences.” Now you are saying you can break the law if your reasons are just.
I didn't say that at all. Please read the entire sentence for content and don't cut if off in the middle to give the reader the wrong impression. I said that it is Lawful for him to refuse service if his reason is based on his religious convictions as opposed to being based on his customer's sexual orientation. The former reason is just, the latter reason is unjust. I wish you could learn the difference so that a rational discussion is possible. StephenB
Cancel StephenB
In response to 415, you write,
But the baker does NOT have a legal obligation to provide service if his reasons are just
Really? Earlier you said, "Religious convictions do not give people the right to break the law without consequences." Now you are saying you can break the law if your reasons are just. Is there a difference here between reasons based on religious beliefs and reason which are just? And, again, who is to decide what is just if we abandon the details of justice that are built into the laws that underlie our society, and let each person decide for themselves? Aleta
Response to 413: Stephen, you write, in respect to the Colorado case
Inappropriate example. According to the Judge, the reason Masterpiece refused service was because of the customer’s sexual orientation, not because of the proprietor’s religious convictions.
and then you say, The legal question with respect to discrimination is not, what did you do? The legal question is, Why did you do it? These are contradictory statements. The law is concerned with what you do, not why you do it. Therefore, you are correct that in the Colorado case it was the refusal to serve the couple that broke the law. But the baker offered as a reason that his religious convictions should allow him to be able to do that, and the judge disagreed: the law was broken, and the motivation as to why the law was broken was irrelevent. Aleta
Response to 414: These are not comparable situations, and that should be clear. Springsteen is not "denying service" to anyone in the same way the baker is. Springsteen is choosing not to have a concert, but the baker is running a business that has certain legal obligations. If Springsteen ran a club open to the public, as the baker has a business open to the public, then the situations would be comparable. Also, you say fair means just, but that doesn't really explain anything. I think it is unjust to deny two people who love each other the opportunity to be married in the eyes of the law because they are of the same sex. Do you agree with me? I'm pretty sure you don't. So how do we decide whose notion of justice is correct? Aleta
Aleta
The baker has a legal obligation to not refuse service to people based on sexual orientation, so the fact that it is illegal to do makes it unfair in the eyes of the law,
True. But the baker does NOT have a legal obligation to provide service if his reasons are just, that is, if they are based on his own religious convictions (as opposed to the customer's sexual orientation, which is an unjust reason). How do you know which motive is in play (without presuming to read the mind of the proprietor)? How do you know that his religious convictions are not, as he insists, his true reasons? StephenB
Aleta
The problem with this question is that “fair” is not clearly defined the way the law is.
So you will not answer my question on the grounds that you don't know what fair means? Assume that fair means just. Is it just that those who have gay values (Springsteen) should be able to refuse service to Christians, but those who have Christian values (the baker) should not be able to refuse service to gays. StephenB
“Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage. However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation,” Judge Daniel Taubman wrote. That’s how.
Inappropriate example. According to the Judge, the reason Masterpiece refused service was because of the customer's sexual orientation, not because of the proprietor's religious convictions. Remember my question: What does the CACA have to do with acting on one's religious convictions, which is both legal and constitutional. The legal question with respect to discrimination is not, what did you do? The legal question is, Why did you do it? Discrimination : the UNJUST or PREJUDICIAL treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. (Acting on religious beliefs is neither unjust nor prejudicial) StephenB
You ask,
So, putting the law aside, you agree that it isn’t fair that Bruce Sprinsteen should be able to act on his convictions while Christians may not.
The problem with this question is that "fair" is not clearly defined the way the law is. As I said before, I think these are not comparable situations. Springsteen has every right to not play in N.C. if he doesn't want to. I don't see that there is very much that is fair or unfair about that (unless you feel it is unfair to his fans.) The baker has a legal obligation to not refuse service to people based on sexual orientation, so the fact that it is illegal to do makes it unfair in the eyes of the law. If he was not in business, he can refuse to interact with same-sex couples all he wants. You say "putting the law aside", but if we put the law aside (or, more accurately, consider situations where the law doesn't apply), each of them can decide for themselves what is fair: we all get to make decisions about how to live our lives within the limits of the law. Aleta
ziggy
Just a small correction, it was me that originally made that claim, not Aleta.
Thank you. Apologies to Aleta.
However, I said “most”, not “all” of your examples had signed codes of conduct.
That is why I made my request more precise.
I think Aleta’s request for examples of the academics who were dismissed is a fair one.
Thinking back, I cannot provide solid evidence of anyone who was "fired." I can only provide evidence for those who were, maligned, blacklisted, persecuted, or unjustly refused a tenure track. Examples would be Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Michael Egnor, Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzale. So, my question persists: When did any of these people sign an agreement to refrain from criticizing Darwin's theory.her
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you, not Aleta.
Hopefully, you will now agree that the burden is on you. Also, several politicians and professors have indicated that scientists who deny climate change should be put in jail. I don't need to provide names here since the directive is aimed at all who dare question the establishment. So, my question persists: Where did these scientists agree to remain silent about their evidence-based convictions. StephenB
Aleta
What is your answer to the above question?
Religious convictions do not give people the right to break the law without consequences.
;These may be parallel from an ethical point of view, but they are not parallel from a legal point of view.
So, putting the law aside, you agree that it isn't fair that Bruce Sprinsteen should be able to act on his convictions while Christians may not. That is the original question I asked you. I said nothing about the law. Under the circumstances, then, you must surely agree that our culture is hostile toward Christians' who express or act on their views. Of course, that doesn't mean that laws are not also being crafted to persecute Christians, but that is not exactly the same thing. StephenB
At 403 Stephen asked,
How does acting on ones religious convictions with respect to baking a cake violate the CADA.
Here's what the judge said in the Colorado case,
“Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage. However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation,” Judge Daniel Taubman wrote.
That's how. Aleta
ziggy
Just a small correction, it was me that originally made that claim, not Aleta.
Thank you. Apologies to Aleta.
However, I said “most”, not “all” of your examples had signed codes of conduct.
That is why I made my request more precise.
I think Aleta’s request for examples of the academics who were dismissed is a fair one.
Thinking back, I cannot provide solid evidence of anyone who was "fired." I can only provide evidence for those who were, maligned, blacklisted, persecuted, or unjustly refused a tenure track. Examples would be Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Michael Egnor, Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzale. So, my question persists: When or when did any of these people sign an agreement to refrain from criticizing Darwin's theory.
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you, not Aleta.
Hopefully, you will now agree that the burden is on you. Also, several politicians and professors have indicated that scientists who deny climate change should be put in jail. I don't need to provide names here since the directive is aimed at all who dare question the establishment. So, my question persists: Where or when did these scientists agree to remain silent about their evidence-based convictions. Before I go to other categories, I will let you address those on the table. StephenB
1. Stephen, you wrote,
According to the constitution, a baker has the right to act on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him.
Then, when I asked, "Does the constitution say that someone has the right to break a law, " you replied, "Where has anyone suggested that it does?" Well, it seems to me that you suggested it did in the sentence quoted above. If the baker has the constitutional right "to act on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him", does this give him the right to break the law without any legal consequences? I am unclear where you stand here. What is your answer to the above question? 2. You write,
If it is fair for Springsteen to withhold services because he disagrees with the Christian world view, then it is also fair for Christians to withhold services from because they disagree with the gay world view. From an ethical point of view, the parallel is exactly the same.
These may be parallel from an ethical point of view, but they are not parallel from a legal point of view. Among other reasons, this is why we have laws -- because we need some way of adjudicating between people who maybe have differing views about what is ethically or morally right. 3. You write,
Discrimination is not the act of refusing service. It is the act of unjustly refusing service. It is not unjust if it is based on sincere religious convictions.
Is this position supported by the law? This goes back to the first question: can someone decide on their own that their religious convictions excusing them from following the law? And I'm sure the law does not leave the decision to the individual as to whether a refusal to provide service is just or unjust. Again, that is why we have laws: they spell out the specifics of what is and is not permitted. Leaving judgments as to whether laws should be followed or not based to individuals based on their own notions as to what is just or unjust would lead to a breakdown of the social order. I can't imagine that we could adopt that as a general principle. Aleta
Discrimination : the UNJUST or PREJUDICIAL treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. (Acting on religious beliefs is neither unjust nor prejudicial) StephenB
Aleta
The baker, on the other hand, has some legal obligations by virtue of being a licensed business subject to ant-discrimination laws. This is not very comparable to the Bruce Springsteen scenario.
Discrimination is not the act of refusing service. It is the act of unjustly refusing service. It is not unjust if it is based on sincere religious convictions. Springsteen refused service because his conscience bade him to do so. The cake baker, who refuses to decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple, is also acting according to his conscience. It breaks the law only if the cake baker refuses unjustly, that is, because he disdains homosexuals as a group, which is not a legitimate reason. Even if it was illegal, which it is not, that wouldn't change the ethical component. If it is fair for Springsteen to withhold services because he disagrees with the Christian world view, then it is also fair for Christians to withhold services from because they disagree with the gay world view. From an ethical point of view, the parallel is exactly the same. StephenB
StephenB -- "It isn’t my burden to prove your claims." Just a small correction, it was me that originally made that claim, not Aleta. However, I said "most", not "all" of your examples had signed codes of conduct. I think Aleta's request for examples of the academics who were dismissed is a fair one. You provided specific names for the celebrities who were fired and then made a blanket statement about meteorologists and academics. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you, not Aleta. ziggy lorenc
CLAVDIVSColorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014 How does acting on ones religious convictions with respect to baking a cake violate the CADA. StephenB
KF -- "zL, you know you are misrepresenting what I have said all along during the thread [and in an EXTREMELY offensive way], and that speaks volumes on your motives." If I have misrepresented what you have said, I apologize. But if it was so, it was due to your often obscure and rambling way of writing, not something intentional. This being said, I don't see what the differences between race and sexual orientation have to do with anything I have said. I have said from the start that I am not in favour of homosexuality and same sex marriage. But that I am honest enough to admit that this is for purely religious. And that in spite of my beliefs, I can't force myself to get worked up over the issue. Is that what has got you upset with me? ziggy lorenc
Aleta
Does the constitution say that someone has the right to break a law,
Where has anyone suggested that it does? StephenB
Aleta
Could you point us to some information about which situations you have in mind here? I think details would be important in order to think about these cases.
It isn't my burden to prove your claims. You said that code's were agreed upon an signed. I am asking you when and where that happened. Of course, there are no such "agreed-upon" codes for the categories that I mentioned. You just made it up to rationalize the fact that those who hold traditional values are unfairly maligned or worse. StephenB
Aleta, It was more like a sleazy politician than dictator. Something like Obama or our Canadian Trudeau. You smoothed, minimized and even dismissed some of our serious concerns. Our worries are valid and are based on reasonable assessment of the situation and events in society. Eugen
Stephen writes,
According to the constitution, a baker has the right to act on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him.
Does the constitution say that someone has the right to break a law, without any legal consequences, based on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him? And if you believe this is so, do you uniformly support this right for all religious beliefs? Aleta
CLAVDIVS, I assume you know the difference between what is imposed under colour of law and what is in accord with the law of nature. In particular, I point to you that he who would rob me of my means of daily bread would rob me of my life; he who would rob me of my conscience would taint and damn my soul. I suggest you ponder very carefully the fire you are playing with here under colours of false accusations of bigotry and discrimination and violation of rights. As a right is a moral claim on others, you cannot properly claim a right to force others into wrong against sound conscience . . . one of the worst impacts of schemes that imply that might and manipulation make 'right' 'truth' etc. KF kairosfocus
StephenB What law? Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014 CLAVDIVS
Aleta, a baker is not providing the only source of food or drink in a desert nor is he issuing blanket refusals of custom. What is being demanded is the sort of extorted, conscience sapping conformity that Havel discusses in the case of a greengrocer: http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=clanky&val=72_aj_clanky.html&typ=HTML . . . itself a pretty serious warning.KF kairosfocus
Stephen writes,
When and where did any academic agree to remain silent about the flaws in evolutionary theory? When and where did any meteorologist agree to remain silent about his opinions on “climate change?” When and where did any CEO agree to remain silent about the special status of heterosexual marriage?
Could you point us to some information about which situations you have in mind here? I think details would be important in order to think about these cases. Aleta
ZL, you know you are misrepresenting what I have said all along during the thread [and in an EXTREMELY offensive way], and that speaks volumes on your motives. I note to you that race is an inherent characteristic, not a morally freighted behaviour or the wrenching of laws; you and others of your agenda might find this discussion helpful, if you were interested. The signs of what is going wrong are ever more blatant. Looks like the nice south breeze is blowing. KF kairosfocus
Hi Eugen. I looked back over my post at 385, and I don't see why you think it is demagoguery. Here's a definition:
Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people.
Can you point to a particular part of 385 that seems objectionable to you. I know you may not agree with what I said, but what part seemed like demagoguery? Aleta
Ziggy
He broke a law.
What law? According to the constitution, a baker has the right to act on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him. Also, you are getting ahead of yourself. What happened to your response to my other questions? When and where did any academic agree to remain silent about the flaws in evolutionary theory? When and where did any meteorologist agree to remain silent about his opinions on “climate change?” When and where did any CEO agree to remain silent about the special status of heterosexual marriage? And, again, where is the parallel code of conduct to protect the other side from making statements that really are outrageously bigoted? StephenB
Stephen, I was responding to what you wrote in 372:
Ziggy, the loss of free speech for Christians in North America has become a cultural phenomenon.
I took this to mean free speech in respect to the law. Now you say,
We are not discussing the Free Speech amendment or free speech laws. We are discussing unfair penalties and arbitrary rules that anti-Christian ideologues impose on Christians who act on their religious beliefs, while exempting themselves from the same standard.
If you were not referring to free speech laws in your original statement, then some or all of what I wrote was not relevant, but I'm not quite sure that I should have known that from context. You write,
Bruce Springsteen denied entertainment services to Christians (and everyone else) in North Carolina because he disagrees with the pro-Christian, anti-gay world view. He was not sued. A baker cannot deny cake baking services to a homosexual couple even though he disagrees with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view. If he dares to try it, he will be sued. Is that fair?
These are certainly different situations. Bruce Springsteen is under no legal obligation to hold a concert. He as an individual can choose to do what he wants. I can't imagine upon what grounds you could sue him. Similarly, people who are calling for a boycott of Target have every right to do so - no one can make someone go to Target. The baker, on the other hand, has some legal obligations by virtue of being a licensed business subject to ant-discrimination laws. This is not very comparable to the Bruce Springsteen scenario. Aleta
StephenB -- "Bruce Springsteen denied entertainment services to Christians (and everyone else) in North Carolina because he disagrees with the pro-Christian, anti-gay world view. He was not sued." He didn't break any law. StephenB -- "A baker cannot deny cake baking services to a homosexual couple even though he disagrees with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view. If he dares to try it, he will be sued." He broke a law. ziggy lorenc
Aleta
But free speech doesn’t apply to those situations: free speech refers to government restrictions. One doesn’t have free speech protection wth/from one’s employers.
We are not discussing the Free Speech amendment or free speech laws. We are discussing unfair penalties and arbitrary rules that anti-Christian ideologues impose on Christians who act on their religious beliefs, while exempting themselves from the same standard. I could provide many more examples, but you have already made it clear that you will dismiss them. Let's try it another way. Bruce Springsteen denied entertainment services to Christians (and everyone else) in North Carolina because he disagrees with the pro-Christian, anti-gay world view. He was not sued. A baker cannot deny cake baking services to a homosexual couple even though he disagrees with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view. If he dares to try it, he will be sued. Is that fair? StephenB
Aleta,
Stephen listed a bunch of simplified situations, without much detail. For instance, Curt Schilling had been warned and disciplined in the past about his remarks, and he’s a public figure representing ESPN. His latest actions were the last straw, as far as EXSPN was concerned.
Yeah, it's hard to feel too sorry for Curt Schilling. When you're working for a company that sells eyeballs to advertisers, and you turn yourself into a liability, you can't blame ESPN for making a business decision. daveS
Aleta you write OK sometimes but 385 was demagoguery Eugen
kf writes,
Aleta, SB is pointing to something very important, the reason why there is normally law on unfair dismissal.
and then follows that with another typical screed that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. I appreciate ziggy responding to that. Yes, I support laws that protect people from unfair dismissal. I assume that if any of the people that Stephen has in mind have such legal protection, they will make use of it, and I would support that. We can think up lots of hypothetical situations, across a spectrum of types and levels of offenses, but discussing hypotheticals is seldom productive. Stephen listed a bunch of simplified situations, without much detail. For instance, Curt Schilling had been warned and disciplined in the past about his remarks, and he's a public figure representing ESPN. His latest actions were the last straw, as far as EXSPN was concerned. I think Stephen is exaggerating the extent to which people (whether they are Christians or not) are summarily dismissed from their job for exercising legitimate free speech rights, but it would take some digging into any particular case to see enough details for me to feel that I could make a judgment about the case. With that said, sometimes people overreact to something somebody said and act in a way that is not legally justifiable, and then laws come into play. For instance, sometimes an administrator of a public school restricts religious or political free speech of students when in fact the students have the right to do what they are doing: read the Bible, pray at lunch, wear a political slogan, etc. In that case, someone (often the ACLU) steps in to protect the rights of the students. So, as with most things in life, there is an interplay and balance to keep things from going too far in either direction: people can't just say anything on the job, no matter what or how often, and expect that there can't be consequences, but on the other hand there are also there are legal protections they can expect to be in place. Aleta
KF -- "ZL, remember the Emperor’s new clothes. KF" Yes, are you suggesting that desegregation, legalization inter-racial marriage, removing homosexuality as s criminal (and firing) offence, making it against the law to physically discipline your wife, making sexual harassment unacceptable, and no longer sweeping child sexual abuse under the rug, are all window-dressing to a more nefarious plot? You really should get out and smell the roses. The world is a better place than it was 60 years ago, and a much better place than it was 150 years ago. Change is not always bad. ziggy lorenc
Aleta, SB is pointing to something very important, the reason why there is normally law on unfair dismissal. (Would you be so glibly dismissive about say blacklisting of leftists in the 50's in Hollywood?) Further to this, I put it to you that he who would rob me of the means of daily bread would rob me of my life, and he who would rob me of conscience would poison and damn my soul. Note, rob -- a morally freighted term, we are dealing with what undermines morality. Our civilisation is playing with extremely dangerous matches at instigation of agendas that are showing extremely dangerous signs. The lack of willingness to acknowledge that canaries are choking in the mines and the tendency to scapegoat and blame then almost gloat over the fate of victims SHOULD ring major warning bells, but the silence is itself a warning of how far down the slippery slope we have already slid. I fear, the wake-up is only going to happen after we are lying, brokenbacked, at the foot of a cliff. By then, it will be too late. Maybe, it is already too late. KF kairosfocus
But free speech doesn't apply to those situations: free speech refers to government restrictions. One doesn't have free speech protection wth/from one's employers. Aleta
Aleta
“Free speech” isn’t a blanket right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want without be subjected to any consequences or reactions from others. You have the right to call homosexuals “@#%$%@ faggots” if you wish.
Very unfair and strawmanish. No one is suggesting anything like that.
I’m wondering if Stephen can provide examples of Christians having lost this genuine legal right to free speech, as opposed to just having people react negatively to what they say, or having companies respond within their rights as employees. I’m skeptical that such examples exist.
I have already provided such examples--Christians have lost their jobs for doing nothing more than defending the special status of heterosexual marriage or the novel proposition that men and women ought to use their own restrooms. Of course, you can always argue that the right to free speech protects the speaker only from governmental intrusion, but that doesn't change the point. Christians who express traditional social views are unfairly penalized, and anti-Christian bigots can say anything they like. StephenB
Ziggy
Almost all of your examples pertain to employees being suspended or let go for violating an agreed to code of conduct. You can certainly argue about the content of a code of conduct, but if you sign it, you abide by it or suffer the consequences
Your analysis is both inaccurate and unfair. When and where did any academic agree to remain silent about the flaws in evolutionary theory? When and where did any meteorologist agree to remain silent about his opinions on "climate change?" When and where did any CEO agree to remain silent about the special status of heterosexual marriage? And, again, where is the parallel code of conduct to protect the other side from making statements that really are outrageously bigoted? StephenB
ZL, remember the Emperor's new clothes. KF kairosfocus
KF -- "ZL, I should note in addition, that there is a major and dangerous, obvious shift in our civilisation tracing to the embracing of systems that undermine reason and morality..." You saying it is obvious doesn't make it so. I have seen many changes over my lifetime, and I think that most of them are for the better. I disagree with some but that is the cost of living in a civilization. Early in my life I lived in a society where segregation still existed, inter-racial marriages were illegal in many states, homosexuality was grounds for jail and dismissal from jobs, husbands were legally allowed to physically discipline their wives, sexual harassment in the work place was the norm, sexual abuse of children was covered up, as was spousal abuse. So please, tell me again why we are heading for the cliff. I am not in favour of SSM, but I think that the government is well within its rights to allow it. It does no harm to me or my marriage, or the marriage of my children. In short, I am indifferent to the idea. ziggy lorenc
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James Eugen
When Stephen wrotes, 'Ziggy, the loss of free speech for Christians in North America has become a cultural phenomenon. It’s all over the place." ziggy replied,
Almost all of your examples pertain to employees being suspended or let go for violating an agreed to code of conduct. You can certainly argue about the content of a code of conduct, but if you sign it, you abide by it or suffer the consequences
This is an important point. "Free speech" isn't a blanket right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want without be subjected to any consequences or reactions from others. You have the right to call homosexuals "@#%$%@ faggots" if you wish. I have the right to judge you harshly and shun your company for it, and your employer has the right to fire you if you say that to one of your customers. In general, the right to free speech is the right to say what you want in the public arena without being subject to any laws restricting what you can say: the First amendment says "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech." I'm wondering if Stephen can provide examples of Christians having lost this genuine legal right to free speech, as opposed to just having people react negatively to what they say, or having companies respond within their rights as employees. I'm skeptical that such examples exist. Aleta
ZL, I should note in addition, that there is a major and dangerous, obvious shift in our civilisation tracing to the embracing of systems that undermine reason and morality; something which too many people who should know better seem to be doing their best to obfuscate or fail to reckon with soberly even when they lay out the dynamics that are at work -- Dawkins and Provine, Gray, Crick and others I am looking at you. A lot of people who have had more than enough education to realise the problem, you too. To in that context object on principle to the blatant slide of our civilisation towards the cliff is not paranoia. To identify that -- as has happened in more recent history at a cost north of 100 million lives -- the rise of such schemes involves manipulation of masses, enabling behaviour of activists and strategic level actors who bear primary responsibility is reasonable assessment on horrific history. Havel and Schein have somewhat to say that you and others at minimum in denial and at worst aiding and abetting need to heed: http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=clanky&val=72_aj_clanky.html&typ=HTML http://wayback.archive.org/web/20001212204800/http://www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/10006.html A reminder, over 100 millions, coming on a billion if we count in the abortion holocaust still in progress, have paid with their lives for what too many have become benumbed to. Irrationality and amorality are let loose, dressed up in the lab coat in a time when millions are taught to worship at the altar of science, unquestioningly. We had better wake up . . . and I am not sure I can say before it is too late, for it is clear our civilisation is past a watershed and forces are wedging the rift of separation wider and wider. KF kairosfocus
Mr. Murray -- " even if true, what is the point of accusing others of being a bigot or a racist? What is to be gained by it?" But, if true, you are not making an accusation, you are stating a fact. But I think we mostly agree. Where we differ is that in very clear and in circumstances that are beyond dispute, is it always wrong to use such words. For example, we have no qualms about calling ISIL a terrorist organization. Does this fall into the same category as calling a white supremacist a racist? What is gained by calling them terrorists? Should we apply your logic to all circumstances? ziggy lorenc
StephenB, you forgot to mention Jimmy the Greek being fired for calling a female black teen athlete a I knappy headed ___. Almost all of your examples pertain to employees being suspended or let go for violating an agreed to code of conduct. You can certainly argue about the content of a code of conduct, but if you sign it, you abide by it or suffer the consequences. StephenB -- "Very true. Racists and bigots do exist. That is why it is so important that the word should not be used dishonestly and recklessly as a weapon." Agreed. I have not suggested otherwise. ziggy lorenc
Ziggy, the loss of free speech for Christians in North America has become a cultural phenomenon. It’s all over the place. Don Jones, a player in the National Football league, expressed his displeasure when a gay player hugged, held hands with, and kissed his boyfriend on national TV. He was rebuked, suspended, and sent to a thought police “training camp.” The CEO from an American corporation was fired for expressing his personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Curt Shilling a sports broadcaster, was fired for expressing the opinion that men and women should use bathrooms appropriate to their biological gender. Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio personality in history, was realeased from ESPN for expressing the opinion that a black football player was overrated. If an academic expresses doubts about Darwin’s theory of evolution, he is "expelled." No questions, no appeals, no controversy. If a meteorologist entertains doubts about “climate change,” US congressmen will (and have) argued that the offender should be put in jail. The so-called defenders of free speech are silent. I could go on and on. Here, though, is the predictable irony. The other side is free to say anything—and I mean anything. The truthfulness of the statement doesn’t even matter. If liberal atheists say that black hoodlums deserve to live and police officers deserve to die, they say it. No problem. If a movie icon feels like calling his adversary a "God-soaked Christian" that is "lying for Jesus, he just turns it loose. That’s just fine. If Ted Turner decides to claim that "Christianity is a religion for losers," he doesn't hesitate. No one cares. The take home point is this: One side is silenced while the other side enjoys unfettered free speech. Hopefully, the pattern is obvious. Ziggy
I would never try to debate a committed white supremacist on the flaws in his beliefs. What would be the point? I would probably just ignore him. But calling him a racist is neither name calling nor inflammatory. It would simply be a statement of fact.
Very true. Racists and bigots do exist. That is why it is so important that the word should not be used dishonestly and recklessly as a weapon. StephenB
Ziggy said:
Mr. Murray, I am not suggesting that it is OK to name call of use incendiary labels as a matter of course. If I were to call someone a racist or a bigot (and I can’t recall that I ever have) it would be under conditions where the racism or bigotry is indisputable.
Yes, I've accepted this. The question before you is, why? Even if the racism or bigotry is indisputable, what is gained in discourse by usi9ng those terms? What are you trying to accomplish?
For example, I would never try to debate a committed white supremacist on the flaws in his beliefs. What would be the point? I would probably just ignore him. But calling him a racist is neither name calling nor inflammatory. It would simply be a statement of fact.
Again: what do you hope to accomplish or gain were you to call a bigot a bigot, or call a racist a racist?
Another example. Do you think that the motivation behind the actions of the Westborro Baptist church is bigotry (or hatred, or homophobia, or whatever label you would like)?
I don't know anything about them outside of headlines so I'm not qualified to comment. But, once again, even if I believed them to bigots, what's the point of calling them such?
All of these “inflammatory” words have very clear definitions. When the definition clearly fits, avoiding its use is political correctness.
I guess that depends on why one is avioding using the terms, right? If I avoid such terms because I find them detrimental to civil, rational debate, then it is hardly due to my wishing to be "politically correct".
Another example. Someone above talked about the persecution of Christians. Is not the use of the word “persecution” used in this context just as inflammatory and intended to stifle discussion as the use of words like bigot, racist, homophobic, etc.?
Well it could be, depending on how it is used. However, you seem to be avoiding my questions on the subject and appear to want to deflect attention to other phrases, uses and examples. Once again: even if true, what is the point of accusing others of being a bigot or a racist? What is to be gained by it? William J Murray
Kairos , I think 7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction explains a lot. It's far easier for some to jump on the latest bandwagon than strive to be wise. Wisdom comes from knowledge which comes from learning which comes from humbling yourself and saying "I don't know but I want to learn" Ziggy can in a meantime buy himself "wisdoms" at the app store 2 4 1 all week. Buy plenty :) Eugen
KF -- "Young bird doan know hurricane.*" I have seen far more in my life than you can imagine. So please stop trying to lecture. A lecture, as you have demonstrated a tendency for, is as much an effort to control the message and stifle discussion as Mr. Murray is warning about in his article. ziggy lorenc
Mr. Murray, I am not suggesting that it is OK to name call of use incendiary labels as a matter of course. If I were to call someone a racist or a bigot (and I can't recall that I ever have) it would be under conditions where the racism or bigotry is indisputable. For example, I would never try to debate a committed white supremacist on the flaws in his beliefs. What would be the point? I would probably just ignore him. But calling him a racist is neither name calling nor inflammatory. It would simply be a statement of fact. Another example. Do you think that the motivation behind the actions of the Westborro Baptist church is bigotry (or hatred, or homophobia, or whatever label you would like)? All of these "inflammatory" words have very clear definitions. When the definition clearly fits, avoiding its use is political correctness. Another example. Someone above talked about the persecution of Christians. Is not the use of the word "persecution" used in this context just as inflammatory and intended to stifle discussion as the use of words like bigot, racist, homophobic, etc.? ziggy lorenc
Eugen Maybe they don't know there is a Book for it:
Prov 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: 2 To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight, 3 to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity; 4 to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— 5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, 6 to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles. 7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. [ESV]
Eeek! Not THAAAAAAAAAT . . . . No, no, NOOOOOO . . . ! kairosfocus
ZL, There are always ever so many conspiracies in our dark world. Last I saw him, Adam Smith was muttering about what happens when merchants get together. Conspiracism is not the issue, a large scale movement of civilisational decline is -- and that has long been so. Here is Heine in one of the most stunning literary prophecies, c 1831:
Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [--> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. … The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. … … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. … At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [--> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [--> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.
It's been going on a long time. If the people of Germany would have heeded this warning c 1913 or 1931, it would have saved us rivers of blood and tears. But it seems we refuse to learn lessons from history. Young bird doan know hurricane.* KF * The young bird has not seen a hurricane. kairosfocus
Ziggy asks:
What would you accomplish by trying to debate them on an equal footing?
What do you mean by "equal footing"? Submitting to logic, facts and evidence gives all arguments an equal framework from which an argument can either succeed or fail.
Doing so just gives credence to their views.
I don't see how it is possible that a viewpoint is given any credence by limiting one's own responses in an argument the rational and civil without resort to name-calling or use of incendiary labeling or implications. Perhaps you can explain? It seems to me that the one using such tactics is the one whose "credence" will suffer. KF @360: I'm prparing another post about just that very thing :) William J Murray
Mr. Murray -- "What would you be trying to accomplish by calling them bigots or racists?" What would you accomplish by trying to debate them on an equal footing? Doing so just gives credence to their views. I like Dr. King's response, but even his response was an insult to those opposed to him. It had the benefit of pointing out the racism of those opposing him without calling them racists. ziggy lorenc
KF -- "Instead, I am pointing to a globally influential agenda that has dominated first the academy then has increasingly shaped spheres of influence constituting the commanding heights of a culture until it is now seeking to radically redefine sexual identity, law, marriage and family in ways that will patently criminalise Christianity. (Already we see many going along happily as Christians are being driven out of employment and businesses on claimed grounds of their bigotry and discrimination.)" Thank you for your response. But I can't discern between what you said and a claim that there is a global conspiracy. As such, I look on your words with extreme scepticism as they are more often the result of some paranoid pathology than of rational thought. With regard to your claim of Christians losing their jobs on claims of bigotry, can you provide me with some examples of this that weren't the result of: 1-- failure to abide by an employment code of conduct; 2-- breaking a law; or 3-- the result of customers not patronizing a business because of the actions and behaviour of the owner/operators. as much as I may sympathize with anyone losing their job, the above are the result of intentional actions that either broke the rules or that drove customers away. Not the result of being Christian. KF-- "...ideas have consequences." Agreed. As do speech and actions. Free speech is alive and well. Consequence free speech has never been a right, nor should it be. An employer has the right to impose codes of conduct and behaviour on his employees. In some cases, as with celebrities, these codes can be binding on behaviour and actions outside of the work place (just ask Charlie Sheen). If someone disagrees with these codes they do not have to accept employment. We have an excellent example in Canada. Charles McVety is an evangelical minister who had a weekly show on a Christian broadcasting station. A complaint was lodged against the broadcaster about one of his shows claiming that his words violated the CBSC standard that member broadcaster agree to follow. The clause of the standard at play states that a broadcaster may not intentionally use false information to support a view (don't lie). The investigation concluded that McVety had lied and required the broadcaster to make an announcement on air to that effect. That was all that was required of the broadcaster. McVety subsequently went on air and claimed that the CBSC was censoring him (another lie) and that they were forcing the broadcaster to review his broadcasts before they aired (another lie). In short, the broadcaster cancelled his show. McVety then went to the media announcing that he was being persecuted because he was a Christian. Throughout all of this, his freedom of speech was never hindered. He just learned a lesson about consequence free speech. ziggy lorenc
Wisdom,Can I get it in my app store? :D This week only! $.99 - two "wisdoms" for the price of one at the App Store Eugen
@316 - thanks KF. You're doing a great job and that as a criticism although in hindsight I see that I made it sound that way. Materialism and relativism are extremely destructive to society. Proponents of cultural marxism intend it that way. Destroy everything first, then supposedly build the ideal society on the rubble left behind. Silver Asiatic
WJM, what is being cleverly sidestepped in all this:
7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature. 8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature. 9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked. 10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.
Where of course this is deemed beyond the politically correct pale,
11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.
The agenda is on the triumphal march, so there, no need to even bother to answer we have the might and can effect manipulation through message dominance and that makes the right, the truth etc. I suspect only a crash over the cliff leading to a broken back will wake us up. Suicidal. KF kairosfocus
Eugen, that sequence again: data --> information --> knowledge --> expertise --> wisdom Wisdom, wha's dat? Can I get it in my app store? KF kairosfocus
William J Murray: What would you be trying to accomplish by calling them bigots or racists? Dr. King's adversaries called him a communist agitator. He called them his brothers and sisters. Zachriel
At 339 Ziggy said:
In general, I agree with you. But do you consider this an absolute, or does it depend on the issue? For example, what if there was a move to make all Jews where a Star of David patch on their coats? Or Christians to wear a a big cross? What if there were people lobbying government to segregate all blacks, or Hispanics? Should we justify their arguments by trying to engage in civil debate, or should we call them out for what they most certainly are? I think of myself as a very tolerant person, but there are boundaries.
What would you be trying to accomplish by calling them bigots or racists? William J Murray
Eugen, we are on that slope with the train in full runaway mode. Likely outcome, crash, broken back -- maybe by way of an Iranian nuke emp hit, I don't know -- and snap to oligarchy with ruthless utterly manipulative Nietzschean superman messianic political leader. The Trump spell and the Obama spell look to me like early rehearsals for what is coming. Fire deh pon mus mus [=mouse] tail but him tink seh cool breeze de dere. Fire on the mouse's tail but the confused little beastie imagines it is a cool breeze. KF PS: Take a look at one of the most insightful folks I know of, Edgar Schein, on the key process, building on a great, Kurt Lewin: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20001212204800/http://www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/10006.html Sobering lessons. kairosfocus
Kairos " Information is not equivalent to truth or knowledge ..." I understand. May add it's not equivalent to wisdom either. I agree with what your ideas but I don't know what the solution is. Looks like there isn't much reasonable people can do but watch. Sometimes I wish I was hipster focused on a coffee cup lid :) but that's impossible... One thing I see in these discussions is when opponents lack in logic or reason they replace it with whining or mockery. (I gladly return mockery back) Thanks for the links and other good information... Eugen
Origenes writes,
I may even be a bigot because the thought of homosexuality repulses me.
No, not a bit. Your personal feelings about homosexuality are very different than how you treat others. Bigotry is making blanket condemnations of others based on some trait, and that is exactly what you are not doing. So I, like dave, appreciate your position on this subject. Aleta
Origenes,
Maybe so, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Unlike you, I hold that people are not defined by their bodies, but by the fact that they are free eternal spiritual beings. In my book if two adult persons want to marry, then this is their business and no one else’s. Their right to freedom and love transcends all objections by others — this is a self evident moral truth. Even if it is wrong, people are perfectly free to make such a mistake. If my view on SSM happen to coincide with some global communist agenda aimed at the destruction of civilization, then so be it. Note that I’m a 56 year old man who is married to a woman and who neither had nor intended to have homosexual relationships. I may even be a bigot because the thought of homosexuality repulses me. However oppressing people repulses me much much more.
If I may jump in, very nice post. When my (now) wife met, we knew almost immediately that we would eventually marry, but we had to overcome several obstacles first. That took several very trying years, during which we had to live many thousands of miles apart. That's one reason I would be extremely reluctant to get in the way of two consenting adults who wish to share a married life together. daveS
Phinehas: Because same sex couples will be able to claim protected status. I believe that at some point in the future, not marrying same sex couples will be subject to discrimination laws. In the U.S., churches are not under anti-discrimination laws unless they are running a public accommodation. For instance, a church can discriminate on the basis of race, adultery, or whether they have been married before. Phinehas: Thinking it is wrong is enough to get you branded as a homophobe in much of society already. If a church were to refuse to marry a racially mixed couple, they would probably be branded racist, but they are still free to not perform the ceremony, or even to let the mixed race couple join their church. So? Zachriel
Eugen, the same principles, with the technology on steroids. But then Plato had the principles right 2350 years ago, only he had to come up with fires, parapets, puppets and shadow shows. The real innovation is in the lawfare, which is perverting law to ruthless ends. KF kairosfocus
Eugen, that is another serious problem, the wold of marketing manipulation in so many layers that too many are living in a Plato's cave shadow show world. As I type there are three screens in front of me, the PC the 2-1 tablet, the smartphone, but I do not confuse such with reality. Information is not equivalent to truth or knowledge, which is a worldviews level issue. KF PS: Notice how the IslamISM front has gone very quiet now that there are links to plans for global subjugation and to the settlement jihad strategy? Spiral of silencing in the face of the thought police, I fear. Let me add: The Project of the Muslim Brotherhood, 100 yr global conquest intent: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/687-the-muslim-brotherhood-project.pdf Explanatory Memo outlining facets of settlement jihad as a strategy of takeover and inducing collapse of the targetted "rotten" civilisation -- yes, the vultures sense a feast ahead: https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf Scroll to about p 15 in each. Then ask yourselves why these did not get wall to wall 24/7 coverage for about a month each. Then ask yourself what else is not in the news that should have been save that it does not fit the partyline narrative? Plato's Cave world shadow shows. kairosfocus
Kairos I don't think ziggy and others understand or care. I think some opponents here lack common sense (=healthy reasoning in my first language ). When they want something it turns into a need and even a right. I think generations growing up and living in big urban centers removed them from exposure to nature, it's harshness, cycles of life and death, beauty and generally from hard reality. I'm not saying let's live back in caves but lucky are those who were exposed to some form of traditional life, farming, fishing,hunting etc Exposure to reality of nature develops strong common sense. Nature is well equipped to generate many problems for us and we quickly have to learn how to solve them. Problem solving in modern urban centers may be different: Hipster gets his Starbucks Double Ristretto Venti Half-Soy Nonfat Decaf Organic Chocolate Brownie Iced Vanilla Double-Shot Gingerbread Frappuccino Extra Hot With Foam Whipped Cream Upside Down Double Blended, but lid doesn't fit properly. He cannot walk around like that and risk the drink dripping on his new Steve Madden booties, serious problem. He gets ready: he puts his massive iDance headphones on, reaches for his iPhone6, gently taps through tabs and finds Mumford and Sons album. He taps the play button....ahh great sound, he cannot imagine life before Apple Lossless audio format. His eyes catch the Twitter notification on the screen. #marryyourlama is trending strong. Good! Finally he grabs the lid, plays with it for like whole 2.5 seconds to make it fit. Problem solved :) Edit to add: I lived Communism. Communist brainwashing techniques seem childish comparing to what we are exposed to now. The sophistication, spectrum and depth of new indoctrination is staggering! Coordination between government, corporations, entertainment and media is fantastic! Eugen
Origines, you are free to hold views. The issue is, the intersection with rights, justice, law and the thriving of people in community. The tampering with marriage and family that is ongoing is -- whether we want to face it or not -- sliding our civilisation down a slippery slope towards a cliff. With implications of domination of ideologies rooted in incoherence and amorality at the core of the problem, including the sort of extreme nominalism that has led many to imagine just because one can wrench the word marriage one can manipulate law, morality, social consensus and governance to suit a favoured and well connected agenda without serious, damaging consequences. Coming from a community that fell over a cliff and broke its back (by way of economic collapse and mini civil war tied to societal destabilisation), and living in another that has done so in a different way (mismanaging the warning signs and implications of an explosive volcano) I suggest it is a lot better to avoid going over the cliff. But I suspect a critical mass of the power classes are hell bent on a course of action that will lead our civilisation as a whole over the cliff. And, the degree of ruthless message dominance manipulation at work is in my experience only paralleled by what the Communists did (and uses many of the same agit prop techniques; multiplied now by lawfare). KF PS: Principled objection and even frank challenging of questionable or manifestly wrongful behaviours is not bigotry. Similarly, two men or two women or a human and an animal or whatever may be dreamed up next are not capable of being married, given the nature of marriage and its centrality to human thriving in family and community. Nor is it bigotry to be repulsed by bizarre and self destructive behaviours; that may well be a felt response to a fundamentally sound judgement about what is involved. We must not allow that corruption of language and law to proceed unchecked. kairosfocus
Kairosfocus: Please note, an agenda is operating, one that set out to redefine law and language alike to create the perception that marriage is not keyed to the heterosexual bond, reproductive biology and the requisites of child nurture and stable society.
Maybe so, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Unlike you, I hold that people are not defined by their bodies, but by the fact that they are free eternal spiritual beings. In my book if two adult persons want to marry, then this is their business and no one else's. Their right to freedom and love transcends all objections by others — this is a self evident moral truth. Even if it is wrong, people are perfectly free to make such a mistake. If my view on SSM happen to coincide with some global communist agenda aimed at the destruction of civilization, then so be it. Note that I'm a 56 year old man who is married to a woman and who neither had nor intended to have homosexual relationships. I may even be a bigot because the thought of homosexuality repulses me. However oppressing people repulses me much much more. Origenes
PPS: Let us again pause and cf Girgis et al in this light, of starting from intelligible, conscience guided first principles of morality tied to the imperatives of human thriving: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf kairosfocus
ZL, Vivid is right in his citation of Francis Schaeffer, ideas have consequences. Consequences that easily become socio-cultural and policy agendas. If I said instead: -- the money-grubbing, war mongering military-industrial complex, or -- Neo-Cons acting to protect their foreign or racial national interest (Israel), or -- Bush-Hitler lied and people died through blood for oil, or -- lobbyists for the National Rifle Association blocking common sense gun control, or -- or Climate change DENIERS (an echo of Holocaust deniers), or -- those Right-Wing Fundy Christo-fascist Creationist IDiots and whackos who are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked and are trying to impose their morality on us, etc. . . . many heads would nod but it's obvious, those are special interest agendas that are up to no good. (I hardly need to say, that I have here cited characterisations from popular forms of opposed interests that have become entrenched talking points in the media and on the ground, and as well -- in too many hearts and minds -- unquestioned, lodestar thought points of dismissal and even scapegoating hostility. True bigotry, as opposed to principled, civil opposition or disagreement.) Instead, I am pointing to a globally influential agenda that has dominated first the academy then has increasingly shaped spheres of influence constituting the commanding heights of a culture until it is now seeking to radically redefine sexual identity, law, marriage and family in ways that will patently criminalise Christianity. (Already we see many going along happily as Christians are being driven out of employment and businesses on claimed grounds of their bigotry and discrimination.) The heart of that agenda is radically secularist, lab coat clad evolutionary materialism. This functions as an ideology and worldview that sanctions the undermining of respect for the responsible, rational freedom of individuals, reducing us to more or less biological robots with brain-box computer controllers programmed or conditioned by genetic and/or sociocultural and/or socio-psychological factors. From this perspective, listen again to Dawkins in that Sci Am article clipped from IIRC River out of Eden:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose . . . . In a universe of electrons [--> particles as ultimate, essential reality, seen to have been shaped by blind chance and mechanical necessity across time into all things] and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication [--> notice what is viewed as shaping reality], some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice [--> rationality, justice and morality are dead]. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good [--> utter amorality as the consequence of evolutionary materialism], nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 – 85.]
Then plug that into Provine in his notorious 1998 U. of Tenn Darwin Day address:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [--> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn -- and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]
Note, Rosenberg:
Ever since Newton physics has ruled out purposes in the physical realm. If the physical facts fix all the facts, however, then in doing so, it rules out purposes altogether, in biology, in human affairs, and in human thought-processes. [--> mindedness reduced to grand and self referentially incoherent delusion, with particular reference to purposeful intentionality] Showing how it could do so was a tall order. Until Darwin came along things looked pretty good for Kant’s pithy observation that there never would be a Newton for the blade of grass—that physics could not explain living things, human or otherwise, because it couldn’t invoke purpose. But the process that Darwin discovered–random, or rather blind variation, and natural selection, or rather passive environmental filtration–does all the work of explaining the means/ends economy of biological nature that shouts out ‘purpose’ or ‘design’ at us [--> all living things including us are programmed and controlled by blind chance and mechanical necessity in a world where responsible, rational freedom is a grand delusion] . What Darwin showed was that all of the beautiful suitability of living things to their environment, every case of fit between organism and niche, and all of the intricate meshing of parts into wholes, is just the result of blind causal processes. It’s all just the foresightless play of fermions and bosons producing, in us conspiracy-theorists, the illusion of purpose. Of course, that is no surprise to scientism; if physics fixes all the facts, it could not have turned out any other way [--> think through implications for rationality, warrant and knowledge, much less morality]. In fact, the mechanism Darwin discovered for building adaptations is the only game in town. [from: "The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality" by Alex Rosenberg here at Wayback Machine. For responses at length cf Feser here on ]
Of course, one of the new talking points is to suggest that it is improper to cite telling admissions against interest and/or that somehow such are "quote-mined." Nope, these are all significant citations that mean just what they say and fit in with the known broader views of these spokesmen for evolutionary materialist scientism. Let me go on, with John Gray highlighting where this all ends up in his 2002 Straw Dogs:
Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth – and so be free. But if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth. To think otherwise is to resurrect the pre-Darwinian error that humans are different from all other animals. and: [O]nly someone miraculously ignorant of history could believe that competition among ideas could result in the triumph of truth. Certainly ideas compete with one another but the winners are normally those with power and human folly on their side. Truth has no systematic evolutionary advantage over error.
Crick is the final nail in the coffin:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
Agendas driven by dominant ideologies are real, and have all too real consequences. In this case, evolutionary materialist scientism utterly undermines mind, rationality, responsible freedom and morality. It is utterly amoral, having in it no foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT. Haldane's longstanding warning about sawing off the branch on which we all must sit is still apt:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
This thread is in large part about the moral side, and so let me again put forth the cluster of step by step points that have been largely brushed aside twice already by way of utter contrast with what has ended in the shipwreck of self-refuting self-referential absurdity and nihilistic amorality:
1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities. 2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding. 3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience. 4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds. 5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges. 6 –> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature. 8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature. 9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked. 10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving. 11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture. In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly. It seems, yet again, plain that we inhabit a civilisation hell bent on cultural suicide by march of folly.
In this context, we must ponder to what extent we have become caught up in the flow, to what extent we have become activists and enablers, and who are the strategic agenda shapers -- where do they want to take us, why? Do they see the cliff ahead on the slippery slope? Have we passed the point of no return on that slope? KF PS: Of course, evolutionary materialism begs the big question of demonstrating empirically that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is produced by blind watchmaker chance and necessity, from cells to brains and the neural network programming in brains. Dismissive rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, empirical observation (on a trillion member base) only supports that such FSCO/I comes from design. As does the blind chance and necessity challenge to find islands of function in configuration spaces for complexity beyond 500 - 1000 bits when the possible search scope is as one straw to an astronomically large haystack. kairosfocus
RE 343 Ziggy it's pretty clear what he is saying...ideas have consequences. In light of some of your comments I especially liked "..... eat me last, please Mr Wolf" Vivid vividbleau
KairosFocus -- "This clearly reflects the impact of radical secular humanist, lab coat clad evolutionary materialism, which has no root level entity IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. And so many imagine is and ought is unbridgeable with the “scientific” is taking precedence. Where as a direct consequence moral government is reduced to views and values, taken to be subjective entities. Consequently, there is a rising tide of manipulation and might making ‘truth’ ‘right’ ‘value’ and more. In short we are now increasingly in amorality and nihilism without realising it." I tried reading your words but I couldn't make sense of them. What are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of organized, secular, humanist, materialist, Darwinist conspiracy at play here? ziggy lorenc
Origines, Please note, an agenda is operating, one that set out to redefine law and language alike to create the perception that marriage is not keyed to the heterosexual bond, reproductive biology and the requisites of child nurture and stable society. In material part they have succeeded to a point where a great many people now imagine that sexual intercourse includes all sorts of acts that are unnatural, that those who object on principle to the attempted redefinition are bigots -- thus, by definition hateful (which is warping perceptions including in this thread), and are willing to go along with robbing such people of their means of daily bread. And, law has been bent to fit this agenda in many territories. This clearly reflects the impact of radical secular humanist, lab coat clad evolutionary materialism, which has no root level entity IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. And so many imagine is and ought is unbridgeable with the "scientific" is taking precedence. Where as a direct consequence moral government is reduced to views and values, taken to be subjective entities. Consequently, there is a rising tide of manipulation and might making 'truth' 'right' 'value' and more. In short we are now increasingly in amorality and nihilism without realising it. Where, as we are inescapably morally governed beings, such a path manifestly heads for the cliffs. Yes, it is very unpalatable to say our civilisation is pursuing a suicidal path in many ways, but that is a serious assessment. The in progress demographic collapse is just one of many signs. So is the ongoing abortion holocaust. Now, people can be filled with the relevant agendas in many ways and to many degrees. Some, are simply going with the flow, are involved in grand group think and are ill equipped to question or dispute. Others, are enablers, part of the apparatus of manipulation, indoctrination and intimidation to varying degrees. Others are knowingly involved as activists. Others, are strategists who bear deep and primary responsibility for what has been going on. Please, read Havel: http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=clanky&val=72_aj_clanky.html&typ=HTML I put it to you, that what has been labelled same sex marriage and demanded in the name of marriage equality is nothing of the nature of marriage. This is patent, but part of the game going on is an extreme nominalism where the only natures are those of basic particles, all else is flux and chaos with no significance. As Schaeffer said long ago, on such views man is a zero. Morality, thus justice and law, are mere matters of power struggle, manipulation and intimidation. Where, because of the dominance of radical secularism, many have become entangled in compromises to go along and get along. This boils down to eat me last, please Mr Wolf. Little Red Riding Hood had no business naively approaching the strange beast in Granny's clothes and in her bed. Now, these things doubtless sound hard and unwelcome, even how can you accuse or question the motives of so many nice people, you nasty bigot. The answer is, I am not in your cultural setting and can look on and see the trends in ways you cannot. I can see the consequences as major geostrategic trends and threats build up. I can see lawfare for what it is, and what it means: weaponising of law to target, marginalise and even criminalise Christians in our civilisation. Fourth Generation Warfare in action, in which imposition of will by manipulation, intimidation, threat or use of force is just a spectrum of dominance. And yes, I am pointing to the elephant in the midst of the room. A great many people are caught up at one or more levels, and it is time to wake up before it is too late. But then, in the 1930's Churchill as that voice in the wilderness old dinosaur and war monger who failed in the Great War, so why bother listen to his silly accusations about that man we could do business with who had pulled Germany out of the doldrums. Besides, the Rhinelands were German. I suggest that we need to pause and ask, are we in a Plato's Cave confusing shadow shows for reality? (And do you know how the denizens reacted to the one who was set free and allowed to see the apparatus of manipulation and the world outside the cave?) I put it to you that those who came to UD for weeks and months and have pushed the accusation that anyone who disagrees with the latest politically correct partyline is a hateful bigot in a day with hate speech laws, is making a very serious accusation and is accountable for willful false accusations. I put it to you that for weeks and months, I and others have tried to avoid having a confrontation over the same sex marriage push, precisely because it is a nasty and toxic issue loaded with all sorts of very dangerous points and is not a significant part of the purpose of this blog. We did not throw the first punch, but we will finish the fight that started with a serious below the belt blow, a willful, sustained false accusation of hate. Backed up by refusal to entertain principled discussion. Which, I notice, is not being seriously dealt with as a material factor in the thread's tone. Further to this, there is in fact a longstanding habitual practice of many objectors to design thought in and around UD that is an extremely toxic and abusive rhetorical pattern. Namely distracting tangents led to loaded distortions used to accuse. And if that pattern is pointed out, the classic Nazi turnabout accusation tactic is brought into play usually using he hit back first rhetoric. I suggest that a glance above will show this pattern in abundant evidence, with some spillover from previous threads. Moreover, you will find that, consistently, there has been a refusal to seriously and cogently engage the principle and foundation of morality and rights issues on the part of the same circles. Where, the amorality of evolutionary materialism is one of its most dangerous features, as Plato pointed out 2350 years ago. But of course, no cogent engagement, just a demand not to bring such a longstanding painful lesson of history to the table. There was no need whatsoever for accusations of bigotry, but that has been a key tactic. Finally, I owe no apology whatsoever for pointing out the historic sources of key agit prop tactics, and that I have a bit of awareness of how the game goes down because I had to deal with it on a daily basis through attending a Marxism dominated university. Nor the price in blood and tears paid to deal with those tactics and their consequences, not only in my homeland -- which had a mini civil war -- but across the world. In short, much more, and of a sobering import, is going on than at first appears. Anyway, time to close off playing Cassandra for now. KF kairosfocus
#283 " But, if it had any meaning at all, I would say that it must mean that it’s a value that’s 'not conferred'." But that depends on who confers. If it is as that species first came into being, according to traditional Western Civilization, it's perfectly consistent because it is from the outset and remains. This long discussion brought C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man to mind.
The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.
bb
ziggy:
Phinehas — “This makes me wonder whether the next step isn’t to require churches to recognize what the government has defined a marriage to be. Else why not call it what it is: a civil union?” ziggy: Governments don’t require churches to marry all opposite sex couples. Why do you think that they would make them marry same sex couples?
Because same sex couples will be able to claim protected status. I believe that at some point in the future, not marrying same sex couples will be subject to discrimination laws. Otherwise, why not just call them civil unions and keep the church and state concepts totally separate?
As far as I can tell, [same sex couples] are not doing any harm to society. I think it is wrong.
Thinking it is wrong is enough to get you branded as a homophobe in much of society already. It isn't such a big step from this to a claim of discrimination. There is a reason the word "bigot" is getting thrown around as much as it is. The left's strategy is to control the message, get buy-in from the masses, and then push forward its agenda. All that's required from those like you who think something is wrong is to not get worked up enough about it to do anything. Phinehas
Mr. Murray -- "So what? So what if all the above SSM arguments stem from bigotry? How does it further the cause of rational, civil debate to call them bigots? Or to call others racists, or homophobes, or haters?" In general, I agree with you. But do you consider this an absolute, or does it depend on the issue? For example, what if there was a move to make all Jews where a Star of David patch on their coats? Or Christians to wear a a big cross? What if there were people lobbying government to segregate all blacks, or Hispanics? Should we justify their arguments by trying to engage in civil debate, or should we call them out for what they most certainly are? I think of myself as a very tolerant person, but there are boundaries. ziggy lorenc
Phinehas -- "This makes me wonder whether the next step isn’t to require churches to recognize what the government has defined a marriage to be. Else why not call it what it is: a civil union?" Governments don't require churches to marry all opposite sex couples. Why do you think that they would make them marry same sex couples? As I said earlier, I just can't force myself to get all worked up about the subject. A gay couple getting married is not harming me. They are not weakening my marriage. As far as I can tell, they are not doing any harm to society. I think it is wrong. But I also think that drinking and smoking are wrong. But it is all personal choice. After all, God did give us free will. What we do with that free will is the ultimate test. I chose to use my free will to not judge others unless they are doing harm to others. ziggy lorenc
For those that argue that arguments against SSM (or open borders, or gender-neutralizing existing bathrooms, etc.) are based on bigotry, racism, and hate, please answer the following: So what? So what if all the above SSM arguments stem from bigotry? How does it further the cause of rational, civil debate to call them bigots? Or to call others racists, or homophobes, or haters? What exactly is the piont of publicly identifying a person as "a bigot" or "a racist" if it is not to shut down their argument without rational debate? Even if they cannot debate rationally, so what? Can't you? Is it not the principle of charity for us to assume that those we debate against are not bigots, racists, etc., and is it not incumbent upon us to ourselves present rational argument regardless of the quality of their own speech? Is it not folly to attempt to prove that someone's argument is rooted in the motivations of bigotry, racism or hatred? It's difficult enough to know the hearts and minds of others without throwing around such inflammatory accusations. William J Murray
ziggy:
Phin: Does the government also have the power to define salvation? Sanctification? Church membership?
No. Why do you ask?
Whether or not God instituted [salvation] is certainly open for debate. I happen to think so, but that is not the legal stance on the matter. As such, government can decide what [salvation] is under civil [salvation]. My position is this: If the government wants to create entities that it recognizes for certain legal benefits, I don't really have an issue with that. They already do this with things like incorporated, LLC, etc. If the government wants to have civil unions, I don't think this violates the separation of church and state. (I don't think it is a good idea either, for religious reasons, societal health reasons, etc.) I just don't think the government ought to be defining marriage. In my experience, most proponents of SSM are not content to label civil unions as such, though. This makes me wonder whether the next step isn't to require churches to recognize what the government has defined a marriage to be. Else why not call it what it is: a civil union? vivid: Good points. The question in the OP is about whether my considered position on SSM means I can be justly dismissed as a homophobe. I suspect those who attempt to do so are more interested in silencing dissent than in rational discourse. Phinehas
Phin I would add further that the thread is not about SSM it just has become the focal point of the larger issue of trying to shut down any discussion the left seems incorrect through the use of terms such as bigot,racist,and all the various phobes. Would also point out that it is impossible to not be affected by social and cultural changes. Vivid vividbleau
Aleta -- "Your attitude is refreshing, ziggy." Thank you. Phinehas -- "I agree. But is the issue at hand really about homosexuals calling their union a marriage? Or is it about the government calling their union a marriage? The two are very different, are they not?" It is my understanding that a marriage, in addition to being a sacrament is also a legal contract. Marriages presided over by a religious leader (priest, minister, imam, rabbi, etc) carry the full weight of both. Marriages presided over by civil authorities (government, if you will) only carry the full weight of law. Phinehas -- "What power does the government have to define what God instituted? Especially in a country that values religious freedom?" Whether or not God instituted marriage is certainly open for debate. I happen to think so, but that is not the legal stance on the matter. As such, government can decide what marriage is under civil marriages. Phinehas -- "Does the government also have the power to define salvation? Sanctification? Church membership?" No. Why do you ask? ziggy lorenc
ziggy:
If they want to call their union a marriage, I can’t get too emotional about it. It has no impact on my marriage, or anyone else’s as far as I can tell.
I agree. But is the issue at hand really about homosexuals calling their union a marriage? Or is it about the government calling their union a marriage? The two are very different, are they not? What power does the government have to define what God instituted? Especially in a country that values religious freedom? Does the government also have the power to define salvation? Sanctification? Church membership? Phinehas
On children from same sex unions. Previous studies from both pro-gay think tanks and pro-family institutions are flawed and have produced conflicting outcomes. In each case, the researchers did not use a population-based sample from which reliable conclusions could be drawn. Among other things, there was not enough time to determine the effects in adulthood. A new study has overcome much of the methodological limitations and self-serving motives that were tied to the old research. [Mark Regnerus,"How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770] . When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. "Compared with children raised by their married biological parents, children of homosexual parents • Are much more likely to receive welfare benefits • Have lower educational attainment • Report less safety and security in their family of origin • Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin • Are more likely to suffer from depression • Have been arrested more often • If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female Children of lesbian mothers: • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance • Are less likely to be currently employed full-time • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting • Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver." • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will • Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others • Use marijuana more frequently • Smoke more frequently • Watch TV for long periods more frequently • Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense Further, the study found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship. The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%)." So, my question for CLAVDIS persists: Are these scientifically-researched conclusions the product of a reasoned-based analysis or, as you argue, a bigoted mind. StephenB
Clad, Curse you Clad :) Being the obsessive compulsive that I am you have forced me, well not forced, to read and reread the 43 pages of the Girgis article. Yes I am not one of those people that just dismiss peoples observations even though I may not agree with their conclusions, yet I recognize that no matter how opened minded I might be I get the sense that I will be labeled a closed minded bigot just the same. First to the paper… I want to touch on credibility. It is 43 pages long, 120 footnotes, authored by a PHD candidate in Philosophy at Princeton, a McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton and a PHD candidate in Poli Sci at Notre Dame. My understanding is that this is a peer reviewed paper. If it is I am wondering why whoever did the reviewing did not pick up on the irrationality of their arguments. That’s doesn’t sound right to me but maybe I misunderstand the peer review process. Thus I find the paper credible. However to dismiss your critique based on the above would be fallacious. Your stance that their arguments are irrational and therefore they are intolerant and thus bigoted is not refuted by an appeal to authority. You seem to be a very intelligent person and its possible you recognized fallacies that those doing the review overlooked or perhaps that was not their responsibility to do so. Honestly I do not see the fallacies that you do. You say they derive an ought from an is. What exactly is the “is” you are referring to? Marriage? Something else? I found the paper to be couched in very tolerant language. “Consider two views” “What is marriage” “Part one begins by defending…” There are a lot of “ifs” “If there is some connection between children and marriage…” If the conjugal view of marriage is correct…” Clad I just don’t see the irrationality you speak of, doesn’t mean I cant be wrong but I have endeavored to give you a fair hearing. Vivid vividbleau
Your attitude is refreshing, ziggy. Aleta
Eugen -- "Ziggy (you should pick Stardust)" Actually, my first name is Isabelle, but I have been called Ziggy since I was a teen in the 70s. Probably because I was a huge Bowie fan. As I mentioned, I am not in favour of same sex marriage (for purely religious reasons) but I simply cannot get as emotionally wrapped up in the issue as KF appears to be. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that whether or not it is legal will have very little impact on the future of society. I can't see it becoming a slippery slope towards anything. Positive or negative. Like it or not, homosexuality exists, always has, and always will. Homosexuals have lived together all throughout history. Again, that will not change. If they want to call their union a marriage, I can't get too emotional about it. It has no impact on my marriage, or anyone else's as far as I can tell. ziggy lorenc
Ziggy (you should pick Stardust) There's nothing new here to talk about, I'll finish it up Arguments for homosexual "marriage" appear to be emotional. I show using my line of reasoning (#306) how this exposes human race to risks of disarray in the long run. Same form of emotional argument could be used for other demands. For ex. nudist activists could come forward today and say: dressed up people are permitted to walk the streets and we nudists are not. Show me how are walking nudists hurting dressed up people. If we don't get the right to walk naked you are irrationally discriminating against us. And you are a bigot. And hater. And intolerant. And hurtful. And you make us cry. And trigger us. Did we mention you are a bigot? (yes snowflakes, you did 55 times). This could sound like sci-fi but in the distant future humans may regress to some weird society because of laws based on shallow emotions. It would make a cool sci fi story. Humans may walk around naked, copulate in the open, marry other humans, groups of humans, objects, animals, software or even ideas. You may be able to get married to "beauty" or "love"! Why not, how does it hurt anyone? Eugen
CLAVDIVS
If you bothered to read the testimony and judgement in Perry v Schwarzenegger you would see that your arguments have already been raised and refuted by sworn, expert testimony in adversarial proceedings.
As I explained, the Judge is biased against traditional social values, and his reasoning (and that of his “expert” witnesses) is laughable. I will just pick the low hanging fruit.
“Social epidemiologist Ilan Meyer testified about the harm gays and lesbians have experienced because of Proposition 8 [outlawing gay marriage]. … According to Meyer, Proposition 8 increases the likelihood of negative mental and physical health outcomes for gays and lesbians.”
So what? Christians experience those same problems time every time some stupid judge rules against their religious freedom. Unjust lawsuits abound.
“Economist Lee Badgett provided evidence that same-sex couples would benefit economically if they were able to marry and that same-sex marriage would have no adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on opposite-sex couples
In fact, gay marriage does have an adverse effect on opposite sex couples by eliminating the status of heterosexual marriage as the special and preferred institution. If heterosexual marriage is not preferred by the state, then the family loses its status as the primary institution. If the family is not the primary institution, it can no longer promote family values and a culture of life, which means that a tyrannical state becomes the primary institution, promoting anti-family values and a culture of death.
“Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships.”
So what? That doesn’t mean society is not harmed by changing the definition of marriage. It just means that, predictably, some people benefit economically
“Peplau pointed to research showing that, despite stereotypes suggesting gays and lesbians are unable to form stable relationships, same-sex couples are in fact indistinguishable from opposite-sex couples in terms of relationship quality and stability.
Nonsense. 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." If a few of them manage to settle down, that hardly means that gays have no trouble forming stable relationships. Obviously, they do.
“Historian Nancy Cott testified about the public institution of marriage and the state’s interest in recognizing and regulating marriages. … The state’s primary purpose in regulating marriage is to create stable households. … Cott testified that the state would benefit from recognizing same-sex marriage because such marriages would provide “another resource for stability and social order.”
Bad logic. Just because the state has an interest in regulating heterosexual marriage doesn't mean that it should redefine marriage, which is a totally different thing. Stability is a function of shared values among citizens. If half the population resents having gay values forced down their throat and is destabilized in the process, it is not much of a consolation that the people who did the shoving and destabilizing are, themselves, relatively stable.
“Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent.”
The children tell a different story. B.N. Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz, and Katy Faust all grew up with homosexual parents. All four argued that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would harm children by depriving them of a mother or father. In her brief, Dawn Stefanowicz described her experience living in a same-sex household. “I wasn’t surrounded by average heterosexual couples,” she says in her court brief. “Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.” “There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and innocence were violated.” Don’t expect to get the truth from the whacked-out ninth circuit court of appeals. Ideologues like Judge Walker have already made up their minds by claiming things to be facts that are not facts. He writes, ---“Individuals do not generally chose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.” On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation. I can back up that claim all day long. Judge Walker has bought the lie that gays are born that way because of some "gay gene." Such a gene doesn't exist. It was made up. All the evidence suggests that same-sex attraction occurs in the early years and, in many cases, can be reversed. One can choose to participate in that process. ---“Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples." Hardly. It is the first amendment that is the focus for battles in several states over the alleged rights of gays to impose their values on Christians or the constitutional right of Christians to act on their religious beliefs. Meanwhile, you are still evading the question that relates to this post. Am I a bigot for presenting these reasoned arguments? What evidence can you produce that would suggest that my reasoned arguments are the product of a bigoted mind? So far, you have not addressed my arguments against same-sex marriage. Perhaps you don’t understand why undermining the power of the nuclear family as a special institution and the primary institution of society leads to tyranny and a loss of freedom. It is happening all around us as I write. Or, perhaps you don’t care since you have not engaged the argument StephenB
Kairosfocus, In a thread titled "The End of Reasonable Debate" you accuse CLAVDIVS of being on a cultural suicide agenda:
you are full of an agenda and have sacrificed principle in its pursuit. Just how the communists operated. Those who refuse to learn form history doom themselves to repeat its worst chapters. Over a hundred million ghosts of victims of communism join me in that warning.
You are speculating on CLAVDIV's motives in a manner that breaches the borders of ad hominem attack and does not further debate. Origenes
Eugen -- "Hi Effigy, (ahem) Ziggy, look what you have done." Nice guess, but wrong. Maybe if I tell you my view on SSM, you might better understand my position. I am opposed to SSM but agree with some the arguments that EI and Clavdivs have made. Specifically that the arguments used against SSM have been, for the most part, supercilious. I prefer to be honest about my opposition to it. I oppose it for purely religious reasons. ziggy lorenc
Origines, I was closing down and noticed. Pardon, but an ad hominem fallacy is an attack tot he man in evasion of the message. Above, the articular issue has been engaged, what has also been engaged is the thread's focus, that there is an agenda out there that uses ruthless lawfare and agit prop tactics in pursuit of an agenda that is suicidal for our civilisation. It is fair comment to draw on the analysis of the techniques of such agit prop, though undfortunately, it will not be welcome to those who are involved through enabling behaviour. As for the line there are no arguments against wrenching marriage into what is against nature, I suspect that this will be perceived as so because a major art of the agit prop and lawfare at work is to improperly discredit and smear those who would raise arguments, and the imposition of strawman caricatures on the arguments. I suggest a reassessment of the balance on the merits and a reading of the strategies of cultural warfare at work is indicated. KF PS: As it is at risk of being buried under further comments, here is the summary I gave earlier this morning, on some of the issues we need to look at:
1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities. 2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding. 3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience. 4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds. 5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges. 6 –> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy): When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature. 8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature. 9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked. 10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving. 11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture. In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly. It seems, yet again, plain that we inhabit a civilisation hell bent on cultural suicide by march of folly.
kairosfocus
Sorry KF, I have no intention of getting into a debate about your behaviour with you. I made a friendly suggestion. Whether or not you take heed of it is entirely up to you. ziggy lorenc
I agree with WJM when he states that:
We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, or simply voicing an opinion that contradicts it, is dangerous, because truthful terminology has been politically re-characterized by the leftists in media, politics and academia as hate speech.
And I disagree with CLAVDIVS when he argues that irrationality equates with bigotry. A bigot can produce rational and irrational arguments and the same goes for a non-bigot. However I do agree with CLAVDIVS that no convincing arguments have been put forward against SSM. And surely the ad hominem attacks on his person are uncalled for. Origenes
Hi Effigy, (ahem) Ziggy, look what you have done Klaudius What word games? I think "any" is as bad as "all"....but whatever. I used your own simplified principle to come to conclusion that human society may end up in disarray. I'm not trying to be psychohistorian but looking at progression of events, my guesstimate is 70% chance over next few generations. I understand your point which is to keep things limited to one particular group - homosexuals. Before I stop talking about this topic I would like you to understand my point: when you let one group have something you cannot deny it to the other group, otherwise you will be called a bigot. Eugen
ZL, I can only pause a moment. Please look closer at what I have actually done, which includes first reluctantly pointing to a source that gives a principled discussion and endorsing it. I knew that a controversial issue would receive attack rather than serious engagement. Such is why I normally refuse to discuss this matter beyond the level of pointing to a key source. That is what happened, a major peer reviewed paper rooted in principle and law was blanket dismissed as bigotry and fallacies. I took time to clip how it opened and to outline the key elements of a case, responding to the assertion, fallacies. All along the tune was, oh you are bigots, which is a loaded accusation in a day of hate speech law and lawfare. I pointed out the patterns of agit prop at work, and that enabling behaviour for such is dangerous and destructive. FYI, that is a major problem of long standing, agit prop works because those who know better do not expose it and it takes in the naive. Often we then move to the point where the spiral of silencing sets in, reinforcing the march of folly through message dominance. And you will find Barbara Tuchman on that issue significant. Note, I took further time to outline the framework of natural law morality and its connexion to law, justice, rights and genuine liberty. Ignored, the better to indulge in accusation. The pivot of this, is that I have pointed out a characteristic pattern in discussions of issues too often indulged by progressivists and fellow trvellers: red herring distractors led away from the focal issue, to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and rhetorically ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating serious discussion. You will see that his same agenda was used to attack the thread owner when he pointed out the same pattern. I now point to some principles from Alinsky that may further help you interpret what is going on and has long been going on:
RFR 5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Now, I have to go. G'day KF kairosfocus
KF, with all due respect, I think that you are doing exactly what the article is complaining about. rather than discuss issues with Clavdivs, you use phrases such as:
Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection in the teeth of a point by point exposition of relevant principles (of course you are just picking up odd points you are ignoring substance) shows, inadvertently why you can only see bigotry etc in those who question you.
First, you already served notice that you are playing the ignore and push the narrative talking points game, so I mostly speak for record.
Clavdivs, You now are saying, as you bigots and hypocrites — you dare to differ with ‘right thinking people’
I think that your responses are far out of proportion to Clavdivs' comments. He appears to be able to discuss fairly with Eugen and others. I saw a similar thing with your interactions with Indiana Effigy. He was able to have a civil discussion with others but not with you. As far as I can tell, there is only one common factor in this behaviour. If you can't discuss without being abusive, dismissive and hypocritical, it might be better if you took a break from commenting until you have calmed down. Just some friendly advice from a lady who has seen far too much ugliness than she would care to admit. ziggy lorenc
Clavdivs, the attack the man dodge the issue agit prop game continues. Sadly revealing, given what is on the table. KF kairosfocus
kairosfocus Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection ...
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
CLAVDIVS
SA, excellent, thanks. I confess, I am still under the press of local events that continue to unfold so can only give a little attention and much less focus. Your point is dead on right. KF kairosfocus
Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection in the teeth of a point by point exposition of relevant principles (of course you are just picking up odd points you are ignoring substance) shows, inadvertently why you can only see bigotry etc in those who question you. You are not listening, you are full of an agenda and have sacrificed principle in its pursuit. Just how the communists operated. Those who refuse to learn form history doom themselves to repeat its worst chapters. Over a hundred million ghosts of victims of communism join me in that warning. KF kairosfocus
Eugen Lets not play word games. I like you. Your point three was unconditional: 3. Allowing marriage to all unconventional groups promotes disorder in society I misread "all" as "any". My point is, allowing marriage to a particular unconventional group may be both rational and also not lead to social disorder, hence no conflict. Such is the case with gay marriage. CLAVDIVS
bb: The zygote is valued because it is a developing human being. Unlike hair or a flake of skin, barring malfunction or violence, it will one day grow into an adult. Maybe get married and raise children. That's a better and truer argument than what StephenB made. You don't have to know anything about DNA to value a developing human being. Indeed, it's a typical trait among mammals to value their young. bb: In the traditional view of Western Civilization, humans have intrinsic value because God conferred it on them. That's all well and good, but that doesn't constitute an argument unless you already accept the traditional view, in which case it's tautological. Zachriel
kairosfocus @ 310 More argumenta ad hominem. As if whatever happened to you years ago excuses your rudeness today. Hilarious! *Ignore* CLAVDIVS
StephenB: Many values are intrinsic, that is, they have value in themselves. Examples would be life, truth, unity, and health. Zach: You can say it, but can’t show it. What you can do is find common ground with those who also find those things to have value.
I'm afraid you guys are going to let Zachriel get away with this. Zachriel is on record saying he can't show the intrinsic value of truth. Got that? I can prove the intrinsic value of truth by simply making an affirmation. For example, I just posted something here on UD. It is impossible to respond to me, in any way at all, without demonstrating the intrinsic value of truth. Think about it. Did a new post appear here or not? To respond to the question is to prove the intrinsic value of truth. Then of course, if truth has no intrinsic, demonstrable value, then you can't explain anything. What do we call people who think there is no intrinsic value-difference between truth and falsehood? I mean, besides psychotic? It's not only, as Stephen rightly says, we can't help him, but a person who gives equal value to lies and fantasies as to truth statements has removed himself from intelligent discourse. Knowing Zachriel, he won't back away from this. I'm afraid some of us also will cut him some slack. "Well, he just meant that what is true for you might not be true for me." No - if you can't recognize that any, even the most trivial and simplistic, evaluations of reality ("I just posted a statement on UD"), require and Prove, the intrinsic value of truth, then there is nothing further that can be said. If truth is intrinsically equivalent to lies then there is no way to evaluate anything. There's no way to even affirm that there is "common ground with those who also find those things to have value". Affirmative statements are statements of truth. Proof? It is logically impossible to affirm "I will always speak (to myself or others) think and affirm what is false". This is too obvious. It can't be done. There's nothing subjective about it. The intrinsic value of truth is demonstrated (to demonstrate anything requires the same). Truth is a Necessary component of rational thought. It's not concept that is given value by the subjective agent. When the intrinsic, non-subjective value of truth is denied, then rationality is not possible. But as others have said, giving Zach some credit, that's materialism. It's beyond idiotic. Silver Asiatic
Clavdivs, First, you already served notice that you are playing the ignore and push the narrative talking points game, so I mostly speak for record. Second, we can all see the thread and recognise that you are utterly blind to dismissing anyone who does not toe the latest progressivist lawfare partyline as a bigot, irrational and worse in the teeth of this Girgis paper as the designated endorsed example of informed principled questioning of the agenda narrative. You and your ilk knew this is a controversial and polarising issue but you insisted on it as you imagined you and those who would hasten to join you held the rhetorical high cards, here and elsewhere. This, you did in a day of hate speech and the like laws being abused to get people fired, fine businesses into bankruptcy or inability to operate, subjecting people to agenda indoctrination in the name of sensitivity and tolerance training, and soon outright criminalisation of Christians. (Yes, the end game is that obvious.) You adopted a line of talking points with little or no daylight between you and self-referentially incoherent, intrinsically amoral evolutionary materialism. Then you issued a bland statement no you are not one of these. That fits with being an enabling fellow traveller, I am afraid. To date, you and ilk have yet to show that you have seriously engaged issues, the list of alleged fallacies starting with naturalistic fallacy revealing only the most superficial reading to dismiss. Your latest tactic is projective ad hominems, running in the circle that only bigots and hypocrites object to wrenching marriage under false colour of law into a mocking parody that plays with the fire of destabilising further a pivotal social-moral-legal institution that is the foundation of stable decent community. You find it offensive that I use direct language to describe what is going on: lawfare and destructive, cultural marxist [oops, we are only supposed to say "critical theory"] agit prop by radicals targetting our civilisation, their enablers, fellow travellers and useful naifs in front groups. Already, they have had astonishing success in triggering a march of folly across our civilisation. FYI, when I speak in these terms, you need to recognise that I had to deal with these tactics decades ago, and so all of this is so very familiar. Likewise, I had to deal with brainwashing cults -- and yes, ruthless effective manipulation on the grand scale is real especially in the hands of ruthless agenda driven activists and their overlords. (I keep calling attention to Edgar Schein, whose work provided the key insights decades ago. This on the spiral of silence will also help; including in understanding why I refuse to be silenced despite namecalling and the like.) I will give a few pointers to a more sound view: 1 --> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities. 2 --> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding. 3 --> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience. 4 --> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds. 5 --> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges. 6 --> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature's God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
7 --> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature. 8 --> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature. 9 --> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked. 10 --> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving. 11 --> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture. In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive "thought reform" in interests of a march of folly. It seems, yet again, plain that we inhabit a civilisation hell bent on cultural suicide by march of folly. KF kairosfocus
Claudio Please say it ain't so. If you're OK with 3 that means it is rational to marry your lama? Yes or no? 307 can wait. I'm afraid this won't end up good. Eugen
Hi Euegen :-) Please see my post @ 307 - your point 3 is not justified by any evidence or reasoning. CLAVDIVS
StephenB @ 289 If you bothered to read the testimony and judgement in Perry v Schwarzenegger you would see that your arguments have already been raised and refuted by sworn, expert testimony in adversarial proceedings. You would also see my previous quote was from the judgement which I thought was obvious from the context. [Same-sex marriage] militates against a well-ordered society and elevates diversity over unity. For another, it destroys the special privileges afforded heterosexual marriage and the capacity of the nuclear family to serve as the primary institution, which would reduce the institution of the state to secondary status and check its power to assume tyrannical control. All quotes below from the judgement's summary of testimony.
"Social epidemiologist Ilan Meyer testified about the harm gays and lesbians have experienced because of Proposition 8 [outlawing gay marriage]. ... According to Meyer, Proposition 8 increases the likelihood of negative mental and physical health outcomes for gays and lesbians." "Economist Lee Badgett provided evidence that same-sex couples would benefit economically if they were able to marry and that same-sex marriage would have no adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on opposite-sex couples." "Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships." "Egan explained that Proposition 8 decreases the number of married couples in San Francisco, who tend to be wealthier than single people because of their ability to specialize their labor, pool resources and access state and employer-provided benefits. Proposition 8 also increases the costs associated with discrimination against gays and lesbians. ... Badgett explained that municipalities throughout California and the state government face economic disadvantages similar to those Egan identified for San Francisco." "Psychologist Letitia Anne Peplau testified that couples benefit both physically and economically when they are married. Peplau testified that those benefits would accrue to same-sex as well as opposite-sex married couples. To Peplau, the desire of same-sex couples to marry illustrates the health of the institution of marriage and not, as Blankenhorn testified, the weakening of marriage." "Peplau pointed to research showing that, despite stereotypes suggesting gays and lesbians are unable to form stable relationships, same-sex couples are in fact indistinguishable from opposite-sex couples in terms of relationship quality and stability." "Historian Nancy Cott testified about the public institution of marriage and the state’s interest in recognizing and regulating marriages. ... The state’s primary purpose in regulating marriage is to create stable households. ... Cott testified that the state would benefit from recognizing same-sex marriage because such marriages would provide “another resource for stability and social order.” "Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent."
The anti-gay-marriage side in the case failed to produce any expert testimony to rebut the evidence summarised above. CLAVDIVS
Claudio Yes I took a bait from Effigy, curse his digital ashes. In his insecurity he kept pestering this and other threads about homosexuals, totally of topic. Based on your kindergarten version here is the reasoning. 1. Allowing  marriage to unconventional group is rational 2. All unconventional groups can claim right to 1. based on equality and fairness 3. Allowing marriage to all unconventional groups promotes disorder in society 4. Promoting disorder in society  is irrational Your idea leads society to unfavorable situation. To avoid the situation you must practice bigotry in 2. contrary to what you preach. Practicing bigotry and fairness/equality  at the same time is nonsense. If you have something better than kindergarten version come again. Just don't bother with multiple pages of liberal indoctrination material. Eugen
kairosfocus You indulged in the most vicious, offensive and unprovoked character attacks on me. I turned the other cheek and politely but firmly told you I would ignore future posts of that kind. But you did it again, and yet again. Thus it is your gross incivility and irrationality that terminated discussion. Yes - argumenta ad hominem are logically fallacious and irrational. You know that. So stop doing it. CLAVDIVS
Clavdivs, You now are saying, as you bigots and hypocrites -- you dare to differ with 'right thinking people' -- will not surrender to "us" so having hurled epithets and played the turnaround accusation card, the next step is to terminate discussion with many how dare you question us loaded accusations left on the table. This is an ending of reasoned discussion by you in a context where you and your side from outset have had a fixed conclusion and agenda which you think you have successfully imposed on our civilisation. That is sad, but not unexpected. Indeed, it is the focus of the OP. And, to date there is no cogent response to Girgis et al. Where, no, the projected fallacies talking points were not cogent, though I have no doubt they will be trotted out for years to come. KF kairosfocus
Kairosfocus @ 299 Yet more hypocritical argumenta ad hominem. *Ignore* CLAVDIVS
GUN, we already went over the ground re might and manipulation making 'right' 'value' 'worth' 'truth' etc based on your early remarks based on unfortunately real world examples. Subjective preferences and community views in a context of radical relativism or subjectivism come down to often manipulative persuasion, or to intimidation or worse. Rights to life etc are not in the same category as oh I hate prunes. KF kairosfocus
KF,
GUN: Kindly explain your grounds for saying you do not believe in might makes right and the implied claim that such is self evidently absurd ( 2 + 2 = 3 ) beyond personal preference, given the subjectivist assertions of the nature of value etc you made and to which I responded by pointing to cases of what happens when self evident, conscience sensed moral first principles are dismissed and discarded. KF
What has "might" got to do with what I value? goodusername
GUN: Kindly explain your grounds for saying you do not believe in might makes right and the implied claim that such is self evidently absurd ( 2 + 2 = 3 ) beyond personal preference, given the subjectivist assertions of the nature of value etc you made and to which I responded by pointing to cases of what happens when self evident, conscience sensed intelligible moral first principles manifesting the natural moral law or the law of [intrinsically valuable and morally governed human] nature are dismissed and discarded. As a sampler, consider whether "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [= fulfillment of personal calling/purpose under the Creator], that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . ." are empty, religious platitudes or assertions no more powerful in basis than individual or community preferences. In so doing kindly reflect on moral self-evidence. KF kairosfocus
Clavdivs, I am sorry to have had to stir your displeasure, but at every stage we have seen more of projection, accusation and dismissal than of substance. For instance, when you accuse us of immoral conduct, ask yourself on what basis you make the determination of immoral conduct, apart from projections driven by might and manipulation make 'right' 'value' 'truth, etc. Do the same for dismissals such as the naturalistic fallacy and circularity objections made above given the principles that are in Girgis et al, starting from its opening words. But recall a much more extensive discussion is there. Similarly, examine your interactions with SB. I suggest you will find that there is consistently little or no daylight between your views and those that flow from inherently amoral evolutionary materialism; with worrying onward implications or concerns. I suggest you think again about where our civilisation is heading, why and how and why many people of principle are deeply concerned. In so doing, examine the context of what lawfare is, in further light of principles of 4th generation warfare and agit prop in ruthless radical hands. Not to mention what the indoctrination and manipulation techniques exposed by Schein can do in ruthless hands, as well as the spiral of silence. KF kairosfocus
CLAVDIVS
Probably the most important principle at play is fairness and equality. Please read the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger for a detailed exposition of the rational basis for supporting gay marriage.
The ninth circuit court of appeals in California is infamous for being biased against traditional social values. Also, I have read the most important parts of Judge Walker's decision. His arguments are laughable and easily refuted. For all that, the best arguments against gay marriage were not even presented and the attorneys, themselves, were hapless and unprepared. They couldn't even explain how heterosexual marriage is different from so-called "same-sex" marriage. Not only that, but your argument is that the hapless attorneys, themselves, are bigots for even making their pitiful attempt, since, as we know, you understand all arguments against same-sex marriage to be grounded in bigotry. StephenB
CAVDIVS
Probably the most important principle at play is fairness and equality. Please read the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger for a detailed exposition of the rational basis for supporting gay marriage.
A homosexual marriage will never be equal and here is why, a male and a male can never have Offspring naturally, and a female and female can't either, you see males and females in marriage complete each other and thus continue the cycle of life. you must remember this from a Christian point of view, homosexual marriage is a taboo, from a natural law point of view it is a taboo and even from a Darwinian point of view it's a taboo and here is why, here is why! "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" This is really important, a male and a male can't give life, neither can a female and a female..... ONLY a MALE and a FEMALE can do that. Andre
goodusername..... For the last time, Wikipedia is not a good source for information...... From Havard; http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376 Andre
I have a question. I am utterly in love with a Goat we have, should I marry the goat and seal our union of love? Andre
The majority of Americans do not support same-sex marriage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States goodusername
Aleta
And just exactly how does one know this Natural Moral law? More specifically, how does one know with certainty that what one believes is the Natural Moral law really is? How is one who thinks they know what a Natural Moral law is somehow different – more privileged with knowledge, than others whose beliefs are dismissed as subjective opinions.
The same way you know with certainty that hate and bigotry are wrong--through your conscience informed by reason. StephenB
Cancel StephenB
And just exactly how does one know this Natural Moral law? More specifically, how does one know with certainty that what one believes is the Natural Moral law really is? How is one who thinks they know what a Natural Moral law is somehow different - more privileged with knowledge, than others whose beliefs are dismissed as subjective opinions/ Aleta
SB: For one thing, same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law (not a religious argument) ClAVDIVS
I disagree same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law, and so do a majority of the US population and US christians. Prove this majority is wrong.
Clearly, you don't understand anything about the Natural Moral law, which has absolutely nothing to do with majority opinion. When Martin Luther King argued for civil rights on behalf of blacks, he argued on the basis of the Natural Moral Law against the majority view, which was for segregation. If the majority view had prevailed, blacks would still be sitting at the back of a bus and drinking from separate water fountains. StephenB
CLAVDIVS
After spending millions of dollars and years preparing for their day in court, same-sex marriage opponents “presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage.”
According to whom? Am I supposed to guess? I just presented a rational argument against same sex marriage, and I did you the courtesy of summing it up in one paragraph. Without addressing it or even understanding it, you say it is "preposterous" and provide an irrelevant quote without a source." Is that what you call "rational" behavior? So, back to my argument. Explain why undermining the special nature of heterosexual marriage will not give unprecedented power to the state. It is, by no means, a new idea. Address even one of my reason-based arguments, and I will provide more of them. However, there is no point in putting them out there of you are going to sail over them without a modicum of intellectual exertion. Also, the burden of proof is on you to show that my conclusions are the product of a bigoted mind. You have not even begun to approach that issue. On the contrary, it appears that all the bias and prejudice is coming from your side. You assume, without warrant, that those who hold my position are bigots, even though all my arguments are reason-based and are without any disdain for members of the homosexual community, who I genuinely fear for. StephenB
kairosfocus Clavdivs, being an enabling fellow traveller makes no practical difference. Another hypocritical ad hominem. Let us hear you put up a substantial framework that can recognise that there are principled reasons to question or reject the ongoing lawfare with marriage. KF Hilarious! You can't make your own case so you want me to make it for you? No thanks. CLAVDIVS
Eugen Effigy finally burned out! ... Too bad he cannot reply to 229. Perhaps hrun? Claudius? You asked for it :-) CLAVDIVS
StephenB Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage are eminently reasonable. There is nothing unfair about them. For one thing, same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law (not a religious argument) I disagree same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law, and so do a majority of the US population and US christians. Prove this majority is wrong. For another, it militates against a well-ordered society and elevates diversity over unity. For another, it destroys the special privileges afforded heterosexual marriage and the capacity of the nuclear family to serve as the primary institution, which would reduce the institution of the state to secondary status and check its power to assume tyrannical control. I could go on and on. Preposterous. After spending millions of dollars and years preparing for their day in court, same-sex marriage opponents "presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage." None. CLAVDIVS
I curse ashes of Effigy for dragging me into this bs ...Klaudije, value of my opinion is based on logic and reasoning not absorbing propaganda written by some Liberal atheist lawyer. I'll have my answer tomorrow, no time now Eugen
Eugen kindergarten terms: – Marriage is permitted for straights but not gays – The basis of this discrimination is not rational That’s the core? I didn’t need the babbling below that, it’s useless. What the hell is the 138 pages for? I kindly summarised the 138 pages for you @ 277 - don't blame me for your sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes to the wealth of expert evidence contained in the judgement. You should consider that the value of your opinion on this subject is proportional to the effort you have put in to educate yourself on it. CLAVDIVS
bb,
In the traditional view of Western Civilization, humans have intrinsic value because God conferred it on them. He made mankind in His image.
Hmm, I already described “intrinsic” in this context as being an empty modifier. But, if it had any meaning at all, I would say that it must mean that it’s a value that’s “not conferred”. In many places, that’s the very definition given for intrinsic. But anyway, putting that aside, all you did was describe why you value humans.
To those outside Western Civ, and even contrary to it, like most on the left, humanity has intrinsic value to humans.
Is the word “intrinsic” adding anything there? Why not just “humanity has value to humans.”? KF
So, if yon Gruppenfuhrer is lining up the Jews in Lidice or Babi Yar or Minsk or wherever c 1939 – 42, and holds the guns and says, your lives have no value to me, that is okay because might makes right?
I don’t believe might makes right. No amount of might will make 2 + 2 = 3.
Do you see the plain manifestation of radical relativism, amorality and nihilism coming out? As utterly chaotic and destructive absurdity?
No
I suggest, you do some very serious thinking.
ok goodusername
hrun0815 i' getting lost in the list of posts. anyways. Agreed. Bigot can be accused. ONLY if there is no punishment and censorship of the bigot. BIGOT usually follows with punishment/censorship. actually it is to discredit a argument for some point also. In short the accused is denying they are acting out of bigotry and so the bigot charge is just a accusation. In all ways it must not stop speech. to your first point. NO there must not be consequences to free speech. Otherwise its not free. Free means free from punishment/censoring. All humanity always had free speech if your standard for frre is just saying something. Only a little of humanity had FREE SPEECH. Where you speak and are not stopped or punished. Thats only free speech. This is under attack these days. However everyone has sinned and then complains. Robert Byers
Eugen: It seems, more accurately, anyone of age and with a suitable partner of the appropriate -- opposite -- sex may marry. But what is being demanded is to twist marriage under false colour of law into what it can never be, and to impose same mocking caricature under abuse of policing power so that if you dare to question the emperor's fine new clothes, it's you're fired or fined into bankruptcy and forced to sit through brainwashing sessions, and soon off to gaol with you. If you are who I think, maybe you need to share a few words with us on life under Communist dictatorship. KF kairosfocus
GUN: Do you realise the implications of your:
“respect for worth”, “self-evident”, “intrinsic”, “inherent”, and countless other empty modifiers can be used as well. When all that’s really meant is – those are things we care about. My life, freedom, etc have value to me because I care about them.
So, if yon Gruppenfuhrer is lining up the Jews in Lidice or Babi Yar or Minsk or wherever c 1939 - 42, and holds the guns and says, your lives have no value to me, that is okay because might makes right? Do you see the plain manifestation of radical relativism, amorality and nihilism coming out? As utterly chaotic and destructive absurdity? I suggest, you do some very serious thinking. KF kairosfocus
Klaudije kindergarten terms: – Marriage is permitted for straights but not gays – The basis of this discrimination is not rational That's the core? I didn't need the babbling below that, it's useless. What the hell is the 138 pages for? Thanks for education, you'll be educated tomorrow. Eugen
"How do we know if something has intrinsic value?" In the traditional view of Western Civilization, humans have intrinsic value because God conferred it on them. He made mankind in His image. To those outside Western Civ, and even contrary to it, like most on the left, humanity has intrinsic value to humans. But because they are now building on shifting sand (relativism, subjectivism, public opinion), I don't have faith that the concept of human rights can continue. See abortion. The growing number of westerners engaged in human trafficking (slavery) at home and overseas. When one dismisses the Creator, "All men are created equal..." doesn't make much sense. And Western Civilization crumbles. Call KF's modifiers empty at your own peril. bb
Eugen If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on the issue then why should I be bothered to do it for you? In kindergarten terms: - Marriage is permitted for straights but not gays - The basis of this discrimination is not rational All the arguments pro- and con- were ventilated thoroughly in Perry v Schwarzenegger. Gay marriage proponents won, bigtime. The judge was totally unimpressed with the anti-gay-marriage side: - Their "evidentiary presentation was dwarfed" by the pro-gay-marriage side - They presented only 2 witnesses, one of whom was totally ignored by the judge as "unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight", and the other was only accepted as an expert in a limited area - They "failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest." - The ban on same-sex marriage did not pass even the most minimal scrutiny under equal protection law, because it denied a fundamental right—the right to marry the person one chose—without a "legitimate (much less compelling) reason." - The anti-gay-marriage side "presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage." - The judge found a ban on gay marriage must "find at least some support in evidence. ... Conjecture, speculation, and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that share that view." CLAVDIVS
KF,
ought comes from respect for worth, which as SB just pointed out can be self-evident and intrinsic. Such as — I add — by my inherent nature I have rights to life, liberty, fruit of my labour, property, innocent reputation, conscience, etc. And yes, rights are in the scales here.
"respect for worth", "self-evident", "intrinsic", "inherent", and countless other empty modifiers can be used as well. When all that's really meant is - those are things we care about. My life, freedom, etc have value to me because I care about them. To repeat my question from #275: How do we know if something has intrinsic value? goodusername
bb,
“Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.”
Obviously the reason we value something is because of something about the thing. We value some things and not others things. What is it about something that would give it value despite us not valuing it? How do we know if something has intrinsic value?
The zygote is valued because it is a developing human being. Unlike hair or a flake of skin, barring malfunction or violence, it will one day grow into an adult. Maybe get married and raise children.
Agreed goodusername
GUN, ought comes from respect for worth, which as SB just pointed out can be self-evident and intrinsic. Such as -- I add -- by my inherent nature I have rights to life, liberty, fruit of my labour, property, innocent reputation, conscience, etc. And yes, rights are in the scales here. But that then raises the issue of adequate worldviews grounding in a context where the only level where IS and OUGHT can be soundly bridged is world root level. A world of blind force, chance and necessity acting on particles that just are there and just combine without purpose or rhyme or reason, ends in utter de-valuation and nihilism. Dawkins in his magazine excerpt in Sci Am, God's Utility Function, admitted but refused to draw out the true import:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]
Ponder, soberly, where that leads before deciding to go there at all. KF kairosfocus
What exactly does 'intrinsic value' mean in this case?
"Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing." Of course, if you have to ask, maybe the concept of human rights escapes you.
If the reason that a zygote is valued is because of the dna, then it’s not a false comparison.
The zygote is valued because it is a developing human being. Unlike hair or a flake of skin, barring malfunction or violence, it will one day grow into an adult. Maybe get married and raise children. Zach: "It never ends. Life begats life. " Let repeat the question in a way you might understand: If you weren't always human, when did you become one? bb
KF,
Do you really want to go down that road to might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘worth’ ‘truth’ etc nihilism?
No, is there a reason you ask?
Do you begin to see what flows from evolutionary materialism due to utter want of an IS that grounds OUGHT, and particularly from its import that the only essential realities are core particles, all else is built up by blind chance and mechanical necessity?
"Ought" only comes from goals. That's true regardless of worldview. goodusername
GUN:
[bb] So Zach denies that human life has intrinsic value. Western civilization is truly on the chopping block because many hold Zach’s opinion. [gun] What exactly does “intrinsic value” mean in this case?
Do you really want to go down that road to might and manipulation make 'right' 'worth' 'truth' etc nihilism? Do you begin to see what flows from evolutionary materialism due to utter want of an IS that grounds OUGHT, and particularly from its import that the only essential realities are core particles, all else is built up by blind chance and mechanical necessity? Do you want to put a new form of the infamous dialectical and historical materialisms on the table? KF kairosfocus
Zach: "Of course it’s a human embryo." Please pass that information along to hrun0815. StephenB: Many values are intrinsic, that is, they have value in themselves. Examples would be life, truth, unity, and health.
You can say it, but can’t show it. What you can do is find common ground with those who also find those things to have value.
If you don't know that health is an intrinsically good thing, I cannot help you. StephenB
Clavdivs, being an enabling fellow traveller makes no practical difference. Let us hear you put up a substantial framework that can recognise that there are principled reasons to question or reject the ongoing lawfare with marriage. KF kairosfocus
bb: So Zach denies that human life has intrinsic value. We're rather fond of Homo loquens, but you may consider that a peccadillo, if you like. bb: When does human life begin It never ends. Life begats life. StephenB: Of course, but that hardly affects my argument. That DNA reflects other human attributes doesn’t change the fact that it also proves the presence of a human embryo that is developing as an embryo. Of course it's a human embryo. StephenB: Many values are intrinsic, that is, they have value in themselves. Examples would be life, truth, unity, and health. You can say it, but can't show it. What you can do is find common ground with those who also find those things to have value. Zachriel
bb
So Zach denies that human life has intrinsic value. Western civilization is truly on the chopping block because many hold Zach’s opinion.
What exactly does "intrinsic value" mean in this case?
To paraphrase Zach’s false comparison: “Like losing a piece of hair or flake of skin.”
If the reason that a zygote is valued is because of the dna, then it's not a false comparison. goodusername
CLAVDIVS
The definition of bigotry I am defending is: obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own.
Even with that definition, you are no closer to your goal. Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage are eminently reasonable. There is nothing unfair about them. For one thing, same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law (not a religious argument). For another, it militates against a well-ordered society and elevates diversity over unity. For another, it destroys the special privileges afforded heterosexual marriage and the capacity of the nuclear family to serve as the primary institution, which would reduce the institution of the state to secondary status and check its power to assume tyrannical control. I could go on and on.
Yes it is if the reasons given are irrational.
I could provide at least a dozen reasons why same-sex marriage is an evil and destructive idea. All are rational; none are the product of disdain for any social group. StephenB
Klaudije Please don't give me 138 pages of legal document to read. English is my second language. Is the idea so convoluted that it needs 138 pages to explain. I wanted to talk to you, why don't you give the core idea in your own words. Eugen
kairosfocus I am not a materialist; you are not a materialist; and its safe to assume George, Girgis and Anderson and not materialists. So stop bringing it up as a rhetorical distraction. CLAVDIVS
Clavdivs, now you are adding that might and manipulation make the judgement 'hypocrisy' too. I know it is painful for me to be so stark, but you have to see the force of what you have been doing on the worldviews platform you have implicitly adopted. Yes, all of this is inherent in the import of evolutionary materialism, its self referential incoherence, radical relativisation of truth and morality, and utter want of an IS that can ground OUGHT. That is why I reject it as self-falsifying and absurd, root and branch. KF kairosfocus
bb, oops, it is Z not C. KF kairosfocus
StephenB: In each case, the presence of DNA proves the presence of human traits. In like fashion, the presence of human DNA proves the presence of a human embryo.
Or a human head of hair.
Of course, but that hardly affects my argument. That DNA reflects other human attributes doesn't change the fact that it also proves the presence of a human embryo that is developing as an embryo. StephenB: The value of the fetus (or zygote, for that matter) is not determined by the value people place on it, but by what it is.
The value of something depends on who is making the evaluation. Humans usually value humans, especially their own children.
Many values are intrinsic, that is, they have value in themselves. Examples would be life, truth, unity, and health. Whether one values them or not is irrelevant. A drug addict may not value his health, but that doesn't diminish its value. A Darwinist may not value truth, but that doesn't detract from its worth. StephenB
kairosfocus @ 257 You are responding to something I never said. Please pay attention. CLAVDIVS
kairosfocus 1. Lay off the hypocritical ad hominems, if you please. I am attacking bigotry and defending rationality. I am not "supporting antisocial, nihilistic" options. I do not "reject the stability of the heterosexual bond". I do not "disagree with core principles of commitment, conjugality, stable child nurture and the thriving of people in society". I will ignore any future comments of yours that indulge in such incivility. 2. The evolutionary materialistic worldview is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. I am not a materialist; you are not a materialist; and its safe to assume George, Girgis and Anderson and not materialists. So stop bringing it up as a rhetorical distraction. 3. Naturalistic fallacy - Nothing you said refutes the fact that George, Girgis and Anderson attempt to derive an ought from an is. "Marriage is traditionally focussed on child-bearing, therefore it ought to always be so." This is a logical fallacy, and thus irrational. 4. Begging the question -
... you imply but do not wish to openly state rejection of the above norms, showing the antisocial, nihilistic character of the alternatives you evidently support. ... It is thus a very relevant point for serious questions to be asked on underlying principles, this is not at all irrational.
George, Girgis and Anderson do not demonstrate the same-sex marriage violates any rationally justified principles; they simply assume it, and then use that assumption to argue that allowing same-sex marriage "deprives" society of the assumed benefits of opposite-sex marriage. Classic petitio principii - QED. Nothing you said refutes this. 5. Reification - Nothing you said refutes the fact that George, Girgis and Anderson treat the nature of marriage as an unchangeable fact of nature, rather than a social convention that can and has varied across time and culture - classic pathetic fallacy. Regardless of anyone's agreement or disagreement with principles, these arguments are simply logical fallacies and thus irrational and bigoted. CLAVDIVS
"The value of something depends on who is making the evaluation." So Zach denies that human life has intrinsic value. Western civilization is truly on the chopping block because many hold Zach's opinion. Amazing that those supporting traditional values are accused of intolerance and bigotry while the left deny that obvious humanity is human and sentence these children to death daily for the sake of convenience. To paraphrase Zach's false comparison: "Like losing a piece of hair or flake of skin." This is where Roe v. Wade = Dred Scott where obvious humans were relegated to sub-human in order to justify their categorization as property. The left has much in common with the old slave holders. "When we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mystifying as the obvious. " - Irving Kristol When does human life begin Zach? bb
Clavdivs:
StephenB: The value of the fetus (or zygote, for that matter) is not determined by the value people place on it, but by what it is. [Cl] The value of something depends on who is making the evaluation. Humans usually value humans, especially their own children.
Do you understand where such radical subjectivism points when mixed with evolutionary materialism? Might and manipulation make 'right' 'worth' 'rationality' and 'truth' etc. The door to nihilism yawns open. I suggest instead that recognising that we are under moral government and that others are as ourselves, including the weakest, most dependent, most vulnerable members of our race -- including the unborn child -- is a start point for sound moral understanding, praxis, policy and law. KF PS: The nihilism includes your arrogating to yourself the power to decree that those who differ with you on principle concerning the fashionable twisting of marriage under false colour of law must be 'irrational' and 'bigoted' . . . thus, 'hateful' and fit subjects for thought police hate speech laws. kairosfocus
StephenB Bigotry is a state of mind where a person views other groups with fear, distrust, prejudice or hatred solely on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics. I disagree with this definition because it does not mention rationality. For example, if one distrusts Scientologists for rational reasons, that is not bigotry. The definition of bigotry I am defending is: obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own. So, it is not an act of bigotry to argue against same-sex marriage ... Yes it is if the reasons given are irrational. CLAVDIVS
William J Murray If I use polite, civil rhetoric and polite emotional pleading (which doesn’t attack anyone) to convince someone to change their views on a thing, in what sense has that civil discussion not been “meaningful” if it has changed someone’s mind and their behavior? I am not really interested in discussing that topic; I intend to respect this site's policy on rational discourse. CLAVDIVS
Eugen Klaudije, you seem to be less emotional than Effigy(may he RIP) and hrun, that’s a positive thing. I'm not particularly for or against gay marriage but I am against bigotry. How do you come to conclusion that it is rational and sensible to marry two men? What are the basic principles you use for that? Probably the most important principle at play is fairness and equality. Please read the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger for a detailed exposition of the rational basis for supporting gay marriage. CLAVDIVS
StephenB: In each case, the presence of DNA proves the presence of human traits. In like fashion, the presence of human DNA proves the presence of a human embryo. Or a human head of hair. StephenB: The value of the fetus (or zygote, for that matter) is not determined by the value people place on it, but by what it is. The value of something depends on who is making the evaluation. Humans usually value humans, especially their own children. Zachriel
StephenB: The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. Zachriel
So do the hair roots found on your hair brush. Or the myriad cells discharged in a woman’s period. Or epithelial cells that humans regularly shed. Or a fertilized egg that is often expelled during menstruation.
In each case, the presence of DNA proves the presence of human traits. In like fashion, the presence of human DNA proves the presence of a human embryo. In order to understand the importance of the point, it is necessary to know which claims have been made and refuted. A human embryo develops AS a human, not INTO a human. Thus, when abortionists (and hrun0815) claim that a mere "blob of tissue," is being extracted, they are misusing the language to mislead the listener away from the facts of science, the purpose of which is to rationalize the murder of an innocent human fetus.
This isn’t to minimize the far greater value most people place in a zygote, but it shows the limitations of your argument.
The value of the fetus (or zygote, for that matter) is not determined by the value people place on it, but by what it is. The argument is not "limited" because it cannot be refuted. An embryo develops as a human being, not into a human being. There is no question about it. StephenB
A whole new topic might be how leftists attempt to fool themselves and assuage their consciences through clever uses of re-defined terms and phrases. If you cannot even admit abortion is killing human life, what hope is there for reasoned debate? There are situations where taking human life is legal; abortion is one of them. It reminds me of how some materialists refuse to grant that even humans employ intelligent design. They think if they avoid some terms and use others instead, semantics will win an argument that logic and facts cannot defend. Unfortunately, in public discourse, they are often right. William J Murray
"So do the hair roots found on your hair brush. Or the myriad cells discharged in a woman’s period. Or epithelial cells that humans regularly shed." Have any of those matured into an adult human being? Maybe rotten meat turns into flies too. bb
CLAVDIVS said:
But there can be no meaningful discussion with a party that denies the foundational laws of thought — after all, they have chosen to cling to absurdity rather than acknowledge the self-evident principles of reason.
Maybe I don't understand how you are defining "meaningful." If I use polite, civil rhetoric and polite emotional pleading (which doesn't attack anyone) to convince someone to change their views on a thing, in what sense has that civil discussion not been "meaningful" if it has changed someone's mind and their behavior? William J Murray
Clavdivs, It is interesting to see how you snipped and cited my actual comment in 227 above:
C: Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Don’t you agree? K: Nope … Hilarious!
The actual remark at 227 above:
Nope, you are falling under no true scotsman. In effect, assuming that evo mat scientism has cornered the market on rationality instead of recognising its self-referential incoherence, radical relativism and amorality leading to might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘reason’ and ‘truth’ tactics. Necessarily false. Ex falso quodlibet then kicks in, and you are measuring truth by a yardstick that embeds falsity. Truth as that which accurately describes and corresponds to reality will differ from such a flawed yardstick but if the yardstick is imposed truth will seem false and false true at least until one is falling over the cliff. Instead, start from the premise that any A is there because B is acceppted (often implicitly) thence, C, D etc. Infinite regress is impossible and question begging circularity is futile. We face finitely remote first plausibles at world roots level. Thence, worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). In this context, responsible dialogue would start by recognising that the Judaeo-Christian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome is foundational to our civilisation. It would on this topic recognise that marriage has been a global pattern across civilisations and time, with inferior variants and wrenchings such as Nero being obvious by contrast. Further, it would recognise that committed heterosexual conjugal bonding creates a stable context for child nurture and social stability. Especially, by restraining and guiding society’s built-in ticking time bomb: young men. Instead of worshipping fashionable social engineering, it would recognise that it is possible to destructively monkey with things that are foundational. And, that slippery, crumbling slopes next to cliffs are real. In this context, a principled discussion is on the table.
Now, you tried to categorise Girgis et al under several fallacies: >>K:… you are falling under no true scotsman. I {C] showed @ 205 how the George, Girgis and Anderson paper is irrational because of its logical fallacies: – It derives an ought from an is – the naturalistic fallacy>> a: Nope, of course you first here that the evolutionary materialistic worldview has no IS capable of grounding ought, i.e. that it is inherently amoral; thus, a menace to a race that is necessarily governed by ought. b: Actually, Girgis et al start from prior moral precepts, such as that human stability and committed family structures that foster same are vital to human thriving, and that such thriving of humans in society across time is an inherent value. c: For instance in their opening words they describe the conjugal view:
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate)and renew their union by conjugal acts —acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.
d: Thus we see principles of commitment to permanent union that serves the welfare of children and the advancement of stable, sustainable society. Those are norms that are historic and generally accepted, so if you find them questionable and dubious to the point of your next objection . . . alleged question begging, that is quite informative about the consequences of the agenda you advocate. >>– It begs the question>> e: That is, you imply but do not wish to openly state rejection of the above norms, showing the antisocial, nihilistic character of the alternatives you evidently support. f: It is thus a very relevant point for serious questions to be asked on underlying principles, this is not at all irrational. >>– It reifies the ‘essence’ of marriage – a fallacy of ambiguity, specifically the pathetic fallacy>> g: Reification is one of those fashionabledismissive assertionss that is usually dubious, boiling down to an implied commitment to extreme nominalism, often rooted in evolutionary materialism where the only actual natures are those of core particles. h: Instead, we can infer, you reject stability of the heterosexual bond and the stable environment it provides for children, promoting in its stead an inherently unstable emotional bond, and relationships that are so diverse relative to fidelity and commitment of union that they are of alien character. (Of course the easy divorce game which went through in a previous generation set the stage for such and this shows just how unwise it was.) >>These fallacies derive from the rules of right reason. You cannot deny these are irrational without falling into self-refuting absurdity.>> i: The issues here neither hinge on identity nor assertion of contradictions, instead they pivot on rejection of fundamental values hidden behind the rhetoric of selective hyperskepticism and an implicit evolutionary materialism. >>You do agree these fallacies are irrational, don’t you?>> j: C, you have asserted fallacy where in fact the problem is you disagree with core principles of commitment, conjugality, stable child nurture and the thriving of people in society, due to a combination of naturalism and ill advised excessive individualism. k: The issue now pivots on the key values at the root of the conjugal view of marriage, and it is quite evident that the open rejection of such would instantly red fag the dangers, so instead a rhetoric of bigoted religiously motivated exclusion from "rights" and a redefinition of marriage based on nominalism [it is only a word, unconnected to anything essential to being human so can be redefined at will] has been used to manipulate law to the detriment of all. KF kairosfocus
StephenB: The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. So do the hair roots found on your hair brush. Or the myriad cells discharged in a woman's period. Or epithelial cells that humans regularly shed. Or a fertilized egg that is often expelled during menstruation. This isn't to minimize the far greater value most people place in a zygote, but it shows the limitations of your argument. Zachriel
CLAVDIVS, take note: Bigotry is a state of mind where a person views other groups with fear, distrust, prejudice or hatred solely on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics. The emphasis is on the person or group, not their ideas. Notice the scaled down version of the definition: --intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. So, it is not an act of bigotry to argue against same-sex marriage, which is a very bad idea and should be severely criticized. If rejecting a bad idea qualified one as a bigot, then you would be a bigot for rejecting Nazism. It is an act of love to tolerate other people, but it is an act of stupidity to tolerate their bad ideas. StephenB
Hrun go bang your head against the wall while I wait for Klaudije Eugen
Re #231: Eugen, again you didn't read carefully or actually think about the argument you are making. hrun0815
Klaudije, you seem to be less emotional than Effigy(may he RIP) and hrun, that's a positive thing. How do you come to conclusion that it is rational and sensible to marry two men? What are the basic principles you use for that? Eugen
SB: The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. That means that all later stages, including fetus (defined as an embryo at 8 weeks), also have human DNA. That means that all abortions kill a human being. hrun0815
You seriously just said something is human because it has human DNA. That’s just priceless.
It's obvious that any living being with human DNA is a human being. What is your argument against such an obvious point? Obviously, you don't have one. If the abortionist kills a fetus, he is killing a human being. We can, without any difficulty, rule out the prospect of a developing bear, giraffe, or chimpanzee, can we not? You have not addressed the point: A human being develops AS a human being, not INTO a human being. Hence, we have another example of a leftist manipulating the language to present a false idea. The embryo is never just a "blob of tissue."
I suggest you never ever ever look into what is going on in labs all around the world every single day. In comparison to that all abortions will start looking like a hipster love-fest to you.
Your comment is irrational. Whatever else goes on in laboratories has nothing at all to do with the fact abortionists murder innocent human beings. Please stay on topic.
And whatever you do, don’t google HeLa. You will curl up into a whimpering catatonic ball from all the evil torture and killing of humans. Oh, but you ‘read the text books’ so you must know all about it. ????
Well I did read the appropriate textbooks and I do know about the subject. Each time I refute your argument, you respond by saying, "Oh yeah, well what about this." Just so that you will know, it's not a good argument. That fact remains that leftists misuse the language to create a false impression and to dishonestly frame social issues, just as WJM has demonstrated. StephenB
Eugen Is it rational and sensible to marry two men? Most people seem to think so. And there is a dearth of rational argument against it. CLAVDIVS
William J Murray Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Presumably one can refrain from shouting or swearing. But there can be no meaningful discussion with a party that denies the foundational laws of thought -- after all, they have chosen to cling to absurdity rather than acknowledge the self-evident principles of reason. CLAVDIVS
Claudius that's different from Efiigy's (may he RIP) position. I agree that standing on the street naked or banging head on the wall is irrational and nonsense. Is it rational and sensible to marry two men? (Sad little Effigy(may he RIP) left us legacy of talking about homosexuals, my least favorite topic) Eugen
Eugen The principle should be that we assign rights and responsibilities to each other under our legal and political systems on a rational basis. Standing naked in the street is not right anyone has or is even seeking, and in any case there are rational grounds to discourage it e.g. because it shows a lack of dignity and self-respect. CLAVDIVS
CLAVDIVS said:
Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Don’t you agree?
Civil discussion is possible whether one is rational or not; all it takes is being polite and refraining from using incendiary language. Civility doesn't require, nor is it equal to, rationality. William J Murray
kairosfocus: Girgis et al
Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people ... who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable
That's pretty much most people's understanding of marriage, straight or otherwise. See Romeo et al. 1597. Zachriel
Effigy finally burned out! We used to burn them for Mardi Gras when I lived in Europe. This one lasted almost into May :) Too bad he cannot reply to 229. Perhaps hrun? Claudius? Eugen
kairosfocus C: Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Don’t you agree? K: Nope ... Hilarious! K:... you are falling under no true scotsman. I showed @ 205 how the George, Girgis and Anderson paper is irrational because of its logical fallacies: - It derives an ought from an is - the naturalistic fallacy - It begs the question - It reifies the 'essence' of marriage - a fallacy of ambiguity, specifically the pathetic fallacy These fallacies derive from the rules of right reason. You cannot deny these are irrational without falling into self-refuting absurdity. You do agree these fallacies are irrational, don't you? CLAVDIVS
Based on comment173, Indiana Effigy will have to be effigious somewhere else. He is banned for practising psychiatry without a licence. - News News
Hrun The actual track record above gives a colour to your dismissive talking point that likely you do not intend, starting with a radical attempted redefinition of marriage under false colour of law joined to accusations of bigotry against those who dare to question such. Next, the embryo from conception is a genetically distinct human organism different from his or her mother and father. The reasonable, responsible presumption -- given the quasi-infinite value of the individual person -- is that this is a human being in earliest stages of life. Accordingly, such should be respected and protected with a particular view to the first right: life. Absent overwhelming proof to the contrary, that is our plain ethical duty. The imposed forfeiture of that protection under false colour of law speaks volumes about our civilisation, and none of it good. KF kairosfocus
Oh hrun the batman is back! Your little Robin is not doing well here. He has no good arguments and his intolerance and hatefulness is showing. You are not doing any better. Now you are ignoring science, something you atheist bigots swear by. "The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus." http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote03.html Eugen
Oh boy. You go away for a day or to and the examples of one side promoting thoughtful reasonable debate while the other shuts it down by redefining words goes on unabated. I will pick just one whopper that I came along. For the rest, sorry: TL,DR. Re #177:
The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. That means that all later stages, including fetus (defined as an embryo at 8 weeks), also have human DNA. That means that all abortions kill a human being.
You seriously just said something is human because it has human DNA. That's just priceless. I suggest you never ever ever look into what is going on in labs all around the world every single day. In comparison to that all abortions will start looking like a hipster love-fest to you. And whatever you do, don't google HeLa. You will curl up into a whimpering catatonic ball from all the evil torture and killing of humans. Oh, but you 'read the text books' so you must know all about it. ;) hrun0815
Effigy You really are adamant to talk about homosexuals and their "marriage" nonsense. Why is that? Are you insecure about it? Isn't it a settled matter? I think you and your atheist liberal circle very well know it's nonsense so you are trying to find validation outside that group. You are constantly putting conditions on what oposing side can say to avoid being called bigot yet you are the most bigoted, hateful and intolerant here. Go figure. Main point is when you say "It’s very simple. All you have to do is provide a rational and sane reason why SSM is bad for society" You are using general principle: if something isn't bad for society it should be allowed. Following your principle a group of people standing naked on the sidewalk in front of your house isn't bad for society therefore should be allowed. See it's very simple. (I have feeling those are the head bangers from my previous comment. They survived wall banging, another activity that isn't bad for society and want to say good morning to you ) Eugen
IE said:
My conclusion is based on 15 years of listening to the arguments against SSM, not one decided before the discussion began.
If your conclusion is based on 15 years of prior debate, then it is indeed decided before this discussion began, and before any current/new discusssion on the topic begins. It is irrational to call an unknown person/public figure a bigot or racist for saying he/she is against SSM, or wants to build a border wall, or wants to curtail Muslim immigration, before you hear that person's argument/reasoning. To assert that a person is a bigot or racist based on other people's prior views and arguments is irresponsible. IOW, you are saying that because you have never heard an argument for X that you didn't find to be rooted in bigotry or racism, you will judge everyone who advocates X a bigot or a racist without even hearing their argument/reasoning. How does calling anyone a bigot or a racist help the cause of reasoned debate? Further, even if that person is a bigot or a racist, how is reasoned debated furthered by calling them such? How is reasoned debate furthered by employing an army of SJW's to parrot those accusations? Isn't that indeed the end of reasoned debate, when the mob begins their attack based upon such character attacks? Surely you must agree that reasoned debate is harmed or ended by the use of such accusations, even if they are true? William J Murray
Clavdivs Nope, you are falling under no true scotsman. In effect, assuming that evo mat scientism has cornered the market on rationality instead of recognising its self-referential incoherence, radical relativism and amorality leading to might and manipulation make 'right' 'reason' and 'truth' tactics. Necessarily false. Ex falso quodlibet then kicks in, and you are measuring truth by a yardstick that embeds falsity. Truth as that which accurately describes and corresponds to reality will differ from such a flawed yardstick but if the yardstick is imposed truth will seem false and false true at least until one is falling over the cliff. Instead, start from the premise that any A is there because B is acceppted (often implicitly) thence, C, D etc. Infinite regress is impossible and question begging circularity is futile. We face finitely remote first plausibles at world roots level. Thence, worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork). In this context, responsible dialogue would start by recognising that the Judaeo-Christian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome is foundational to our civilisation. It would on this topic recognise that marriage has been a global pattern across civilisations and time, with inferior variants and wrenchings such as Nero being obvious by contrast. Further, it would recognise that committed heterosexual conjugal bonding creates a stable context for child nurture and social stability. Especially, by restraining and guiding society's built-in ticking time bomb: young men. Instead of worshipping fashionable social engineering, it would recognise that it is possible to destructively monkey with things that are foundational. And, that slippery, crumbling slopes next to cliffs are real. In this context, a principled discussion is on the table. It begins as follows:
What is marriage?  Consider two competing views:   Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman  who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other  of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing  children  together.  The  spouses  seal  (consummate)and renew their union by conjugal acts —acts that constitute the be?havioral part of the pro cess of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reprodu ctive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its in?her ent  orientation  to  the  bearing  and  rearing  of   children  con?tributes  to  its  distinctive   structure,  including  norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the wel fare of children also helps explain why marriage is i mportant to the common good  and why the state should recognize and regulate it. 1    Revisionist  View:  Marriage  is  the  union  of  two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to  romantically  loving  and  caring  for  each  other  and  to  sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It  is essentially a un?ion of hearts and minds, enhance d by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state sho uld recog?nize and regulate marriage because it has  an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in th e concrete needs of spouses and any children they  may choose to rear. 2    It  has  sometimes  been  suggested  that  the  conjugal  understanding of marriage is based only on religious  beliefs. This is false. Although the world’s major reli gious traditions have his?torically understood marria ge as a union of man and woman  that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing , 3  this sug?gests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common hum an nature have shaped (however imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recogni ze this natu?ral  institution.  As  such,  marriage  is   the  type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerne d by our common human reason,  whatever  our  religious  background.We argue in this Article for legally enshr ining the conjugal view of marriage, us?ing argumen ts that require no appeal to religious authority. 4  
Kindly, explain to us how this and what follows can be responsibly blanket smeared as irrational, religiously motivated bigotry and dismissed without serious consideration. As has been going on in this thread. KF kairosfocus
kairosfocus C: ... disagreeing with someone’s ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs for irrational reasons is bigotry K: Do you not see how loaded this is in a context where many — influenced by evolutionary materialist scientism and radical cultural marxist progressivism — operate by the premise might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘reasonableness,’ etc instead of being open to civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc? Yes, its loaded against irrationality. Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Don't you agree? CLAVDIVS
IE, We understand your intent to denigrate, strawmannise and dismiss rather than responsibly engage. We recognise that in that context it serves your interest to dismiss philosophy and linked concerns. We recognise that you find it convenient to pretend that others are bigoted, incomprehensible, are only saying blah blah etc. We recognise that you refuse to accept that Machiavelli was right about slippery slopes: political disorders are like hectic fever -- at first they are easy to cure but hard to diagnose; but when at length the course of the disease is obvious to all, it is then far too late to cure. (Hence, onlookers, the value of sound history, bought with blood and tears. Those who ignore, neglect or dismiss such doom themselves to the same lessons and price over and over again. The slipperiness, slope and sudden end at a precipice are warning signs and indicators that things can rapidly spin out of control. It is even possible that the slope is crumbling and may suddenly collapse under our weight short of the obvious precipice . . . that is a typical fact of life of cliffs. So, it is generally advisable to avoid such zones, and if we have no option to do that we need to take due and responsible precautions, maintaining vigilance in case things begin to slide or collapse. Recklessness is ill-advised in the vicinity of such danger zones, and those who mockingly deride and dismiss caution show that they do not have our best interests at heart. Whether they are foolish, naively enabling or wicked makes but little difference.) All of these serve to indicate your interest is manipulative message dominance and silencing of those who question your agit prop agenda i/l/o increasing signs that we are headed towards a cliff-edge like proverbial lemmings*. All of this fits precisely into the theme identified by WJM, the end of responsible, reasonable discussion. KF * PS: And yes, we know the questions on Disney's film. The proverb still obtains, much as the lesson of the talking wolf lying in Grandma's bed in Little Red Riding Hood. kairosfocus
Clavdivs:
Intolerance and disagreement are synonyms. So disagreeing with someone’s ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs for irrational reasons is bigotry
Do you not see how loaded this is in a context where many -- influenced by evolutionary materialist scientism and radical cultural marxist progressivism -- operate by the premise might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'reasonableness,' etc instead of being open to civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc? Notice, IE's tag, namecall and dismiss tactics in reply to a peer reviewed landmark paper in a major academic context. Realise, this sort of subtle aggression is increasingly commonplace, is tied to lawfare, and targets principled people of conscience who adhere to our civilisation's foundational Judaeo-Christian ethical, worldview and faith tradition. I say to such,
he who would rob me of my means of daily bread, would rob me of my life; he who would rob me of my children, would rob me of my future; he who would rob me of my conscience, would rob me of -- and would damn* -- my soul.
Do we really, really, really want our civilisation to go down this line of sailing, with the sandbars of Syrtis ahead? KF *F/N: I use this term in its legitimate theological sense, to condemn to Hell. kairosfocus
Vivid, it is clear IE wants to drag this thread away to a topic where agit prop and lawfare have so tilted the playing field in recent times that he can taint those who differ as "bigoted" and "religious." It is necessary to speak to this and what it signifies. The tactic is delegitimisation, marginalisation and dismissal rather than facing why many principled and moral people have serious concerns with his favourite fashionable bit of social engineering under false colour of law. (So dominant is this that we are now seeing silencing behaviour so that it is those out of reach of point and shriek, disemployment tactics and other ugly devices that echo the Red Guards all too tellingly, who can speak freely. That is part of why the Girgis paper is so pivotal, it says in an undeniably peer reviewed academic and legal context what needs to be heard but which is utterly unwelcome.) IE, refuses to recognise and acknowledge that philosophy is a general and foundational -- the foundational -- analytic discipline and that one of its major foci is ethics (and linked, broader axiology which ties in with aesthetics), along with metaphysics, logic and epistemology. He relabels whatever does not fit with his favoured evolutionary materialism -- which is inherently self-referentially incoherent (thus absurd) and amoral thus . . . as Plato warned against 2350 years ago . . . necessarily false and socio-culturaly destructive as well as domineering -- as "religious" and seeks to smear it as bigoted. Which of course then feeds into the lawfare agenda under the topic hate speech laws. (Where, we must not forget Clausewitz's dictum: war on battlefields is a continuation of politics/policy agendas by other means -- war is a spectrum, not a discrete state of affairs . . . action by any means deemed necessary up to and including force of arms to impose an agenda. That is, in a 4th Generation War context, non state ideologically motivated implacable transnational actors and key cultural institutions all become part of the agenda of ruthless or even sadistic imposition so that battlespaces, tactics, techniques and weapons mutate into unfamiliar emergent forms: cyberwar, media manipulation, social engineering and frankly brainwashing [cf. Schein here], indoctrination as the counterfeit of education, perversion of law and law enforcement to impose agendas, financial attack, general cultural civil war and more. And of course because the forms are unfamiliar, the public and policymakers often fail to realise what is going on until it is too late strategically.) Responsible, principled freedom of expression and informed conscience as well as serious concerns on consequences are to be steamrollered as the juggernaut advances. Predictably, down the slippery slope leading to a cliff. (Such despise Kant's Categorical Imperative in the forms that
1: the immoral will violate the intrinsic worth of the other who is as one is (turning him/her into a tool, toy, obstacle or instrument towards one's ends or wishes), or equivalently 2: that the immoral cannot be socially universalised without destruction or utter absurdity but must instead parasite off the fact that predominantly we do not, cannot, live like that . . .
If 100% of Cretans are lying 100% of the time, Crete is not a viable community. [And the answer to the liar paradox swims into view: Cretans will habitually take advantage if deception seems advantageous.]) Underlying all is the dismissal of responsible, rational freedom that lies at the heart of evolutionary materialism, which forces it to view our intellectual capacities as though they are like a PC: to be flushed and reprogrammed at will of those who dominate. For these, to disagree with the politically correct agenda being pushed by the dominant cluster of factions is to be intolerant, bigoted and immoral. For, to them might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth' and more. Shipwreck lies down that line of sailing. In the storm, let us at least try to put out a sea-anchor to drag us away from the deadly sand bars of Syrtis. KF kairosfocus
RE 221 Clad your the one that brought it up don't put it on me. Is to disagree intolerance? Goodnight Clad off to bed. Vivid vividbleau
vividbleau I'm really not interested in debating the meaning of 'intolerant' vs 'disagreement'. What is relevant to this discussion is the meaning of 'bigotry'. I'm defending this definition: "obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs” In this context intolerance can mean objects to, disagrees with, oppresses, tries to do away with, argues against etc. Whatever you like. The key point is that bigotry is irrational. CLAVDIVS
RE 218 Yeh when I reread what I posted I saw that I did not accurately state what you had written. You must have read it before my edit went through. Sorry Vivid vividbleau
RE 216 Does your answer mean that in the context of another discussIon your answer might be no? If not why the qualifier? Vivid vividbleau
vividbleau - That was my mistake since edited, as I misread your post 215. CLAVDIVS
RE 215 Clad I'm not trying to be deceptive. Vivid vividbleau
vividbleau Yes - in the context of this discussion about what counts as bigotry. CLAVDIVS
RE 214 Let me get this straight. Anyone who is unwilling to accept views, beliefs or behaviors that is different from their own is intolerant? To disagree is intolerance? Vivid vividbleau
vividbleau intolerance -- unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own. Intolerance and disagreement are synonyms. So disagreeing with someone's ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs for irrational reasons is bigotry. CLAVDIVS
RE 211 Only if disagreement and the reasons for that disagreement equates to intolerance. Is this your position? Vivid vividbleau
An argument that is rational, but almost never used, is that SSM would have a negative financial impact on spousal health and pension plans. Probably because it would appear too crass and insensitive. Rather, those who oppose SSM tend to fixate on the rediculous slippery slope argument, the things that can never be measured (eg. Weakening traditional marriage), or KF's favourite, hastening the downfall of society into a never ending spiral of depravity (followed by 2800 words with indecipherable meaning). Doing this only makes the opposition appear more pathetic and bigoted, or religiously fanatic. Indiana Effigy
vividbleau @205 "bigot — a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own." Are you denying that George, Girgis and Anderson are intolerant of same-sex marriage? CLAVDIVS
RE 205 Clad your definition does not define a bigot as one who is irrational or one who makes an irrational argument. It has to do with tolerance of other people's ideas and opinions. Vivid vividbleau
Eugen@207: "So you set the parameters and if someone goes past them they are labeled. What is then allowed to be used as opposition in this case? It's very simple. All you have to do is provide a rational and sane reason why SSM is bad for society. How it weakens your marriage (assuming you are married). How it is inherently bad for the two people involved. Why it is in the country's best interest to prevent SSM. Present a good argument for any of these and you are not a bigot. However, I have yet to hear anything that comes close to any of these. So far, all I have heard is nonsense about the potential for reproduction, raising a family, STDs, suicide, promiscuity, polygamy, incest and beastiality. In my experience, the more rediculous the argument, the more likely it is that it is being used to mask some pathology (eg., bigotry, homophobia or religious fundamentalism). Indiana Effigy
Eugen You're bigoted if your reason for telling them not to bash their heads is irrational. Clearly in this scenario your reason is rational (they will suffer injury), so you're not a bigot. CLAVDIVS
Effigy You say " If someone opposes SSM because of higher STD rates, frequent sexual partners, suicide rates, etc. of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals, that is bigoted" I don't like to be dragged into homosexual "marriage" discussion which seems your favorite topic. I'm not sure what to say about such nonsense. It's like talking about square circle. So you set the parameters and if someone goes past them they are labeled. What is then allowed to be used as opposition in this case? You want to be in full control of discussion even if opponent want to use facts against your cause. Judge and a jury. That's not fair or tolerant. We here of course don't care about your wants or needs but discuss freely as adults should. To illustrate, I imagine walking down the street and meeting group of people banging their heads against the wall. I open my mouth to warn them how harmful their action is but they shut me up and say that I'm not allowed to mention it's harmful else it's bigoted. I'm allowed to come up with some other reason which they'll consider and may or may not declare bigoted. In this case to this group I would suggest to come over to a rough spot on the wall with some metal sticking out and carry on. Eugen
Kairos Thanks for your comments. Same to William, StephenB, Vivid and others. Very interesting input. I read couple of pages from the article but I prefer to print it so I'll do it tomorrow. Eugen
bigot -- a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own. The George, Girgis and Anderson paper is bigoted because its irrational: - It attempts to derive an ought from an is - namely, they argue that because marriage has an essential function of procreation, this function ought never to be revised. That is simply an irrational non-sequitur. - It argues in a circle: they claim reforming marriage will deny people the right to have a true, traditional marriage. This simply assumes its conclusion that opposite sex marriage is superior to same sex marriage. - It presupposes that marriage has an inviolable platonic essence that includes procreation etc. But it is irrational to claim a social institution has some inherent, unchangeable nature - like gravity or the periodic table. Social institutions are exactly the sort of things we can change. CLAVDIVS
RE 203 I did not ask whether you found the argument to be compelling or "unsound". You think it is "unsound" but you have yet to point out where it is bigoted even according to your definition. Once again where is the bigotry? Vivid vividbleau
Vividbleu, have it your way. If you are unwilling to identify the most compelling argument against SSM from the paper, I will just start with the first thing that jumped out at me when I read the paper. It was presented as a fair and logical examination of the issue but this pretense didn't survive the first few pages. At the very beginning, the paper described the two sides. That which dealt with Conjugal Marriage, and that which dealt with Revisionist Marriage. That was my first clue that this paper was not about giving a fair treatment to both sides of the debate. Actually, an excellent example of WJM's OP subject. When people hear the word "revisionist" it always has a bad connotation associated with it. Unless you think that revisionist history is a good thing to believe. From that point on, the authors always use the word "they" when referring to SSM. They argue blah, blah, blah. They would have you believe blah, blah, blah. I started. Now if you want to present one of their unassailable arguments against SSM, I will do my best to address it. Who knows, maybe you will present one of their arguments that is sound. I will try to respond without using the word "brothel". Indiana Effigy
IE The subject of the thread is not whether an argument is compelling it is about bigotry being attributed to anyone that disagrees with SSM.I recognize that Girgis is not compelling to you but where is the bigotry? Vivid vividbleau
RE 200 No I'm not willing to flip it around since I am not calling anyone a bigot because they don't agree with me. You say you call those who do not agree with SSM bigots based on 15 years of hearing arguments against SSM. As I stated fair enough. Girgis, Anderson and Ryan presented their argument. I am asking you to point out the bigotry. Vivid vividbleau
Vividbleu: "What was bigoted about the Gergis paper?" Are you willing to flip this around a bit? What from the Gergis paper do you find most compelling? Indiana Effigy
KF@196: "IE, you continue the same rhetorical tactics of accusation and projection rather than engaging substantially on the merits." I have been asking you to engage substantially on the merits but you insist on accusations. By all means, lets engage on the merits. Provide me, in your own words (preferably less than 2800 of them) why you are opposed to SSM, without resorting to any religious arguments (or Plato, or any other long dead philosopher). Your own words. And please refrain from sermonizing. Indiana Effigy
RE 183 “Your position boils down to this….”I don’t find the arguments against SSM compelling therefore anyone who does not agree with me on this issue is a bigot” Which is exactly the subject of this thread.” IE " Not exactly. I believe that I said that I haven’t heard an argument against SSM that doesn’t boil down to bigotry or religious beliefs. And by my definition of bigotry (sticking to a belief in spite of the evidence) I don’t see much difference between the two. On this subject any way." What was bigoted about the Girgis paper? Vivid vividbleau
F/N: I again draw attention to the onward linked plans and declarations of intent of the Islam-ISTS to pursue global subjugation across this century and in particular through settlement jihad, as was brought out in 161 above. KF kairosfocus
IE, you continue the same rhetorical tactics of accusation and projection rather than engaging substantially on the merits. FYI, the presentation of a case through classical, benchmark statements and summaries is an entirely legitimate approach and the flimsy excuse of suggesting that such is an improper appeal to authority is duly noted and dismissed as fallacious. Similarly, provision of telling admissions against interest by relevant sources (especially when there are significant numbers of cases) is of very high value in an argument, per the principle of embarrassment -- material to the point that evolutionary materialism is inescapably self referentially incoherent. The reasonably inferred conclusion is plain, you have no cogent answer than abuse, fallacy and accusation. If this is false, simply show it so by answering cogently on the merits. KF PS: This goes directly to the point of the title and OP. kairosfocus
KF, I addressed this previously. I have no desire to do it again. If you are willing to use your own arguments (not Plato's, or whoever's) I will respond to them. But I refuse to respond to someone who is patronisizing, sermonizing and pompous. If you can't follow those very simple conditions, I hope that you enjoy your own company. Because nobody else will. Indiana Effigy
IE, I simply state that I strongly endorse Girgis et al and find that I have on that strength no need to defend myself from an accusation presuming guilt on my part in the face of a tribunal of one who has already announced closure of the mind by dismissing all objections to this radical cultural marxist lawfare agenda as bigotry. The mere invention of a radical notion and its attempted imposition under false colours of law that flies in the teeth of the manifest facts of the nature of maleness, femaleness and linked requisites of child nurture and linked social stability do not suffice to change marriage into what it is not and cannot be. It can be mocked, willfully caricatured and twisted, but that has not changed the facts of nature. So-called same sex marriage is and will ever remain an oxymoron; one that if imposed and enforced will lead to social devastation and to the alienation, marginalisation and persecution of people of principled conscience under false colour of law -- as is already happening. The harm to our civilisation will be beyond calculation. Unfortunately, ruthlessly manipulative agendas insist on the experiment. KF kairosfocus
KF@190: "Webster: Full Definition of bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" Thank you KF. You have shown that my definition agrees well with yours. Maybe we have some common ground we can work on. Now, maybe you can explain to me why your opposition to SSM doesn't meet this definition. Indiana Effigy
IE, did you notice how you have again twisted a listing of demonstrable fallacies on your part into projecting an accusation of motivation by groundless, empty animosity on my part? Do you not see what this sort of further fallacy -- yet another ad hominem -- reveals about your unfortunately persistent behaviour? I suggest you take a time out and read this IEP reference article on fallacies slowly, carefully and with an eye to making amends. KF PS: Instead of a cogent response you tagged Girgis et al as "religious" and dismissed it, refusing to acknowledge that regardless of agreement or disagreement on your part it presents a principled and sober examination of a current radical agenda. Further, in this thread you have broad brush dismissed all objections to the radical agenda as bigotry, an extremely serious accusation and in this case a manifestly tendentious one. I will only note here your previous insistence on repeatedly cracking rotten words and raising irrelevant vulgarities of term and reference to push the tone of a discussion thread down to the gutter despite corrections and warnings. kairosfocus
KF@188: "Vivid, IE’s attention has routinely been drawn to Girgis et al here; he has studiously ignored this or used a dismissive strawman accusation of religion (he routinely substitutes religion for philosophy etc to advance a rhetorical agenda and refuses to be corrected) to continue in his confident manner accusations and projections. KF I read this article the first time you pointed it out. And I responded to it. But you refused to listen and resorted to ad-hominems and accusations rather than address my comments. Why would I want to repeat that nonsense. Btw. Brothel. Indiana Effigy
Eugen Merriam Webster:
Full Definition of bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
The import is irrational obstinacy, unfairness, hate and prejudice targetting some disdained other. Thus to be called a bigot is a serious accusation, especially in a day with hate speech laws. It becomes especially abusive and falsely projective on IE's part when in context of dismissing all as bigotry, he has repeatedly refused to address Girgis et al on its merits as a principled objection to the lawfare campaign now ongoing to twist marriage into something utterly alien to its natural foundations. Principled, carefully articulated objection to an ill advised, divisive and socially corrosive agenda resting on wrenching the principles of right in service to radical and ill advised social engineering is not prejudice, and ironically the dismissive accusation oh it's all bigotry only succeeds in letting the thoughtful person see where the real bigotry and intimidation lie amidst the lawfare and cultural marxist style agit prop. IE's now plainly habitual resort to speaking with disregard to truth and fairness in hope of what he has said or suggested will be taken as truth speaks volumes and none of it in his favour or that of the fashionable agendas he would enable. KF kairosfocus
Eugen@186: "Still I’m interested what would be the line of reasoning that leads you to it? What standards you use to determine someone is bigot? You were not clear about it." It is obviously not always a black and white issue. But here is an example. If someone opposes SSM because of higher STD rates, frequent sexual partners, suicide rates, etc. of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals, that is bigoted. It is applying a group statistic against an individual. Which, in my mind, is bigotry. Indiana Effigy
kF@184: "IE continues, pretending that drumbeat dissmissive assertions trumpeting a self-awarded rhetorical triumph (instead, cf. here) and brazenness in vulgarity etc suffice to replace soundness and civility...blah, blah, blah." I get it. You don't like me. But I would rather discuss issues with people like Eugen who would rather have a civil discussion than accuse someone of vulgarity for using the word "brothel". besides, aren't you too busy saving Monserrat to comment here? Other than the 2800 words you posted above. Indiana Effigy
Vivid, IE's attention has routinely been drawn to Girgis et al here; he has studiously ignored this or used a dismissive strawman accusation of religion (he routinely substitutes religion for philosophy etc to advance a rhetorical agenda and refuses to be corrected) to continue in his confident manner accusations and projections. KF kairosfocus
Effigy You just gave me definition of bigot. Labeling someone bigot is rather emotional response and not very impressive, it doesn't mean much.I hear it on Facebook from pimply young basement dwelling social justice warriors. People use it when arguments are lacking or in case of you and hrun, non existent. Proper way would be to present valid counter argument. No wonder I call you whiners - as adults you should use reason and logic instead of emotions. Still I'm interested what would be the line of reasoning that leads you to it? What standards you use to determine someone is bigot? You were not clear about it. Eugen
IE: And by my definition of bigotry (sticking to a belief in spite of the evidence)...
WJM in OP: By cleverly utilizing dishonest terms and phrases, we have been manipulated into conceding the debate to leftists/Marxists before it is begun simply because of words are redefined to frame the debate.
Yep. Phinehas
F/N: IE continues, pretending that drumbeat dissmissive assertions trumpeting a self-awarded rhetorical triumph (instead, cf. here) and brazenness in vulgarity etc suffice to replace soundness and civility. He thus shows the precise problem of might and manipulation substituting for truth and right warned against by Plato 2350 years past and abundantly shown in our day including in this thread. Let us understand what we are dealing with. KF PS: The well understood metaphor of the march of lemmings is all that is needed to make the point (similar to the talking wolf lying in Grandma's bed faced by Little Red Riding Hood . . . ), or perhaps the historical warning in Ac 27 may have somewhat to instruct us on manipulated marches of folly. (So does Schein's sobering analysis here.) kairosfocus
Vividbleu@182: "You do not find the arguments you have heard against SSM as compelling, fair enough. Does that make you an immoral degenerate?" KF would probably agree with that characterization. "Your position boils down to this….”I don’t find the arguments against SSM compelling therefore anyone who does not agree with me on this issue is a bigot” Which is exactly the subject of this thread." Not exactly. I believe that I said that I haven't heard an argument against SSM that doesn't boil down to bigotry or religious beliefs. And by my definition of bigotry (sticking to a belief in spite of the evidence) I don't see much difference between the two. On this subject any way. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I don't believe that I have resorted to labelling people as bigots or homophobes or racists, even if I think that may be the case. But that doesn't mean that those labels should be avoided at all cost. If a person's bigotry, racism, whatever, is blatantly obvious, I would probably call them out on it. But it would never be my first choice. Indiana Effigy
RE 181 I do not disagree. Indeed most of the arguments against inter-racial marriage and desegregation was about race. Personally I think to equate SSM to the civil rights struggle is offensive but that's just me. Here is the difference between you and me, if someone disagrees with that view I don't consider a difference of opinion warrant to demonize. You do not find the arguments you have heard against SSM as compelling, fair enough. Does that make you an immoral degenerate? Your position boils down to this...."I don't find the arguments against SSM compelling therefore anyone who does not agree with me on this issue is a bigot" Which is exactly the subject of this thread. Vivid vividbleau
Vividbleu@1478: "Sheesh." My conclusion is based on 15 years of listening to the arguments against SSM, not one decided before the discussion began. There were plenty of arguments against inter-racial marriage and desegregation, but through the benefit of history, I think that we can conclude that most of those can be distilled down to racism. Or do you disagree? Indiana Effigy
IE
You mention that the opposition to SSM may have been based on “sound reasoning and historical experience.”
Yes.
We can certainly debate the sound reasoning that you suggest…
[a] If those reasons lead me (and others) to believe that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is bad for individuals and society, even though I also believe that homosexuals deserve our respect and kindness, would that mean that I am a still bigot for coming to those well-reasoned conclusions? [b] Or, is it the case that I would be a bigot only if I hate homosexuals for what they are and am just making up reasons to marginalize or persecute them? If there is a difference between [a] and [b], then arguing against homosexual marriage is not necessarily an act of bigotry, is it?
, but there is little in the way of historical experience that can be used to oppose SSM.
Are you aware that there are plenty of good arguments on behalf of the proposition that homosexuality destroys whole cultures (not in 10 years, for heaven's sake) If I agree with those arguments, that is, if they are based on sound reasoning and historical experience, does that fact alone make me a hater and a bigot, even if I have nothing personal against homosexuals? If not, then if follows that arguing against homosexuality and homosexual marriage is not a hateful act of bigotry.
, but there is little in the way of historical experience that can be used to oppose SSM.
Are you aware that there are plenty of good arguments on behalf of the proposition that homosexuality destroys whole cultures? If I agree with those arguments, that is, if they are based on sound reasoning and historical experience, does that fact alone make me a hater and a bigot, even if I have nothing personal against homosexuals? I will explain in even simpler terms: In this context, I define Bigotry as, among other things, the refusal to tolerate another human being because of who or what he/she is. I define Disagreement as the refusal to tolerate a bad idea. It has nothing to do with the person who promotes it. The former is immoral; the latter is not only moral, but preferable. Human beings deserve our respect and consideration regardless of their social group. Bad ideas do not deserve any respect at all. All people should be loved. Bad ideas should be hated. Thus, if a human being promotes a bad idea, I am morally obliged to tolerate him and his person, but I am not morally obligated to tolerate his terrible ideas. StephenB
StephenB: The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. That means that all later stages, including fetus (defined as an embryo at 8 weeks), also have human DNA. That means that all abortions kill a human being.
One would expect that the argument — it has human DNA so it is a human being — should be compelling to materialists. It may be a far less compelling argument for those theists who hold that a human being is an eternal spiritual being. It's rather odd that it doesn't work that way. Origenes
IE "You are going way off-topic, bordering on threadjacking. The subject here is the supposed tactics used by leftists to stifle debate (e.g., label anyone who opposes SSM as being bigots or homophobes)." Supposed tactic? IE "Yes. But given that fifteen years of arguments made against SSM amount to nothing more than bigotry, I think the label is a well justified one" Sheesh Vivid vividbleau
hrun0815
I write that human beings develop from a blob of tissue.
And I explained that humans do not develop into human beings. They develop as human beings. This is a biological fact that you will discover if you choose to read the biological textbooks. The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. That means that all later stages, including fetus (defined as an embryo at 8 weeks), also have human DNA. That means that all abortions kill a human being.
How about you go back and look up what a fetus is?
From a medical perspective, a fetus is an embryo after about 8 weeks. On the other hand, some believe that an embryo from conception onward should be labeled as a fetus. Either way, a "blob of tissue" does not morph into a human. Humanity is present at the moment of conception. StephenB
StephenB@171: "Which arguments did you have in mind. What makes you think that they were the product of bigotry rather than sound reasoning and historical experience?" I think that my definitions above explain part of it. You mention that the opposition to SSM may have been based on "sound reasoning and historical experience." We can certainly debate the sound reasoning that you suggest, but there is little in the way of historical experience that can be used to oppose SSM. Historical experience, if anything, supports it. It has been legal for over a decade in Canada, and none of the dire consequences that the sound reasoning of those opposing it had predicted have come to pass. Indiana Effigy
Eugen@168: "I know the definition of that word but I would like to know what rules you use when you call someone a bigot? What is criteria or general rules you apply when you name opponent a bigot?" The definitions I use (and I admit that they may not be completely accurate, but they make sense to me) is as such: Prejudice: A belief, or stereotype, based on lack of knowledge. If I call someone prejudiced, I don't intend it as a moral judgement. We all display prejudice at some level of another. And it can be corrected with knowledge. Bigot: Someone who persists in a belief in spite of contradictory knowledge, evidence and facts. If I call someone a bigot, I do intend it as a moral judgement. Indiana Effigy
KF@163: "The issue of sexual harassment and rape is different, this is a warfare tactic not just young men out of control. The jihad by bands terrorist message to women and children is, you are prey species and your men and government cannot defend you so you have to reckon with us." If you had time to read more of the comments you would note that the issue of rape was not in the context of terrorist tactics. It was in the context of general cultural tolerance of it. The suggestion was that it was more tolerated in muslim cultures, which is definitely not the case. "Your new masters, imposing a shame-honour culture where the women and children of the conquered are prey for enslavement and sexual abuse or murder etc at will." The bible isn't exactly innocent in this respect. "Those who dismissed my earlier response to the San Bernardino case in which I called for an organised, trained, armed civilian marshal corps based in and protective of targets, will refuse to acknowledge and address this also." You are going way off-topic, bordering on threadjacking. The subject here is the supposed tactics used by leftists to stifle debate (e.g., label anyone who opposes SSM as being bigots or homophobes). "And lemmings parroting the evo mat party line talking points while not understanding that they are caught up in a march of folly headed over a cliff." You do realize that lemmings don't really jump off cliffs, don't you? Indiana Effigy
KF@160: "The serial use of vulgarity on a civil public forum despite warning and correction are marks of disrespect for civility and reasonable, responsible discussion." Get over yourself KF. The word I used was "brothel;", and not in a vulgar context. You were asked what Follytricks were. I jokingly responded that it was a Monserrat brothel. With a big yellow happy face at the end of the sentence. Let's be honest here. Your self-referential incoherence claim wa being soundly beaten by a couple evo-mats, and you didn't like that. So you found a lame excuse to end the discussions on the thread that you had started. Indiana Effigy
Re #170: Yet again an example of thoughtful, reasonable debate. I write that human beings develop from a blob of tissue. You counter that a fetus is a human being (and at the same time you claim to have read the textbooks). How about you go back and look up what a fetus is? hrun0815
SB@151: “Do not the gay lobby leftists label opponents of gay marriage as bigots …” IE: "Yes. But given that fifteen years of arguments made against SSM amount to nothing more that bigotry, I think the label is a well justified one." Which arguments did you have in mind. What makes you think that they were the product of bigotry rather than sound reasoning and historical experience? StephenB
Hrun0815
As for your examples, yes, the first one is correct. If you oppose gay marriage you are labeled a bigot, and rightly so.
This is your fundamental error. There are very good reasons for opposing gay marriage, historical cultural, logical, and moral—none of which have anything to do with hate or bigoted instincts. It is this discussion that you and your leftist comrades do not want to have because you will lose the debate. So, in order to avoid the debate you malign those who would dare to correct the record.
Depending on how you express your opposition, you may or may not be labeled a hater as well.
Incorrect. The gay lobby (and you) will malign me as a hater and a bigot no matter how I express my points or whatever reasons I provide in defense of my position. You just did it above when you said that those who oppose gay marriage are, by definition bigots. So you have contradicted yourself.
And finally, I would ask you to look through a textbook. Human beings develop from a ‘blob of tissue’.
I have read the textbooks. Apparently, you have not. A fetus is a developing human being. It is never just a blob of tissue. A fetus does not develop INTO a human being. A fetus develops AS a human being. Even a zygote has full human DNA. Thus, it is a human being. It's basic logic. Still, leftists call it a mere "blob of tissue" to mislead the public--and the soon-to-be mother. StephenB
drc466: In 2008, Bush’s last year, Federal Expenditures (budget is what you plan to spend, expenditures are what you did spend) were $2.9T. Bush's last budget is FY2009, proposed in June 2008. Spending was $3.5 trillion. The very high expenditures were primarily due to the financial meltdown and ensuing recession. drc466: I think any fair analysis of Federal Government budgeting and expenditures would easily support WJM’s assertion that Washington Democrats LOVE big government and have radically increased its size every presidential/congressional term they’ve had the opportunity to, while hiding the increases or declaring them decreases. The size of government as a percentage of GDP decreased during the Clinton and Obama administrations, and increased during the Bush administration. http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-government-size-spending-percentage-gdp-by-president.jpg Zachriel
"you are a as whiny as a feminist" Yes you are. Now I realized that you and other social justice warriors generously use term bigot. I know the definition of that word but I would like to know what rules you use when you call someone a bigot? What is criteria or general rules you apply when you name opponent a bigot? Eugen
Re #165: Read, man. I didn't say you mocked them. I said you used them in your mockery. Equally as bad. You see, if you say "Hrun, you are a as whiny as a feminist." then you are attempted to both insult me and feminists. So it is telling what groups you include when you mock people. It's all there for people to see. ETA: And I see that you, as I suggested, just keep on going. Thank you. hrun0815
I see on passing by the principled objection to the twisting of marriage through cultural marxist lawfare is deemed bigotry (thus to be subjected to hate speech thought police laws as has already begun to happen . . . ), so I suggest that we may read some of what is being tagged and smeared, here: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf -- just for record. I defy any responsible person to find this paper to be bigotry. KF kairosfocus
Hrun Now you lie that I mocked transgenders and feminists. No, I was mocking you. I would  offer help and compassion to transgenders not parade them around and worship them like your side. That's mockery of their difficult situation. What else is expected from liberal atheists but to jump on a new bandwagon and worship anything. Will you finally make an argument instead of nitpicking? How are your feelings today, are you triggered? Are you satisfied with a new role of Effigy as your sidekick, your little Robin? Eugen
Belgium as a case study: http://www.investigativeproject.org/5310/how-radicalization-was-allowed-to-fester-in# kairosfocus
WJM: I am too busy to go into this thread and its discussion, but a few themes need some remarks. First it seems insanitary personal habits has been a major focus. This reflects that in part we are dealing with classes of people who lack adequate public health education. That is something that can be reasonably remedied, and used to be remedied through basic public health education and training as part of immigration and acquiring new citizenship. I am sure that people of middle and upper class background in many of these societies, have much more western patterns of behaviour in such regard. The issue of sexual harassment and rape is different, this is a warfare tactic not just young men out of control. The jihad by bands terrorist message to women and children is, you are prey species and your men and government cannot defend you so you have to reckon with us. Your new masters, imposing a shame-honour culture where the women and children of the conquered are prey for enslavement and sexual abuse or murder etc at will. Such has to be treated as a form of terrorism and handled drastically before there is de facto state breakdown and reversion to warlordism and the ancient wars of annihilation of the clans through irreconcilable feuds. Or, the rise of real Nazism, grand warlordism joined to socialist statism mobilised for war, and using the arguments of needing a Neitzschean Superman amoral law unto himself political messiah above law to handle the unprecedented crisis now upon us the key victim class. Those who dismissed my earlier response to the San Bernardino case in which I called for an organised, trained, armed civilian marshal corps based in and protective of targets, will refuse to acknowledge and address this also. Mass rape and sexual enslavement of women is a war crime and it should be severely punished as such. The slave trade is a crime against humanity, and should be treated as such. And yes, if you have not recognised that ISIS has restored slavery, blame the media who refuse to tell the unvarnished truth that does not fit the progressivist narrative. Fifth columnist traitors in Journalists' clothing. And, Americans, how on earth have you tolerated a Secretary of State and now leading presidential candidate -- likely, your next president -- who obviously refused to keep basic cyber security laws and exposed secrets through using a home server? All history shows that such high handed lawlessness in high places has sobering consequences. But then, as an onlooker I simply say the current US Election campaign cycle is a strong sign of the decay of our civilisation, and a portent of avoidable disasters ahead. (And do not fool yourself that Mr Trump has shown himself fit for high office; your nation has painted itself into a terrible corner. I speak so frankly as the whole world will suffer the consequences of this ongoing march of folly of an election cycle.) Now, illegal, non state combattants and terrorists should face updated piracy law, and those who host or enable them should face the same law. Yes, pirates and pirate nests should be viewed as enemies of humanity and should be eliminated by concerted efforts. I am confident that after a few such nests have been eliminated, the others in the line will get the message very fast and will change their ways. Notice, how Libya surrendered its offshore Iraq-based WMD programme after the Iraq invasion of 2003 . . . something that is of course conveniently utterly "forgotten" by the baying media hounds. The same who do not discuss how Syria, the other Baathist state, had its nuke programme knocked out by Israel. (Do not get me started on George Sana's warnings on what happened to the Iraq WMD programme. That is a former top level officer of Iraq's Air Force under Hussein.) Pirates' nests should be eliminated, and the ideology that supports them should be publicly shamed to the point where it has nothing to say. Rioting and attacking innocents in response to exposure of IslamISM should be treated as acts of war, terrorism and piracy as appropriate. ISIS is a Pirate state. Boko Haram is a Pirate army. And so forth. Coming back to the main topic, it is indeed obvious that for years we have been seeing factions that have utterly no interest in civil discussion, they aim to impose amoral evolutionary materialist scientism and the things it opens the gateway to. They have resorted to cultural marxist, Alinsky style agit prop tactics, and have utterly undermined civil discussion, reflecting their view that the human mind is like a computer, needing to be purged of programming they don't like and reprogrammed with their agenda. They refuse to see the irretrevble self referential incohderence in tehir evolutionary materialism and on any flimsy excuse will dismiss warnings based on admissions against interest straight from the horse's mouth. As we saw just above. I bet naive onlookers would never believe that something like a dozen from the horse's mouth examples of the self referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism and its dynamics of reduction of mind to matter under blind chance and mechanical necessity were on the table and were never cogently responded to by the sort of objectors who above resorted to vulgar disrespectful dismissiveness. Useful idiots involved in a march of folly they do not understand, to use Lenin's terms. That is why civil discussion on origins issues, evolutionary materialism, evidence pointing to design, linked morality and policy issues etc almost always breaks down through ruthless agit prop tactics coming from the party of Darwin. Misanthropes. And lemmings parroting the evo mat party line talking points while not understanding that they are caught up in a march of folly headed over a cliff. Well did Plato warn us 2350 years ago. KF kairosfocus
PS: Plato's warning, written c 360 BC, in the aftermath of Athenian collapse through the Peloponnesian war a generation or two earlier:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.
Note, this is consistently ignored or brushed aside by the sort of objectors we have to deal with. Those who refuse to heed lessons of history bought with blood and tears doom themselves to experiencing much the same lessons over and over again. In an age at the threshold of nuke and germ warfare terrorism that is directly suicidal. kairosfocus
0812681 Pardon, but I have had little time to follow debates in this thread. I spotted something about me objecting to Muslim immigration. I have said nothing on this topic or on several other points in this thread. I would suggest that IslamISM, a minority in Islam but one with sobering roots in foundational Islamic history, Quran and Hadiths, is a menace to the world and is known to have a 100 year global subjugation plan, termed by the Muslim Brotherhood The Project. (English begins p 15.) A copy was captured in Switzerland from a Muslim financier by Swiss Financial Police shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, on 9/11 I took time to search the Internet and found two key things. Plans -- detailed -- for nuke weapons and a 100 year world subjugation plan that just on what is claimed today imposes global conflict. The form of that conflict is 4th generation warfare in which non state actors using terrorist and piratical tactics are a major feature along with integral lawfare (which BTW is what -- coming from radical factions of various allied types -- has been corrupting the law all over our civilisation for decades)and cultural marxist style agit prop. Those in denial refuse to acknowledge this and insist they see only a manageable law enforcement problem. Likewise,shortly after 9/11 an IslamIST leader's family in Virginia was spotted casing a bridge in Virginia USA by an alert police officer. (Of course, the fifth columnists' lawfare and agit prop seek to characterise such as racist profiling. And yes, I directly imply sustained calculated treasonous conduct, for which it is increasingly likely millions will die through nuke terrorism or germ warfare . . . anthrax most likely.) Search of the sub basement revealed 70 bankers boxes of files including The Explanatory Memorandum addressed to the Egyptian leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood by the North American operation, with dozens of false front operations identified. English begins, p. 15. (Muslim terrorists were trained by Moscow for decades and use stratagems that are instantly recognisable to someone like me who faced similar Moscow trained treasonous activists and their manipulated dupes. Similarly, ex Nazi propagandists were used. Of course, part of the red herring led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere tactic is meant to drown out the warnings of people like me who speak from direct experience and knowledge. Oh, he has personal demons, you need not listen to him. Classic agit prop tactic of shooting at the messenger bearing unwelcome news. And don't get me started on mass brainwashing tactics a la Plato's cave of shadow shows. Read: TV and similar manipulation-prone media.) This document was publicly released in the context of the Holyland Foundation terrorism financing trial. It reveals a strategy of civilisation undermining jihad, settlement jihad. Which in Europe has reached to no go areas by the hundreds that are serving as terrorism bases. Where, mass uncontrolled migrations of "refugees" from source zones for IslamIST terrorism have to be challenged as invitations to settlement jihad tactics. There are genuine refugees, but isn't it strange that Christians and Yazidis (victims of outright genocide) are utterly under-represented and there is a persistently reported disproportion of men of military age? Where, source zones plural points out that we are not dealing just with displaced persons from the Syrian civil war and its overflow into invasion of Iraq. (During which invasion, I was muttering to myself, where are the A10's hitting those columns of invading pickups. That alone should tell us something is rotten in Washington, DC.) I think it is clear that the long time solution to displaced persons is to deal with the problem at or near the source, with very selective settlement elsewhere for cases that are special. The proper move is to resettle in the same areas or nearby ones with the same culture that minimises dislocation and long term polarisation. All this is known, fully documented, easily available and repeatedly tested and successful. If it is being systematically ignored in a pattern that all too chillingly echoes the barbarian settlements in the late western Roman Empire or the post Roman evacuation invitation of the Britons to the Saxons to come help defend them, then we are looking at an agenda that seeks to profit from creating intractable conflicts. Including by at minimum gross dereliction of sworn duty of defence, opening the door to settlement jihad. But then, our civilisation is increasingly suicidal, undermined and eaten out by the rise of evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers. KF kairosfocus
HR & IE (and others): The serial use of vulgarity on a civil public forum despite warning and correction are marks of disrespect for civility and reasonable, responsible discussion. And IE has willfully misrepresented facts -- indeed in this very thread he has repeated the problem of feeling he can crack rotten words at will on a forum that needs to maintain a responsible, civil level of discussion to denigrate and dismiss those who have committed the thought crime of daring to differ with his preferred party line. This already plainly shows how he habitually speaks with disregard to truth in hope that what he says or suggests will be taken as true. No, HR, it is not personal demons it is watching too many discussions here and elsewhere go to a spiral to the gutter, it is watching cyber stalking, it is seeing hate and bigotry sites surrounding UD that indulge the very worst levels of animosity. It is seeing attempts to attack in the unrelated local press publishing on unrelated matters to create false impressions, it is seeing evidence of on the ground stalking of uninvolved relatives at degrees of remove. Of course, there is a pretence, all is okay on "our" side, it is those unwashed IDiots who we have a right to lie, project and double down on . . . as you should know and acknowledge then do something about, but plainly refuse to. That FYI, is classic enabling behaviour. FYI, the good cop bad cop tactic only means the so called good cop is an enabler of evil and has become a part of a corrupt system. Indeed there is every sign shown through the recent behaviour of how evolutionary materialism leads to might and manipulation make 'right' and 'truth' etc cultural marxist style nihilism -- precisely one of the civil society destroying 'features' of evolutionary materialism exposed and warned against by Plato in The Laws 2350 years ago . . . its utter want of foundation for morality leading to destructive factionism. And that is precisely what this thread discusses, breakdown of responsible, reasonable discussion. It is high time for the circle of design objectors to wake up and fix some serious problems. Before they reap the consequences of their behaviour. KF PS: Onlookers, kindly again note IE's further use of vulgarities here, showing the truth he sought to twist and mislead about. Also, it would not be advisable to take thinking points from the talking points of such an objector. [On the substantial matter he has tried to drag down into the gutter and has tried to drag over into another unrelated thread, you will see the case that needs to be faced -- but predictably (years ago, I faced the Marxists after all and saw what ideological indoctrination does to thinking level . . . ) will not honestly and seriously face until there is a painful institutional collapse here.] kairosfocus
Much of this argument seems to revolve around public defecation, rape and underage marriage. Let's examine these, just for the record. Public defecation: Is this a cultural thing or more a result of poverty, homelessness and a scarcity of public bathrooms? To suggest that it is something that is particularly unique to Muslims is, let's face it, a bigoted statement. How else can you characterize it? Rape: This was presented with no statistics to show that it is more prevalent in Muslim cultures than anywhere else. And the Koran, as does the bible, speaks out against rape. The rates of sexual assault amongst so called Christian cultures is nothing to be proud of, so those in glass houses... Underage marriage: Most countries, including Muslim countries, have a minimum marriage age between 16 and 21. But many allow marriage at a younger age with parental consent, including Canada and the US. In New Hampshire a 13 year old girl can legally be married. Aren't biased stereotypes a wonderful thing? Bigotry by any other name... Indiana Effigy
Re #157: You disagree? This is just bizarre. You claim there is (or should be) freedom of speech AND freedom of the consequence of speech? And do you REALLY believe that 'its illegal to fire people for what the nation doesn’t allow the government to do'? I can agree on your last point though. You say bigoted stuff, I will call you bigot, and we all agree that you can continue saying bigoted stuff and I will not punish you. Deal. hrun0815
hrun0815 118# I disagree with your point. lets think carefully. if someone gives a opinion and is called bigot and this does mean a reaction. by censoring or punishing THEN where is the free speech. to be free means free of punishment or censorship in order to say something and be FREE to say it again. BIGOT means bad. so the person is being told they are bad. NOT JUST WRONG. I don't know the Shilling case. But it doesn't matter. its classic rejection of the peoples freedom of speech. You can't say he was free to speak and then gets fired is a fredom of reaction. NO! its old fashioned punishment of speech. freedom of speech exists to stop these firings. They can't fire him.They could warn about ideas but not even that. its illegal to fire p[eople for what the nation doesn't allow the government to do. The government can't fire us for our speech because its a free nation. The comments here are right. We are living in a nation(s) where our natural right to truth and so speech is being attacked and denied. Its illegal. Take them court. The empire has is extending too far and more people are complaining There is a clear rejection of free thought and speech in America and canada. It must be ground to take back. Origin issues are just another trench in a long trench system. Slander and malice can be dealt with. Truth and freedom of speech to that end is a natural and legal right. Its impossible to reject that unless its coming from people in power. A establishment if you will. Probably a liberal ethnic/sex one. On origin blogs I find eVERYBODY struggles with free speech. Everybody resents so much being said. Yet free speech is a natural right and a political/legal right in our nations. We must struggle for it again. This thread shows a struggle. A deal. You can accuse BIGOT if you agree it doesn't bring a punishment or stoppage of the accused repeating themselves as they like!! If bigot ends speech then they will call bigot on everything they want to end hearing. These days need strong men to fight the invasion of our natural and legal rights. Here we go again. Robert Byers
Re #133: Yes, dude. I had originally indeed missed this. But thanks to you I did pick it up and added it to the list of examples of 'thoughtful and reasonable debate' by WJM. hrun0815
StephenB@151: "Do not the gay lobby leftists label opponents of gay marriage as bigots ..." Yes. But given that fifteen years of arguments made against SSM amount to nothing more that bigotry, I think the label is a well justified one. Indiana Effigy
Folks, check this out... This is what I said in #52 in response to Hrun0815
You don’t seem to understand that by inviting certain people into western culture, Europe is in fact inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture. So, when people like me, WJM and KF voiced their opposition of inviting muslims into western culture, we have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater. And yes, we would be making generalisations about muslims if we said that all muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage are okay, because this is obviously not true. We are well aware of that. But it is a fact, that certain muslims think these things are okay, because of their backward culture. When people like me, WJM and KF are trying to point this out, we have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater. Not for our opposition of inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture(I agree with you here) but but because of our opposition of inviting a backward culture that is the root cause of these things. ... It’s because of political correctness that many people refuse to admit that the root cause of why certain muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage to be okay, lies in their backward culture. So, instead admitting this very fact, they are labeling people who disagree with them a racist, bigot or hater. And that’s very thing the orginal subject of this thread is about.
See how Hrun0815 twists it in #53
According to you accepting Muslims into our society is equal to supporting public defecation, rape, and underage marriage.
It should be obvious that this is a clear mischaracterization of what I said. Then Hrun0815 goes on to say in #53...
...you should consider if your “truths” aren’t justifiably labeling you as racist, bigot or hater.
There you have it people. It should be obvious that Hrun0815 clearly twisted my words to make it justifiable to label me as bigot, racist or hater. And with that he has proven the point of orginal post of this thread: ''They (=people who disagree with leftists) are being demonized by the left by the lie of mischaracterization.'' I also said in #52
If you still refuse to change your viewpoint above, regardless of the facts presented to you, then your are being unreasonable. So, that would be the end of reasonable debate.
Hrun0815's answers to that in #53 with this..
It remains funny that you (and KF/WJM) claim it is the ‘other side’ who is responsible for ending reasonable debate.
You see that Hrun0815 refuses to change to his viewpoint regardless of the facts I presented him. Hrun0815 won't admit any fact I presented to him, nor does he try to debate those facts, instead he has chosen to mis/re-characterize what I said. And with that he has proven the point of the orginal post of this thread once again: ''We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, ... has been politically re-characterized by the leftists ..'' Folks, we can all agree that people are being unreasonable if they resort to this kind of behavoir when facts/truths are presented to them. Because if their purpose really was to have a reasonable debate, they would not resort to this kind of behaviour when facts/truths are presented to them. By resorting to this kind of behaviour, Hrun0815 has proven the point of the original post of this thread yet a third time: ''Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate...'' If Hrun0815's purpose was to have a reasonable debate, he should NOT have twisted or mis/re-characterize what I said, he should NOT have tried to justify labeling people, and he should NOT he have resorted to this kind of behaviour when I presented facts to him. He certainly did NOT try to persuade /convince/inform me with facts. Hrun0815 could have chosen to debate the facts I presented, but He didn't. So, to me, it seems that for Hrun0815, facts are of lesser priority, because his highest priorities were to twist, mis/re-characterize and justify a label. By his own choice, Hrun0815 has put an end (to what I would call) a reasonable debate. Reasonable debate ended when he chose to stop being reasonable. I am not looking for an unreasonable debate. I just wanted to help Hrun0815 understand WJM and KF better by trying to enlighten him with facts that he was/is clearly ignorant/unaware of. Thank you for reading my post(s) Take care 0812681
Of course you don't know what I mean. Clearly it's perfectly ok for you to claim that something is purely hypothetical so of course there no supporting evidence for the example can be given, but on the other hand decry a purely hypothetical because there is according to you no 'logical connection'. You can't have it both ways. Pick one. As for your examples, yes, the first one is correct. If you oppose gay marriage you are labeled a bigot, and rightly so. Depending on how you express your opposition, you may or may not be labeled a hater as well. Sorry, that's just how it goes. And yes, if you oppose gay marriage you will also be compared to the people who supported the miscegenation laws-- again for good reason. History will look at both groups in equal bewilderment. And no, that is not at all what happened. Those two terms mean something completely different. You can be an undocumented worker without being an illegal alien and you can be an illegal alien without being an undocumented worker. And the fact that the term undocumented worker exists has nothing to do with the support for immigration (legal or otherwise). And finally, I would ask you to look through a textbook. Human beings develop from a 'blob of tissue'. How does citing this fact shut down rational discourse? And does it do this more or less effectively than calling people baby-killers? hrun0815
Hrun@150: "Re #149: Eugen, I encourage you to keep going. So far you included feminists and transgender in your mockery. I wonder what other group is in your repertoire? Maybe next you are going to tell us that we are totally gay and stuff?" Nah. That is Mapou's style, and he doesn't post here. Indiana Effigy
hrun0815
Huh? Purely hypothetical.
I have no idea what you mean. What does your comment have to do with the fact that leftists accuse their opponents of bad motives in order to avoid a discussion of the issues? --Do not the gay lobby leftists label opponents of gay marriage as bigots and haters in order to drown out the latter's real reasons for their objections? What does your comment have to do with the fact that leftists misuse the language to reframe issues and mislead the public? --Do not the baby-killing leftists refer to an unborn child as a "blob of tissue" in order to convince young mothers that a fetus is not a human being? StephenB
Re #149: Eugen, I encourage you to keep going. So far you included feminists and transgender in your mockery. I wonder what other group is in your repertoire? Maybe next you are going to tell us that we are totally gay and stuff? hrun0815
efigy, hrun Look guys I don't want respect from you neither I give you any. Let's not dwell on it too much. This has nothing to do with the fact that you are destroyers of the Western civilization and culture. Low level soldiers of a much bigger machinery. I just picked the word arsonist because it sounds cool. Still there's no hate against you. After all you're also children of God but unfortunately even He makes a mistake sometimes. Never mind, this is getting too deep. What gender do you feel today? Eugen
Overall, I’d rate your criticisms of WJM as semantically valid but logically irrelevant to his remarks regarding baseline budgeting. And, in some sense, your argument reinforces his larger point – by majoring in minors and waging war by semantics, you practice the debate-killing language he calls out.
The details are all wrong and overblown, but overall he's absolutely right. Got it.
I think any fair analysis of Federal Government budgeting and expenditures would easily support WJM’s assertion that Washington Democrats LOVE big government and have radically increased its size every presidential/congressional term they’ve had the opportunity to, while hiding the increases or declaring them decreases.
The federal budget has been increasing nearly linearly since the 1940ies. But clearly, any sober analysis would show that this is all the D's fault... and of course because even since the forties the PC leftiest have redefined language so that budget decrease only can mean decrease in the rate of budget increase. Totally rational and sober analysis. hrun0815
hrun @132, 139:
Under Obama the inflation-adjusted federal budget actually decreased in comparison to Bush’s last budget.
And this is why argument is so often pointless. In 2008, Bush's last year, Federal Expenditures (budget is what you plan to spend, expenditures are what you did spend) were $2.9T. In 2015, Federal Expenditures were approx $3.4T. Even factoring in "inflation-adjusted", 3.4 > 2.9. However, using Twain-esque statistics, we could certainly say that expenditures rose less 2014-2015 than they did 2007-2008. Or perhaps you were referring to their relative % of GDP change year over year? But then we have to get into where the cuts came from - if Obama got his cuts from the military and defense while increasing social programs like transgender education, isn't the conservative complaint (leftists love big government but hide their budget increases with deceptive language) still justified regardless of the overall direction of the budget? And should Obama get credit for a decrease in his increase from 2014-2015 when he cheated by skyrocketing the baseline with a $700B increase from 2008-2009? If I tell my wife, who increased her spending 2%/month from Jan to March, that I'm going to increase my spending 20% in April, then decrease it 1%/month in May and June, am I really managing our budget better than she did? Hmmm? After all, my "inflation-adjusted ... budget actually decreased in comparison to [her] last budget." I think any fair analysis of Federal Government budgeting and expenditures would easily support WJM's assertion that Washington Democrats LOVE big government and have radically increased its size every presidential/congressional term they've had the opportunity to, while hiding the increases or declaring them decreases. As to his response that you object to, that Republicans in D.C. are almost as bad as Democrats, you yourself pointed out that federal spending increases regardless of the party in power - supporting his point, rather than negating it. A careful analysis of the causes of the spending increases and the framing language by each party is required to determine whether the larger point about the toxicity of leftist language (do leftists hide their tax increases while trumpeting their opponents'? GWHBush's experience would argue yes) is a valid one. Overall, I'd rate your criticisms of WJM as semantically valid but logically irrelevant to his remarks regarding baseline budgeting. And, in some sense, your argument reinforces his larger point - by majoring in minors and waging war by semantics, you practice the debate-killing language he calls out. drc466
Re #145: I suspect that he was looking for any reason to close off debate. He was getting his ass handed to him. Indiana Effigy
Re #144: KF has his very own personal demons he has to struggle with. I try to stay out of his way lest any comment I make leads him to spending an hour writing yet another treatise on how this and that is the prelude to the end of civilization. hrun0815
Hrun: "Re #137: It’s not even that, IE, even though that is true as well, of course. Criticism is much more meaningful coming from somebody you respect and who knows you. Eugen calling me arsonist hellbent on destroying western civilization is ridiculous on the face of it and barely warrants noticing." Very true. But you weren't accused of vulgarity for the grave offence of using the word "brothel", resulting in the comments in that thread being closed. Now, there is a comment so rediculous that it warrants notice. If for no other reason than to have a good laugh. :) I now concede WJM's point. My use of the word "brothel" brought debate to a halt. And since I am left of centre...? Indiana Effigy
Re #137: It's not even that, IE, even though that is true as well, of course. Criticism is much more meaningful coming from somebody you respect and who knows you. Eugen calling me arsonist hellbent on destroying western civilization is ridiculous on the face of it and barely warrants noticing. hrun0815
Re #129:
If it is indeed impossible to ascertain someone’s values and therefor there are no such tools wrt the regulation of immigration, would you regret that state of affairs? If so, how much?
Why would I? Neither here in the US nor in Europe can we ascertain reliably or legislate anybody's values. I do not care if you follow the law grudgingly or willingly, I just want you to follow the law. And if you don't, you'll get punished (if the offense warrants prosecution). That's how the western world works. I shudder at the thought it would be any other way. The places where 'values' play a role is in picking your friends, raising your children, or electing politicians (even though I would venture most of those professed values are phony). Again, if it was any other way, then I think the only reasonable thing for the US to do would be to chose me and me alone in deciding what are the 'correct' values. (Even though I'm pretty sure that would make a number of others quite unhappy.) hrun0815
I guess you cannot read, either. The republican party has only a handful of actual political conservatives or “rightists” (those who might be better described as a mixture of conservativism, federalism and libertarianism). The political spectrum has been so skewed to the left – again, by leftist framing and terminology – that what is called the “right wing” is really just a slightly less socialist version of leftists who are portrayed as being more war prone and corporate-friendly, but even that is a lie.
Add that to the long list of examples of 'WJM-style thoughtful rational discourse'. Leftist reframed terminology so that now all except for a tiny few politicians are socialists. hrun0815
Re #136: Eugen, "Sticks and stones ...", remember? I enjoy when people are open and actually say what they mean. Much less guesswork. That way everybody knows who they are dealing with and they don't hide. If you want to be known as the person who calls people arsonists hellbent on destroying western society, then so be it. I am perfectly happy being known as the person calling out WJM on his egregious twisting of the truth and his victim complex. And others or perfectly happy to be known as the people who suggest that there is a logical connection between opposing rape and being labeled a racist. And another still is perfectly happy to be known as the guy who thinks there should be a "value police" using lie detectors to think if an immigrant should be let into the country. To each their own. hrun0815
Re #135: WJM: Leftists redefined terms so that budget cuts can only mean reduction in budget increases. Hrun: Hang on, Obama actually decreased the budget. WJM: That’s entirely irrelevant to the point, hrun. Again, a perfect example of who is responsible for the end of reasonable debate. I'm just flabbergasted here. hrun0815
There is no logical connection between the percentage of Christians and the propensity to hunt down atheists like rabid dogs.
Huh? Purely hypothetical. Or are you claiming that there is indeed a logical connection between opposing public defecation, underage marriage, and rape and being labeled racist, bigot, or hater? You are just making it up as you go along. hrun0815
Eugen: "Well then you are more tolerant than I expected. Maybe you actually do practice tolerance just as the left wing preachers proclaim. If that’s the case you don’t mind if I call you arsonist trans alarm clock, do you?" I think you misunderstood Hrun's comment. When I read a person's criticism of me, I consider the source. If I have respect for the person criticizing me, I take it seriously. When I don't...well, you get. Indiana Effigy
Hrun said :"I don’t mind in the least that a person like you might call me an arsonist" My pleasure. Well then you are more tolerant than I expected. Maybe you actually do practice tolerance just as the left wing preachers proclaim. If that's the case you don't mind if I call you arsonist trans alarm clock, do you? Eugen
hrun said:
Re #131: And you know, WJM, that even when you replace tax with budget your claim is still nonsense, right? Under Obama the inflation-adjusted federal budget actually decreased in comparison to Bush’s last budget.
That's entirely irrelevant to the point, hrun. It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand this - as I said, you seem to have a problem with abstract thinking. Baseline budgeting is real - look it up. How I described what the terms "budget cuts" actually mean is a fact - it's even been pointed out by a few brave politicians. From here:
"baseline budgeting is one of the most sinister ways that politicians claim to cut spending when they are actually increasing spending. ... Baseline, or current services, budgeting, therefore builds automatic, future spending increases into Congress's budgetary forecasts. Baseline budgeting tilts the budget process in favor of increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency's budget is projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut. Politicians often like to have it both ways. Baseline budgeting gives politicians an opportunity to deceive taxpayers by allowing them to claim that they are holding the line on spending while providing more services.
hurn continues to demonstrate his debate failings:
And if you want to look at past presidents then overall the federal budget has been increasing since Truman, under both D and R governance. Are you attributing this trend seriously to language branding of the left? THAT is in your eyes a reasonable argument, but it is the left that is destroying reasonable debate?
I guess you cannot read, either. The republican party has only a handful of actual political conservatives or "rightists" (those who might be better described as a mixture of conservativism, federalism and libertarianism). The political spectrum has been so skewed to the left - again, by leftist framing and terminology - that what is called the "right wing" is really just a slightly less socialist version of leftists who are portrayed as being more war prone and corporate-friendly, but even that is a lie. It's mostly a dog and pony show for the gullible. William J Murray
hrun 0815
So hypothetical examples can just be randomly made up stuff that, for example, suggests that a significant chunk of the population supports rape, underage marriage, or public defecation.
Your confusion persists. Rape, underage marriage, and public defecation are not “made up” phenomena.
So if I say, for example, the fact that 99% of all politicians are Christians means that atheists will be hunted down and killed like rabid dogs this should not be challenged as it is merely a “solely descriptive and unverifiable example of what could happen”. Got it.
No, I am afraid that you do not have it. There is no logical connection between the percentage of Christians and the propensity to hunt down atheists like rabid dogs.
“The left (that means EVERY member of the left) paints anyone (that means EVERY person) that doesn’t agree with their social agenda (that means with EVERY item of the social agenda) as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.”
Yes, your formulation is somewhat sloppy, (as you meant it to be) but that problem could be solved by further dialogue. I could ask, for example, “Do you mean literally all leftists all the time?”- and you could say, -“What I really mean is that leftists “often” paint or “tend” to paint etc…. However, that kind of dialogue is impossible with you because you are afraid to answer questions, presumably because you don’t want to clarify or be held accountable. You just want others to clarify and be held accountable.
And finally, the last example of WJM’s careful and thoughtful post are the ‘tax cuts’. Ah, yes, turns out that it took over a hundred posts to correct this whopper.
That comment says a lot more about you than it does about WJM. Notice how he responds to the corrective: He admits his mistake (trivial under the circumstances), apologizes, and moves on. And notice also how you respond to his response. Rather than assume his mistake was unintentional, you imply that he knew he was promoting a falsehood all along—that he had told a “whopper.” Apparently, it didn’t occur to you that his error could have been unintentional and that his broader theme still holds. Once again—surprise, surprise--you impugn his character. The theme of the post is confirmed. We don’t need to provide hypothetical or historical examples to prove that leftists twist our words, mischaracterize our arguments, or call us names. We have you. StephenB
hr: Did you miss this?
WJM: And, to be clear, most everyone in government is a leftist, whether they call themselves democrats or republicans. They stay in power and keep getting elected largely thorough the use of a deliberately deceitful lexicon that lets them fundamentally mischaracterize everything under the sun as something else entirely that plucks at the good nature and basically good values of the citizenry.
Phinehas
Re #131: And you know, WJM, that even when you replace tax with budget your claim is still nonsense, right? Under Obama the inflation-adjusted federal budget actually decreased in comparison to Bush's last budget. And if you want to look at past presidents then overall the federal budget has been increasing since Truman, under both D and R governance. Are you attributing this trend seriously to language branding of the left? THAT is in your eyes a reasonable argument, but it is the left that is destroying reasonable debate? hrun0815
hrun said:
And finally, the last example of WJM’s careful and thoughtful post are the ‘tax cuts’. Ah, yes, turns out that it took over a hundred posts to correct this whopper.
Because nobody was talking about the budget or tax part of my OP for 100 posts or so - or if they were, I missed it. I corrected it as soon as I saw you refer to it. Also, I assume that many here knew exactly what I was talking about (the baseline budgeting was a clear indicator), but I realize you have a real problem with the principle of charity in a debate, conventions of speech and abstract reasoning. William J Murray
Re #128: So hypothetical examples can just be randomly made up stuff that, for example, suggests that a significant chunk of the population supports rape, underage marriage, or public defecation. Challenging this hypothetical is just silly because it means you don't understand the difference between something that COULD happen and something that in fact HAS happened. So if I say, for example, the fact that 99% of all politicians are Christians means that atheists will be hunted down and killed like rabid dogs this should not be challenged as it is merely a "solely descriptive and unverifiable example of what could happen". Got it. Now to the next: "The left (that means EVERY member of the left) paints anyone (that means EVERY person) that doesn’t agree with their social agenda (that means with EVERY item of the social agenda) as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group." Again. You feel that is careful use of language and a thoughtfully advanced argument set up to foster reasonable debate. And finally, the last example of WJM's careful and thoughtful post are the 'tax cuts'. Ah, yes, turns out that it took over a hundred posts to correct this whopper. So yes, maybe you honestly feel like you are helping me understand language, but I doubt it. hrun0815
hrun0815: How in the world would you verifiable judge if somebody’s values conform with ‘US values’? (…) I mean that it is impossible to reliably ascertain if somebody shares certain values.
If it is indeed impossible to ascertain someone's values and therefor there are no such tools wrt the regulation of immigration, would you regret that state of affairs? If so, how much?
hrun0815: Take a lie detector test?
Origenes: In quite a few cases that would not be a bad idea IMO.
hrun0815: I give up.
Why? So soon? Origenes
hrun0815
Ok, so you think I am nitpicking because I chose to focus on an example where WJM painted a large amount of the population as supporters of rape and underage marriage. And you think that was unfair and should let that one go because all the other stuff he wrote is so thoughtful.
I am trying to help you understand the difference between a solely descriptive and unverifiable example of what could happen, and a historical and verifiable example of what has, in fact, happened. Under the circumstances, it is silly for you to allude to a hypothetical example, which is subject to being non-historical and say, in effect, “Oh yeah, when did that happen?”
How about this then: “The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.” Do you think this is an accurate [statement]
Accurate but incomplete. There is nothing in your summary about the manipulation of language for purposes of excluding alternative points of view or ramrodding policy initiatives down the throats of unwilling citizens.
or, maybe just like the public defecation-rape-underage marriage statement it is not actually true, but it COULD be true or it RINGS true to you, so you are willing to let it go and claim that WJM has ‘more than made his case’?
I am afraid that you do not understand the relationship between context and language. A hypothetical statement cannot be historically true of false because it is not being presented as a historical fact. On the other hand, it can serve as a descriptive (and true) example of what a theme can mean. WJM has, indeed, made his case. You have provided no rational arguments against it. However, if you would care to try, I will be happy to respond. StephenB
Totalitarian leftists want big government, and they want it in every part of our lives, which is why baseline budgeting was so important. It pretty much guarantees that the size and power of government can never be reduced and will continually increase. When politicians talk about "draconian cuts" or throw out all this fear about the government not being able to operate because of the cuts, or how so many people will lose their jobs because of budget cuts, what they fail to tell you is the only thing being "cut" is the amount of the increase in that program's budget. When they say that X funding is being cut "by 50%", you and I think that the entire budget is being cut in half. That's not what it actually means. What it actually means is that the rate of increase might be cut from 6% to 3%. And, to be clear, most everyone in government is a leftist, whether they call themselves democrats or republicans. They stay in power and keep getting elected largely thorough the use of a deliberately deceitful lexicon that lets them fundamentally mischaracterize everything under the sun as something else entirely that plucks at the good nature and basically good values of the citizenry. William J Murray
RE #124: Thank you for pointing out a mistake on my part in the O.P. Baseline budgeting has to do with budget cuts, not tax cuts. My use of the term "tax cut" was a mistake which I will correct. William J Murray
Let's deconstruct some of fhe false memes hrun0815 (and others of his ilk) use in order to frame any who disagree with his views as bigotry, hate, and racism. He says:
People have the freedom to say what they want. Just look it this thread: all sorts of nasty stuff has been said here, including the denigration of all followers of a certain religion based on the action of a few..
I don't see where all followers of a certain religion have been "denegerated" based on the action of a few. In fact, over and over it has been painstakingly stated that it is a few that we are talking about. However, hrun and his ilk requires his opponents to be racists or bigots because he has no argument based on evidence, facts or reason, so he just makes up things about them so that they appear to be racist or bigoted.
... and the branding of people who support immigration as arsonist bent on destroying western culture.
Again, he is making up things out of whole cloth. I don't think anyone here is against immigration. I support immigration. What I do not support skipping the due process of legal, qualified immigration where applicants are screened and tested for assimilation. I am also against HB1 visas that displace American workers for cheaper foreign temp workers and am for a more strenuous vetting of immigrants coming from ceratin anti-American cultures. So we see why the leftist agitators ignore the actual debate and only interact in terms of broad condemnations; they are not equipped to debate via reason and evidence, but rather wish only to win the fight by emotionally pleading and bullying. William J Murray
Re #122: Or if the previous example (#123) is too hard to defend, how about we focus on the very next paragraph: "Such as “tax cuts”. With baseline budgeting, “cutting taxes” can only mean “reduction in the rate of tax increase”." So the argument is that because of leftists "tax cuts" can only ever mean "reduction in the rate of tax increase"? That can be so easily shown to be false, that I don't think it is even necessary to do so. JUst look at the marginal federal income tax rate over time-- or look at a number of Obama's programs that effective cut taxes and not simply slowed their increase. Is this one of WJM's thoughtful arguments that convinced you that he is doing a bang-up job while I am acting in bad faith? hrun0815
Re #122: Ok, so you think I am nitpicking because I chose to focus on an example where WJM painted a large amount of the population as supporters of rape and underage marriage. And you think that was unfair and should let that one go because all the other stuff he wrote is so thoughtful. How about this then: "The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group." Do you think this is an accurate characterization or, maybe just like the public defecation-rape-underage marriage statement it is not actually true, but it COULD be true or it RINGS true to you, so you are willing to let it go and claim that WJM has 'more than made his case'? hrun0815
hrun0815
I didn’t say that you said this. As far as I can tell your post #110 dealt with things WJM was saying. Maybe you want to read again what you wrote before you assume that my dialogue is in bad faith.
WJM has put forth the following theme which I will describe in my own words: Leftists seek to shut down debate and rational discussion on most controversial topics by making sure that only one side of the debate is heard or even acknowledged to exist. The strategy is twofold. [a] Reframe the topic in misleading language so that the problem is defined solely in leftist terms. [b] Attack the character of those who seek to expose [a] by focusing on their perceived motives and ignoring the substance of what they are saying. In my judgement, WJM has more than made his case. Most of his examples are quite persuasive and verifiable, but a small few, it seems, do not persuade you. Your strategy, which is similar to the one we are criticizing, is to obsess over the small few and ignore the many that simply cannot be denied under any circumstances. Accordingly, you conveniently lose track of the main theme that is being argued for. Further, when we ask you to respond to any other example than the ones you single out, you refuse to engage. And, to tie it all down, you accuse WJM of lying and playing the victim card. In other words, you ignore his theme and resort to ad-hominem attacks. Without hesitation, I characterize these dubious strategies as a refusal to argue in good faith. StephenB
IE said:
Tell that to any homosexual who would have been jailed if they had been an adult before the 80s.
I'll tell it to them now. I'll tell it to anyone. Laws and social mores do not ensure anyone safety or respect, including white males. If you do not know this, I have no idea what world you are living in.
Yes. You should do a little research before you ask a question like this.
If this is not a bluff, feel free to provide links to cases where transgenders have been physically harmed in bathrooms - remember, you agreed that laws shouldn't be based simply on protecting people from feeling uncomfortable, because then you have to account for the discomfort of those who do not want transgenders in opposite sex bathrooms. You see, I did research it, and couldn't find any articles whatsoever about transgenders actually being harmed in bathrooms. That is when I found the California law that started all this that was entirely based on a single student being bullied in the male bathroom. Good grief, let me know when you find someone who HASN'T been bullied in the school bathroom, male or female or transgender.
Really? You don’t think that the ultimate purpose of morality and justice is to protect the weakest amongst us? I am glad that you have made your view clear.
No, I do not. Justice is about using laws to fairly punish criminals. It has only been redefined by leftist SJWs, in exactly manner I outlined in the OP, to make something appear to be a matter of "justice" when it really is nothing more than asserting some fascist, leftist agenda. Justice should equally protects the weak and the strong from crime. It is equally unjust if a dollar is stolen from the rich or the poor. Justice is not about protecting anyone from hurt feelings or from being poor or about protecting the planet. I would like to know what your "Morality" stems from, because it seems to me that if you are a cultural relativist, then you might also be a moral subjectivist, so your idea of what morality is "ultimately" about probably stems from nothing more than your personal, subjective feelings, and I don't understand why you, if you are a moral subjectivist, would expect me (or anyone else) to share your personal, subjective idea of what morality is about.
So, when you use a slippery slope argument, it is just intelligent rational reasoning. When I use it, I am being stupid and dangerous. Again, it is nice to know what your train of thought is.
No, when I use it, it is because I agree that the slippery slope concept is indeed valid. I agree with you that is indeed a slippery slope to profile middle easterners and such profiling should only be used carefully and reluctantly when there is a serious, credible threat from a higly profilable group. However, when you use the slippery slope argument, since you consider it a non-valid argument, you're just being a hypocrite. William J Murray
Re #119: Eugen, you apparently didn't read my post #118: I encourage you to speak your mind. I don't mind in the least that a person like you might call me an arsonist of Western culture and civilization. It's just another example of just how wrongheaded WJM's original post is. hrun0815
You and your liberal atheists friends are arsonist of the Western culture and civilization. That is why I'll brand you as such. Arsonist doesn't require much skill. He looks at the amazing intricate structure (with some imperfections) built over centuries of hard work. He doesn't understand it and therefore doesn't appreciate it. He is clueless of what it takes to build it and strikes a match. Are you now offended, arsonist? Are you triggered? Do you need a safe space? There's help for your sensitivity. Go to twitter #tooemotional and complain. Eugen
Re #117: Robert, it's great you bring up freedom of speech, but I think you don't appreciate how it works. People have the freedom to say what they want. Just look it this thread: all sorts of nasty stuff has been said here, including the denigration of all followers of a certain religion based on the action of a few and the branding of people who support immigration as arsonist bent on destroying western culture. Nobody has attempted to keep people from voicing these opinions. On the contrary, I actively encourage people speak their mind so everybody knows who their dealing with The point about freedom in this country is that people are free to react, within the letter of the law, to what has been said. So a bigoted is allowed to spout bigoted stuff and I'm free to call him a bigot. In other words, there is freedom of speech in this country, but there is no right for speech free of consequences. Just look at Curt Schilling: He was free to say what he wanted and ESPN was free to fire him as a consequence and people here are free to bitch and moan about it. hrun0815
It all still comes down to the people demading that to have justice and ones rights MEANS one must have truth as the objective of all conversation. Therefore one must be able to speak. therefore one must have this freedom and not be stopped. the law agrees with this concept of freedom. Therefore when someone trys to stop you from speaking BY ACCUSING motives etc, then all one needs do is demand the freedom to speak. Just keep demanding until they stop accusing. Just keep demanding. Don't ask for their consent to freedom of speech. After freedom of speech is assured then make your case of truth. The bad guys are stopping our freedom of speech once again. Robert Byers
Re #115: I didn't say that you said this. As far as I can tell your post #110 dealt with things WJM was saying. Maybe you want to read again what you wrote before you assume that my dialogue is in bad faith. hrun0815
hrun0815
You mean saying racist, bigoted stuff like when people equate ‘not opposing Muslim immigration’ with ‘supporting public defecation, underage marriage, and rape’?
I have not put forth such a ridiculous formulation or anything close to it. Please try to stay on topic and address what I say. I will give you one or two more chances to dialogue in good faith. After that, I will just have to assume that you are incapable of it. StephenB
Indian Effigy.... How much do you know about the Columbine shootings and the two boys.... have you ever read Eric Harris's diaries? I wonder.... http://www.acolumbinesite.com/diary.html As for your defense of terror, enjoy what's coming your way. Andre
Re #111: You mean saying racist, bigoted stuff like when people equate 'not opposing Muslim immigration' with 'supporting public defecation, underage marriage, and rape'? Or do you mean the racist, bigoted claim that 'not opposing Muslim immigration' is equal to being an arsonist who supports the destruction of western culture? Or you mean lying that opposing public defecation, underage marriage, or rape would get you labeled a racist, bigot, or hater by media, politics, or academia? Hmm, wait, I am confused. All of those things happened. So where is the slander? Where is stuff being made up? hrun0815
Re #111: What do you mean by 'it doesn't work that way'? People follow the law or they don't. Police and the judicial system then make choice on whether or not to prosecute. At no point in time is there an evaluation of 'sharing the values of the country'! And no, I don't not mean that would be uncomfortable. I mean that it is impossible to reliably ascertain if somebody shares certain values.
In quite a few cases that would not be a bad idea IMO.
I give up. hrun0815
hrun0815,
hrun0815: The point is that countries and its citizens have a right to expect that people follow the law of the country. This does not mean that citizens, immigrants, or visitors have to share the same values.
Unfortunately, it turns out that it doesn't work that way — sharia law in the UK.
hrun0815: How in the world would you verifiable judge if somebody’s values conform with ‘US values’? You have to fill out a questionnaire?
That would be uncomfortable to some people, so that's not an option? Is that what you mean? It sure beats letting them in no questions asked ... Why don't you learn from our mistakes?
hrun0815: Take a lie detector test?
In quite a few cases that would not be a bad idea IMO. Origenes
hrun0815
Sure, sure. If you say a lot of racist and bigoted stuff that gets you labeled a racist or bigot it surely must be because it’s others who are racist or bigots. Unassailable!
No. The issue is whether or not the label is justified. Example: When you accuse WJM of lying and playing the victim card, you are spewing out mindless and slanderous assertions with no warrant whatsoever. It's called making things up. On the other hand, when WJM uses the phrase "illegal immigrant" or "Jihadist," his labels are based on the facts in evidence. Do you understand the difference? StephenB
Origenes, turns out that you don't actually understand the source of my skepticism. First off, 'freedom of speech' is in fact not a European value. It has been held in Europe for a long time that while in many cases speech should be free, this is not an absolute and other rights trump freedom of speech. And, you may not be aware of this, but here in the US there are numerous supreme court cases that also abridge freedom of speech. However, that is besides the point! The point is that countries and its citizens have a right to expect that people follow the law of the country. This does not mean that citizens, immigrants, or visitors have to share the same values. And that doesn't even get into the practicality of your idea. How in the world would you verifiable judge if somebody's values conform with 'US values'? You have to fill out a questionnaire? Take a lie detector test? Or there's the thought police who ascertain if somebody has acted in a manner inconsistent with 'US values' they get deported? hrun0815
hrun0815: I, by the way, totally volunteer defining what are the true American values we should test for.
I understand your skepsis Hrun, but my advice is well intended. In fact, the values I have in mind may come across as rather unremarkable to you, but here (in Europe), sadly, they no longer are, such as: freedom of speech, freedom of religion (including the right of apostasy), equal rights for men and women, free press, no child mutilation and so forth. Our countries are flooded with people who have zero affinity with all of this and it changes everything. Origenes
Eugen, before you go off searching whether what I said was actually true, I will save you the time. It wasn't. I made it up. But the fact that you (and probably others) bothered to google what you already assumed to be fact is very telling. Indiana Effigy
Eugen@104: "It is reasonable to profile Muslims from other nations because it is members of that group who are most likely to commit acts of violence against civilians." Here is a quiz Mr. Bigot. Who have killed more Americans in terrorist attacks in the US, Muslims or Christians? Here's a clue. It is not Muslims. But please don't let preconceived prejudices get in the way of facts. Indiana Effigy
Again, we are discussing members of a group who can be identified as being far more likely to commit a terrorist act than members of any other group--and the point that leftists often characterize that identification as an exercise in racism or bigotry. If, therefore, I argue that most terrorists are Muslims, and that Muslims should be profiled more than any other group, I am making a perfectly reasonable argument that is based solely on the facts in evidence. It has nothing to do with bigotry. On the other hand, if you claim that I am a bigot for making that argument, then you are maligning me without justification and are simply making things up in order to evade my argument. Do you understand the difference? StephenB
Thanks for the story Vividbleau....there you mention “Create Your Gender Person” from the mandatory indoctrination session. How interesting! In comment 79 I set up imaginary scenario for hrun and effigy so I can ask them few questions. It looks like my scenario was not so imaginary after all. They will be happy to see that future came early. Maybe their whining will stop for couple of days until they come up with new social issue. What's next Bolsheviks? Zoophiles marriage? How was your feminist meeting,btw? Eugen
IE
The unibomber, the Oaklahoma bomber, Anders Brevek, Columbine, Sandyhook, etc. not withstanding. Unless you don’t think that mass killings are acts of terror.
We are discussing members of groups who can be profiled according to the probability that they are likely to commit a terrorist act--and the point that leftists will characterize that reasonable calculation as a bigoted or racist act. It is reasonable to profile Muslims from other nations because it is members of that group who are most likely to commit acts of violence against civilians. It is not reasonable to profile any other group for that reason. StephenB
Re #101: Oooooooooooooh, that's a fabulous idea. Maybe take it a little further? How about kicking those out who do not subscribe to Amerivan values? Certainly don't give the voting rights! I, by the way, totally volunteer defining what are the true American values we should test for. Everybody agree? Good. hrun0815
One tip: Allow only those into your country who explicitly and convincingly subscribe to essential American values. I say this as a European, where things are so politically correct and deteriorated that such preconditions cannot be discussed and where they have lost all effectiveness. Our 'politicians' and 'media' twist reality just like Indiana Effigy does. Fewer and fewer dissenting voices. No one feels safe, not without reason, especially our elderly and women. Everyone is a coward and looks the other way. "They" have this group mentality and always have each other's back and we don't. We are a broken people, timidly waiting for the moment when things "really" turn bad. Origenes
WJM@99: "First of all, no law or change in social mores can ensure anyone’s safety, nor grant them any respect." Tell that to any homosexual who would have been jailed if they had been an adult before the 80s. "Second, has there been a lot of cases of transgenders being being physically harmed in the opposite gender’s restrooms to warrant a law stating they have a legal right to be in those rest room?" Yes. You should do a little research before you ask a question like this. "That’s the most troubling thing I’ve read all day. The sad thing is, I bet you really think you’re doing something good." Really? You don't think that the ultimate purpose of morality and justice is to protect the weakest amongst us? I am glad that you have made your view clear. "No. I think there are kinds of profiling that are not okay, and other kinds that are necessary..." So, when you use a slippery slope argument, it is just intelligent rational reasoning. When I use it, I am being stupid and dangerous. Again, it is nice to know what your train of thought is. Indiana Effigy
IE said:
Yes. Do you think it is OK for blacks driving expensive cars to be pulled over by police with no probable cause?
No. I think there are kinds of profiling that are not okay, and other kinds that are necessary, like being suspicious of certain middle easterners in certain situations or whom are acting certain ways, and that not profiling them in those situations is not only stupid, it is dangerous. That's the problem with your thinking - it's far too extreme and simplisitic, and writ large or into policy or law, it puts people at risk for the sake of nothing more than not hurting someone's feelings or inconveniencing them. William J Murray
IE reworded my question thusly:
“Are we supposed to dismantle thousands of years of the fundamental aspect of social structure, fundamental social mores, and throw the most fundamental of social conventions into chaos in order to ensure nothing more than the safety and basic respect of 0.3% of the population?
Then answers:
Then the answer is YES. That is what morality and justice is all about.
First of all, no law or change in social mores can ensure anyone's safety, nor grant them any respect. Second, has there been a lot of cases of transgenders being being physically harmed in the opposite gender's restrooms to warrant a law stating they have a legal right to be in those rest room? What "safety" or "respect" does is a law supposed to provide a transgendered when it forces the school to let physical males compete against or with physical females? Or physical females to compete against or with physical males? What exactly is the safety issue being addressed? I don't see any. Do you think putting a physical male on a female team, or allowing the physical male to compete against the females, is going to garner that person some "respect" from anyone? Or is it more likely such an insertion is going to garner shame, ridicule, hard feelings and a sense that cheating is going on? You see, I don't for a second buy it that this transgender issue and the laws it is encouraging has anything whatsoever to do with anyone's safety or "respect", because there is no argument for it that makes any sense. When you say:
That is what morality and justice is all about.
That's the most troubling thing I've read all day. The sad thing is, I bet you really think you're doing something good. William J Murray
WJM@94: Certainly, StephenB desn’t hold that “believing Muslims” are the only people at all that commit any terrorist acts,... " I don't know how I would ever come to that conclusion:
StephenB: On the other hand, only believing Muslims commit terrorist acts.
He didn't say "fundamentalist" Muslims. Or "bat-shit-crazy" muslims. He said "believing" Muslims. Surely all people who call themselves Muslims are believing Muslims. Are you a believing Christian? "BTW, do you consider profiling inherently racist or bigoted?" Yes. Do you think it is OK for blacks driving expensive cars to be pulled over by police with no probable cause? Indiana Effigy
The reverse situation is much more common. ...
Sure, sure. If you say a lot of racist and bigoted stuff that gets you labeled a racist or bigot it surely must be because it's others who are racist or bigots. Unassailable! hrun0815
Re #83:
Yes, you derailed the debate by ignoring examples (well documented) and by maligning...
I did no such thing. I asked a question well within the context of the OP. WJM answered where he made ridiculous suggestions. I then pointed out these suggestions and asserted that they have absolutely no semblance with reality. And even though some wanted to backpedal claiming that this particular statement might not be true, but the general gist definitely is, very quickly multiple people came out of the woodwork spouting ever more racist, bigoted, and hateful opinions (well documented, if you will). What actually detailed the OP is that to the contrary of WJM's post, it is not (or at least not alone) the 'other side' that details reasonable debate. It's the fact that even here, within just a few comments, people post bigoted, racist, and hateful stuff. hrun0815
IE said:
The unibomber, the Oaklahoma bomber, Anders Brevek, Columbine, Sandyhook, etc. not withstanding. Unless you don’t think that mass killings are acts of terror.
You and others of your ilk have an astounding inability to recognize various conventions of speech. Certainly, StephenB desn't hold that "believing Muslims" are the only people at all that commit any terrorist acts, but rather was making a point that among muslims who commit terrorist acts, it is most like the ardent believers who do so (not that all, or even most, ardent muslim believers are terrorists). BTW, do you consider profiling inherently racist or bigoted? William J Murray
WJM You are spot on. The left has hijacked our language by doing so they turn everything upside down. Telling the truth is indeed a revolutionary act and can get you fired all under the guise of tolerance. The tolerant left is anything but tolerant; they are the most intolerant people anyone can imagine, they are fascists ( this is not an ad hominim it is an accurate description) and want to impose totalitarianism. The fascism is most notable on our college campuses. Here is where language and Orwells “newspeak” really becomes evident. Terms such as hate speech, offensive speech and safe zones, are “newspeak” for intolerance, the silencing of free speech and any ideas that do not comport with leftist ideology. So Orwellian. I thought the whole country was a free speech zone? Memo to the left the 1st amendment is there to protect offensive speech!! Otherwise what is the point? As to safe zones? Come on man or woman…are we serious? The world does not care about your safe zone. Universities are supposed to be the place where ideas can be discussed and vigorously debated, even those ideas that do not comport to your views. Even those views that are offensive to you. The answer to offensive speech is more speech not less. Anyway about this bathroom issue. This just happened very recently. I get a text from one of my children, their sexual orientation will remain unknown for reasons I will delineate later. My child informs me that he or she had to attend what is euphemistically called “diversity training” which is “newspeak for “reeducation camp”. It was called LGBTQ safe zone training. He or she was “requested” newspeak for “if you don’t you will lose your job” to attend this day long “training” newspeak for “indoctrination”. Unlike Kurt Shilling who has enough money that he can afford to express a difference of opinion and get fired, my child has a family to support and cannot. My child starts off with a picture of “The Genderbread Person” There are all sorts of various drawings on the Genderbread person and beside it are four graphs which are supposed to measure exactly what Genderbread Person you are? Woman, Genderqueer, Man, Androgynous, Bisexual, Homosexual, etc, etc. Which one are you? Where do fall on the scale? My child then is presented with a form titled “Create Your Gender Person” My child is to draw the gender person they think they are. They are to take into account “Gender Identity” which can be as simple as “woman or as complicated as “butchqueer” My child was to make the “genderbread person” look like he or shes perceived oneself. Answer questions such as “Does your gender identity match your gender expression” What else did my child learn? Well that gender identity can change day to day, hour to hour or moment to moment. Gender is not about biology it is about “Identity” It is how one identifies that determines gender. This went on for a day. Now my child happens to think the preposterous notion that biological sex should be the determining factor that decides what bathroom one enters. Unfortunately this would be a thought crime and to do anything but sit all day and nod in agreement would cost her or him their job. So all day he or she nodded their head in agreement with the knowledge that to voice any dissent would earn a ticket to the unemployment line. This kind of stuff is happening each and every day and is coming to a theatre near every one of us soon. The saddest part of this was what happened yesterday. I was having breakfast with my siblings and my sister brought up one of her friends Facebook page. Now I hate Facebook and don’t have a Facebook page but it seems everyone else does. Anyway this person posted on their Facebook page a rant about Donald Trump and that anyone who supports him is a bigot, homophobe, transphobe, racist, fascist, you get the idea therefore to unfriend her ( whatever that means). I told her she should write her Facebook friend and tell her that even though you would not vote for Trump ( my sister is not a Trump fan and neither am I) that her behavior was worse and more dangerous than Trump could ever be, and unfriend her based on principle. Just because someone has a different political view than someone else does not make them an evil SOB. Once again I digressed, mea culpa. So one of my siblings asked if I would retext them my childs text sent to me and at that point I had a terribly un American realization and told her NO. I became incredibly sad because in that moment I realized that in present day America, if by some chance the identity of the person I have been talking about became known because that text got in the wrong hands, my child would be subject to the wrath of the left as well as loss of his or her job for the thought crime that sex is defined by biology not by identity. For this reason the sex of my child will be left unsaid for deniability purposes. Paranoid? No I don't think so. Welcome to present day America. Thanks WJM for bringing up an incredibly important topic. Vivid vividbleau
StephenB@91: "On the other hand, only believing Muslims commit terrorist acts." The unibomber, the Oaklahoma bomber, Anders Brevek, Columbine, Sandyhook, etc. not withstanding. Unless you don't think that mass killings are acts of terror. Indiana Effigy
SB: “If we ever do exclude some of them, it will be because of what they do, not what they believe.” IE
Then we are in agreement. We make the decision based on the individual and their actions, not on the religious group that they belong to.
You are getting tangled up in two distinct, though related, issues. We should make the decision to exclude Muslims based on their actions. On the other hand, only believing Muslims commit terrorist acts. So to exclude terrorists, one must exclude some believing Muslims. That's basic logic. StephenB
And you are aware that the countries they flee to in no time the shun that countries laws and adhere to sharia law right? Do you know those laws have you studied them? And please don't call my post hate filled rants I don't hate anyone or anybody... How can I hate the most beautiful engineered beings in the known universe and that includes atheists! Islam is not a religion of peace no matter what you hope or think. Andre
WJM@88: "You’re not paying attention. My point is that prior to knowing anything further about the reasons of the person involved or making the statement, it is at best dishonest and irresponsible to make such egregious accusations or parrot them." You are correct. That is why I said that it depends on the rationale given for the opposition. If there are no reasons given for the opposition to something, I generally ignore the person because an opinion with no reason to support it is of no value. But if someone tells me that they oppose Syrian refugees because they are Muslim, then I have no problem labeling them a bigot. They are generalizing to an an entire group because of information (or most likely misinformation) they know about some in the group. "When is “discomfort” legal [g]rounds for a law in the first place?" Who said it was? We are not talking about someone's comfort. "Are we supposed to dismantle thousands of years of the fundamental aspect of social structure, fundamental social mores, and throw the most fundamental of social conventions into chaos and call people “bigots” and “haters” in order to prevent nothing more than the “discomfort” of 0.3% of the population’s feelings?" And nobody is asking you to do so. But if you reword your question as follows: "Are we supposed to dismantle thousands of years of the fundamental aspect of social structure, fundamental social mores, and throw the most fundamental of social conventions into chaos in order to ensure nothing more than the safety and basic respect of 0.3% of the population? Then the answer is YES. That is what morality and justice is all about. "If I, as a 57 year old man, self-identify as an 8 yr old girl, should society be forced to accommodate my feelings in every venue where I might feel excluded or discomfited via laws protecting my feelings?" Why? Do you self-identify as an 8 year old girl. "Where does one draw the line with such anti-conventional identification when it comes to forcing everyone else to accomodate such identifications?" Oh, the slippery slope argument again. Didn't we already go over that? If not, refer to my comment above
The validity of an argument is indirectly proportional to the ridiculousness of the slippery-slope fear mongering that they use.
"If our culture moves towards embracing Sharia law or a caste system due to the influx of immigrants and the proliferation of their ideas and offspring, are you okay with that?" Refer to my comment above. "If, because of the influx of muslims, certain cities or areas of the USA become “no-go” zones for the LGBT community, is that perfectly okay with you?" Are you asking if I would be OK if we returned to the complete intolerance towards LGBT that we enjoyed for much of the history of our "Christian" countries? Absolutely not. "Do you not consider some cultural views and habits better than others?" Not as a whole. But some aspects I believe to be better in some cultures than in others. Indiana Effigy
IE said:
That depends on the rational used to oppose these issues.
You're not paying attention. My point is that prior to knowing anything further about the reasons of the person involved or making the statement, it is at best dishonest and irresponsible to make such egregious accusations or parrot them. IE continues:
Since when is “discomfort” legal grounds for discrimination?
When is "discomfort" legal grounds for a law in the first place? You do not have a right to not feel uncomfortable. Are we supposed to dismantle thousands of years of the fundamental aspect of social structure, fundamental social mores, and throw the most fundamental of social conventions into chaos and call people "bigots" and "haters" in order to prevent nothing more than the "discomfort" of 0.3% of the population's feelings? If I, as a 57 year old man, self-identify as an 8 yr old girl, should society be forced to accommodate my feelings in every venue where I might feel excluded or discomfited via laws protecting my feelings? Where does one draw the line with such anti-conventional identification when it comes to forcing everyone else to accomodate such identifications? IE asks:
How does a country that was one of the last to ban it become the country that ended it?
One of the last? The US had only been a country for 87 years before it abolished slavery. A better question would be, how can one reasonably refer US culture as one that "brought us institutionalized slavery" when slavery had been the norm virtually throughout the world for most of recorded history before the US even existed? Also, BTW, you do know that slavery existed in Africa prior to the existence of America, don't you? The West bought slaves from African slave owners. You seem to have a habit of particularly blaming the US or Western Culture for evils that have plagued mankind in every culture throughout recorded history.
But regardless, my point was simply that the western culture is not as pure and civilized as it thinks it is. There is much to be proud of, and much to be ashamed of. The same applies to all cultures and all religions.
Pure straw man. Western culture doesn't think anything about itself. It is my opinion that it is better than any other culture I have knowledge of, not that it is pure or perfect. Am I a bigot for saying that?
Do we exclude muslims because of what some of them believe? How about Hindus? Are you opposed to their entry as well? Western culture is a culture of immigration and emigration. There is no such thing as a fixed “western culture”.
If our culture moves towards embracing Sharia law or a caste system due to the influx of immigrants and the proliferation of their ideas and offspring, are you okay with that? If culture is relative, from what principle or arbiter of values do you call the behavior of the county clerk who refused to sign the marriage license "ridiculous"? Isn't that part of her particular culture? If, because of the influx of muslims, certain cities or areas of the USA become "no-go" zones for the LGBT community, is that perfectly okay with you? It seems you only draw the line at Christian or traditional western culture. Are you a cultural relativist? Do you not consider some cultural views and habits better than others? That the US has been a nation of immigrants doesn't logically require that we allow anyone and everyone into the country. As you just said, cultures change. Perhaps it is time we stop being a pro-immigration country and instead become far more particular about who we let in. William J Murray
StephenB: "If we ever do exclude some of them, it will be because of what they do, not what they believe." Then we are in agreement. We make the decision based on the individual and their actions, not on the religious group that they belong to. Indiana Effigy
For hruns and effigies every bandwagon is a good one. Why suddenly dislike of trans alarm clockers bandwagon? Ahead of time perhaps? After they are done burning, my silly scenario will be every day reality. BTW, hrun and effigy, don't forget your feminist meeting tonight :D Eugen
IE
Do we exclude muslims because of what some of them believe?
. If we ever do exclude some of them, it will be because of what they do, not what they believe. StephenB
Indiana Effigy: How does a country that was one of the last to ban it become the country that ended it? Abolition of slavery was a process, of course, with America, Britain and France leading the way. From Wikipedia:
One of the first protests against slavery came from German and Dutch Quakers in Pennsylvania in 1688. One of the most significant milestones in the campaign to abolish slavery throughout the world occurred in England in 1772, with British judge Lord Mansfield, whose opinion in Somersett's Case was widely taken to have held that slavery was illegal in England. This judgement also laid down the principle that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions could not be enforced in England. In 1777, Vermont, at the time an independent nation, became the first portion of what would become the United States to abolish slavery. France abolished slavery in 1794.
mike1962
hrun0815
Re #55? So one guy equates support for welcoming Muslim immigrants to supporting public defecation, underage marriage and rape while another guy equates being open to Muslim immigration to an arsonist in support to the destruction of Western culture, but it is I who derails reasonable debate?
Yes, you derailed the debate by ignoring examples (well documented) and by maligning someone with whom you disagree (well documented). You have no answer so you keep changing the subject. Why you are reluctant to debate on the merits (well documented) is a mystery.
By the way, this is the point I made earlier: if you get labeled a bigot, racist, or hater a lot you may want to consider if you aren’t a bigot, racist, or hater after all.
The reverse situation is much more common. If you have a history of labeling your adversary as a bigot, racist, or hater, you might want to consider if you aren’t motive mongering in order to avoid debate. Example: Millions disagree with the dubious policies of the current president of the United States, who happens to be black. Does that make them all racists? Of course not. Yet leftist ideologues don’t hesitate to make that charge against any individual or group if it serves their purpose? There are many more charges of white on black racism than true examples of black on white racism. Otherwise, a black man could never have been elected to the highest office. Meanwhile, you don’t hear much about black on white racism. StephenB
Eugen@79: "Say hrun and effigy attend social justice warriors meeting. After long and deep ten minutes discussion of screaming and shaming it is decided by the loudest whiner to demand a new right: it is a gender type and they want to name it trans alarm clock. We can add this gender to the list of great liberal achievements." Thank you for providing another example of ridiculous and silly hypotheticals used to defend an indefensible position. I will add it to my collection. Indiana Effigy
Re #79: Yes, awesome. That is another example how it is always the 'other side' who is blowing up reasonable debate. Your own dude only uses totally realistic and reasonable arguments. Just like how not opposing Muslim immigration is exactly the and as supporting public defecation, underage marriage, and rape. hrun0815
Andre and his hate-filled rants from 65 to 77: Did you ever think that the reason people are trying to get to Canada and the US from these regions is because they despise the human rights abuses as much as you do? Food for thought. Indiana Effigy
Say hrun and effigy attend social justice warriors meeting. After long and deep ten minutes discussion of screaming and shaming it is decided by the loudest whiner to demand a new right: it is a gender type and they want to name it trans alarm clock. We can add this gender to the list of great liberal achievements. Facebook will include it in their gender options. Media will talk about it for months because we don't have more important issues. Obama will tweet praises. Hollywood drunks and drug addicts will make epic movie about it. So far great. Questions: am I obliged to accommodate this newly invented right? If I don't will the brave social justice warriors hrun and effigy cry a Mississippi river and call me intolerant bigot? Should trans alarm clockers demand the right from government to free Energizer batteries (let's not think where they install them)? Do they get their rainbow parade financed by corporations? Eugen
IE writes,
The validity of an argument is indirectly proportional to the ridiculousness of the slippery-slope fear mongering that they use.
That's a very good line, and true. Slippery-slopeism is a symptom of dichotomous black-and-white thinking. As a friend of mine once put it (better than my paraphrase here), it's thinking that the attractors of a spectrum strongly point to the end points, not towards the middle. Slippery-slopeism is the opposite of seeing nuance and balanced perspective. Aleta
How long will you ignore this are you really prepared for what's coming? Do you even know whats coming? Perhaps you should put your ignorance aside and start learning the truth of the fate that awaits you for doing nothing. Andre
Slavery is part of Islam! http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/SaudiArabia.htm Andre
More Wifes, daughters sisters, sex slaves..... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/world/middleeast/the-islamic-state-is-forcing-women-to-be-sex-slaves.html?_r=0 Andre
Here is more... https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/blog/modern-slavery-domestic-workers-middle-east-cannot-be-tolerated What exactly are you humanists doing to remedy the situation? Please do tell? Andre
Let me be clear It is not extremist, it is the truth and always know this, you've had a hand in it with your it's all relative nonsense! Andre
Seriously would you like to go there with me so you can see with your own eyes what is going on? Can I buy you a ticket? http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/series/modern-day-slavery-in-focus+world/middleeast Andre
Re #69: Yes yes. Keep on going. Clearly I have taken a minor hypothetical point from WJM's post and blown it up completely out of proportion. It's not like people here are extremist enough to actually believe this, right? hrun0815
And? Who loved slavery more than anyone else? The Democrats.... Matter of fact they do so even today... Black people are not elevated in democratic societies... No they are pushed into ghettos and are ignored and for convenience they have a planned parenthood on every corner. Democrats keep treating them as victims instead of treating them like fellow human beings. Andre
This is not an opnion it is a fact that the worst human rights violations that occur on this planet comes from the middle east. Why don't you go on holiday to Iran, Iraq, Syria, or any of those middle eastern countries and then come back and report on the paradise you uncovered. Andre
News Flash when a republican put an end to slavery it was democrats that formed the KKK and reigned with terror. Look it up the KKK was formed by Democrats and that is the truth.
Not sure why you'd think that that's a news flash (or relevant to the discussion) but most people looked that up when doing their 5th grade homework. goodusername
Re #66: And here we have guy number three who suggests in the context of allowing or opposing Muslim immigration that one will inevitably lead to forced conversion or killing. Again, if espousing a particular opinion regularly gets you labeled as hater, racist, or bigot you might want to consider if the opinion might not warrant those labels. hrun0815
HR When Islam finally takes over the world... and it will (the average Muslim family has 7 members, The Christian 2.5 and the materialists even less). Heed these words. You will be killed if you don't convert. I am allowed to practice my religion but have to pay tax to do so. You won't be given that benefit. Enjoy what is coming to you. Your wife and daughter will become slaves for your efforts. The materialist's plead for tolarance has created all this intolerance. Don't be surprised about this, it is coming and you asked for it. Andre
And here is the avarage leftie bringing out his slavery examples.. News Flash when a republican put an end to slavery it was democrats that formed the KKK and reigned with terror. Look it up the KKK was formed by Democrats and that is the truth. Andre
Truth is relative hahahahahaha.... Materialists are awesome entertainers. Andre
Re #55: So one guy equates support for welcoming Muslim immigrants to supporting public defecation, underage marriage and rape while another guy equates being open to Muslim immigration to an arsonist in support to the destruction of Western culture, but it is I who derails reasonable debate? I see how this works now. Thanks for clarifying. By the way, this is the point I made earlier: if you get labeled a bigot, racist, or hater a lot you may want to consider if you aren't a bigot, racist, or hater after all. hrun0815
WJM@61: "Institutionalized slavery was the way of the world and virtually every culture before the USA put an end to it." How does a country that was one of the last to ban it become the country that ended it? But regardless, my point was simply that the western culture is not as pure and civilized as it thinks it is. There is much to be proud of, and much to be ashamed of. The same applies to all cultures and all religions. Do we exclude muslims because of what some of them believe? How about Hindus? Are you opposed to their entry as well? Western culture is a culture of immigration and emigration. There is no such thing as a fixed "western culture". Indiana Effigy
IE said:
Are you referring to the culture that brought us institutional slavery?
Institutionalized slavery was the way of the world and virtually every culture before the USA put an end to it. William J Murray
WJM@57: "My original point was that if someone states an opposition to certain leftist agenda points, such as illegal immigrant amnesty, open borders, transgender use of opposite sex bathrooms, same-sex marriage, etc., that is the point where they are immediately attacked and vilified using negative-emotion charged words, like “hate”, “racist”, and “bigot”, and where SJW’s parrot those accusations and carry out their intimidation tactics en masse." That depends on the rational used to oppose these issues. So far, the ones used to oppose SSM have been silly to say the least. They have included: !) it will lead to polygamy, incest and beastiality. 2) It will devalue my heterosexual marriage. 3) Same sex couples have no potential for reproduction. Every single one of these are so lame that a two year old could argue against them. The opposition, when it is distilled to its essence, is a religious one. And nobody was forcing churches to preside over SSM, or forcing any same sex couple to become married. If you want an argument to be taken seriously, don't use unsubstantiated (and ridiculous) fear mongering. "If someone is states that they are against allowing certain refugee groups into the USA, rational debate begins with asking them why they oppose it, not to immediately insist they are racist or bigoted. They may oppose it on entirely reasonable grounds – that the particular groups carry with them cultural views and behaviors that are antithetical to western culture, even dangerous to our way of life." You mean like the arguments used to keep a boat load of Jews from landing in Canada and the US and shipping them back to Europe to die? Any time someone characterizes a "group" as a whole, they are displaying a form of bigotry (Blacks are violent, Scots are cheap, Irish are drunks). "But what of the sense of discomfort and other problems felt by non-transgenders when someone who is physically the opposite sex enters an area reserved for that sex, such as bathrooms or sports teams? Are the girls in the girls bathroom not going to feel uncomfortable when a physical boy is allowed into their bathroom? Does the boy that identifies as a girl think he/she is not going to be teased or bullied by girls in the girls’ bathroom?" Since when is "discomfort" legal grounds for discrimination? Many people are "uncomfortable" around people of different races. I, personally, feel uncomfortable around very effeminate men. But that I am smart and mature enough to realize that that is my problem, not theirs. With regard to the sports teams, have you been to kids hockey, baseball, basketball, football games lately. Women have been playing alongside men in these sports at a recreational level for decades. Indiana Effigy
What?? Your negativity shows that you have some other problems. Perhaps your atheism doesn't give you much purpose to live, enjoy and see positive. What reasonable debater would focus only on negative aspects of something especially when positive outnumber the negative at least ten to one. Western civilization benefited humanity so much it cannot be listed. OTOH your liberal atheist list is not that impressive: 58 genders so far and safe spaces in schools... but unfortunately you are still working on it, el destructo! Eugen
Eugen@56: "hrun and effigy are like arsonists. They support destruction of the culture West built for centuries." Are you referring to the culture that brought us institutional slavery? The culture that brought us two world wars? The culture that dropped two atomic bombs on thousands of innocent civilians? The culture that firebombed innocent civilians? The culture that dropped cluster bombs on civilians? The culture that jailed people for homosexuality? Now who is attempting to stifle debate by labelling the dissenters as world destroyers? Nice own goal. Indiana Effigy
0812681, hrun0815 apparently doesn't understand certain conventions of speech. In my OP, I used general terms. In #11, I phrased my position thusly:
If I held the view that I do not want immigrants bringing the unacceptable aspects of their culture into the USA (like defecating in the street, or marrying underage child brides, or rape), then the SJW’s of cultural relativism will label me a bigot, or a racist, and claim I am operating from hate.
.... using the hypothetical ... 'If I..." as a substitute for a general statement about people/events in the news, as with Schilling, Trump and others. He has since focused on that particular phrasing as if I was making particular claims about my particular experience. Your assessment is correct WRT my participation here. It does not appear to me that either IE or hrun are arguing in good faith. For example, at 43 IE says:
I have still to discern what facts these are. Have any transgendered been charged with lewd behaviour in a women bathroom? Have any men passing themselves off as transgendered been charged with lewd behaviour in a women bathroom? Has anyone accused someone of being racists because they opposed public defecation, rape or polygamy?
This comment mischaracterizes the point of the OP; it is entirely irrelevant if any transgender has been criminally charged with restroom misbehavior, and it is entirely irrelevant if anyone has been called a racist for "opposing public defecation, rape or polygamy". My original point was that if someone states an opposition to certain leftist agenda points, such as illegal immigrant amnesty, open borders, transgender use of opposite sex bathrooms, same-sex marriage, etc., that is the point where they are immediately attacked and vilified using negative-emotion charged words, like "hate", "racist", and "bigot", and where SJW's parrot those accusations and carry out their intimidation tactics en masse. If someone is states that they are against allowing certain refugee groups into the USA, rational debate begins with asking them why they oppose it, not to immediately insist they are racist or bigoted. They may oppose it on entirely reasonable grounds - that the particular groups carry with them cultural views and behaviors that are antithetical to western culture, even dangerous to our way of life. There are many religions in the world that I think the teachings of which are perfectly compatible with Western culture; Islam is not one of them. Does that mean that all Muslims are incapable of assimilating into Western culture? Certainly not, but facts of the world indicate that we need to be more careful when admitting Muslims into our countries, just as we should be very concerned about admitting neo-Nazis or anarchists or people from certain countries. As far as the transgender/bathroom issue, what have transgenders been doing up until now? Quietly and discreetly using the male or female bathroom that their physical appearance mostly corresponds to. There are stalls in both men's and women's bathrooms for discretion. Perverts of any sexual/appearance persuasion will still do whatever they do regardless of the law. When IE talks about transphobic or SSM "slippey-slope" views, he's missing the point. What is the point of laws that give transgenders the right to use any bathroom they want? If we go by this:
California’s School Success and Opportunity Act, a 2013 law — the first of its kind in the nation, it requires the state’s public schools to allow trans students to use the bathrooms and play on the sports teams that correspond with their gender identities.
... then the answer is that such laws are intended to prevent bullying and the discomfort transsexuals feel when forced to use bathrooms they do not identify with, or prefent the sense of discomfort/exclusion when they are not allowed on teams that do not correspond to their physical sexual orientation. But what of the sense of discomfort and other problems felt by non-transgenders when someone who is physically the opposite sex enters an area reserved for that sex, such as bathrooms or sports teams? Are the girls in the girls bathroom not going to feel uncomfortable when a physical boy is allowed into their bathroom? Does the boy that identifies as a girl think he/she is not going to be teased or bullied by girls in the girls' bathroom? How is it fair when a physical man or girl is not only allowed on an opposite-physical-sex team, but forced by law to be allowed to play? There are real, physical differences between the sexes. What about women who feel uncomfortable when what is clearly a man is free to enter the women's public rest room? Is the discomfort of the tiny number of transgenders more important than the discomfort of the other 99.7% of the population? The law makes no sense; who is it protecting? What is it supposed to accomplish? William J Murray
hrun and effigy are like arsonists. They support destruction of the culture West built for centuries. What many wise and skillful people built over a long time, few can destroy in a blink. That doesn't take any skill. Like any low level destructive types they cannot defend their actions or in this case their worldview by reason and logic but instead adopt social justice vocabulary and techniques. These techniques are predictable: shaming, politically correct language, social media campaigns etc... Nothing impressive, just a couple of boshevik agitators. “So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over--a weary, battered old brontosaurus--and became extinct.” -- Malcolm Muggeridge Eugen
hrun0815
I showed a clear example how WJM twists the truth, erects a straw man, maligns the ‘other side’, and this is actually the cause of shutting down reasonable discourse.
No, you showed only that one or two examples of the principle are not easily defended, but others (0812681, WJM, and KF) showed that many more examples of that same principle are easily defended. Thus, WJM's theme is confirmed by the many examples that prove his point. Your decision to focus solely on the few, which you do not find persuasive, and ignore the many, which cannot be denied, indicate that you are not arguing in good faith. Indeed, your very behavior confirms WJM's theme when you pin dual labels on him as a liar and one who has a victimization problem--all in an obvious effort to shut down the discussion.
I say it again: It’s the people who lie and pretend they are being victimized who are shutting down reasonable debate.
There you go again, calling someone a liar and claiming that he is playing the victimization card, even as you refuse to argue in good faith. Your behavior, especially your reckless attributions, confirm WJM's thesis. StephenB
0812681: My brother, I hope to have cleared this up enough for you. It’s not WJM or KF that I am helping, but I am in fact helping you by trying to enlighten you with facts. " I have still to discern what facts these are. Have any transgendered been charged with lewd behaviour in a women bathroom? Have any men passing themselves off as transgendered been charged with lewd behaviour in a women bathroom? Has anyone accused someone of being racists because they opposed public defecation, rape or polygamy? The validity of an argument is indirectly proportional to the ridiculousness of the slipper-slope fear mongering that they use. In the debate about SSM, some of those opposed would argue that it would lead to polygamy, incest and beastiality. It has been the law for over a decade in Canada and polygamy, incest and beastiality are still illegal. But what do you do when the bigot label is accurate? Should we avoid using it out of fear that it might stifle debate? Or should we use it to direct the debate to the subject that is at the root of the issue? I have no problem calling the bus operators who wanted Rosa Parks to sit at the back of the bus bigots. Or the operators of the Woolworths diner who refused to serve the black teens. Or the county clerk who refused to issue a marriage licence to a same sex couple. Labeling people under these types of circumstances does not stifle debate, it focuses it where the debate should be. And a little off-topic, but I was wondering what people thought of the county clerk wrapping herself in religion to justify being a bigot. Are there any theists here who see this as a problem? And if not, why not? Indiana Effigy
Re #52: I get it now. According to you accepting Muslims into our society is equal to supporting public defecation, rape, and underage marriage. That's why I said early on you should consider if your "truths" aren't justifiably labeling you as racist, bigot or hater. I think it's awesome though that you actually spelled out what you think. It remains funny that you (and KF/WJM) claim it is the 'other side' who is responsible for ending reasonable debate. hrun0815
hrun0815 #51
Where exactly does the media, academia, or politics (or I), as asserted by WJM (and now defended by also KF and you) label WJM or anybody else of being a bigot, racist, or hater because of their opposition of inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture???
You don't seem to understand that by inviting certain people into western culture, Europe is in fact inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture. So, when people like me, WJM and KF voiced their opposition of inviting muslims into western culture, we have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater. And yes, we would be making generalisations about muslims if we said that all muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage are okay, because this is obviously not true. We are well aware of that. But it is a fact, that certain muslims think these things are okay, because of their backward culture. When people like me, WJM and KF are trying to point this out, we have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater. Not for our opposition of inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture(I agree with you here) but but because of our opposition of inviting a backward culture that is the root cause of these things. So, what WJM and KF are trying to so say is that people have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater, by the media, academia and politicians, for voicing their opposition of inviting a backward culture that is the root cause of why certain muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage are okay. And that's the very thing leftists/liberals in the media, academia and politics, consider to be racism, bigotry and hate-speech. Just as I pointed out in the examples I gave you in #48 and #49 It's because of political correctness that many people refuse to admit that the root cause of why certain muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage to be okay, lies in their backward culture. So, instead admitting this very fact, they are labeling people who disagree with them a racist, bigot or hater. And that's very thing the orginal subject of this thread is about. In light of the facts presented to you (in #48 #49), it would be reasonable to change your viewpoint (see quote here underneath), that you voiced at the beginning of this discussion.
#2 hrun0815 Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your “truths” aren’t in fact hate speech after all. Just some food for thought.
If you still refuse to change your viewpoint above, regardless of the facts presented to you, then your are being unreasonable. So, that would be the end of reasonable debate. My brother, I hope to have cleared this up enough for you. It's not WJM or KF that I am helping, but I am in fact helping you by trying to enlighten you with facts. Don't let yourself be indoctrinated by mainstream media or political correctness. Read this >>>>>> http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/08/how-to-escape-the-age-of-mass-delusion/ It will help you. Take care, bro. 0812681 0812681
Re #48-50: Where exactly does the media, academia, or politics (or I), as asserted by WJM (and now defended by also KF and you) label WJM or anybody else of being a bigot, racist, or hater because of their opposition of inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture??? You said you did the dirt work for WJM and KF and you claimed that I am willfully ignorant, right? So don't be afraid. Show your work! Or add yourself to the list of people who love to play victims by setting up srawmen, support them with lies, and this effectively attempt to shit down rational discourse-- the very thing the 'other side' stands accused of. You may note, by the way, that I do not excuse either side of unfair debating techniques or attempting to shut down debate by cast over generalizations. It's just funny that the guy who decried this state of affairs from one side gets IMMEDIATELY caught doing the very same thing and instead of owning up to it starts tap dancing around AND gets immediate support from his side in his dancing efforts. This is just absolutely classic. hrun0815
hrun0815 #46 I did. I showed a clear example how WJM twists the truth, erects a straw man, maligns the ‘other side’, and this is actually the cause of shutting down reasonable discourse. He then had two reasonable ways to deal with this: admit this fact and try better or show how I am wrong. Of course he did neither. And KF jumped right in and also did neither. I say it again: It’s the people who lie and pretend they are being victimized who are shutting down reasonable debate.
In my posts #48 and 49# I just showed you are are wrong. So, I did WJM's and KF's dirty work for them. For them you are just another internet troll of many that have come by here at UD. That's just the way how it looks to me, but I cannot speak for WJM and KF, though. It's rather because of you being (willingly) ignorant, that you don't see the obvious they are trying to point out, and that's why you falsely deem it to be strawmen or twisting of the truth on their part. To me it's obvious what they are pointing out wrt leftist/liberals, because I have personnaly experienced these leftists/liberals-debate-tactics being used against me on mutiple occasions. 0812681
@ hrun0815 #46 No, my guess is that they think you are (willingly) ignorant or applying ostrich policy, because most leftists/liberals do so, regardless of the facts (that are/might be presented to them). The video in the link underneath shows a pretty good example of such behaviour.
Michael Moore and the "We Are All Muslim" Campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O3aahmWSl4 Documentary filmmaker and author Michael Moore recently began his "We Are All Muslim" campaign against Donald Trump. But is the claim that all people are Muslims consistent with the Qur'an? As David Wood demonstrates in this video, by insisting that we are all Muslim, Michael Moore has insulted both Allah and Muhammad. According to Islam, being a Muslim requires full submission.
I think that WJM and KF do not realise how ignorant you are about these problems with leftist/liberals wich they have pointed out in their comments. Or maybe they are astonished by your ignorance, like I am. So, it could well be that they are tired of dealing with ignorant people like you, and don't bother anymore to take time to enlighten them, because many ignorant people have come and gone here at UD through the years. It takes a lots of patience to deal with people who are (willingly) ignorant or who apply ostrich policy, you know ;) 0812681
@ hrun # 16
Why don’t you go ahead and find an example where the media, politics, or academia labels opposition to each one of those three example you listed in your post as racism, bigotry, or hate-speech? Go ahead, I’ll be right here waiting.
Well, here you have a few, bro'! I suggest you pull your head out of your ass.
Criticizing Islam Now a Thought Crime! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfBXxsxKbso Political party leader Paul Weston was arrested by police and faces up to two years in jail for criticizing the religion of Islam during a public speech in the United Kingdom. Weston's "racially aggravated" hate crime consisted of him quoting Winston Churchill. Weston's arrest reveals the chilling implementation of thought crime in Britain and how political correctness is being used as a weapon with which to destroy the edifice of freedom of speech across the western world. http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/winchester-churchill-quotation-gets-liberty-gb-leader-paul-weston-arrested
WATCH – Geert Wilders’s Opening Statement To Court During ‘Hate Speech’ Trial http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/22/read-geert-wilderss-opening-statement-to-court-during-hate-speech-trial/ ..... I did not say “All Moroccans must leave the country” or “Moroccans are no good,” but I advocated “fewer Moroccans”. Because that is my opinion, that is what I want, and what many millions of Dutch want together with me. The Public prosecutor is trying to catch me, but he is selectively shopping. If I would have advocated fewer Syrians, then I would not be standing here today. Or I would not stand here alone, but together with Prime Minister Rutte and almost all the government leaders in Europe. Because today they all want to get fewer Syrians. The Public Prosecution is also applying double standards. And there are many examples of this. How quiet was it when, earlier, politicians from the Labor Party spoke about Moroccan c*nts (Mr Oudkerk), about humiliating Moroccans (Mr Spekman) and about Moroccan boys who have an ethnic monopoly on nuisance (Mr. Samson). Why were they not being prosecuted? And how quiet was it when a Turkish member of the Dutch Parliament (Mr Öztürk) compared me with a tumor and said “One has to fight him,” and likened me to Hitler. Where were the mayors then who spoke shame of it and led processions of people going to press charges? ......
Arab feminist defends writer accused of fueling Islamophobia with “sexual misery” Op-Ed http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/03/07/arab-feminist-defends-writer-accused-of-fueling-islamophobia-with-sexual-misery-op-ed/ Acclaimed Algerian writer Kamel Daoud provoked a global media firestorm earlier this year, when he described the Cologne New Year’s Eve assaults as evocative of the “sexual misery” of the Arab-Muslim world and its “sick relationship” with women and their bodies. In a collective column in Le Monde on February 11, what his supporters depicted as a “cabal” of 19 mostly Paris and western university-based academics condemned Daoud — raised Muslim and living in North Africa — for fueling what they termed “Islamophobia,” that played into the hands of anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe and the worst “Orientalist” and “culturalist clichés” about Muslims and Islam.
School slams student for not professing Islam http://onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2016/01/30/school-slams-student-for-not-professing-islam “[John and Melissa Wood] refuse[d] to allow their teenage daughter to be subjected to Islamic indoctrination and propaganda in her high school world history class,” the prosecuting attorneys state in their suit. “[The school’s] curriculum, practices, policies, actions, procedures, and customs promote the Islamic faith by requiring students to profess the five pillars if Islam. [Students were required to] write out and confess the shahada, the Islamic profession of faith.” ..... “The school ultimately refused to allow the Woods’ daughter to opt-out of the assignments, forcing her to either violate her faith by pledging to Allah or receive zeros for the assignments,” they contest in the complaint. “Together, John Kevin Wood, Melissa Wood, and their daughter chose to remain faithful to God and refused to complete the assignments, even though failing grades would harm her future admission to college and her opportunities to obtain college scholarships.”
Islam like Nazis is a no-no, but conservatives likened to ISIS OK http://onenewsnow.com/media/2015/11/02/islam-like-nazis-is-a-no-no-but-conservatives-likened-to-isis-ok Dan Gainor, vice president for business and culture at the Media Research Center, says the sports network has a double standard when it comes to disciplining its personalities. He points to the recent conversation Tony Kornheiser had with Huffington Post's Howard Fineman on a local ESPN sports radio show. They were talking about the tea party movement in the context of voting for the new speaker of the House, and an offensive remark from Kornheiser went without reprimand. "Tony Kornheiser responded and said, Are they like ISIS trying to establish a Caliphate here?” Gainor notes. “They suspended Kurt Schilling from ESPN for making what was a 100-percent accurate comparison of radical Islam to Nazis. And according to the New York Times, it is unlikely that Kurt Schilling is going to get his job back."
You want more? 0812681
from http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/videos/fox-news-politely-destroys-the-right-favorite-anti-transgender-myth/
On Sunday, Fox News’ own Chris Wallace blew up the premise behind the numerous Republican “Bathroom Bills” by pointing out the emperor had no clothes. After conservative columnist Ben Domenech spouted the ridiculous claim that men would pretend to be transgender women to peek at little girls in the bathroom, Wallace dropped an atomic truth bomb: We actually tried to find out whether it is a public safety issue,” the Fox News host explained. “Whether it is a problem with transgender people misusing bathrooms to prey on others.” Wallace noted that PolitiFact had looked into the issue and found that there was no known “instance of criminals convicted of using transgender protections as cover in the United States.” “This seems to be a solution in search of a problem,” he concluded.
Aleta
Re #44: I did. I showed a clear example how WJM twists the truth, erects a straw man, maligns the 'other side', and this is actually the cause of shutting down reasonable discourse. He then had two reasonable ways to deal with this: admit this fact and try better or show how I am wrong. Of course he did neither. And KF jumped right in and also did neither. I say it again: It's the people who lie and pretend they are being victimized who are shutting down reasonable debate. hrun0815
Looking at the content of their posts, it seems to me that hrun and Indiana Effigy have been living with heads up their asses last couple of years. They are acting like Theodore Dalrymple doesn't know what he's talking about. I wonder if they even bothered to check him out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple ....who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple, is an English writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist. ...... In his writing, Daniels frequently argues that the liberal and progressive views prevalent within Western intellectual circles minimise the responsibility of individuals for their own actions and undermine traditional mores, contributing to the formation within prosperous countries of an underclass afflicted by endemic violence, criminality, sexually transmitted diseases, welfare dependency, and drug abuse. Much of Dalrymple's writing is based on his experience of working with criminals and the mentally ill. The writer has been described as a pessimist. In 2010, Daniel Hannan wrote that Dalrymple's work "takes pessimism about human nature to a new level. Yet its tone is never patronising, shrill or hectoring. Once you get past the initial shock of reading about battered wives, petty crooks and junkies from a non-Left perspective, you find humanity and pathos".
0812681
Well, some threadjacking going on here. How about commenting on original subject of this thread? 0812681
"StephenB@35: "Did it ever occur to you that there are perverse males who can claim to identify as women so that they can practice their perversity?" What's to stop them from doing that now? Oh yah! THE LAW!! Someone who enters a bathroom for the purpose of abusing children, or acting lewdly, regardless of their legal right to be there, is breaking the law. Transgendered have been using the bathrooms of the gender they associate with for decades. Can you provide me with any stats on the number of incidents that have been reported of them doing anything untoward other than using one of the stalls? No? Why do you think that is? Is it possible that this is because they do not pose any risk? Indiana Effigy
Nobody should be exposing their genitals to someone who doesn't welcome that exposure, and certainly not to a child. This doesn't seem to me to be a specifically transgender issue: anyone who does expose their genitals to unwilling people is going to be breaking some sort of law. For what it's worth, most men are pretty restrained about exposing their genitals to other men in the restroom, and of course women have stalls so the issue doesn't even come up. Aleta
StephenB@30: "What about those who are maligned as “transphobes” because they think a grown man should not expose himself to a little girl in the restroom on the grounds that he doesn’t identify with his own genitals?" Provide me with an example where someone is called a transphobe because they think that a man shouldn't expose himself to a young girl in a restroom and then I will answer your stupid hypothetical. Indiana Effigy
Ok, thanks for clearing up the issue of multiple use restrooms for both sexes - I didn't think that was something anyone was seriously proposing. So I think that my statement that no one see's anyones genitals in a women's restroom is accurate, so the issue of a little girl just being exposed to a penis as people go about their business in the restroom doesn't seem to be a problem. Now there is a problem with the potential for adults in restrooms to sexually harass children, and I think that is a possible problem for non-transgender people also. I've certainly seen people in restrooms who made me uncomfortable, and I'd feel even more so, perhaps, about a boy going in there alone. But I think the chances are small that someone who is genitally male but appears as a woman is going to go into the women's restroom because they are sexually interested in the women or children in there. In fact, it is much more likely that there are lesbian women in women's restrooms than there are transgender women. So really the problem is sexual predation, and especially of children, which we need to guard against and prosecute irrespective of which gender and in which bathroom they are. Aleta
Aleta: "You mean restrooms that both men and women use at the same time?" Well, no, I guess not. What I am objecting to is the proposition that a biological man should be allowed to use a women's restroom (which, by definition, allows for multiple occupancy--and indecent exposure). A male predator can certainly abuse that environment for purposes of sexual harassment, and be covered by the law on the grounds that he identifies as something else. Also, I am suggesting that anyone who accuses me of being a "transphobe" for holding that position is out of order? Would you agree on both counts? StephenB
@ Indiana Effigy
IE #7 All of this argument over truth yet what we consider to be truth is different in different cultures and different religions. And over time within the same cultures.
That's funny, basically your are saying ''truth is relative'' or ''there is no truth''. When somebody says ''truth is relative/there is no truth'' I always ask that person "Is that true?" > If he answers ''yes'', then he is contradicting himself. > If he answers ''no'', then by default he is admitting that there is (absolute) truth. So, it's a selfdefeating statement/argument. If you fail the see the logical consequences of your own fallacy, wich I just pointed out above, then there is no point in talking with you. Because then you could argue about the (non)truthfulness of anything. Like, the reality of you reading these words. Or, another example, like someone from Saudi Arabia could say, it is not true at your nickname here is Indiana Effigy, cause I consider it to be ygiffE anaidnI, because in arabic they write/read from right to left. People who apply your way of reasoning would create (or are already creating) dysfunctional societies and familes, because they ignore absolute truths. let's apply your way of reasoning to mathematics. Let's say, you are in Italy, you pay with a €100 bill to buy a €5 pizza, but you get don't get €95 in return, because they have a different truth in Italy when it comes to mathematics. In a case like that, would you still say ''in my culture mathematical truth is different, but I don't want to argue what we consider to be truth'' ? I arrest my case. Anyway, it was nice doing business with you ;) 0812681
Stephen writes,
We are discussing Men/Women restrooms, not Women’s restrooms.
You mean restrooms that both men and women use at the same time? In that case, won't it be the case that the men will be "exposing themselves" to the women whenever they use the urinals. There could be no trans people involved at all, and you'd have this problem. And WJM had written,
Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone a bigot if they disagree with the idea that biological men should be allowed into the ladies bathroom?
It was this remark about ladies bathroom that prompted my statement about there being no urinals. Aleta
Aleta --"But I’ve pointed out that women’s restrooms only have stalls, not urinals, so that wouldn’t happen. Nobody exposes their genitals in a women’s restroom." Irrelevant. We are discussing Men/Women restrooms, not Women's restrooms. So, back to the theme. Should I be maligned as a "transphobe" for holding my point of view? If so, doesn't that shut down any possibility of a good faith argument? Doesn't that make persuasion impossible? Isn't that the point of the name calling--to intimidate and avoid any semblance of a rational exchange of ideas. StephenB
And it should be added that up till now transgender folks generally use the bathroom appropriate for their appearance.
Did it ever occur to you that there are perverse males who can claim to identify as women so that they can practice their perversity? Meanwhile, you have totally abandoned your argument. How about addressing my questions @30? StephenB
I think it helpful to remember that toilet usage has changed over time. From the Biblical Archaeology Society, An Expert’s Take on Toilet History and Customs from Antiquity to the Renaissance:
The change in attitude with regard to the custom of going to the toilet in all privacy as we now know only happened after the decisions of the Council of Trent (1545–1563) were turned into regulation, which accounted for a lot of changes with regard to customs related to the body, but [these regulations] were not put into action overnight. Customs which had prevailed for thousands of years apparently do not change so easily. The Biblical passage you refer to [Judges 3:15–25] seems to me to fit into the Roman custom, which lasted well into the 16th century in Europe. Especially as the Romans adopted a lot of Greek customs and presumably they were not so different from other people living in the eastern Mediterranean area. And wasn’t Bathsheba bathing in full view to King David [2 Samuel 11:2], [and] Susanna watched by the Elders [Susanna (Chapter 13 of the Greek version of Daniel):7–8]? There was not such a difference between bathing and the toilet.
rhampton7
But are those types of restrooms used by more than one person at a time? I have never seen a restroom where both men and women could go in and use multiple facilities at the same time. And if there were such a restroom, then the vast majority of people peeing in the urinal would be non-trans men, so if you took a little girl in there that's what she would see. So, assuming the virtually all multiple people restrooms are either men's or woman's, I think my analysis in 28 is correct: no one will ever see. Aleta
Aleta:
What would a little girl be doing in a restroom with a urinal in it? Only men’s restrooms have urinals.
A one size fits all restroom may have urinals, and may not have stalls. Also, you are avoiding the other component of the argument. Why should I be maligned (or has some have been, fired--yes fired) as a "transphobe" for holding my point of view. StephenB
Stephen, you write that,
a grown man should not expose himself to a little girl in the restroom on the grounds that he doesn’t identify with his own genitals.
But I've pointed out that women's restrooms only have stalls, not urinals, so that wouldn't happen. Nobody exposes their genitals in a women's restroom. Aleta
hrun0815
KF, then why don’t you put up examples where WJM or anybody else was maligned as bigot, racist, or hater for opposing public defecation, rape, or underage marriage.
Why don't you address the examples of injustice that have already been put on the table? What about those who are called racist for simply advocating a border wall? What about those who are targeted for a jail sentence because they persist as "climate skeptics." What about those who are maligned as "transphobes" because they think a grown man should not expose himself to a little girl in the restroom on the grounds that he doesn't identify with his own genitals? StephenB
Re #28: And it should be added that up till now transgender folks generally use the bathroom appropriate for their appearance. As you say, female-looking transgender who nevertheless have a penis were using stalls in the women's room while male-appearing transgender with female anatomy were using stalls in the men's room. So the only thing that the bathroom laws are changing is to (deep ding on the particulars of the law) force some transgender people into bathrooms that don't match their outward appearance. hrun0815
If a trans woman with a penis goes into a women's bathroom, she will use a stall, because that's all there is. If a trans man with women's genitals goes into a men's restroom, he will use a stall cause he couldn't pee standing up anyway. So it's all going to be behind closed doors, and no one will ever know either way. Aleta
What would a little girl be doing in a restroom with a urinal in it? Only men's restrooms have urinals. Aleta
Indiana Effigy Do you agree with me that a man should not be permitted to enter a restroom and use the urinal when a little girl is present? Or, do you, like the thought police, hold that anyone who holds such archaic views should be dafamed for being a "transphobe" and that a man should be permitted to expose himself to a child on the grounds that he identifies himself as a woman. StephenB
KF, then why don't you put up examples where WJM or anybody else was maligned as bigot, racist, or hater for opposing public defecation, rape, or underage marriage. Either by me or by (as WJM claims) media, politics, or academia. If you can, then uou can soundly prove me wrong and maybe your post #24 is spot on. If not, then you are simply propping up WJM's dishonest attempt to play the victim, malign the other side, and attempt to put an end to reasonable debate. hrun0815
IE and HR, I think it is very unwise in the long run for your side to so often (and frequently as a first resort) project base motivations and strawmannish constructions on those who differ or question. There is something called blowback after all. KF kairosfocus
WJM: "Do you agree it is irresponsible and detrimental to debate to shame or parrot shaming terminology and accusations without first having a fair hearing, reasonable debate and a good understanding of what it is one is attempting to shame?" Not always. Sometimes it speeds up the debate, or the enforcement of existing laws. We had the date over gay rights and SSM long ago. Just because the debate didn't go your way doesn't mean it was stifled. Shaming was the only way to stop people like the county clerk from violating someone's legal rights. "Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call a position “racist” if you want to build a border wall in order to better keep security threats out?" Yes. But do you think it is racist to pay illegal immigrants less than minimum wage, creating a huge demand for illegal immigrants, and then blame the problem on the illegal immigrants rather than the employers who are breaking the law? "Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone “anti-science” simply because they are skeptical of certain supposedly consensus science views?" Depends on the circumstance. When someone misrepresents the science, as is common with many ID proponents and climate change opponents, then no, it is not irresponsible. But I prefer to deal with them on a case by case basis rather than paint all people who oppose my views with the same brush, as the title of your OP does. "Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone a bigot if they disagree with the idea that biological men should be allowed into the ladies bathroom?" When they disagree because they think that transsexuals are deviants and put women at risk, no. They are bigots. If they can back it up with the hundreds of incidents of transsexuals abusing women in women's washrooms, then they are not bigots. Unfortunately, there is no history of this. And don't pretend that this is because transsexuals have not been using women's bathrooms. They have been doing it for decades. Indiana Effigy
No case my previous post is not clear enough: I am asserting that you are simply making random stuff up. Nobody is labeled racist, bigot, or hater for opposing public defecation, underage marriage, or rape. The reason why you make this stuff up is so you can paint yourself as a victim and others as the folks who are sabotaging reasonable debate. Yet, it is you, with your lies, who is sabotaging reasonable debate. Clear enough? You know what to do in order to show that you are not lying. hrun0815
WJM, it looks like you forget to put up examples where media, politics, academia, or I labeled you racist, bigoted, or a hater because you oppose public defecation, rape, or underage marriage. I'm sure you'll get to that any minute now, right? If not, I'm sure that everybody following the thread will take this as a clear indication who is actually sabotaging reasonable debate. hrun0815
Indiana Effigy: I said:
But what part of shaming, attacking and ruining the lives of those with dissenting views without any fair hearing or reasonable debate conforms to any of those definitions?
Do you agree it is irresponsible and detrimental to debate to shame or parrot shaming terminology and accusations without first having a fair hearing, reasonable debate and a good understanding of what it is one is attempting to shame? Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call a position "racist" if you want to build a border wall in order to better keep security threats out? Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone "anti-science" simply because they are skeptical of certain supposedly consensus science views? Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone a bigot if they disagree with the idea that biological men should be allowed into the ladies bathroom? -------------------------------- hrun0815: I said:
You just did this very thing – attempted to marginalized/negatively characterize me for expressing my view that such cultural habits should not be invited to the West.
hrun0815 asks:
You are simply deluded. Where did I do that?
In #13, where you said:
Oh what a great example. In fact it shows perfectly that you have a victimization complex and are just full of it. It turns out that even though numerous immigrants come from India where public defecation is an issue, here it is neither practiced nor tolerated. Also, it shows to everybody into what kinda pretzel you have to twist your world view just so you can stick with being the victim.
I expressed my view that I am against tolerating certain cultural norms being imported via refugees or immigrants, and even though you have now agreed that those behaviors should not be tolerated, you still had to negatively characterize me as having to "twist my world view like a pretzel so I see myself as a victim". I don't see myself as a "victim"; what I see is honest debate being destroyed by an increasingly intolerant leftist narrative that operates through intimidation tactics and deceitfully applied, emotionally charged labels. William J Murray
You just did this very thing – attempted to marginalized/negatively characterize me for expressing my view that such cultural habits should not be invited to the West.?
You are simply deluded. Where did I do that? Not once did I attack you for opposing 'public defecation', 'rape', or 'underage marriage'. If it makes you feel better, I am against all three things. Yet, you claim that because you hold this views I supposedly attempted to marginalize you and that you are being labeled a bigot, racist, or hater. If so, show me where I have done so! And show me where media, academia, or politics labeled people that oppose 'public defecation', 'rape', or 'underage marriage' a bigot, racist, or hater. Put up or admit that you are simply playing victim. hrun0815
WJM@11: "But what part of shaming, attacking and ruining the lives of those with dissenting views without any fair hearing or reasonable debate conforms to any of those definitions?" You do realize that Rosa Parks used shaming of those with dissenting views. As did the black teens at the Woolworths counter. Don't underestimate the role of shaming in getting the debate started. It is great at pointing to the irrationality of an existing law, or cultural norm. The recent examples (eg the county clerk who refused to issue a SSM licence, or the florists or bakers who refused to provide services because of the sexual orientation of the clients) used shaming to bring the rediculousness of these actions to the forefront and ensure that everyone was aware that religious freedoms do not extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation. This has not stopped or stifled debate on the subject. You just have to watch Fox or check the Internet. The debate on SSM and homosexual rights is very active and vibrant. What shaming does is ensure that illegal discrimination on these grounds is not tolerated. If you want to change the laws, you are well within your rights to make the attempt. But don't cry "conspiracy" when you are unable to do so. The examples of people being fired for voicing their opinions on something is not always as black and white as you suggest. Many on-air personalities have contracts with their employer that cover what they say in public. In many cases, the celebrity Twitter and Facebook accounts are owned by the broadcaster and fall under their employment agreement. Whether they like it or not, on-air celebrities are legally bound to follow the code of conduct when they speak in public or use social media. What must be remembered is that they agreed to this in writing. Shame has always been part of the justice system. It may not be ideal, or even always just, but it is very effective. Indiana Effigy
Hrun0815 said:
And you honestly believe that this is an attempt at honest debate?
I asked you if you were also against those things, and if you agreed that attacking those with opposing views without any meaningful dialogue was irresponsible; you responded by attacking me and attempting to characterize me negatively. My attempt at honest debate was to ask you questions first to see what your position was; your response was to attempt to negatively characterize me and marginalize my views.
Why don’t you go ahead and find an example where the media, politics, or academia labels opposition to each one of those three example you listed in your post as racism, bigotry, or hate-speech? Go ahead, I’ll be right here waiting.
You just did this very thing - attempted to marginalized/negatively characterize me for expressing my view that such cultural habits should not be invited to the West. And that was not the point; the point is that an expressed opposition to illegal immigration or shipping in in middle-eastern refugees is immediately labeled as bigotry or racism by SJW's without any debate about the particular issues I brought up. From here:
Despite the obvious free speech concerns, UCLA’s undergraduate student government unanimously passed a resolution last week to declare that any use of the term “illegal immigrant” is now deemed racist and offensive.
Gov. Terry McAuliffe called Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's comments about Muslims immigration [putting a temporary ban on muslim immigration from the middle east] “sad, hateful speech.” Why is it "sad" or "hateful" to consider at least temporarily halting the influx of immigrants from cultures that appear dedicated to infiltrating and destroying us and who appear to have no intention of adopting our culture or Western ideals? Do you not think it is wise to stem the flow of refugees or immigrants from cultures that are antagonistic towards our way of life, or are from cultures that embrace behaviors that are contrary to our own, at least to the point that we can more seriously and fully vet such immigrants? If you keep refusing to answer questions and instead insist on negatively characterizing me, or issuing ultimatums that if I don't obey that will prove something about me, you're only demonstrating my point - that rational debate is dead. Why won't you answer my rather simple questions in #9? Here are some more: is it racist to use the term "illegal immigrant"? Is it wrong to call "Jihad" wrong? Is it wrong to bar muslims who believe in Jihad and Sharia Law from entering countries in the west? Should the west's borders be entirely open to whomever wishes to cross them? Is it bigoted for a state to pass a law stating that you must use the restroom that corresponds to the gender of your birth? William J Murray
There is no debating those who only seek to ridicule and humiliate.
WJM, it was you, who as the first example of his post, brought forth that supposedly the opposition to defecation in publish would get you labeled as racist, bigot, or hater. The other examples are opposing underage marriage and rape. And you honestly believe that this is an attempt at honest debate? Why don't you go ahead and find an example where the media, politics, or academia labels opposition to each one of those three example you listed in your post as racism, bigotry, or hate-speech? Go ahead, I'll be right here waiting. And trust me, if you can't bring up some actual cases for the three examples listed in your post #11 then it will be clear that there is no need for me to ridicule or humiliate you. You will have done so yourself.
Leftists outraged as European pools restrict migrants amid reports of rape, assault and public defecation
You know that this link doesn't actually support your claims, right? hrun0815
Andre@8: "That is the biggest difference in our worldview. For materialists it is about the group, or the nation for a Christian it is about the individual." An incorrect generalization on both parts, but let's work with it. For the materialist, it is about the group and its ability to persist over time. To do so, it must establish rules (truths, if you will) that allow it to do so. And, with no surprise, not killing, not stealing, defending the young, etc. appear to be fairly universal as a result. Christianity is only about the individual as it pertains to how an individual should live his life. Things like don't kill, don't steal, defend the young, etc. Don't you find it strange that they come up with many of the same "truths" as a materialist society would. Except for those silly restrictions on questioning the deity. Indiana Effigy
Note that hrun0815 refuses to answer any of the questions I posed to him/her in #9 & #11, but instead attempts to characterize me negatively as suffering from some sort of "victimization status". And that's the whole point of marxist propaganda - to negatively characterize, to ridicule, to humiliate and to marginalize instead of actually engaging rational debate or civilized dialogue. There is no debating those who only seek to ridicule and humiliate. hrun said:
It turns out that even though numerous immigrants come from India where public defecation is an issue, here it is neither practiced nor tolerated.
Leftists outraged as European pools restrict migrants amid reports of rape, assault and public defecation The point I made, which you seem to have entirely ignore, is that if I express my view that such cultural habits are bad and should not be allowed, I will be attacked by leftists and ridiculed for that view ... which is exactly what you did. Are you against allowing cultural immigrants to come to the west and practice Sharia law? Or to treat women as possessions without rights? Or to rape women out at night, or molest children? Are you against allowing public defecation? I assume you are indeed against those things; why then attack those who argue against allowing easy immigration into the west people from such cultures? Do you think those people are going to magically adopt our culture? Do you see that going on in Europe? William J Murray
Re #11: Oh what a great example. In fact it shows perfectly that you have a victimization complex and are just full of it. It turns out that even though numerous immigrants come from India where public defecation is an issue, here it is neither practiced nor tolerated. Also, it shows to everybody into what kinda pretzel you have to twist your world view just so you can stick with being the victim. And this is what you believe represents 'truth'? And, to top it all off, this brilliant example comes on the heels of your own headline decrying the end of reasonable debate. The irony! :) hrun0815
HR, there are always conspiracies [massively plural], there is always manipulation, there are always ambitious agendas in a community. Too often, such amount to a march of blinded rage and folly of lemmings led by wolves in sheep's or shepherd's clothing, headed over the cliff. Hence Machiavelli's hard bitten point that political disorders are like hectic fever; at the first easy to cure but hard to diagnose and so when at length for want of prompt diagnosis and proper treatment the course of the disease becomes manifest to all it is far too late to cure. And it is my dad who explicitly taught that to me, many years past, as a national and regional policy thinker and technical leader. Where also, in my faith tradition (which happens to be foundational to our civilisation . . . as in Pauline-Augustinian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome), there is a key historical example and warning of what can happen with democratic consensus under such influences, Ac 27. In contrast, we have soundness, soundness of reason, of knowledge, of morality. Where, a pivotal component of soundness is truth, correspondence of what is said or suggested with reality. Just so Aristotle -- that redneck ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked Bible-thumping Right wing, theocratic Creationist and Fundy . . . NOT -- in Metaphysics 1011b (2300 years ago) aptly defined truth: that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. I defy you to come up with a sounder precise, short and apt description . . . definition . . . of what truth is. Where, too, as the sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears -- a point literally written into my name and also inscribed in martyr's blood over the door of my homeland's parliament -- those who dismiss, reject or neglect them doom themselves to pay the same price again and again, often at ruinous cost. I put it to you, sir, that our civilisation has begun to cut itself off from its roots. Instead, it has begun to listen to the long running siren song of evolutionary materialism (it was already old in Plato's day) -- latterly, dressed up in a lab coat, it used to wear philosopher's robes -- and it has dismissed the foundations of reason, truth and morality. Just as Plato warned us against 2350 years ago. The direct consequence of such, is that we are left in the hands of those who have largely usurped control of the commanding heights of community influence and are ruthlessly playing the nihilistic game: might and manipulation make 'right' and 'truth' and 'consensus' and 'good strategy/policy' etc. Our civilisation is becoming increasingly suicidally insane, out of touch with reality. Little Red Riding Hood, look at yourself in the deadly mirror of the wolf's eye! (Never mind, he is dressed in Grandma's clothes and is lying in her bed, that does not change the fact of wolfish nature.) Now, above, I have already pointed to the dynamics of change and silencing that can oh so easily be used by the ruthless to impose folly which seems to serve their agendas. (Let us just say that when I had to deal with rescuing victims of manipulative cults, Schein's thought was a key insight. Notice his context of how the Chinese Communists tried to reprogram a whole society and what they did to achieve that goal. Not without some significant success, though in the aftermath of the so-called Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution of the Red Guards, the cost was ruinous. China has recovered after a generation of sounder policies, but that was at a cost of what 70 mn lives or more.) In further answer, I point out that in AD 59, mid October, it should have been plain to all on abundant experience and history that sailing out late in the year was ill advised. But Mr Moneybags was not happy with the port for his ship and cargo. His technico, the kubernete knew who buttered his bread. The passengers were unhappy with the rusticity of the nearby town and wanted a more comfortable port to winter in. So -- never mind that IDiot in chains (who had by then survived three shipwrecks) saying that the risk was not reasonable to gain the rewards of an easy afternoon's sailing -- the democratic majority decision was, if a suitable wind comes up, we sail for the next port 40 miles away. Soon enough, a sweet little south wind came up. Technico was not about to say, this is often a precursor to a nor'easter. Playing the risky game. They set sail, and were maybe half way when just such a nor'easter hit them with typhonic force. And after a nightmare fortnight, they were glad to shipwreck on it seems the north side (possibly the east end) of Malta. Of course that same despised IDiot in chains was the one who had to spot the ruse the technical folks were taking to abandon the helpless passengers to their fate. That is the difference between manipulated march of folly driven pseudo-consensus and sound decision making, in a democratic context. A lesson of history. Coming from the most common book in our civilisation, from 2000 years ago. Will we wake up and heed it, or will we have to go over the cliff and break our backs before we will be willing to listen? On long track record of the stubbornness of such marches of folly, I doubt that we will listen to soundness until it is too late or almost too late. Hence, the bite of Machiavelli's counsel. So, now, I suggest to you that appeal to the 'consensus' of a march of folly is trumped by the back-breaking force of foundational reality at the foot of the cliffs. (And I come from a country that broke its back through just such a mad march over a cliff in the heady days of socialist progressivism. And cultural marxism is little more than repackaging of the same.) I further suggest to you that our civilisation is headed for the cliffs. Again. KF kairosfocus
If I held the view that I do not want immigrants bringing the unacceptable aspects of their culture into the USA (like defecating in the street, or marrying underage child brides, or rape), then the SJW's of cultural relativism will label me a bigot, or a racist, and claim I am operating from hate. How can cultural relativists proclaim my cultural perspective wrong in the first place? What does "justice" mean to economic, environmental or social justice "warriors"? "Justice" means, from Merriam Webster:
a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : judge c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity 2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c : the quality of conforming to law 3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness
But what part of shaming, attacking and ruining the lives of those with dissenting views without any fair hearing or reasonable debate conforms to any of those definitions? None. That's because SJW's do not fight for "justice" at all; nor can they be anything but hypocrites if they are cultural relativists. If one culture is not truthfully better than another, what truth-based ideal or law would the warriors be fighting to achieve? What truth-based principle would validate and authorize their shaming and intimidation? William J Murray
Some Cultures Are Better Than Others (Fair warning: be careful who is in earshot while watching that video. NSFW or children.) Some things we know are wrong, whether it's part of someone's culture or not. Besides, if cultural relativism is true, then what exactly is the argument against patriarchy, imperialism, slavery, or theocracy based on? William J Murray
hrun0815, Do you agree that in order to properly discuss what is true one must employ reason, facts and evidence? Do you agree that believing a position or action to be based on "hate" or "racism" or "bigotry" simply because figures of cultural authority characterize it as such is a poor policy? And that those who simply parrot and attempt to enforce those characterizations via intimidation, shaming, etc. are acting irrespoonsibly? Indiana Effigy, Just because different cultures believe different things are true doesn't mean there is no truth to be found to discern between them. If you have given up on the idea that actual truth exists and humans can understand it as such, then you've abandoned reasoned debate for rhetoric and manipulation. William J Murray
Yes and a few like HR's is nothing more than might makes right and one of the fundamental differences between a Christian and a materialist. The materialist is happy if something makes the majority happy the Christian on the other hand will say "Even if something might make the majority happy we can't do it as it is unjust" That is the biggest difference in our worldview. For materialists it is about the group, or the nation for a Christian it is about the individual. Andre
All of this argument over truth yet what we consider to be truth is different in different cultures and different religions. And over time within the same cultures. Indiana Effigy
HR: [ "Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your “truths” aren’t in fact hate speech after all." ] KF: [ HR, truth is not determined by opinions or popularity. Truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Aristotle got that right in Metaphysics 1011b, 2300 years past. KF ] HR: [ KF, did I suggest it was a matter of opinion? I’m not suggested everybody else voted on what is truth, I’m suggesting that WJM might erroneously believe something to simply be truth when in fact it is not. ] Hmm. No, it seems you rather DID suggest that media, politics and academia, and a "sizable chunk of the population" (what size, you fail to articulate) are the rightful measures for truth in our society; and that we had better get in line, or we are guilty of hate crimes. IOW, truth is entirely subject to the will of the people. That seems to be what you ARE, in fact, suggesting. CannuckianYankee
Amen. This is so right about these times we live in. Future people can quote the author of this thread. How to fight and conquer it? The same way as the fathers left us tools to do it. The bad guys are not that clever. They use words to define the argument. like we all do with our parents, spouse, kids, friends. Its not to deny HATE accusations against those opposing something. I am against legal immigration as well as illegal. its an identity issue to me. they are foreigners i don't want any more of or ever did. The accusation of hate is just a accusation. The accuser might be the hater actually. Probably. What must be done to fight and conquer is go back to the contract behind the whole civilization of truth, freedom, and getting your way. We have no excuses. its up to free men to defend freedom. The bad guys have lost credibility. We must accuse that truth on important matters is being interfered with. That from this truth comes important decisions in a nation and so this interference breaks the social contract of the governed with those who govern. truth must be expressed and so speech must be allowed without punishment from anyone. In short freedom of speech must not be interfered with by any power. government or mob. we must stop defending our character and motives. We must attack them as invaders of our nation(s) as long as they seek to punish, silence, or bring any judgement, without trial, on our speech. Back to the contract. its the absolute right of the people to the truth. So why is the source of truth, SPEECH, being attacked and punished!! Why is this allowed? I say because eVERYBODY has sinned and agreed to punish wrong speech. So a empire is built to control speech. back to the contract. Cease and desist on all punishment or interference on speech about important things or everything. i undetstand free speech is the law!! Robert Byers
KF, did I suggest it was a matter of opinion? I'm not suggested everybody else voted on what is truth, I'm suggesting that WJM might erroneously believe something to simply be truth when in fact it is not. But don't worry, judging both him and you, assuredly neither one of you will consider this option to be possible and rather assume there is a giant conspiracy including media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population to deny and obfuscate certain truth for some nebulous nefarious reasons. hrun0815
HR, truth is not determined by opinions or popularity. Truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Aristotle got that right in Metaphysics 1011b, 2300 years past. KF kairosfocus
Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your "truths" aren't in fact hate speech after all. ;) Just some food for thought. hrun0815
WJM, always important to hear from you. And, a sobering topic. Look up the spiral of silence concept, I have to run. KF PS: Cf Schein on Lewin's ice cube change theory taken in a ruthlessly manipulative context and blend it with the spiral of silence: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20001212204800/http://www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/10006.html cf too on silencing: https://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/spiral-of-silence/ This agit-prop march of rage and folly attack survival guide is also worth a pause to ponder on its own merits never mind its source's deep problems: http://www.voxday.net/mart/SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide.pdf This bit of law of tort may help depending on jurisdiction: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tortious_interference as may public mischief laws: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-140.html cases: http://www.nrlawyers.com/Recent-Successes/Perjury-Public-Mischief-Mischief-to-Property-and-Breach-of-Court-Orders.shtml . kairosfocus

Leave a Reply