Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

US Rep Devin Nunes on the lawfare in the US Congress and linked agit-prop. kairosfocus

Ah, states. I get it. daveS

Start with two three notorious eurasian powers (and the junior wannabe next door to Japan) -- see the diagram in the OP. One has the Arabs running so scared they are rushing to sign treaties with Israel. kairosfocus

KF, "geostrategic vultures"---I wonder who they could be? 🤔 daveS

BR, sobering words that should be pondered whether or not one will agree in the end. The power to tax and to regulate is most definitely the power to destroy. KF kairosfocus

Rather than complain about those who use the laws to pay as little in taxes as possible, which would be everyone who files taxes, how about complain about members of Congress who write the laws. Congress could simplify the laws in a matter of hours, but the lobbyists who help to fund their campaigns wants the complexity in place. Major corporations want increases on their businesses in both the form of taxation and regulation. They have an army of accountants at their disposal and a large consumer base. The small and medium businesses who may be competitors one day do not have the luxury. A major corporation can increase the cost by a penny, but the smaller businesses have no means to do so. Why destroy competition in a free market when the government can do it for you. BobRyan

DS, this, too is part of what we need to collectively think through. Economies and improvements across time are extraordinarily sensitive to tiny numbers of gifted, pioneering, innovative, inventive individuals who can readily become targets for envy, selfish ambition, outright hate. Where, there is a consistent, group-think tainted tendency of powerful elites to imagine they have cornered the market on policy wisdom, knowledge, understanding, wisdom in general, ability to guide and be the vanguard of the future. The delusion of centralised economic planning comes from that, and repeated failure seems unable to break the stranglehold on an economy. We need to understand the value of freedom, and the significance of three I's: valuable ideas, capable implementers/innovators, canny investors willing to back with venture capital. (This is not the same as predatory buy in, loot, pull out.) A lot of sustainable competitive advantage lies in subtle, creative teamwork and a culture that sustains such. In turn, that points back to moral government and the duties of reason, thus too sound governance and government. That's a big part of my concern, the USA is looting its social capital and that is going to be very hard to rebuild as the ongoing 4G civil war first peaks (now, next three to fifteen months) then tapers off. Making needless shipwreck is not sound policy, and frankly what we are seeing now took decades of determined takeover of key institutions and promotion of the ruinous ideology behind Critical X-Theories. The operational patterns took at least the better part of a decade to put in place. The ecosystem of front groups much longer. In short, you have faced a decades long agenda and it will take a generation for partial recovery. Some big things will be permanently lost. Respect for the academy, education, sciences, the media and the administrative elite classes will be part of that. I shudder to think about the circling geostrategic vultures. There are already straws in the wind regarding operations in my region, and of course Africa is a big resource pool and target parallel to E Europe and Siberia over the past century. That points to long term, needless turbulence on the global scale. Where, in 4GW, non state shadowy networks can be at least as dangerous as states. The patterns point to a long term global push for power to shape the future driven by a delusion of superior wisdom. The further haunting thought is, some of the lurking geostrategic vultures may well have been sponsoring long term agent of influence operations and subversion of key institutions in a grand form of what was done with trade unions last century. There are always agendas in history, some open some less so. Power may well be the most addictive and insanity inducing drug of all. KF kairosfocus

KF,

This is not a simple matter...

No, it isn't. In my case, I am no entrepreneur, so I might choose to forgo deduction rather than take it and try to create some value some other way with the proceeds. OTOH, our taxes are very simple and my wife takes care of the whole thing, so it's out of my hands. daveS

TF,

You’re not advancing any worldview. Period.

That's also true. I'm content to debate certain very focused questions, mostly for my own edification. daveS

DS, way back, I learned from my profs a saying: tax evasion is a crime, tax avoidance is legitimate. I find however a creeping tendency to make the toxic suggestion that the latter is tantamount to the former. Perhaps we need to recognise that entrepreneurship and investment are high risk, difficult to consistently deliver, valuable services that directly contribute to the long term good. Where, those that succeed have to cover losses made by those who fail. That is an often invisible cost that tends to be overlooked. As my wife's cousin -- a highly successful businesswoman -- says, if you don't take a risk you cannot make a profit. In context Correia points out that provisions are made to encourage behaviour the government wishes to promote, e.g. philanthropic/charitable donations, investments in strategic areas, depreciation. Those investments are obviously considered a contribution to the future. It has been almost a mantra that the primary moral obligation of a corporation is to (within the law) provide maximum across-time profitability to those taking the risk of ownership. Recall, all other obligations to pay come first before share holders. I can see a point on being prudent in avoiding tax evasion but I think the Tax Accountants would for cause be seen as not serving their clients if they needlessly left significant sums on the table. If you want to invest in the country directly, Government, State and Municipal bonds exist for that purpose. On interest in the future, I think policies that reduce rates towards growth maximising levels or have very good reasons for not doing so (a war to fight) would be sounder policy than tax receipt maximisation; I argue Laffer is only half right. Statistics suggest 15 - 25% GDP as that band, likely towards the lower end. France IIRC is over 50%. Do not overlook Government crowding out of private sector investment and the von Mises type analysis on the valuation challenge faced by the would be central planner. Then there are policy distortions leading to malinvestment, false dawn booms where activity temporarily goes beyond the sustainable production possibilities frontier and collapses when the dragon whose tail was being tickled wakes up in a foul mood. This is not a simple matter and angry baying over dirty tax havens is not 1/10 of the truth. KF kairosfocus

923 DaveS

I”m not advancing a comprehensive worldview.

You're not advancing any worldview. Period. :) Truthfreedom

as long as those tax laws are there, the rich guys would be utter fools not to take advantage of them.

I wonder if we feel the same about the non-rich people who "take advantage" of welfare laws. People who permit and even laud tax cheating lose the ability to complain that the federal budget can't support additional or re-allocated funds to support education or sensible green initiatives. LarTanner

KF,

But in the meantime, as long as those tax laws are there, the rich guys would be utter fools not to take advantage of them.

I question this. You aren't required to take every deduction possible. Paying a bit extra could actually be a wise move, if you are concerned about your children's futures.

a raven who sits on his shoulder. The raven also has an eye patch and an accounting degree.

I guess those corvids really are smart ... daveS

TF, according to Sci Fi writer Larry Correia, best selling author of the Monster Hunter series:

One thing that’s really unfair about our tax system is that it is rigged in favor of people who have more resources. Government meddling makes it more costly to conduct business. The more complicated the regulatory burden, the more smaller companies can’t compete. Make the laws complicated enough and the only companies that stay in business are the ones who can afford to pay for twenty guys like me. (my last regular accounting job paid extremely well, and nearly everything I did was jump through government mandated hoops, filling out government mandated paperwork which nobody in the government would probably ever read) Trump has those resources. I bet he’s got a room full of accountants, and their leader is probably a grizzled old CPA with an eye patch and a raven who sits on his shoulder. The raven also has an eye patch and an accounting degree. This man has wrestled bears, and he’s going to take advantage of every tax break in the US Code for his client, and do so gleefully, knowing that many of those laws were signed by Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. . . . . the IRS has sent their most fearsome auditor against him. This man sold his soul to the devil, and then fined the devil for failing to list that soul as a depreciable asset. When he shows up to audit your company, he appears a flash of fire and brimstone, as a Finnish death metal band plays his theme song. He is an auditor bereft of mercy, compassion, or pity, and beneath his leathery wings serve a legion of IRS goblins, who will crawl into every nook and cranny of the Trump Corporation’s P&L looking for errors, and if a mouse so much as [dropped] a turd large enough to unbalance that ledger, there will be hell to pay. Is it unfair that rich guys can employ Gandalf level CPAs and take advantage of more complicated tax laws, while regular people use TurboTax? Yep. But in the meantime, as long as those tax laws are there, the rich guys would be utter fools not to take advantage of them.

Who knows? KF PS: I hate how coarse language has become. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, 899: >>We start from what we find in our immediate vicinity and work outwards.>> 1: You begin as we all do with the fact of rational, self-aware, conscience guided consciousness, which includes moral government of reasoning itself, i/l/o first duties of reason. 2: as you are inclined to pass by in silence, I remind again, as it is absolutely pivotal:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

>>We find ourselves as ordered beings>> 3: To do so we are first self-aware, conscious, conscienc e guided, rational. Otherwise all reduces to grand delusion. As Alex Rosenberg inadvertently let the cat out of the bag:

Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. [--> So, just how did self-aware, intentional consciousness arise on such materialism? Something from nothing through poof magic words like "emergence" won't do.] Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>

>> in an ordered world.>> 4: Actually, in a world where we find that every cell in our body has in it complex alphanumeric, algorithmic code, pointing to language and purpose coeval with cell based life. Further, that life, is experienced in a cosmos that sits at a fine tuned, deeply isolated operating point conducive to c-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. >>Our chances of survival are improved if we have an understanding of how that world works as we will be able to identify threats and predict how to avoid them.>> 5: Empirical reliability of explanatory constructs is wholly distinct from truth. This is one of the hard lessons of scietnific revolutions. So, we have the pessimistic induction as witness that our scientific explanations are at best provisional. They are unable to even rise to moral certainty. >> Developing languages>> 6: The living cell is proof language far predated us. We diod not invent language, and we have no reason to imagine that we invented our linguistic capability with all the FSCO/I it requires, or that it spontaneously emerged through blind chance and mechanical necessity. >>we can use to model and explain the causal relationships of the objective world>> 7: Again, explanation and modelling are not good grounds to infer truth. >> led us to logic. >> 8: Logic, as to substance, starting with distinct identity, is a necessary framework entity for reality. Logic is not a human invention. Nor did it emerge from the sciences, that is a myth. >>Reason is a powerful tool for survival. That is ultimately why we have it.>> 9: An evasion of the challenge that evolutionary materialism faces to account for reasoning. Dynamic-stochastic processes on a GIGO limited computational substrate have no capability to exert rational freedom. The self referential incoherence will not be so easily brushed aside. >>Since there is something, there must always have been something . At this time we have no knowledge of what that might have been.>> 10: In short, you disagree with what has been shown on the force of the logic of being, so you dismiss it. telling. >> If you want to postulate it to be a god, I cannot deny the possibility but neither do I believe it.>> 11: Again, you duck. the issue is we need a reality root sufficient to account for worlds and to account for a world in which we have responsible, rational, significantly free, morally governed creatures. that is an objective question, not a matter of personal opinion or belief. You try to insert subjectivism to evade the logic of being regarding a serious candidate eternal, independent -- necessary -- and reality-root being. 12: Instead of being able to propose a different serious candidate, you exert hyperskeptical dismissal, so we have a right to infer your implicit concession on the point. >>If something has always existed then there is no requirement for an explanation of how it began. This universe, however, seems to begun at some point and that does require an explanation but that need not be the necessary being you posit.>> 13: the eternal and independent is necessary being so it has no beginning, the issue is candidates, as our observed world is credibly contingent, with beginning suggested at less than 14 BYA. 14: You have misrepresented what I pointed out. I noted that a reality root must be causally adequate to explain worlds. Where as this world has in it morally governed creatures, that root musrt also be able to ground such moral government starting with first duties of reason. 15: It is patent you have no other serious candidate, than what has been put but are opposed to that status on the merits. We are entitled to draw our own conclusions on the matter. >>I see the current civil unrest as being rooted in a significant part of the US population who believe that their interests are largely being ignored by the powers-that-be and that those powers are now in the hands of a man who is showing alarming signs of playing only about his base. >> 16: there is clear evidence that you again duck, of a McFaul playbook, colour revolution insurgency in progress, tied to red guards seen on the streets, and further directly parallel to events in say Egypt. >>I think this man would trigger a civil war if he believed it would get him re-elected or continue his hold on power.>> 17: Defamatory projection. (Cf. here.) KF kairosfocus

Oh, and don't forget that according to the materialist, crows can count. So if your math teacher gets sick, you can swap him for a nice corvid. With its lab-coat and its glasses even. There's no difference. :) Truthfreedom

TF, I"m not advancing a comprehensive worldview. I do occasionally advance positions on specific issues (e.g., "demons do not exist", "abstract entities do exist"). daveS

920 ET

There are plenty of artifacts in which we don’t know the how. Yet we can still glean information to help us understand the artifact. We could never understand Stonehenge by looking at it as a natural formation.

Another insurmountable problem for the naturalist/ materialist. According to their worldview, human and animal nature are exactly the same ("heaps of molecules"). Therefore, Stonehenge and a beaver dam are exactly the same, both the result of interchangeable biological functions. For the naturalist, human design doesn't exist. There's no difference between the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and a bee hive. These people are crazy. Truthfreedom

896 DaveS

That’s fine, I’m not angry. I just am not that interested in materialism/idealism/hylemorphism.

But your worldview has to have a name/ share certain characteristics. Advancing an undefined one makes no sense. Truthfreedom

seversky:

You accuse naturalistic science of being unable to explain the “how” of all these things but all you can offer as an alternative is a “who” – an intelligent designer or deity, which is not the same sort of explanation.

That just proves that you are ignorant of investigations. Saying that something was the result of an intelligent agency tells a skilled investigator quite a bit. For one it determines the path the investigation will take. We no longer consider blind and mindless processes. We have an intelligent agency to contend with. With that there is intent and purpose. There are plenty of artifacts in which we don't know the how. Yet we can still glean information to help us understand the artifact. We could never understand Stonehenge by looking at it as a natural formation. ET

For JAD: The above is largely subjective opinion, which doesn't settle anything. KF might respond, explaining how my opinion is wrong. :-) daveS

KF, To me, the notion of "first duties of reason" sounds kind of like "first duties to eat vegetables". Of course if you don't exercise reason and eat vegetables, we know from experience that the quality of your life will be reduced (by the standards of most humans). Therefore, if you want to have a halfway decent life, it's in your best interest to exercise reason and eat vegetables. The same holds at the societal level. But the universe (or some divine being) is not imposing a "duty" to eat vegetables on me, as far as I can tell. The same goes for exercising reason. daveS

Kf @ 911,

JAD [attn Seversky], you have pointed to comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. These avert question-begging or defaulting. Where, it is massively evident that evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot credibly account for where it must stand just to argue: a rational, responsibly free individual.

Well, there are many more reasons why a naturalistic account is inadequate. One of them is human nature. Atheistic naturalism/materialism is blatantly dehumanizing because it cannot give a good or adequate explanation for human nature. For example, human beings are somehow uniquely hardwired cognitively in three distinct ways:

*1. We are hardwired to seek and discern the truth. For example, we have what appears to be an intrinsic or innate ability to accurately use logic and reason. *2. We are hardwired to seek purpose and meaning, including ultimate purpose and meaning. *3. We are hardwired as moral beings. Only human beings can discern good and bad, good or evil, ought and ought not.

Is this all the result of some mindless, undirected and random evolutionary process? Or, is there something else? Another explanation? I think that there is evidence that there is and the evidence is human nature itself. What about human nature is the evidence? I’ve just listed it for you. See 1 through 3 above. john_a_designer

915 Kairosfocus

with 500 witnesses who could not be broken in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse.

Far far worse. And these atheist fools say that religion is "comforting". People who bruise when thay are hit with a feather and who spend their whole lives complaining about 'injustice' and 'suffering' while hitting their keyboards. Hehehe. :)

Euthyphro is dead, as is Hume’s Is-OUGHT gap guillotine.

As is "philosophical" materialism. Good riddance. Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Materialism Can Not Account for Reality

The explosion of research into quantum physics has blown up the materialist worldview. For instance, if all that exists is matter and energy, scientists have a problem. Because matter and energy somehow cause gravitational effects (exactly how, no one knows), we have observed that there is not enough mass/energy in the universe to account for all the gravity. In fact, known matter and energy only make up about 4% of the universe. The nature of the remaining 96% is unknown: it’s called Dark Matter. It must be there, according to materialism, but it cannot be observed or tested. It’s assumed to be there by faith. https://seerssee.com/failure-materialism/?amp

The faith of the materialist is heart-warming. Truly heart-warming. Truthfreedom

TF, the issue is of course that this has always been a strawman argument. No one seriously argued that one derives ought from is. Instead, it was always the case that theists saw the inherently good and utterly wise as root of reality so that is and ought are bridged and inextricably fused at the root of all that is. And indeed, that fusion then directly comes out in our vaunted rationality. For even self-confessed atheists such as Seversky cannot avoid appealing to our first duties of reason, to truth, to first principles of right reason, to prudence etc, even to fairness and justice so also to sound conscience and neighbour. On pain of disintegration of their own rationality they must provide a root of reality adequate to account for creation AND for morally governed significantly free (but I repeat myself), rational creatures; us. Or else, their whole scheme collapses in self-referential absurdity. Too often the IS-OUGHT gap argument is trotted out as a thinly veiled distraction from the failure of evolutionary materialistic scientism to bridge is and ought in the world root. DV, more later today. KF PS: They often try to prop up the bruised reed with a second weak stick, the Euthyphro dilemma, so called. But this only exposes ignorance on logic of being and reality root. Did they not read Paul's devastating, subtle opening words in Ac 17? I clip:

Ac 17:23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything . . . for “In him we live and move and have our being."

Yes, on the single most important point of knowledge -- root of reality, the Athenian elites . . . proud guardians and champions of our civilisation's intellectual traditions . . . had been forced (for centuries since Cleanthes' visit) to build and maintain monuments to their ignorance. So, clearly the Greek "gods" they also put up monuments to were known not to be the root of reality. Accordingly, the Euthyphro dilemma, so called, is misdirected when the attempt is made to target it at the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty, gratitude and reasonable responsible service through doing the good that accords with our evident, morally governed nature. This last of course points to the roots of law and just government, the inextricable tie between law and principles of true justice which duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. So, is and ought are coeval and come from our common root, the God in whom we live, move and have our being. The one who sustains all things by his powerful word (aka laws of nature). The one who created all things which are for his glory, including thrones, principalities and powers. They too were made by him and for him. They too will face a day of accountability by the man ordained, of which offer of proof has been given to all men by his prophesied, fulfilled resurrection from the dead, with 500 witnesses who could not be broken in the face of dungeon, fire, sword and worse. Euthyphro is dead, as is Hume's Is-OUGHT gap guillotine. kairosfocus

909 Seversky

You cannot logically derive “ought’ from “is”.

Says who? The meat-robot? Hahaha. Your fallacies are laughable. Any mediocre teenager would chuckle. :) Truthfreedom

909 Seversky

You accuse naturalistic science of being unable to explain the “how” of all these things.

No, we accuse philosophical naturalism/ materialism of illegitimately using science to paint your worldview as legit, the "only one that's true and the only one that is rational." Science does not need philosophical materialism at all. Your worldview has failed (and failed miserably). The sooner you get over it, the better. Time to move on. Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare

"Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world." Dr. Dennis Bonnette https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

Truthfreedom

F/N: Before I return to root of reality, logic of being, worldview and cultural/policy agenda issues point by point, I need to put them in context. Consider then, the following civilisation agenda equations:

1: WORLDVIEW + POLICY/CULTURAL AGENDA = IDEOLOGY 2: IDEOLOGY + POWER/STRONG INFLUENCE = REGIME 3: REGIME (AKA, BALANCE OF POWER-FACTIONS . . . AKA ESTABLISHMENT, AKA DEEP STATE) + DECISION-MAKING INFLUENCES = BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) 4: BAU + INSISTENT VOYAGE OF SINFUL FOLLY = SHIPWRECK

These expressions of course draw out the harsh lessons of Ac 27 and indeed Plato's Ship of State parable. (Recall, the latter is so influential that our word Government comes from the Steersman/Sailing Master, Kubernetes, via Latin, with K -> G.) We are manifestly at stage 3 moving to stage 4 in the chain of equations. RED FLAG! Now, to see just how relevant the challenge of manipulation of the public is, ponder how little we have heard of this parable and Luke's real-world case study. What happened to our schooling in history and civics? What about informal education through the media and news/views coverage? We have been dumbed down through being cut off from hard won bitterly expensive lessons of history that would break the word-woven narrative-spells of today's manipulators. A common view, for example, is that history is victory propaganda and cannot be trusted until our friendly local Critical X-Theory revisionists have reshaped it. Hence we come to deceitful agit prop pushed into our schools, such as the NYT-backed 1619 push. And as for the premise that sound news should be a rough, first draft of [sound] history, that is buried under a tidal wave of agit prop. Itself, a sobering warning. Accordingly, let me put on the table:

THE LESSONS OF (SOUND) HISTORY PRINCIPLE: The lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears; those who neglect, reject, dismiss, ignore or willfully distort them doom themselves to pay in the same coin over and over again.

This of course readily explains why history echoes itself horrifically, over and over again to the point of farce. As I have noted, we are in the storm, and on our line of drift, the sand bars of Syrtis lie ahead. KF PS: As a reminder, note how the McFaul playbook on colour revolutions using red guard cannon fodder -- yes, the insistence on dismissing that by certain objectors is itself a sign -- casts itself i/l/o lessons of history. I annotate, to show the twisted operational principles at work:

The years since 2000 have seen a surprising new wave of democratic breakthroughs in the postcommunist countries of Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine. This article compares and contrasts these three cases, naming seven common factors which made the breakthroughs in these countries possible: 1) a semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime [–> or perception]; 2) an unpopular incumbent [–> alt., media manipulation to demonise and stir critical mass of hostility]; 3) a united and organized opposition [–> so, shadowy, orchestrating networks]; 4) an ability quickly to drive home the point that voting results were falsified [–> i.e. media narrative domination, which can be just as easily used to slander a scapegoat], 5) enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote [–> too often, this may be the orchestrated media], 6) a political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to protest electoral fraud [–> or, red guards as cannon fodder], and 7) divisions among the regime’s coercive forces [–> what of, nests of the connected embedded in state, policing and law-making arms]. [See: Transitions from Post Communism, Journal of Democracy Volume 16, Number 3 July 2005]

For direct reference note the smoking gun appendix to the OP on U-Haul a riot, or go to the expansion here. Ask yourself why the ever so clever talking heads are not connecting these dots and why there is a gaslighting pretence that the red guards organisations are not real. (BTW in my homeland it took decades to hear admission that there was a civil war 40 - 45 years ago, 4GW is studiously low kinetic, unless it spills out of control as in the Balkans and Syria-Iraq.) PPS: Notice, too, the Egypt Template, as excerpted from a Harvard paper:

In Egypt, protests and strikes began on January 25, 2011 (National Police Day) and lasted for 18 days, bringing together various opposition groups representing a wide cross section of Egyptian society including secularists, feminists, Islamists, anti-capitalists, and many others. Notably, while the January 25 protests were initiated by a group of opposition activists, the Egyptian Arab Spring did not have a centralized leadership and no single element of the opposition was in control. [–> a more balanced view than others out there but do not take as gospel] . . . . In 2010, a young man named Khaled Said was beaten to death by two police officers after being dragged out of a cybercafé in in Alexandria.

[–> notice, police in a state that was oligarchic, not democratic; observe too the clear demand of the red guard cannon fodder, to abolish the police on a claimed demonstration of systemic racism and genocidal intent in the teeth of evidence, now being backed away from by the good cops even as the bad cops make it plain that that is a soften the blow woo the muddled middle voters move in a polarised base election year. It remains the case that the replacement for lawful police etc will be committees for defence of the revolution led by area leaders . . . cf CHOP just this summer, volks courts delivering kangaroo verdicts and secret state police knocking on the doors at 4 am. But of course, those dots will not be connected as the critical race theorists spin on their misanthropic narrative against lawful policing. FYI, reform is not defunding/abolition and the enabling of such an agenda is a danger to civilisation red flag.]

Photographs of his disfigured body were shared online. Wael Ghoneim, an Egyptian Google Executive living in Dubai—who would go on to become a prominent Arab Spring youth activist—created a Facebook group called “We Are All Khaled Said,” [–> powerful, connected person] which quickly drew membership in the hundreds of thousands. [–> web amplification, note, plausibility of key narrative does not pivot on substantial truth or fairness, just it appeals to popular feeling and tendencies] . . . . The Facebook page and other social media sites became public forums for the remembrance of Said and for discourse around what he died for. These issues became fundamental to the outbreak of protests in the coming year . . . Small-scale, local demonstrations took place protesting Said’s death, but it was on Ghoneim’s Facebook page that the announcement for the January 25 protests—held on January 25, National Police Day—was first publicized . . . . Chanting “The People Want to Bring Down Regime” (al-shaab yurid isqat al-nizam), a broad spectrum of protestors, from labor and youth activists to feminists and individual members of the Muslim Brotherhood (there without sanction from the organization), sought political change in the wake of decades of corruption, police brutality, media censorship, unemployment, inflation, and other problems. [–> notice the coalition taking to the streets] The protest took various forms, from the occupation of downtown Cairo’s Tahrir Square [–> notice, the mass rape of an American journalist here] , to labor strikes, acts of civil disobedience, clashes with armed forces, and others. Violence between protestors and the police resulted in 846 deaths and several thousand injuries. President Hosni Mubarak—in office since 1981—was deposed on February 11, 2011, [–> 4GW overthrow] after which the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) dissolved the Egyptian Parliament, suspended the constitution, and dissolved the nation’s “emergency laws.” Protestor deaths formed the basis of allegations against Mubarak, for which he was sentenced to life in prison in June, 2012, but was released in August 2013 under the post-coup military government.

--> The storm and line of drift to shipwreck at Syrtis are already in progress, what will we do? kairosfocus

JAD [attn Seversky], you have pointed to comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. These avert question-begging or defaulting. Where, it is massively evident that evolutionary materialistic scientism cannot credibly account for where it must stand just to argue: a rational, responsibly free individual. Further to this, it cannot account for the way first duties of reason govern the entirety of our rational life even as it is forced to resort to same in order to argue. I note above how Seversky implicitly assumes duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, thus fairness and justice etc, even as he cannot ground any of this in his admitted worldview. However, he is obviously oblivious to what that fatal crack in his scheme of the world is telling him. He may imagine he is a champion of reason but only manages to show the futility of his schemes of thought. Imagine, he appeals to rights, justice, the evils of real and imagined oppression etc, even as he is seemingly unaware that he cannot provide adequate ground in his atheistical scheme and is forced into radical redefinitions of subjectivism and/or relativism that simply open the door to the sort of nihilism let loose we are seeing in the current, rising storm. Sandbars of Syrtis ahead on the current track, a drastic course change back to a safer harbour is indicated but is being resisted by a proud elite who imagine their failed progressivism is the path to the future. KF kairosfocus

The Waning of Materialism: How the Revival of Aristotle's Philosophy is Reshaping the Intellectual Landscape

The intellectual history of the Western world over the last 2500 years has been a battlefield of ideas, with the consensus swinging back and forth between the two poles of materialism and the various versions of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. We are in the midst of the waning of the latest phase of materialism, with a new Aristotelian philosophy on the upswing across the English-speaking world. Materialism has failed four crucial tests: - accounting for the qualitative aspect of human consciousness, - the intentionality or contentfulness of thought, - the teleology of natural systems, - and the moral responsibility of human agency. This intellectual shift presages political and cultural transformation. Robert C. Koons The Waning of Materialism

Materialism is the last superstition. Truthfreedom

John_a_designer/904

Naturalism (or materialism) cannot provide: *1. An ultimate explanation for existence. Why does anything at all exist?

The existence of this Universe may be caused but does the existence of anything have a cause? As we have noted before, if there had ever been truly nothing, there would still be nothing. By that argument, if there is "something" now, there must always have been a "something" and an eternal "something" does not need a cause.

*2. An explanation for the nature of existence. Why does the universe appear to exhibit teleology, or Design and Purpose?

Maybe appearances are misleading?

3. A sufficient foundation for truth, knowledge and meaning.

We are a sufficient foundation for truth, knowledge and meaning since they describe ways in which we relate to the world around us.

*4. A sufficient foundation for moral values and obligations.

You cannot logically derive "ought' from "is"

*5. An explanation for what Aristotle called form and what we call information. Specifically how did chemistry create the code in DNA or RNA?

Agreed, we don't yet have a naturalistic explanation for how these arose.

*6. An explanation for mind and consciousness. How dose mindless matter “create” consciousness and mind? If consciousness and mind are just an appearance how do we know that?

Agreed, we don't yet have a naturalistic account of consciousness or of how it arose

*7. An explanation our the apparently innate belief in the spiritual– a belief in God or gods, and the desire for and widespread belief in immortality and transcendence

These could have arisen out of a need for personal survival and a paternalistic protector figure to bring that about.

Of course many atheistic naturalists will dismiss numbers 6 or 7 as illusions or make up a just-so story to explain them away. But how do they know they are illusions? The truth is they really don’t know and they certainly cannot prove that they are. They just believe. How ironic to be an atheistic naturalist/ materialist you must believe a lot– well actually everything– on the basis of faith.

We all have to take a lot if things on faith. That isn't the issue. When you point out that there is an awful lot science/naturalism/materialism can't explain, you are quite right. But neither can theism. You accuse naturalistic science of being unable to explain the "how" of all these things but all you can offer as an alternative is a "who" - an intelligent designer or deity, which is not the same sort of explanation. You have no more an idea of "how' than we do. Seversky

__________ The Materialist Superstition Materalism's Epistemological Nightmare Materialism’s Epistemological Blunder Materialism’s Encroachment on Science Materialism’s Evident Falsity Yet Another Materialist Fiasco: No Substantial Forms Materialism's Unnoticed Achilles' Heel Truthfreedom

John_a_designer/904

A few years ago I gave the following list of reasons as to why I DO NOT think philosophical naturalism is sufficient as a world view.

On the question of "worldviews", I tend to align myself with philosopher of science John S Wilkins as expressed at a debate with evangelical Christian students:

Worldviews. Both pro speakers made mention of the fact that "atheism/agnosticism is a worldview of naturalism". Now this is a theme that is repeated so often one might start to believe it if not for the fact that it licenses the following argument: Christianity is a worldview that rests on a set of presuppositions. Atheism and agnosticism is a worldview that rests on a set of presuppositions. One's choice of presuppositions makes one's worldview reasonable. === Ergo, Christianity is a reasonable belief (at least as rational as agnosticism/atheism) Similar arguments are put that "belief" in science is on a par with belief in Jesus or the Bible, and so this is really about duelling worldviews. That is, about which religion is correct. But there's a couple of deep flaws here. Agnosticism is the absence of knowledge about a god-claim. Atheism is the absence of a god-claim. Absences, although they may make the heart grow fonder, have no other implications. They cannot, for they are not-things, not things, and for something to have a property or implication it has to be a thing. In simpler terms, as the old saying has it, bald is not a hair colour. Not believing in some religion is not a religion. It may be that those who are either agnostic about Christianity, or atheist about it, have some other set of commitments that might qualify as a religion, but they do not need to, just in virtue of being a not-theist or a not-knower. So the choice is between believing in Christianity or not-believing in Christianity. It is not a case of commensurable religions, but a religion and no religion. This is the privative fallacy, from the old term for a lack of something. The other error is more widespread. I was in effect accused of having a worldview that precluded the existence of God, and the audience was invited to compare that with my opponents, who had one that permitted God. But the simple fact is, I don't have a worldview. In fact, neither do they. I don't think worldviews exist. They are a gross oversimplification of what is actually going on inside people's heads, and are mere abstractions. If one believes in God, one might still believe things that are inconsistent with a belief in God. Intellectual schemes are not whole cloth, and you can entertain incompatible ideas, and in fact I think you must, because nobody gets a simple set of coherent ideas handed to them at birth, free of all confounding beliefs. Christians, who have an extensive body of traditional dogma which they like to reassure themselves is true and consistent, like to think also that everybody has something like this. Religions are "rationally reconstructed" as sets of dogma by the Christian tradition (e.g., when doing anthropology by missionary) when in fact there is no dogma at all, just stories, rituals, and ways of life. The idea that one has a worldview by necessity is one that is made by analogy with a false view of themselves. The worldview tradition comes out of the propositional view of beliefs that ultimately found its best expression in Wittgenstein:

When two Principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled, then each man calls the other a fool and a heretic. On Certainty, §611

Seversky

Materialism has failed as a worldview. It's patently obvious and it only leads to an unending chain of absurdities. The Ontological and Epistemological Superiority of Hylomorphism

"Materialism—the view that all of reality is wholly determined by the very, very small—and extreme nominalism—the view that properties, kinds, and qualities do not really exist—have been the dominant view in analytic philosophy for the last 100 years or so. Both views, however, have failed to provide adequate accounts for the possibility of intentionality and of knowledge. We must therefore look to alternatives. One well-tested alternative, the hylomorphism of Aristotle and the medieval scholastics, was rejected without being refuted and so deserves further examination. I will argue that Aristotelian hylomorphic provides a markedly superior account of knowledge, cognitive normativity, and intentionality."

Materialism, au contraire, has refuted itself. It's over. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

Kairosfocus/890

Yes, we are all the way back to this now, if we are to undertake the needed reformation to minimise damage and set our civilisation back on a right path.

I would argue that, while we should certainly look to the past for any pertinent insights, that fact of the matter is that we are facing challenges today that are unprecedented in scale in human history, so we should also be looking for novel solutions. Seversky

A few years ago I gave the following list of reasons as to why I DO NOT think philosophical naturalism is sufficient as a world view.

Naturalism (or materialism) cannot provide: *1. An ultimate explanation for existence. Why does anything at all exist? *2. An explanation for the nature of existence. Why does the universe appear to exhibit teleology, or Design and Purpose? *3. A sufficient foundation for truth, knowledge and meaning. *4. A sufficient foundation for moral values and obligations. *5. An explanation for what Aristotle called form and what we call information. Specifically how did chemistry create the code in DNA or RNA? *6. An explanation for mind and consciousness. How dose mindless matter “create” consciousness and mind? If consciousness and mind are just an appearance how do we know that? *7. An explanation our the apparently innate belief in the spiritual-- a belief in God or gods, and the desire for and widespread belief in immortality and transcendence. Of course many atheistic naturalists will dismiss numbers 6 or 7 as illusions or make up a just-so story to explain them away. But how do they know they are illusions? The truth is they really don’t know and they certainly cannot prove that they are. They just believe. How ironic to be an atheistic naturalist/ materialist you must believe a lot-- well actually everything-- on the basis of faith.

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/no-really-bewitched-is-superior-than-brute-fact/#comment-631160 Seversky responded @ 16,

No, there are no ultimate naturalistic or materialistic explanations for any of those phenomena – not yet, at least. Does that mean there never will be? We have no way of knowing so why shouldn’t we keep working away at them to see how far we can get?

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/no-really-bewitched-is-superior-than-brute-fact/#comment-631208 To which I replied @ 19:

In other words, according to Sev even if, as a world view, naturalism or materialism completely lacks any explanatory scope or power… It could still be true, That’s what he believes, Therefore, no other worldview is warranted. That appears to be Sev’s reasoning: He believes it that settles it.

[BTW the discussion between me, Baryy and Sev carries on a little further.] In the logic text I cited earlier @ 868 Nolt et al. suggest a way that we can break the apparently logical deadlock when we are confronted with competing world views, such as naturalism and theism. Logically speaking they argue, “A [truth] claim may be true even if our evidence for it is inconclusive. In the absence of proof the rational approach is to weigh the available evidence, and, if the preponderance of evidence favors one conclusion, to adopt that conclusion tentatively. Sometimes, however, the available evidence is not sufficient to favor even a tentative conclusion. In that case, it is best to simply suspend judgement.” So what have we discovered from our atheist interlocutors over the years? Do they have any basis to make an argument that their naturalistic/ materialistic worldview is true? Not from what I have seen. Like Sev none of them have been able to muster together any “naturalistic or materialistic explanations” as to why anyone should believe that any kind of naturalistic world view is true. The preponderance of evidence in this case then favors some form of theism. So should I accept theism tentatively? Actually no because the term tentative is much too weak. The evidence for theism is very compelling. But that’s just my opinion, no doubt because I am biased. john_a_designer

Kairosfocus/879

Now, the firestorm is upon us as a civilisation, with the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb as exhibit A we need to ponder how justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, how these four key terms are grounded and infused with meaning, and how the underlying moral government we cannot effectively deny is itself rooted.

Justice only obtains where the rights, freedoms and concomitant responsibilities apply to all equally. If there are some who are deprived of said rights, freedoms and responsibilities, in whole or in part, then there is no justice and those so deprived have a right and, I would argue, a duty to protest against that deprivation. Seversky

Seversky, as a quick initial note. Possible worlds discourse is a way to conceive of ways this or another world might be. Accordingly, a PW is a sufficiently complete, coherent description thereof. Instantiation as the or an actual world is another level, where possibility is actualised. As a result, a possible being or entity is thus something that does or would exist in a relevant instantiated world. This is why framework entities required for any world to be are of particular note. It is in that context that we can look at candidacy and apply reasonable filters to identify serious candidates. For example, a square circle is impossible of being in any world. A flying spaghetti monster is a composite, caused, assembled entity so cannot be more than contingent. A unicorn is possible and in my opinion will be on the pets market within 100 years. A winged, flying horse does not seem to be dynamically possible as a physical, biological being but might be in another sort of world. And so forth. As this world contains responsible, rationally free morally governed creatures, it constrains candidates to be the necessary being world root. And more. All of this connects to the nature of law and society, to rights and justice and much more so is highly relevant to observing the onward disintegration of the American experiment. KF PS: Necessary being is not an arbitrary stipulation. Once a candidate has good reason to be taken as framework to worlds being actualised, then the big point is that such might fail due to hidden contradiction. If possible then coherent and indeed part of the framework of one possible world. Where part of that is causal independence so coeval with the roots of reality. Thence, framework to any world with capital example being core elements, quantities, relationships and structures of Mathematics. This is the answer to the Wigner puzzle on efficacy of Mathematics. Notice, twoness never began nor can it cease, it is integral to the framework of any world and comes out in the transworld relevance of mathematics and the core principle of logic, distinct identity. Non contradiction and excluded middle are "mere" corollaries. This example was given for a reason to help develop understanding. kairosfocus

John_a_designer/868

My argument as to why atheism is logically fallacious is really very basic and straight forward. It appears to me that most of our naturalist/materialist interlocutors seem to think that their world view (WV) somehow wins by default. But does it really? When have any of them ever been able to prove their WV to be true? (If any of them have, I apparently missed it.) It appears to me that the only argument that they have is a fallacious argument from ignorance: No one has ever proved that God exists, therefore, God does not exist. However, the argument from ignorance is a two edged sword which cuts both ways.

That is a misrepresentation of the atheist/agnostic position. What they argue is that theists are claiming that a god exists so, if they want others to be persuaded the claim has merits, it is for them to provide evidence and arguments to support it. Theists have been unable to provide arguments and evidence sufficient to compel belief in their god so atheists/agnostics find the claim to be unproven and that is where the matter rests. Theists have been unable to meet their burden of proof we withhold belief, which we believe to be the most rational position. Seversky

Kairosfocus/866

In which context, God is patently a serious candidate NB, which entails, either impossible as a square circle is impossible of being (mutually inconsistent core characteristics) or else present in at least one possible world.

Why couldn't God be only a possible being in all possible worlds? Lord Sauron or Gandalf might exist only as fictional characters in all possible worlds. There is no reason to think they must be actual in one or more of all possible worlds. The same may be true of God.

Once possible, actual.

Not necessarily. Seversky

Kairosfocus/859

.. .we have to account for the first duties of reason and the existence of a world in which there are responsible, rational, morally governed creatures.

We start from what we find in our immediate vicinity and work outwards. We find ourselves as ordered beings in an ordered world. We want to continue to exist, since for most, that is better than not existing. Our chances of survival are improved if we have an understanding of how that world works as we will be able to identify threats and predict how to avoid them. Developing languages we can use to model and explain the causal relationships of the objective world led us to logic. Reason is a powerful tool for survival. That is ultimately why we have it.

Where, over three years we have sufficiently hammered out that the world cannot reasonably have traversed a transfinite past succession of cumulative, causally-temporally successive stages to reach to now. (That would be atheists end up implying such a bizarre claim as a past-infinite causal-temporal succession of cumulative stages [let’s call them years for convenience] is already a red flashing light.)

We have also agreed that if there had ever been absolutely nothing, there would still be absolutely nothing. Since there is something, there must always have been something . At this time we have no knowledge of what that might have been. If you want to postulate it to be a god, I cannot deny the possibility but neither do I believe it.

This plausibly requires a finitely remote being of a different order from the familiar, composite, contingent entities, a necessary being world root.

That depends on what you mean by "world root". If something has always existed then there is no requirement for an explanation of how it began. This universe, however, seems to begun at some point and that does require an explanation but that need not be the necessary being you posit.

This brings us full circle to the implications of the widespread breakdown of reasoning and recognition of first duties of reason that has led our civilisation to our present peril.

I see the current civil unrest as being rooted in a significant part of the US population who believe that their interests are largely being ignored by the powers-that-be and that those powers are now in the hands of a man who is showing alarming signs of playing only about his base. As evidence, I refer you to the recent debate in which he refused to condemn right-wing extremist groups saying,

Who would you like me to condemn? The Proud Boys? Stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what. Somebody’s gotta do something about antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem, this is a left-wing problem

I think this man would trigger a civil war if he believed it would get him re-elected or continue his hold on power. Seversky

KF, I read through your posts, and I'm realizing I don't have much to say except "ok". I might even say similar things if I were arguing for your position. This sentence puts things into focus for me:

I think it is noticeable that you have not been able to propose an alternative _____ and warrant _____ .

That's correct. I not engaging in comprehensive "system building" here. That's way above my pay grade. I am quite interested in specific issues, the existence of abstract entities in particular. Currently some topics around logic are on my reading list: Automatic Theorem Proving, Lambda Calculi, Type Theory etc. Not that I'll ever know a great deal about them, but they are fun to play around with. I'm not going to be rolling out an extensive worldview for comment; my aims are much more modest. daveS

895 Kairosfocus

a serious candidate (not a flying spaghetti monster . . . composite),

At least it sounds tasty :) (although profoundly irrational). Truthfreedom

TF,

Then don’t get angry when I (and others) point out that you’re not offering a coherent worldview. Not to be disrespectful.

That's fine, I'm not angry. I just am not that interested in materialism/idealism/hylemorphism. daveS

DS, First, all views are partly subjective for we are subjects. The issue is balance of the case on merits. That is where objectivity enters. I have long since noted on possible worlds speak, that we can classify candidate entities: some things like square circles are impossible of being as proposed core characteristics are mutually incompatible. Other entities are possible, i.e. were this or some possible world in a certain state, they would exist. Of such, many beings are contingent, i.e. there are also worlds that would not have them, e.g. a fire. Contingent beings are subject to enabling causal factors and require a sufficient set to be or to remain in being, this including all necessary factors. For instance consider the fire tetrahedron and how we fight a fire. If something begins or ceases or may cease, it is contingent. If in two closely neighbouring possible worlds such that W + dW = W', where some c is in W' but not W, dW is causally connected to c. Other entities, such as twoness, are in every possible world; easiest understood as being framework for a world to exist. Such are the necessary beings. A candidate necessary being is possible or impossible. If impossible, in no world. If possible in at least one world. However, if a serious candidate (not a flying spaghetti monster . . . composite), then if possible, in at least one world but also having characteristic of being framework for worlds to exist so in every world. Notice, this points to features of such a being, there must be reasonably good cases for such to have world framework character. Now, above, we have noted that this world has morally governed, rational creatures us. Indeed, absent the freedom that is basis for moral government we cannot be rational. Hence, all claimed arguments would fail, a self-referential absurdity. We have excellent reason to see ourselves as rational, responsible, governed by first duties of reason. The objector, to try to persuade has to appeal to the same duties. Inescapably, self-evidently true. This surfaces challenges, particularly the is-ought gap. Anywhere after the root of reality and the guillotine applies, ungrounded ought. Where we cannot ground ought in is unless the world root entity is an adequate ground. That is, we see inherently good and utterly wise with power to create. Neceesary, as an infinite past implies traversal of transfinitely many finite stage causal temporal to now. That breaks down. retro-, circular cause is a world from the not yet, and were there ever utter non-being such would forever obtain. If a world was, something of transcendent, necessary order always was, hence reality root. And we just saw, adequate to ground moral government. Such is a God-shaped bill of requisites. I think it is noticeable that you have not been able to propose an alternative _____ and warrant _____ . As a corollary, to deny or dismiss the existence of God is to imply belief that he is impossible of being. Post Plantinga, the key argument purporting to so justify has collapsed. All of this is foundational to sound law and sound ethics and government. KF KF kairosfocus

874 DaveS

I said above that I don’t know enough about the issue to choose a position. If I devoted a lot of time to studying it, I might end up in one of those categories, but I have other interests.

Then don't get angry when I (and others) point out that you're not offering a coherent worldview. Not to be disrespectful. :) Truthfreedom

JAD, It is true that my curiosity regarding the existence of god is waning with age, so I'm not that enthusiastic about all aspects of this debate. I am interested in a few things, such as Plantinga's modal ontological argument, necessary beings, abstract entities. I'd like to be clearer on such things, although I doubt a conversion is in my future. And yes, I'm not making an argument here at all. Rather, I'm responding to statements such as these by KF:

Nor are such things outside of familiar everyday experience, e.g. twoness.

In context, the pretence or suggestion that in our civilisation God is a novel, strange concept is absurd.

Well, I find the Christian God quite "strange". That is, completely unlike anything in my experience, literally incomprehensible in fact. Twoness is trivial in comparison. KF is sharing his (partly subjective) views on the nature of necessary beings, and I'm responding with some of my own subjective views. I'm aware that my subjective views don't prove anything. The goal is to get to objective truths. But this process is not a simple matter of deductive reasoning. One person proposes something, and another person's reaction could be "That's outrageous! How can you believe such a thing?" (and then attempt to isolate the point of disagreement), or, "Yes, that's reasonable, let's stipulate that and go from there". KF, I'll respond a bit later when I have more time. daveS

Kf, Incurious Dave’s “argument” is nothing more than a subjective appeal to personal incredulity. Something that Richard Dawkins has described as a logical fallacy. I would agree that it is under certain circumstances… Frankly, Dave is going to believe what he believes because he believes it. That’s fideism or epistemological subjectivism. What Dave personally believes or disbelieves proves nothing. john_a_designer

F/N2: Now, let us turn to the great synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome that shaped our civilisation. To do so, we can note the languages of the inscriptions above jesus' head as he hung on a Roman cross outside the capital of Israel, as a victim of judicial murder by machination of both Jewish and Gentile power elites. However, the focal point is twenty years later when a tent-making Jewish Rabbi and Roman Citizen by birthright, from a Greek University Town, spoke with the Athenian Elites, the Areopagus Council:

Acts 17: 18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. Paul Addresses the Areopagus 22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,3 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;4 as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’5 29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” 32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

With his opening words he shattered the facade of knowledge, by pointing to how they had had to build and maintain a monument to their ignorance on the pivot of knowledge, the root of reality. he proceeded to give them a better vision of our state as creatures then noting that we are God's offspring, he pointed to the end of the day of ignorance. Of course, they were too wedded to crooked yardsticks to wait to learn that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection of the judicially murdered messiah, including the man in front of them. they laughed him out of court. But that day was kairos, and the future belonged to the gospel preached by the apostle, not to the philosophers, cynical pols and superstitious common, ill-educated people. A lesson we need to heed again in our day. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Plato in The laws Bk X, on the Soul:

Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]

Yes, we are all the way back to this now, if we are to undertake the needed reformation to minimise damage and set our civilisation back on a right path. KF kairosfocus

DS, I think overnight, that we are close to core issues and dynamics that are driving the agendas, debates and civilisational disintegration through march of folly. And yes, I know that for years I must have seemed out on a limb, alarmist. The problem is, you got your south wind and sailed for what you thought was a better harbour. Only, to find yourselves in the iron grips of a noreaster, damaged ship, and heading for the sandbars on line of current drift. Yes, the storm is now here and the issue is how much damage, or are we looking at outright ruin. Okay, coming back. You clearly see twoness as indeed pivotal, given connexions to framework of reality including the principle of identity and logic of structure and quantity. What is your built-in, encultured reaction? That such things are causally inert. Do you not see that the pivotal principles tied to twoness show that logic of being is itself a factor that constrains reality across possible worlds without being a physical, dynamical-stochastic process? Thus, that our typical concept of physical cause does not exhaust constraint and influence? Do you not see, that we have in hand an order of being coeval with reality that frames in key part whatever may be possible in ANY feasible world? (Is that not an extraordinarily powerful insight? One, that should be celebrated and even central to education? Why isn't it?) Further, do you not see the power of another order of being in action? To wit, rational, responsible, significantly free mind morally governed by first duties: to truth, to right reason (hence the twoness pivot), to prudence (so, warrant), to sound conscience etc? Indeed, do you not see that such mind cannot be reduced to a computational substrate, its organisation, software and signals/ information? For, surely, a GIGO-driven computational substrate is a dynamic-stochastic physically causal entity that is precisely not rationally and responsibly free? Isn't that what programming, architecture and debugging etc (including for analogue, differential equation machines, neural nets etc) are about? Do you not see that in addition to observing that the cell has a SETI signal, alphanumeric, coded [so linguistic!], algorithmic [so, goal-directed] string data structure components, we are observing ourselves as reflecting self-moved significantly free being following moral rather than physical government? Do we not here see what Plato recognised in The Laws, Bk X, as the soul, the self-moved entity that marks certain entities as distinct from something like leibniz's mill grinding away based on dynamic-stochastic processes? Do you not feel the ghost of newton-ist mechanics-ism lifting? ( Poor Isaac, he warned differently in his General Scholium.) The mind, indeed the soul of which mind is a facet and holographic microcosm is back. We are freed, exorcised so that we can think straight. If we ourselves show that we transcend what cybernetic lops with computational substrates alone can explain, are we not then open to the Derek Smith model in which there is a two-tier controller in the cybernetic loop? With, shared facilities and interfaces, with information, perception, insight and direction etc shared across the interface? Do we not see that there is some relevance to the view that the soul is the form of the body, with our souls being rational, responsible, free, morally governed and capable of analysis, synthesis and intuitive insight,originality/inventiveness, creativity and more? Thus, that even to do science, math or phil, we are habitually resorting to an order of being that is radically distinct from what a simple, dynamic-stochastic computational substrate in a cybernetic loop can account for? Have we been guilty of failing the second occam test, that there is what is impossibly simplistic. Surely, we know now that invisible, abstract things like twoness can and do help frame and shape reality. Likewise, we are exerting powers of thought, of reason governed by duty that show that the invisible realm is broader than entities like twoness. For, we are self-moved, enconscienced, conscious, minded, indeed ensouled creatures. Creatures, with a SETI signal in every cell of our body. Creatures in a cosmos that is fine tuned to an operating point that sets up c-chem, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet in habitable zone creatures such as we are. A strangely intelligible world that invites intellectual exploration and often rewards it with success. A world, then, with striking affinity for minds. A clue. Especially given inescapable moral government through the freedom required for mind, we know that we need a reality root capable of grounding such. That is, we should expect to find the inherently good, utterly wise and awesomely powerful of necessary-being, worlds-framing character. Mind, and so too soul, capable of creating a world with rational creatures reflecting that image. We see a God-shaped bill of requisites for the root of reality. So, should we be surprised that God is a serious candidate necessary being reality root? Where the iron force of logic of being then tells us, either impossible of being (just as a square circle can never be) or . . . else . . . ACTUAL. There is your challenge, the pivot of our civilisation's troubles. For, to turn our backs on the root of reality who has made us governed by first duties of reason, is to gradually debase mind, benumb conscience, en-darken what we imagine is knowledge and enlightenment, twisting what we think is progress into a mutineer's voyage on a ship of state that thought it was getting along just fine. Until the storm struck. And now, we must find a sea-anchor and a way to shift the line of drift towards some new Melita, some new haven. Q's-fans are right, the storm is now here. (But, they don't have a clue as to it's full import.) KF kairosfocus

JaD, warrant is broader than proof and one often has good warrant that is not and cannot be proof to arbitrarily high standards. Most of our knowledge is like that. KF kairosfocus

Generally speaking, theists do not claim that we can prove the existence of God. And IDists, at least if they are consistent to the original concept of ID, do not claim they can scientifically identify who or what the designer or designers is or are. They only claim that natural causes as we presently understand them are insufficient to explain the origin and evolution of life. The burden of proof then falls on the naturalist since he is the one claiming the origin and evolution of life MUST be natural. However, if he concedes that he has no proof then his beliefs are purely a matter of faith. Ironically, as I have discussed elsewhere the naturalist’s faith is virtually identical to the biblical definition of faith.

In 2013, on another site, I had this brief exchange on-line with someone who identified himself as David P. He asked me if I would consider a world view that actively disagreed with my current theistic Christian world view. Since David had already identified his own world view as naturalism, I told him that if he could prove to me “that naturalism was true, I would.” He replied, “If that is your condition, you are essentially saying “no”, because naturalism cannot be proven.” I responded by asking him, “So, on what basis are you warranted in believing in it?” That question prompted the following dialogue: David wrote: “Believing that naturalism cannot be proven? Because we can only perceive a tiny part of the entire system. We may one day be able to formulate naturalistic theories that explain beautifully all that we perceive, but we cannot prove that that is all there is.” I asked: “So then, you accept naturalism by faith… Correct?” David replied: “I accept naturalism as a working assumption because of the evidence that it helps drive us to understand reality in a way that allows us to make increasingly better predictions. Also, the evidence that so many phenomena attributed to supernatural causes have turned out to have natural causes.” Notice how David, in addition to blurring the distinction between science and philosophy, smuggled faith into his world view without calling it that. What I mean is that he is actually acting on the biblical definition of faith and he doesn’t even realize it. Let me prove it to you… Hebrews 11:3 says: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Someone committed, like David, to naturalism is actually just modifying the verse so that it reads: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed [by some kind of mindless natural process], so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/why-is-seeing-the-glaringly-obvious-so-hard/#comment-688191 According to the dictionary, faith is belief without proof. Some atheists, however, have tried to redefine faith by arguing that it is belief without evidence. But that is simply not true. If we honestly and objectively compare the two world views, theism vs. atheistic naturalism, I would argue that theism has a lot more evidence in support of it. For example, the existence of hydrogen is a big piece of evidence. If hydrogen wasn’t designed with the properties it has the physical universe and life including advanced intelligent life would have never existed. john_a_designer

KF, I have to admit, regardless of what you say, the notion of a being that exists outside of time and is capable of creating a universe ~90 billion light years in diameter is hard to wrap my head around. daveS

DS, you have obviously locked out what you seem unwilling to acknowledge. Twoness is as you know an example that shows that such things are real and are in fact framework to reality. In context, our observed universe credibly had a beginning, so is contingent and caused. We are therefore looking for what has ability to cause a cosmos and to cause one that has in it morally governed, responsibly free creatures. In context, the pretence or suggestion that in our civilisation God is a novel, strange concept is absurd. KF kairosfocus

KF,

That such ideas may seem unfamiliar or alien reflects gaps in our formal and informal education, not their irrelevance. Nor are such things outside of familiar everyday experience, e.g. twoness.

Twoness is a far cry from the creator of the universe. The only potentially necessary beings I am aware of are abstract and hence causally inert. daveS

881 Kairosfocus

That such ideas may seem unfamiliar or alien reflects gaps in our formal and informal education, not their irrelevance.

True! The West has been blinded by scientism. Westerners are children so enamoured of their toys that they (we) have lost perspective of reality. A pity indeed. Truthfreedom

878 Kairosfocus

As I noted, post Plantinga that has been clearly defeated.

Atheists don't like good Alvin. :) Truthfreedom

DS, as noted, up to about 50 years ago, atheists and fellow travellers routinely trotted out the problem of evil as disproof of the reality of God. In fact, that argument was often viewed as the atheist generator. It failed, and that goes to balance on merits. In that context it is significant that no serious successor is on the table. Indeed, it lends inadvertent force to my comment regarding God as the only serious candidate to fill the bill of requisites for reality root for a world with rational, responsible, significantly free, morally governed creatures. If you have one, kindly propose ____ and warrant ____ . Likewise, while we are not conceptually familiar with necessary vs contingent being, in fact twoness is exceedingly familiar and central to even logic (distinct identity) and mathematics. We cannot conceive of a world where it does not exist as framework to reality or where it began or could ever cease from being. So, we are readily familiar with beings that are eternal and independent of enabling causal factors. That tells us significant points about eternal being and its centrality to reality. That such ideas may seem unfamiliar or alien reflects gaps in our formal and informal education, not their irrelevance. Nor are such things outside of familiar everyday experience, e.g. twoness. For that matter the concept that God is immortal and eternal is not exactly unheard of, though perhaps the connexions to independence of being and necessary being are less likely to be drawn out. Similarly, we need to recognise that responsible, rational, morally governed freedom and so the challenges of law, justice and good community order are connected to serious issues on the root of reality. Where as fair comment breakdown of buttresses of liberty is directly connected. KF kairosfocus

KF, See? It's very easy to propose things. It's much harder to argue that such and such a thing is impossible. Especially something so far outside our everyday experience (a mysterious all-knowing, perfectly just, sentient, and necessary being). daveS

F/N: This is actually pivotal to the issue of undermining buttresses of sustainable liberty. We are looking at the roots of law and justice, so the basis for sound state order, civil law and policy. Indeed, we are looking at the undermining of rational responsible freedom also.The foundations of modern constitutional democracy are in the heart of these exchanges. And we were warned on the matches we were playing with. Now, the firestorm is upon us as a civilisation, with the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb as exhibit A we need to ponder how justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, how these four key terms are grounded and infused with meaning, and how the underlying moral government we cannot effectively deny is itself rooted. These are pivotal to the nature of our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

DS, really, now. There is a world of difference between Buchner's playing with Greek prefixes and French coinage to provide an argument with a swivel and an analysis on logic of being. You have no good grounds for implying that God is not a serious candidate necessary being. By comparison, the notorious flying spaghetti monster (too often seen in this general context) is not. The import on logic of being is that an actual NB is framework for a world to exist and so will be present in any actual world. You have had before you for instance twoness as a relevant case in point, there is no world where two began to exist, or can cease from so existing; two-ness, duality and so too distinct identity are framework to reality. I need not elaborate here on the centrality of the principle of identity which is for example foundational to Mathematics and so answers to Wigner on the astonishing power of Mathematics. That should have long since helped you to appreciate the power of an approach on logic of being and possible worlds. It is notorious, just from the historic and current existence of theism as a significant worldview live option as well as the need to ground responsible, rational, morally governed freedom, that the God of ethical theism is a serious candidate NB. Indeed, what do you think that Eternality of God's being is about as a core characteristic? Other things could be adduced but that should be suggestive. The logic that a serious candidate NB is either impossible or else actual is plain: what is credibly a candidate causally independent entity framework for a world either will be impossible or will be part of the fabric of reality. The line of argument you are taking suggests that you have no alternative reality-root candidate capable of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap. If you in fact have an alternative, kindly suggest ____ and provide warrant ____ . KF PS: A square circle . . . as given . . . has contradictory core characteristics and cannot exist in any possible world. Up to about 50 years ago, it was common to see atheists etc trotting out the problem of evil as claimed proof that God is impossible. As I noted, post Plantinga that has been clearly defeated. Thus your claim that it is hard to show such impossibility is actually an implicit concession on the point. That should be telling you something on the balance on merits. kairosfocus

PS:

to prove* that something is literally impossible?

*or to provide warrant for such a claim. daveS

KF, Ok, you have asserted that God is a SERIOUS CANDIDATE™ for necessary being. :-) Then if I say I believe that God probably does not exist, without warrant for believing your "CANDIDATE" is impossible, then I'm hyperskeptical. That's the stratagem. Do you see that it's vastly easier to propose "candidates" than it is to prove that something is literally impossible? daveS

JAD, a lot of people try the atheism is default view. Doesn't work. KF kairosfocus

TF,

For example, you are not cartesian dualist, not hylemorphist and not monist (idealist or materialist flavour).

I said above that I don't know enough about the issue to choose a position. If I devoted a lot of time to studying it, I might end up in one of those categories, but I have other interests. daveS

DS, you have missed the point. Nowhere do I simply assert God is a necessary being, pulled out of a hat. What I have asserted is what is undeniable, he is a SERIOUS CANDIDATE NB. I then point out that such a serious candidate is either impossible of being [as a square circle is) ir else is actual. This last as NB's are framework for any possible world so if a candidate is possible it is present in at least one world and thus all. Where, given the nature of causal temporal worlds we need a NB root of reality as causal ground. In our world, we have morally governed creatures and post Hume and Euthyphro, we have a bill of requisites, that world root level reality must bridge IS and OUGHT. There is one serious candidate, something inherently good and utterly wise, capable of creating worlds and also necessary. We have a God-shaped bill of requisites and there is just one serious candidate. If you deny or doubt this, simply propose and warrant that there is another filling the bill of requisites ____ KF PS: If one claims to know that there is no God, s/he needs to solidly warrant such a strong knowledge claim. Likewise, given that God is a serious candidate NB, s/he needs to show that God is impossible of being. Formerly the problem of evils was trotted out to make that seem plausible but this has collapsed post Plantinga. kairosfocus

869 DaveS

My conclusion is that my position doesn’t fit comfortably in any of the three positions that have been brought up.

The problem with your position is that it's very difficult to understand (I am not intending to be rude or sarcastic). For example, you are not cartesian dualist, not hylemorphist and not monist (idealist or materialist flavour). There aren't more options available, so your position is almost impossible to be understood. :) Truthfreedom

JAD, There are no "defaults". There are simply true and false propositions. daveS

Kairosfocus Excellent # 866.

For cause, we need a finitely remote adequate cause and sustainer of a world containing morally governed creatures — us.

A role that certainly can not and does not fulfill "natural selection." Truthfreedom

KF,

Notice, first denial of absolute knowledge of first principles, which would in key part be self-evident. The second builds on that and is clearly an epistemological view. An implicit fallacy is the notion that knowledge in responsible usage requires effectively absolute certainty. That would sweep away Science, Medicine, History, Economics, Management, commonsense day to day knowledge and even a lot of Mathematics. Instead, a weak form sense that knowledge is responsibly warranted (and so reliable), credibly true belief is a more accurate description.

And this is why I'm reluctant to identify as an agnostic. I'm not making any claims about how the truth of these matters is unknowable. If I identify as a "strong" atheist (or just "atheist" if you prefer), we know you will respond this way:

___, so-called weak form atheism is a rhetorical stratagem that fails to deal with the key challenge on the table. God is a serious candidate, necessary being world root. Such are either impossible of being or actual. What warrant do you have for your implied impossibility_____. Failing such, we have good reason to see that you are exaggerating the power of your hyperskepticism to disregard God.

You would assert that God is a necessary being, and demand warrant for my "implied claim". Of course it's not an implied claim, as I haven't said anything about necessary beings (*ahem* speaking of rhetorical stratagems). Well, you can demand whatever you want, but that's obviously not something I have. My position, simply, is that there are probably no gods. By that I mean I'm fairly confident of my conclusion, but not certain. And that's primarily due to lack of evidence (at least evidence accessible to me). My conclusion is that my position doesn't fit comfortably in any of the three positions that have been brought up (agnosticism, "weak" and "strong" atheism). daveS

My argument as to why atheism is logically fallacious is really very basic and straight forward. It appears to me that most of our naturalist/materialist interlocutors seem to think that their world view (WV) somehow wins by default. But does it really? When have any of them ever been able to prove their WV to be true? (If any of them have, I apparently missed it.) It appears to me that the only argument that they have is a fallacious argument from ignorance: No one has ever proved that God exists, therefore, God does not exist. However, the argument from ignorance is a two edged sword which cuts both ways. Here is a textbook example:

Ad ignorantium arguments (appeals to ignorance) have one of the following two forms: It has not been proved that P. [therefore] ~P. It has not been proved that ~P. [therefore] P. Here are two classic examples: SOLVED PROBLEM 8.20 What is wrong with these arguments? No one has ever proved that God exists [Therefore] God does not exist. No one has ever proved that God does not exist. [Therefore] God exists. Solution Both are fallacious appeals to ignorance. Nothing about the existence of God follows from our inability to prove God’s existence or nonexistence (i.e., from our ignorance about the matter).

(Schaum’s Outlines of Logic, 2nd Ed., p. 203) https://www.amazon.com/Schaums-Outline-Logic-Second-Outlines/dp/0071755462 Ironically, some atheistic naturalists try to discredit theism by fallaciously accusing theist’s of using the so-called God-of-the-gaps argument. Yes, some theist’s and ID’ist do make fallacious arguments but not every appeal to God or a designer is fallacious or God of the gaps. Indeed, naturalists/materialists are, more often than not, guilty of making a Nature or a Darwin of the gaps argument which is just as fallacious. So at the very least we can say that atheistic naturalism/materialism and theism are on more or less an equal footing. So for an atheist to argue that there is insufficient evidence for theism is logically fallacious. This raises some pertinent questions: (1) Is there any way to prove that your world view is true? Or, if not prove then (2) when it comes to competing world views A and B (such as theism and naturalism) how do we decide between them? I think there is which is why I am a theist. john_a_designer

851 Kairosfocus

with the quantum world walking up to deliver the shot of mercy.

I wanna hear the "bang." :) Truthfreedom

DS, Let's roll the tape on how this exchange started:

Sev, 846: >>Atheism is the position of disbelief in a deity on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Which specific fallacy is being committed in such a case?>> KF, 849: >>we start with your definition. Nope, you described an agnosticism claim. Atheists, properly, imply that they know enough to reject the reality of God. Where, as God is clearly a serious candidate necessary being root of reality, if God is possible, he exists in at least one possible world. However, by core characteristics, NB’s are framework to any world existing so if God is possible he is actual and in all worlds including ours. So, the atheistical claim is that God is impossible of being. Post Plantinga and the free will/morally governed (so, rational) creature defence, there is no even remotely plausible atheistical argument to the impossibility of God. The confident manner claims above collapse.>> Sev, 852: >>The word “atheism” embraces both the weak and the strong form. Weak atheism is what I asserted, strong atheism is the positive denial that gods exist.>> KF, 854: >>so-called weak form atheism is a rhetorical stratagem that fails to deal with the key challenge on the table. God is a serious candidate, necessary being world root. Such are either impossible of being or actual. What warrant do you have for your implied impossibility_____. Failing such, we have good reason to see that you are exaggerating the power of your hyperskepticism to disregard God.>>

In short, the matter is not as simple as you asserted by clipping 846 only. As I inferred from his epistemological, want of adequate warrant focus, Seversky was pushing the "weak" claim. That points to two issues, one the root of reality, serious candidate necessary being who grounds moral government. Two, the historical root with Buchner et al (and Darwin's reservations). Recall, Buchner and Aveling [Marx's de facto son in law, BTW) to Darwin, after mucking around in Greek grammer to make it seem plausible that non-belief on inadequate evidence is the relevant force of the French coinage on a Greek root and prefix . . . how often are awful things done with Greek:

suggestion was made that, after all, “Agnostic” was but “Atheist” writ respectable, and “Atheist” was only “Agnostic” writ aggressive. To say that one did not know was the verbal equivalent of saying that one was destitute of the god-idea, whilst at the same time a sop was thrown to the Cerberus of society by the adoption of a name less determined and uncompromising. At this he [Darwin] smiled and asked: “Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?”

Further to such, is the little matter of what knowledge is in weak common sense vs the projected utter certainty/absence of possibility of error form used to set up the argument. Utter absolute certainty in knowledge claims is only possible on our part for a relative few self-evident propositions similar to 2 + 3 = 5 or error exists or the principle of identity with its two close corollaries, LNC and LEM. Even a lot of Mathematics is hedged about, post-Godel. By exaggerating requisites of degree of warrant (esp. as regards classes of evidence available to us) we find lurking selective hyperskepticism. When in fact the overwhelming bulk of what we accept as knowledge is well warranted (so, reliable enough for "government work"), credibly (but not utterly certainly) true belief. In practical terms, we have good warrant sufficient to use on prudence and moral certainty such that it would be irresponsible to act as though X were false given degree of warrant attaching to X. Where, most of science, esp. explanatory constructs, cannot rise to the moral certainty standard, given the notorious pessimistic induction on scientific theories. In that context, we then face the reality root challenge. For cause, we need a finitely remote adequate cause and sustainer of a world containing morally governed creatures -- us. Where too, our very rationality is inextricably morally governed from first principles and duties up. Where, the root needs to be necessary (and so without beginning or end) being framework to any world existing. In which context, God is patently a serious candidate NB, which entails, either impossible as a square circle is impossible of being (mutually inconsistent core characteristics) or else present in at least one possible world. But as NB, framework to all PW's including this actualised one. That is, the real issue is whether God is possible of being. Once possible, actual. Atheism, strong, weak or whatever other form may be dreamed up, implies a knowledge claim, not on doubting or dismissing God's reality, but that he is impossible of being. Which, patently, is a horse of a different colour indeed. Formerly the so-called problem of evil was trotted out to make that seem plausible but post Plantinga informed atheists and fellow travellers keep away from that argument in serious contexts. For, there is no doubt that the free will defence is a powerful corrective to such thinking. That is, the properly phrased theistic set is coherent and suggests a plausible motive for there being a world with evils. Namely that a world of moral virtue and morally governed rational, responsible freedom must be a world of just that, freedom. So, the matter is more complex and more challenging to atheistical and agnostic views than is commonly recognised. Where, bound up in all of this is the matter of responsible rational freedom. We also see the acid at work, undermining buttresses of freedom with good order. The sandbars of Syrtis lie ahead on current track as we are caught up in the storm. We need a sea anchor and careful navigation if we are to make way to a haven. (Malta means, Haven, in Phoenecian, close enough to Hebrew to be instantly recognisable.) Will we founder on sandbars or will we be grateful to shipwreck at a haven? We need some good people in a storm, stat. KF kairosfocus

DS, agnosticism strictly is not dis-belief, active rejection but an epistemological position that one lacks adequate warrant to actively believe. That is, a fancy word for doubt. The issues come in on warrant accessible and the shading Dr Buchner championed in was it 1881. KF PS: AmHD again,

ag·nos·ti·cism (?g-n?s?t?-s?z??m) n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016

Notice, first denial of absolute knowledge of first principles, which would in key part be self-evident. The second builds on that and is clearly an epistemological view. An implicit fallacy is the notion that knowledge in responsible usage requires effectively absolute certainty. That would sweep away Science, Medicine, History, Economics, Management, commonsense day to day knowledge and even a lot of Mathematics. Instead, a weak form sense that knowledge is responsibly warranted (and so reliable), credibly true belief is a more accurate description. See the issue on how acids are eating away the buttresses of liberty? Sandbars of Syrtis are on the current track in the storm. kairosfocus

KF,

Note, DIS-belief or denial, not mere absence of belief. Dis, implying active rejection not mere absence.

Hm, but then you called the position Seversky described agnosticism, despite, erm...

Atheism is the position of disbelief in a deity on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

daveS

DS, Let us note Am HD as recently as 2016:

a·the·ism (??th?-?z??m) n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. [French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dh?s- in Indo-European roots.] a?the·ist n. a?the·is?tic, a?the·is?ti·cal adj. a?the·is?ti·cal·ly adv. American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016

Note, DIS-belief or denial, not mere absence of belief. Dis, implying active rejection not mere absence. The implication is a claim to well-warranted, informed disbelief or denial. But it is indubitable that a claim to non-belief on lack of warrant is made. Notice, slide to absence not active rejection. I give a telling context for this, a report by Aveling on his meeting with Darwin shortly before the latter died:

[Having been invited to lunch with Darwin and at the end of the meal with a Dr Büchner of Germany, withdrawing to Darwin's study, so] once we were within the walls of his study, and he was sitting in most unconventional fashion in the large, well-worn easy chair, almost the first thing he said was, "Why do you call yourselves Atheists?" . . . . It was pointed out that the Greek [ALPHA for not] was privative, not negative [--> playing with Gk prefixes, a- means normally, NOT-]; that whilst we did not commit the folly of god-denial, we avoided with equal care the folly of god-assertion: that as god was not proven, we were without god (atheoi) and by consequence were with hope in this world, and in this world alone . . . with point after point of our argument he agreed; statement on statement that was made he endorsed, saying finally: "I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist." Upon this the suggestion was made that, after all, "Agnostic" was but "Atheist" writ respectable, and "Atheist" was only "Agnostic" writ aggressive. To say that one did not know was the verbal equivalent of saying that one was destitute of the god-idea, whilst at the same time a sop was thrown to the Cerberus of society by the adoption of a name less determined and uncompromising. At this he smiled and asked: "Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?"

This is the evident root of the matter. Dr Buchner was coming from an atheism conference convened in the UK. The root of my comment on stratagem should also be clear, and clear that it is warranted fair comment. A knowledgeable person should know s/he is so lacking in knowledge of reality at large and that arguments claiming to be disproofs of God are so fraught with peril that it is dubious to assert knowledge of the non-existence of God. Being "godless" normally means in rebellion against God and moral principles rooted in God. But shift to the ground of oh you have not good warrant for God to my satisfaction (and I am in a position to know) and one can seize benefit of a default without warrant. As in, you assert there IS a God, and bear burden to demonstrate such to arbitrarily high degree of warrant. I simply default to oh, without adequate evidence one should not trouble oneself unduly with fairy-tales. (And atheists have tried to contemptuously confront me in such terms, even face to face.) The answer is as already given: we represent a peculiar order of creature, morally governed rational responsible freedom. Whatever root of reality there is must be adequate to such. Infinite succession of finite causal-temporal stages is implausible, as is circular causation. The latter points to the obvious point that were there ever utter non-being, such would forever obtain as there is want of causal capability. Thus if a causal-temporal world now is, something of a different order always was, necessary being root of reality. Necessary being adequate to account for such peculiar creatures as we are. Thus, inherently good, utterly wise, with power, skill and knowledge to form worlds. Thus, by characteristics, God. So, God is not an arbitrary suggestion but is intimately connected to filling the bill for required reality root. Thence, we find the centrality of built in moral government by a law of our nature coeval with our being humans, rational, responsible, significantly free. Without which, we are not even equipped to argue. Notice, the debasement of mind. Sandbars of Syrtis ahead on track in the storm. KF kairosfocus

KF,

Agnostics wishing to identify as atheists are failing a major epistemology and logic of being test, as already was outlined. KF

Whether this is accurate or not, it does not imply that weak atheism is merely a rhetorical stratagem. daveS

Seversky, kindly note 859. KF kairosfocus

UB, a very sobering point. For me the recognition of alphanumerical, algorithmic -- so, linguistic and goal-directed -- code in the living cell is already the SETI signal. We are not alone. Multiply by such being coeval with cell based life and we find that such life on earth is designed. Exponentiate by discovering that we live in a cosmos set at a deeply isolated operating point that enables C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life and it is instantly plausible that our world and its creatures are produced by an extra-cosmic designer of astonishing skill and power. KF kairosfocus

DS, Let us start with, being a responsible, rational, significantly free being:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

Of course, one may deny being rationally, responsibly, significantly free, As with say Alex Rosenberg:

Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. [--> So, just how did self-aware, intentional consciousness arise on such materialism? Something from nothing through poof magic words like "emergence" won't do.] Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>

That is a stance that reduces us to grand delusion. Including, Mr Rosenberg. No wonder, 90 years ago, Haldane counselled:

"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. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]

So, atheism runs into a lot of trouble even before we get to contemplating the roots of reality. Here is a corrective, by Reppert:

. . . let us suppose that brain state A [--> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], 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 [--> concious, perceptual state or disposition] 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.

If we set aside the notion that we are not free enough to be rational and capable of warrant so we may have knowledge (which latter is presupposed by those who wish to contrast that we do not have enough to warrant the claim to know that God is, much less to have met and been transformed by him [of which there are so many millions that to doubt them all implies likelihood of grand delusion yet again]) we have to account for the first duties of reason and the existence of a world in which there are responsible, rational, morally governed creatures. Where, over three years we have sufficiently hammered out that the world cannot reasonably have traversed a transfinite past succession of cumulative, causally-temporally successive stages to reach to now. (That would be atheists end up implying such a bizarre claim as a past-infinite causal-temporal succession of cumulative stages [let's call them years for convenience] is already a red flashing light.) This plausibly requires a finitely remote being of a different order from the familiar, composite, contingent entities, a necessary being world root. And not just that, one adequate to account for a world inhabited by creatures sufficiently free to be rational, thus morally governed. After Hume's Guillotine and Euthyphro's dilemma are duly noted, such a being must be inherently good and utterly wise as well as awesomely powerful enough to be root-cause of our world. Where, necessary being implies eternality. If you doubt this last, kindly explain to us a world from a true nothing, utter non-being with no causal powers, or the equivalent, a future state reaching back to cause itself. or, explain to us how a world could be in which say two-ness i.e. the reality we term the number two (a corollary of the principle of distinct identity) does not already exist, or begins to exist or ceases from being. Our existence as responsible, rational, morally governed creatures -- before we look at signs of design and whatnot -- already strongly warrants inference to the only serious candidate reality root that can readily account for such peculiar creatures as we are. This is of course not a deductive proof, it is inference to best warranted explanation. Namely, the inherently Good, utterly Wise Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. This brings us full circle to the implications of the widespread breakdown of reasoning and recognition of first duties of reason that has led our civilisation to our present peril. For, among the duties are duties to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, thus fairness and justice. In short, to built in law of our nature coeval with our being human. Thence, just civil law accountable before the bar of justice. In Cicero's summary of the consensus view in De Legibus, penned 100 years before Paul would write to then visit Rome:

“Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

It is precisely this insight that grounded modern self-government of a free people through understanding that justice duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities; as may be readily ascertained from say the US DoI, 1776 and the Constitution that sought to deliver on its bill of requisites. So, too, as that understanding has progressively been debased and denied then dismissed, no wonder the buttresses of constitutional democracy have been progressively undermined to today's point of mortal danger. Hence, our peril. On present course in the storm, we are heading for the sand bars of Syrtis. KF kairosfocus

DS, rhetoric drives pistis, rhetorical proof, leading to a faith-point. Agnostics wishing to identify as atheists are failing a major epistemology and logic of being test, as already was outlined. KF kairosfocus

. Reasoning? Seversky’s protectionist reasoning ::

UB: Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements? Seversky: I have never disputed those requirements. I accept what von Neuman and others have determined are the basic requirements for any self-reproducing system. What I do not accept – and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field – is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer.

So the only thing that can motivate a decision away from your preferred position is if it can be proven that the origin of life is not possible by any unknown natural cause. We can talk about the posture of your answer in a moment, but first we need to point out the 600lb gorilla hiding behind the curtains. You are using a non-falsifiable condition as your standard of evidence in a scientific question. You’ve set up a situation where the hypothesis you are opposed to must prove a negative or the evidence in favor of that hypothesis is given no value because it does not meet the threshold. Only the proof of a negative is given the capacity to change your position. This is entirely illegitimate reasoning. Of course, no one can force you to use valid reasoning in your beliefs; that is generally something that only comes when it is actually valued by the person doing the reasoning. But you clearly cannot stand firm and suggest that your conclusions were arrived at with anything even resembling sound judgement. That is simply not true. Likewise, when you say that you “accept” opposing evidence (such as Von Neumann and others) it is also simply not true. Under your reasoning, the evidence for your opposition can continue to pile up to the rafters while the evidence in favor of your preferred position remains at zero. Until that opposing evidence proves a negative (something it cannot do) then it does not have the power to affect your conclusion. Physical evidence, indeed, becomes meaningless. This is the ultimate protectionist shield against science and reason; demand something that is not logically possible as your standard for evidence. The bonus is that you get to say you are a person of science and reason, while concealing the fact that you’ve completely eviscerated both of everything they have to offer.

Upright BiPed

KF,

weak form atheism is a rhetorical stratagem that fails to deal with the key challenge on the table.

Nonsense. It's the honest position some of us have arrived at, recognizing our own very limited knowledge and powers of reason. I want to stress that I'm not the least bit interested in convincing anyone of my position, so I don't spend much time debating the existence of god in earnest. People such as TF sometimes post ridiculous statements about atheists (presumable weak or strong) which merit a response. Although it's usually SIWOTI. :P daveS

852 Seversky

Of course, Sam Harris in his book Letter to a Christian Nation

Wow. You atheists have such a group of intellectuals on your side. Dawkins, Coyne... A competition of clowns.

Atheism is nothing more

Than frustrated and annoying children that don't like their toys. And adults have to spank you. Truthfreedom

Sev, so-called weak form atheism is a rhetorical stratagem that fails to deal with the key challenge on the table. God is a serious candidate, necessary being world root. Such are either impossible of being or actual. What warrant do you have for your implied impossibility_____. Failing such, we have good reason to see that you are exaggerating the power of your hyperskepticism to disregard God. KF kairosfocus

Folks, I am led to see that it is absolutely pivotal to recognise that unless we are genuinely free, we cannot be free enough to think. That which is free is self-moved, en-souled in Plato's terms. Likewise, morally governed. There is a key self-evident aspect, that is laden with import for the nature of reality:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

We draw this out on one facet through Epictetus:

DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]

Paul of Tarsus, here recognises the power of the principle of identity:

1 Cor 14: 6 Now, brothers,1 if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

These are pivotal to addressing what we have been undermining. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus/849

Sev, we start with your definition. Nope, you described an agnosticism claim. Atheists, properly, imply that they know enough to reject the reality of God.

The word "atheism" embraces both the weak and the strong form. Weak atheism is what I asserted, strong atheism is the positive denial that gods exist. Of course, Sam Harris in his book Letter to a Christian Nation challenges the necessity for the term at all.

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs

Seversky

TF, I tend to note that on God as necessary, reality root being, mind comes before matter and calls it into existence. Accordingly, I don't take seriously schemes that huff and puff about mind or soul vs matter. Especially when the evident solidity of matter is a matter of field interactions and mostly empty space. Materialism is under siege and the outlook is grim: self-referentially incoherent, unable to account for rationality and responsibility, with the quantum world walking up to deliver the shot of mercy. KF kairosfocus

ET, UD is not generally about Christian theology, but it seems a few remarks are apt. It is patent that western civilisation as we know it in the main comes from the Christian synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, with the key onward Germanic injection of a strong emphasis on rights and freedoms that form a due balance with duties to shape our understanding of justice. So, the synthesis first embodied in a tent-making Rabbi from a Greek Uni town who was Rabbi Gamaliel's greatest student and a Roman Citizen is absolutely central to understanding our civilisation. Which brings in a key Greek contribution: unifying intelligible synthesis as a core of the rational part of our worldview. Today, we tend to despise synthesis, even among the learned. Things like totalising metanarrative and radical relativism tied to hyperskepticism are real problems. As a result we are haunted by incoherence and just plain self-falsifying contradictory schemes of thought. In that context, the triune view of God is part of systematised theology that seeks to faithfully, accurately capture the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The Nicene Creed is the first such and it is a well founded document. There are many misconceptions regarding that view of God, I usually point people to the apocryphal tale of St Patrick and the Shamrock and to the shield of faith as a first point of reference. But then, I am a very visual thinker. The key point of emphasis is the relevance of synthesis. KF kairosfocus

Sev, we start with your definition. Nope, you described an agnosticism claim. Atheists, properly, imply that they know enough to reject the reality of God. Where, as God is clearly a serious candidate necessary being root of reality, if God is possible, he exists in at least one possible world. However, by core characteristics, NB's are framework to any world existing so if God is possible he is actual and in all worlds including ours. So, the atheistical claim is that God is impossible of being. Post Plantinga and the free will/morally governed (so, rational) creature defence, there is no even remotely plausible atheistical argument to the impossibility of God. The confident manner claims above collapse. KF PS: This has strong relevance to our considerations as evolutionary materioalistic scientism and fellow traveller ideologies are pivotal to the undermining of the key buttresses of constitutional democracy. When I get back to you and DS, I will speak more to such. kairosfocus

. Here is yours in particular Sev.. Upright BiPed

seversky- atheists are obviously incapable of assessing the evidence. ET

Atheism is the position of disbelief in a deity on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Which specific fallacy is being committed in such a case? Seversky

Dave @ 837,

Imagine that you lose you faith and decide that there are probably no gods.

Not possible. Atheism is based on a logical fallacy. john_a_designer

TF, I don't know enough about the issue to be a subscriber to either one. daveS

842

Neither of us is a materialist, so let’s set that issue aside, ok?

Well, I am an hylemorphist (Aristotle), (Dr. Dennis Bonnette), (Ed Feser). And I am almost sure you are not an hylemorphist. You say you are neither a materialist. The only other options (worldviews) are: - Idealism (Bernardo Kastrup) - Cartesian dualism Which one do you suscribe to? Truthfreedom

TF, Yes, I'm assuming that the truth (of whatever matter is under consideration) exists and that I am equipped to understand it to some extent. Neither of us is a materialist, so let's set that issue aside, ok? daveS

839 DaveS

As a fallible human, I do my best to ascertain what the truth is.

That means two things: - First: to ascertain something, that something ("truth") has to exist. - Second: you need to have the appropriate tools to understand it. Evolutionism/ materialism prohibits the second. We are slaves to neural patterns/ neural firings, trapped inside skulls, that are the result of physical laws. What does that have to do with "truth" and "reason"? Truthfreedom

daves:

This view of goodness as something that cannot exist without a god is alien to me, I must admit.

Why? Without God, goodness is whatever you want it to be.

Imagine that you lose you faith and decide that there are probably no gods.

Umm, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Here’s a specific example: As a newly minted atheist (and eventually as an old atheist), you would likely still prefer that your grandchildren grow up in a society in which murder is punished rather than condoned.

And there is still God. All atheists are riding on the coattails of religions. ET

TF, Obviously I don't think my beliefs create reality. As a fallible human, I do my best to ascertain what the truth is. daveS

837 DaveS

Imagine that you lose you faith and decide that there are probably no gods.

The problem with that line of thought is that our beliefs do not create reality. You believing that God does not exist and it becoming true are not the same. Atheists mistake: - I can live without believing in God With - My beliefs are which creates reality (because I say there's no God and I do not die as a punishment, then it becomes true) People do not create God. It's the other way around. Truthfreedom

JAD, Regarding the Sartre passage:

There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men.

This view of goodness as something that cannot exist without a god is alien to me, I must admit. Imagine that you lose you faith and decide that there are probably no gods. I suspect that although your worldview had changed, your understanding of how to organize a healthy society would not be much different. Here's a specific example: As a newly minted atheist (and eventually as an old atheist), you would likely still prefer that your grandchildren grow up in a society in which murder is punished rather than condoned. Is that correct? And what do you make of this preference? Is it rational? daveS

[SNIP! No need to feed the trolls] And I said the Trinity was contrived. Sir Isaac Newton said it before I did. ET

F/N: On garbage cans: https://bizfluent.com/facts-7741400-garbage-can-model-approach.html >> You may not like having your business decisions compared to dumpster diving, but that's the implication of the garbage can model. As described by researchers Cohen, March and Olsen in 1972, organizations toss all their problems and possible solutions into a metaphorical trash can. When they need to solve a problem, they grope around in the can and pull out a solution virtually at random. TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) The garbage can model says most organizational decisions are irrational. How Organizations Make Decisions A century ago, decision-making models assumed that managers made policy choices and solved problems rationally. Faced with a challenge, they gathered all relevant facts, evaluated them carefully and selected the solution that met the best interests of the firm. In real life, that often isn't possible. Managers may not have all the information, the time to make a decision or see clearly which organizational choice is best. Alternative theories assume that managers make decisions irrationally. For example, the incremental model says managers make whichever decision requires the least possible effort, even if it's not the best solution. The Cohen, March and Olsen garbage can model allows for managers making more effort than that. However, it still assumes that they're making irrational decisions. The Garbage Can Model Explained In Cohen, March and Olsen's view, decision makers often operate in an irrational environment with a lot of uncertainty. As a result, they make decisions without following the rational approach of gathering facts and weighing the evidence thoughtfully. Garbage can decision making doesn't go looking for the perfect solution. Instead, it mixes and matches the elements the organization has already piled into the can: Choices looking for problems Issues and feelings looking for decisions to affect Solutions looking for issues they can resolve Decision-makers looking for something to do The original 1972 theory concentrated on academic institutions. Later writers expanded it to decision making in business. For a garbage can theory example, consider an entrepreneur who is launching his third or fourth startup. When he runs into a problem, his first thought might be to draw on experience: reach into the garbage can for one of the solutions he's used in similar situations before. Is the Model True? The creators of the garbage can model weren't recommending this approach as a way to make decisions. Instead, they claimed this was how decision making usually worked. Problem solving in this model is an anarchic mess where managers simply seize the first solution they dredge out of the trash [--> I modify: that seems good to them and fits their agendas -- but what if they are using crooked yardsticks as standards of straight, upright, accurate? Where we know we have a Lincolnian, sheep's tail is called a leg and expected to work as one problem]. Because that solution worked once, it might fix things again, but that isn't a slam dunk . . . >> Sounds horrifically familiar? It should. Next stop on track, sand bars off the North African Coast. KF kairosfocus

825 Mac McTavish

And Let me remind you that blacks were classified as less intelligent and more aggressive than “whites”.

An according to you, because people agreed, it was "true". Not according to me. Truthfreedom

Here is a quote from Jean Paul Sartre’s 1946 lecture on existentialism where he discusses the “possibility” of morality without God.

The existentialist… finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men.

I find myself agreeing with Sartre on a number of points, not because I am an atheist but because I think Sartre is courageous enough to be intellectually honest about the implications of an atheistic world view. Let me quote myself [AGAIN]. This is something I have said, going back years, several different times on several different threads:

I try to avoid getting involved in discussions or debates with any of our regular interlocutors because I don’t believe they are being intellectually or ethically honest. The logic here is really very basic and straightforward: If there are no true interpersonal moral standards or obligations how can we trust anything anyone says or asserts? I don’t think that we can. To have an honest discussion or debate you need some kind of interpersonal, or “transcendent,” standard of truth and honesty– even if it’s a traditional or some kind of “conventional” standard. Why would I trust somebody else’s subjective standard for honesty and truth when he starts out by arguing there is no standard of truth or honesty?

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/why-do-atheists-deny-objective-morality/#comment-648525 In other words, telling the truth and being honest only makes sense if there is an objective standard of truth and honesty. That’s a self-evident truth, therefore, any viable system of morality must be based on the fact that there really is moral truth. I think commenters on my (the ID) side waste too much time enabling bad behavior. BTW that includes the counter-trolling some of our so-called ID’ist "friends" engage in. Sometimes I wonder, whose side are they really on? Bad behavior on either side is very disruptive. john_a_designer

822 DaveS

Could you be suffering from MDS? Also perhaps DDS? ?

I suffer aversion to non-sense and kindergarten thinking. :) Truthfreedom

827 Kairosfocus

Okay, please, both of you, leave this thread.

Well said, sir. Don't kowtow to materialist non-sense. :) Truthfreedom

U-Haul a riot: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/ud-newswatch-highlights/u-haul-a-riot-where-lawless-oligarchy-is-the-natural-state-order/ kairosfocus

Seversky, >>Police will not “snitch” on their colleagues so, in a few cases, there is reason to believe that they have got away with murder, as well as lesser offenses. Look at the case of Frank Serpico, for example. In such cases, there seems to be no other solution than to dismantle the offending department and rebuild from scratch. Unless you have a better idea.>> 1: Yes, local reform including refoundation can be necessary (along with whistleblower protection or even a protective witness programme for turning supergrass), though as just noted that is precisely NOT what TBP as part of the Alinsky Community Organiser ecosystem of front groups has put on the table by fomenting riot in the face of clear self-defence. Notice, targetting of POL(ICE) for abolition, that is absolutely general as the further details given also show. The false accusations on criminalising race and poverty are utterly revealing. 2: We are dealing with cultural revolution and red guards as cannon fodder, on the McFaul Model as adapted and with Egypt, the wider Arab Spring and several colour revolutions as templates. Likely, at strategic level, some of the same actors are at work. >> in the case of a total breakdown in civil order, the cities will suffer first but it will soon spread out into the countryside.>> 3: See the disintegration of the Balkans and Lebanon, also Syria. Guess where the food is grown. >>It takes an expert shot to fully exploit the capability of the round and they are few and far between>> 4: The AK47 was a game changer, and so is the Creedmoor. It has proved capability to turn ordinary people into sniper-level shooters with a shockingly small amount of orientation and practice, because of manageable recoil blended with the characteristics of the round and quite available rifles. Stalking skills etc are needed, but hunters are commonplace as are veterans. 5: This threatens to turn the minuteman myth into reality. (No, the Kentucky Rifle did not win the American Revolution.) >>people forget the lessons of history.>> 6: More accurately, we were mistaught, including not soundly taught at all. Journalism is supposed to deliver a first, rough draft of history but it is patent that journalism instead is now largely agit prop. As for commentary . . . >>Democracy is being undermined in the US by a President and his cronies whose only concern is to continue their hold on power. They care of nothing and no one else except insofar as they can be exploited to that end.>> 7: Demonstrably false. The sort of undermining on the table is longstanding and in the main comes from the conventional left. For all the foibles, flaws and needless NY Contractor abrasiveness, there is no good reason to infer that Mr Trump is a would-be dictator. >>his open campaign to undermine confidence in the integrity of the electoral process>> 8: it is manifest that the sort of mail in ballots (not conventional absentee voting with checks) being promoted is chaotic and rife with opportunities for massive fraud. That such is being promoted and objecting to patent danger is twisted like this is telling. 9: One of the most chilling points I saw was some alleged expert saying material fraud has not been possible in the US for 60 - 70 years. 70 years takes in the racial lockout schemes in the South, and in 1960 it is clear that an election was decided by rotten voting in Chicago and Texas. So, I take it as confirmed to be very concerned. 10: I also monitored the hanging chad recount tactics of 2000 which were stopped for cause by the Supreme Court. 11: My conclusion is, the US is overconfident in the integrity of its election system and will need a full Supreme Court in place for midnight November 3rd. 12: Where, Ms Ginsberg should have been counselled to retire five years ago. Bad decisions have consequences. In this case, a march of folly (assuming the peasant uprising by ballot in 2016 was not going to be effective) holds out hope for those who would otherwise become victims of the worst, ongoing, holocaust in history; the slaughter of living posterity in the womb under false colour of law. 13: Then, we can go to reforming law from the ground up, the real major reform needed. Starting with first duties of reason and built in law of responsible freedom. >>I see alarming echoes of the very early days of Nazism. >> 14: Blood libel. The above on U-Haul a riot shows just how toxic it is. >>you and other are so fixated on Marxist insurgencies that you are blind to this more serious danger.>> 15: FYI, my first political opinion, literally taken at mother's knee, was anti-fascism. Has it dawned on you that why I dismiss conventional wisdom and agit prop talking points is precisely because I have done decades of homework including borrowing and reading my Uni Library's volumes on the Trials at Nuremberg? 16: Mr Trump is precisely not a Nietzschean superman political messiah seen as coming in a day of unprecedented danger as a figure beyond law who rescues a critical mass victim group and imposes a totalitarian statist solution with himself as embodiment of the state: everything in the state (including the churches [cf Barmen Declaration 1934], cartels, unions, youth bodies etc), nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. There is no desire to overturn the market system through cartelising under zampolit control, with nominal owners reduced to pensioners of the state. There is no Professor Junkers hounded to death by a former employee now state secretary for aviation. Mr Trump has sought to pull back from geostrategic commitments -- sometimes, too much; i.e. his instincts are likely to be that peculiarly American blunder, isolationist. And much more. Lazy, ignorant namecalling is manifest by its ignorance of key realities of fascism. 17: He is a political entrepreneur who has taken up the cause of the marginalised people of the hinterland and like Reagan before him a displaced Democrat. I think in a rather inarticulate way, he champions what Churchill -- who was also widely despised and seen as a polarising figure with a discrediting track record -- termed Christian Civilisation. >>you and other are so fixated on Marxist insurgencies>> 18: I am not fixated, I am responding to those who are ignorantly playing with ideological fire on clear evidence. By rights, Marxism should have had a stake through its heart 30 years past. It has been coddled in the academy, media, law and an ecosystem of Alinsky agit prop groups and is being used to push a cultural, colour revolution on the McFaul model. See the newer OP on that. >>Do you want to see that here? Do you think that is our “manifest destiny”?>> 19: I predict, the attempt will fail but will do a lot of damage within the US while opening opportunities for circling geostrategic vultures. >>we have become so inured to this man saying outrageous things that would never have been tolerated from any previous president, regardless of party.>> 20: Instead, the whole US political climate has become outrageous. Let me use the OB term: Garbage can organisational climate or culture. See Plato's Ship of State. >>Human rights are whatever entitlements and privileges and freedoms a democratic society choose to grant to all of its members>> 21: That is a key blunder, cultural relativism. The point of a core, built-in right is that it is unalienable and coeval with being human, endowed by the Creator is the 1776 phrasing. 22: Where, a sheep's tail cannot become a leg regardless of who decrees, rules or votes. We have a principle of identity problem. >>There should be no right to impose that view on the rest of us>> 23: But radical activists who access power, institutional domination and media power as well as ability to warp the judiciary over the long term may freely impose their tail is a leg blunder? Think again at this level, principle of identity that X is itself i/l/o its particular characteristics that distinguish it from what is not x. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, I respond on points, first noting from the other thread on the highly relevant nature of The Bail Project; which seems to be supported financially by surprising people, who I can only believe are in the main naive about what is going on:

It looks like The Bail Project (where the Truck renter-driver worked) has an interesting focus: "advance racial equity, with a focus on criminal justice and policing reform." What context of "reform"? Well, TBP says, "paying bail for those in jail is an 'act of resistance against a system that criminalizes race and poverty' . . . " which is a slanderous accusation against law and law enforcement that provides dubious rationale for demanding to "abolish" same. Such also readily explains the open season, no limits mentality. The backdrop is obvious, Critical X-Theories and underlying culture form, Frankfurt School marxism. In this context, on a phone call we hear a response to the Abolish the Pol(ice) message, she says: "What does it matter what I posted on a sign?" That's direct self-identification as creator of the relevant sign, within a loaded context. It also tells us much about the misanthropic, anti-civilisational cultural revolution agenda at work. The alternative to lawful police, border control and courts is ideology driven committees for defence of the revolution led by "area leaders" [= dons], volks courts and state secret police. Something is very wrong.

It is fair and cogent comment that this is utterly misanthropic, slanderous and anti-civilisational. There is no law in the USA or any other responsible jurisdiction that "criminalizes RACE," such is a veiled blood libel that implies the US is a Nazi state. Which did effectively criminalise or more correctly outlaw being Jewish. Such is toxic extremism of the worst sort. And defamation is NOT protected free speech. Freedom under law is not an excuse to defame and stir hate. Indeed, we have every right here to use the mirror principle to infer what is in those who act like that and their likely behaviour should they gain power. Resort to riot in the direct context of demanding to turn law into open season on police speaks volumes. Where, too, we must note from the signs coming out of the truck, that it is not merely LOCAL policing in particular places, the ICE, a federal border control agency and part of the Homeland security system, is specifically targetted by the "clever" use of red braces around "ICE" in Police. The implication is direct and obvious, general abolition of lawful policing, border control and linked courts is what is being demanded. Demanded by riot. The likely alternative, on telling history, is quite plain and utterly misanthropic: committees for defence of the revolution (thus, warlordism as we saw in the CHOP enclave), volks courts (in my homeland, in a notorious locale, such courts and nearby grisly graveyard were found when at length the police and army had to take under siege and assault backed by US Marines over the horizon [I suspect a 1/2 battery of 105's was brought ashore]), secret state police. No sane person would go there, but that is where lawless ideological oligarchy [the self-appointed vanguards of the future] go, to try to impose their hoped for utopia by force of terror. Those are the matches being played with. I doubt the lady in the black shorts realises this, but again we have been robbed of sound history of our civilisation -- and of having that history of our civilisation properly framed and taught from the river valleys forward. (And no, Social Studies is no substitute.) Okay, next on the points. KF kairosfocus

MMT & JVL: You have come here, not I have gone there. FYI, explicitly, commenting is a privilege on good behaviour here at UD, for cause as a place where highly contentious issues have to be addressed. Part of that good behaviour is being reasonably responsive to the focal matter, especially when asked to do so. You, MMT in particular have persistently tried to drag this thread off track in pursuit of a hobby horse pivoting on behaviour that for cause is widely understood to be perverse, repulsive and insanitary. You have been warned, you have ignored. When I took a further corrective step, you have now decided to dodge a material issue by attacking the man. This is a familiar pattern. A trollish one. And indeed this latest resort is yet another toxic distractor. You, JVL, have decided to pile on, as though there is a right to be distractive, obsessive on such matters. Okay, please, both of you, leave this thread. G'day. KF, thread owner kairosfocus

Mac McTavish: Sorry. I have been gavelled. I have no desire to engage in a discussion with someone who can delete my responses and who responds to a comment by saying that I have been “corrected”. It is obvious that the only version of Christianity that you will accept is the one that denies me and my partner the benefits (and obligations) that you feel we shouldn’t have. I am old enough to remember the same bigoted arguments being used to legally deny interracial couples, or interfaith couples, from being married. Frankly, I have no desire to discuss the issue with someone who is so close-minded. Hear, hear! It's particularly galling because many participants here will vilify and 'carrect' those who they think are anti-ID but will NOT 'carrect' those who are pro-ID not matter how much their views differ from run-of-the-mill Christianity.. A while ago ET said something about the Christian Trinity being a load of horse-hockey and almost no one even noticed. JVL

TF

Mac McTavish Let me remind you that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until 1973.

And Let me remind you that blacks were classified as less intelligent and more aggressive than “whites”. Mac McTavish

KF

MMT & Seversky, could you kindly explain to me where in the Nicene Creed or elsewhere the Christian faith’s leaders set out to create. enact and impose the law of identity.

Sorry. I have been gavelled. I have no desire to engage in a discussion with someone who can delete my responses and who responds to a comment by saying that I have been “corrected”. It is obvious that the only version of Christianity that you will accept is the one that denies me and my partner the benefits (and obligations) that you feel we shouldn’t have. I am old enough to remember the same bigoted arguments being used to legally deny interracial couples, or interfaith couples, from being married. Frankly, I have no desire to discuss the issue with someone who is so close-minded. Mac McTavish

MMT & Seversky, could you kindly explain to me where in the Nicene Creed or elsewhere the Christian faith's leaders set out to create. enact and impose the law of identity. I can show where it is acknowledged or taken as a self-evident given as any responsible person will acknowledge: "1 Cor 14: 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?" The only slightly veiled anti-Christian bigotry that surfaces above under cover of a twisted form of the US Establishment Clause,* is a further reflection of just how debased thinking is now. KF PS: The principle is that there is to be no federal church of the US, that being left to states (9 of which had such churches in 1787), in a republican version of the Augsburg-Westphalia settlements. Further, the Congress was forbidden to encroach by legislation. By a fortiori reasoning, how much more the federal judiciary, likewise the obvious established anti-church of atheism is every inch as much a violation as would be a decree that say the Southern Baptist Church is the Church of the US as the Church of England is in the UK. The contribution to the present ruinous polarisation caused by that de facto establishment is an inadvertent testimony to the wisdom of the framers and the unwisdom of recent decades. kairosfocus

TF, Could you be suffering from MDS? Also perhaps DDS? :-) daveS

820 Kairosfocus

Marxism’s record speaks for itself, ruinously.

Marxism is jihad.

A general problem tied to marxist critical theories.

Even the name is horrid an non-sensical. As was its lousy founder, that disgusting Marx with his nitty beard. "Critical Theory". What a garbage. Truthfreedom

Seversky, we have dots to connect showing a radical insurgency seeking among other things to destroy lawful policing, border enforcement and linked courts. That is enough to utterly discredit those who enable and entertain same, especially when joined to persistent lawless, riotous conduct. Further to this, we are not dealing with a local but a general problem tied to marxist critical theories and radical initiatives. Marxism's record speaks for itself, ruinously. Perhaps, more later. KF PS: The 6.5 mm Creedmoor is not only quite accurate and long ranged (with subsonic transition well beyond 1,000 yd) but far more manageable on recoil than other typical cartridges with readily affordable rifles capable of exploiting its capability (not Walmart wonders, obviously), hence how it is a game changer. My point was and is that this takes sniping potential to a new level, if civil conflict goes to a much higher kinetic level. kairosfocus

Folks, I am again gavelling exchanges on whether the tail of a sheep has what a leg requires to be a leg. There have been exchanges on that topic entertained at UD, in the form of trying to redefine marriage under colour of law. All they show is that we have lost awareness of the principle of identity and that legal thought has become en-darkened and utterly absurd. This thread, instead, is about the rising tide of disintegration of the USA through civil conflict, which state however we like or don't like it, is the geostrategic pivot of our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus/800

1: The context is, a call to ABOLISH lawful Police, border control and linked courts, as was attached to OP and as is discussed in the onward thread. The implication is, not reforms but replacement, in context ideological entities such as committees for defence of the revolution, volks courts and secret state police.

Yes, there have been calls by some for abolition of the police in response to some egregious examples of police misconduct. There are some departments that seem to operate something like an "omerta" code of silence such that it is almost impossible to prosecute wrongdoers. Police will not "snitch" on their colleagues so, in a few cases, there is reason to believe that they have got away with murder, as well as lesser offenses. Look at the case of Frank Serpico, for example. In such cases, there seems to be no other solution than to dismantle the offending department and rebuild from scratch. Unless you have a better idea. As I wrote before, I believe the better approach is to invest more money in better pay, higher standards of recruitment and much higher standards of training. I think that, given the wide range of sometimes intractable problems we ask the police to handle, they are woefully undertrained. It is not fair on us or them to put them on the streets when they are not fully prepared.

3: In chaotic situations, cities will have supply lines disrupted, with disastrous consequences. Normal market links will be irrelevant.

Yes, in the case of a total breakdown in civil order, the cities will suffer first but it will soon spread out into the countryside.

4: The 6.5 mm is very different, scarily different in ways relevant to provoking armed conflict with the hinterlands. Admiral Yamamoto’s warning takes on new life.

The 6.5 mm Creedmoor has been proven to be ballistically superior to other sniping rounds for long-range accuracy but it is not some scary "wonder-weapon". It's just an incremental improvement and my caveats still apply. It takes an expert shot to fully exploit the capability of the round and they are few and far between There are also ways to defeat snipers now such as counter-sniping, gunshot detection systems and simple smokescreens.

5: So, why is there playing with marxist fire?

For the same reasons we have neo-Nazi groups still around, people forget the lessons of history.

6: Democracies require cultural buttresses that are being undermined.

I agree

7: Nope, that’s a piece of paper. First loyalty starts with the root of moral government. In that context, justice leads to small-c constitutional arrangements, and to lawful community and institutions. That is what is being undermined.

The Bible is pieces of paper. What matters is what's written on the paper. Democracy is being undermined in the US by a President and his cronies whose only concern is to continue their hold on power. They care of nothing and no one else except insofar as they can be exploited to that end. I look at Trump's rallies, the cult of the individual he has created around himself, the hints he is dropping about refusing to accept the results of the election, his open campaign to undermine confidence in the integrity of the electoral process, his administration's to bend the departments of states and scientific institutions to his political will and his unapologetically divisive rhetoric and I see alarming echoes of the very early days of Nazism. What also concerns me is that you and other are so fixated on Marxist insurgencies that you are blind to this more serious danger.

8: You leave off, ideologies, agendas and narratives that undermine buttresses of sustainable freedom with just order.

I am aware of other ideologies and agendas. I just don't think they are as great a threat as someone who has already got his hands on the levers of power and is showing increasing signs of not wanting to let go.

9: Over the past 100 years, political messianism has consistently come from the utopians of socialism, marxism and their kissing cousins fascism and national socialism. Indeed, Dear Leader comes from a Communist monarchy where the dynastic founder is now eternal president.

Do you want to see that here? Do you think that is our "manifest destiny"?

11: In context, there has been a slanderous attempt to label Mr Trump as a Hitler analogue (most recently by Mr Biden who used the Dr Goebbels variant). This is an outrage.

What is alarming is that we have become so inured to this man saying outrageous things that would never have been tolerated from any previous president, regardless of party. He has been allowed to drag down the standards of political discourse with relatively little resistance.

12: Part of the misunderstanding. There never is a RIGHT to marry as no-one owes you the duty of becoming a spouse.

Human rights are whatever entitlements and privileges and freedoms a democratic society choose to grant to all of its members, regardless of race or creed, by virtue of their being human. If a society decrees that marriage shall be for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples then that will be their right. In a free and democratic society a particular religion may restrict marriage to heterosexual couples but only for members of that faith . There should be no right to impose that view on the rest of us. Seversky

TF, Well, you have plenty of personality, bless your heart :-) daveS

814 DaveS

It seems all you can do is make bald assertions.

As? I know that people don't like to hear what is not mainstream. Because having personality is hard, DaveS. The masses don't want people who think for themselves. They tend to crush them. Truthfreedom

Mac McTavish Let me remind you that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until 1973. Were not you the guy of the 'consensus'? Ah. But there are "consensus" and "consensus". And we know how these things do work, don't we? Those who go against the tide are always ridiculed and left behind. Nihil novum sub sole. :) Truthfreedom

TF, It seems all you can do is make bald assertions. daveS

811 Mac McTavish

Facts to the contrary.

Nope. People trying to dress up a lie as truth. It may convince naive people, but not me even in a million years. Sorry. Truthfreedom

804 Mac McTavish

Then your complaint is with multiple polls on the subject, not me.

So if "polls" say Mr. Trump is the "most handsome man in the whole world", then Mr. Trump "is the most handsome man in the whole world". Hahaha. The West is now a massive kindergarten. It's so sad. Lots of technology but massive ignorance. Truthfreedom

Sev

Christianity can decide what is an acceptable form of marriage for Christians but it does not have any right to impose that on the rest of us.

Christianity cannot even decide what is acceptable for all Christians. We were married in a Christian church. Several Christian and Jewish denominations accept and officiate over SSM. TF

Nope. There is no such thing as same-sex “marriage”.

Facts to the contrary. Mac McTavish

807 Seversky

We can observe that a sheep’s tail is not a fifth leg.

Duh duh. Your ridiculous materialist superstition can't account for forms, just "matter in motion". Therefore, according to it, there are neither "legs" nor "tails". In fact, there are not even "humans". And that's why intelligent people know materialism is not meant to be taken seriously. A superstition for the decadent and almost illiterate West. Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom

807 Seversky

Is/ought.

The insurmountable gap your ridiculous and obsolete materialist superstition can not bridge, so you have to steal a "plank" from the theist. Which is very pathetic. Truthfreedom

801 DaveS

I’ve asked many times what the rationale is for denying the lesbian couple that lives 3 doors down from me the option of getting married.

It's very easy: Marriage= man + woman. But you know it and you don't care. Marxists know how to brainwash people to a tee. It's astonishing. Maybe it's true that humans are robots after all. With no reasoning capabilities. Being cool is so cool, ain't it? Truthfreedom

Kairosfocus/798

PS: Marriage isn’t like creating a business partnership or even organising bits and pieces of government machinery.

I would say that it is, in the sense of being a partnership that is sanctioned by society and formalized in law.

Let me say it this way, law as passed by states does not invent marriage, no more than it can invent justice or the built in moral government principles and duties that govern responsible reason, we can only acknowledge such things.

People were forming couples or partnerships in order to raise families for long before recorded history and did so without the sanction of Christianity or any other known religion. We wouldn't be here if that were not the case. Over time such relationships probably became formalized by contemporary societies into what we now would call marriages. Marriage was not created by law but neither was it created by any faith. Christianity can decide what is an acceptable form of marriage for Christians but it does not have any right to impose that on the rest of us.

That is part of our problem, trying to get people to pretend that a sheep’s tail is a fifth leg does not confer the nature of being a leg.

Is/ought. We can observe that a sheep's tail is not a fifth leg. That is about the nature of what "is". There is nothing in nature that dictates the nature of marriage in human society. The argument over the nature of marriage is about "ought". It cannot be resolved by appealing to Nature. Seversky

799 Mac McTavish

At present SSM is a marriage, regardless of your beliefs.

Nope. There is no such thing as same-sex "marriage". As there are no square circles. 2+2 is NOT =5 even if you legislate it and force people to recite it. The left is at odds with reality. And that's why the West is a barrage of laughs and a decadent society. Truthfreedom

Polls- LoL! Polls had Hillary Clinton winning the last election. They had Dewey as President before that. Polls are only as good as the honesty of the people taking them. And if marriage is whatever we say then that means humans should be able to marry another species, if they so choose. Polygamy and child marriages should also be OK.

Get back to me when governments, the courts and the majority of people support any of these.

It is a logical extension. So I understand why that would confuse you. The "arguments" against those are the same arguments against same sex marriages. The arguments for those are also the same arguments for same-sex marriages.

Until then, I will put this down as the fear-mongering slipper-slope fallacy that it is.

As I just demonstrated, it isn't a "fear-mongering slipper-slope fallacy". However, I would love to hear your arguments that it is. Do you have any or is that the best you can do?

Is your marriage meaningless because I am married?

Non-sequitur. Try again. But yes, marriage, in general, is less meaningful with the inclusion of unnatural pairings. ET

ET

September 27, 2020 at 10:25 am I doubt that the vast majority of people support same sex marriage.

Then your complaint is with multiple polls on the subject, not me.

A June 2020 Gallup poll found that 67% of Americans supported same sex marriage, while 31% were against, matching their May 2018 record high. A June 2019 CBS News poll found that 67% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 28% were against.[15] A June 2019 IPSOS/Reuters poll found that 58% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, while 28% were against.[16] A May 2019 Pew Research Center poll found 61% of Americans supported same-sex marriage while 31% were against.[17] A May 2019 Gallup poll found that 63% of Americans supported same sex marriage, with 36% opposing it. While this is a drop when compared to 2018, same sex marriage approval still remains stable. [18]

And if marriage is whatever we say then that means humans should be able to marry another species, if they so choose. Polygamy and child marriages should also be OK.

Get back to me when governments, the courts and the majority of people support any of these. Until then, I will put this down as the fear-mongering slipper-slope fallacy that it is.

Heck we can make it so that the institution of marriage is absolutely meaningless. It isn’t that far away, now.

Is your marriage meaningless because I am married? If so, might I suggest marriage counselling. Mac McTavish

daves:

Which is odd because I don’t recall any sort of penis inspection when I was at the courthouse.

That was done when you were born, duh. ET

I doubt that the vast majority of people support same sex marriage. And if marriage is whatever we say then that means humans should be able to marry another species, if they so choose. Polygamy and child marriages should also be OK. Heck we can make it so that the institution of marriage is absolutely meaningless. It isn't that far away, now. ET

Mac McT, Yes, I think the horse has left the barn on this one. I've asked many times what the rationale is for denying the lesbian couple that lives 3 doors down from me the option of getting married. The response usually involves mention of reproduction and complementary genitalia. Which is odd because I don't recall any sort of penis inspection when I was at the courthouse. I didn't even have to show ID. I guess that the underlying principle is that the couple must plausibly have (or have had) the ability to procreate at some point, perhaps before the hysterectomy, the encounter with an IED in Iraq, or the onset of menopause. daveS

Seversky, Let's pick up some points: >>the police and courts are not perceived as acting in the best interests of all?>> 1: The context is, a call to ABOLISH lawful Police, border control and linked courts, as was attached to OP and as is discussed in the onward thread. The implication is, not reforms but replacement, in context ideological entities such as committees for defence of the revolution, volks courts and secret state police. 2: We take due note of the misanthropic agendas you are rhetorically enabling. >> cities depend on the “hinterlands” for supplies of food and other resources. Just as the “hinterlands” depend on the cities to provide a market for the resources they produce.>> 3: In chaotic situations, cities will have supply lines disrupted, with disastrous consequences. Normal market links will be irrelevant. >> Finding people who can shoot them accurately at the ranges they’re capable of is a much harder proposition.>> 4: The 6.5 mm is very different, scarily different in ways relevant to provoking armed conflict with the hinterlands. Admiral Yamamoto's warning takes on new life. >> they would fall under the control of a “thugocracy” as they have on previous occasions.>> 5: So, why is there playing with marxist fire? >>even though far from perfect, we have a workable model in the United States. The problem is that, like any form of government, it requires the will of the people to sustain it.>> 6: Democracies require cultural buttresses that are being undermined. >> In other words, people have to understand that their first loyalty and duty is to the Constitution and the welfare of all the governed,>> 7: Nope, that's a piece of paper. First loyalty starts with the root of moral government. In that context, justice leads to small-c constitutional arrangements, and to lawful community and institutions. That is what is being undermined. >>not some “Dear Leader”.>> 8: You leave off, ideologies, agendas and narratives that undermine buttresses of sustainable freedom with just order. 9: Over the past 100 years, political messianism has consistently come from the utopians of socialism, marxism and their kissing cousins fascism and national socialism. Indeed, Dear Leader comes from a Communist monarchy where the dynastic founder is now eternal president. >>Where a situation develops in which those in power judge their first loyalty is to one man or woman over all other considerations then democracy will fall. >> 10: You again leave off, ideologies, agendas and narratives that undermine buttresses of sustainable freedom with just order. 11: In context, there has been a slanderous attempt to label Mr Trump as a Hitler analogue (most recently by Mr Biden who used the Dr Goebbels variant). This is an outrage. >>the right to marry>> 12: Part of the misunderstanding. There never is a RIGHT to marry as no-one owes you the duty of becoming a spouse. Instead there is a freedom to marry through mutual agreement of a man and a woman, within several reasonable restrictions. Where, as I already noted, there is a gross confusion on the nature of marriage and its relationship to what civil law can do. The rhetoric of rights is being used to abuse and to strawman caricature and accuse. >>Marriage is a cultural convention concerning the social recognition of a partnership between two people. >> 13: see how you smuggled in the notion of being a social invention? 14: No, marriage -- the reality not the term we use -- is antecedent to any state and code of law, being built into the naturally evident order of the two sexes and their complementary roles in reproduction and the generation-length challenge of child nurture. The principle of identity problem is pivotal. 15: A similar problem attaches to deumanising of our living posterity in the womb, allowing the worst holocaust in history under colour of law and rights. 800+ million in 40-odd years, now mounting up at 800,000 more per week. 16: Posterity, for cause, will cry out in pain at the foot of the cliff we are heading over, and call us an accursed, willfully blind en-darkened generation. KF kairosfocus

Marriage is what the people, the government and the courts say it is. At present SSM is a marriage, regardless of your beliefs. Trump May succeed in stacking the courts and changing this at the court level, but given that the vast majority of people support same sex marriage, I expect that most people will defy the court if they lean in this direction. Mac McTavish

Seversky, you jump from one thread to the next here. Have a look here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/ud-newswatch-highlights/u-haul-a-riot-where-lawless-oligarchy-is-the-natural-state-order/#comment-713169 KF PS: Marriage isn't like creating a business partnership or even organising bits and pieces of government machinery. Let me say it this way, law as passed by states does not invent marriage, no more than it can invent justice or the built in moral government principles and duties that govern responsible reason, we can only acknowledge such things . . . or in en-darkened understanding, refuse to do so to our own folly and eventual ruin. That is part of our problem, trying to get people to pretend that a sheep's tail is a fifth leg does not confer the nature of being a leg. That is, we have principle of identity troubles here at root. Whatever may be solemnly enacted under colour of law we cannot make pi equal 22/7 or any similar rational number. The first step out of our confusion is to understand why A is A and not ~A, so that world W = {A|~A}. Until law in our time gets that straight, it will only be a source of mischief and needless confusion leading to chaos. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus/792

And, what do you think defunding/abolishing lawful police, undermining courts etc implies?

That the police and courts are not perceived as acting in the best interests of all?

Do you think urban centres can sustain themselves on their own resources or sustain themselves without logistics and utilities coming from the hinterlands in peasant uprising, or can sustain conquest and collectivising of same etc?

No, cities depend on the "hinterlands" for supplies of food and other resources. Just as the "hinterlands" depend on the cities to provide a market for the resources they produce. They are mutually dependent.

With a 6.5 mm Creedmoor behind every distant rock on a hill? [Tank commanders and crews have to get out of their machines eventually.]

You can produce sniper rifles in 6.5 mm Creedmoor, .338 Lapua or .50 BMG relatively easy. Finding people who can shoot them accurately at the ranges they're capable of is a much harder proposition. Smoke screens can defeat telescopic sights and there are now anti-sniper detection systems which can detect their locations with reasonable accuracy.

Do you think this time around Marxism would do any better than the dozens of times it has come to power over the past 100 years? Get real.

No, I don't. I think that, most probably, they would fall under the control of a "thugocracy" as they have on previous occasions.

As for geostrategic consequences, do you really believe a world in which the circling vultures — drug gang warlords or the like writ large — run things their way will be a better one on the whole

Not by my understanding of "better", no.

We need to wake up and re-think from first principles of moral government, with particular attention to first duties of responsible reason.

I think, even though far from perfect, we have a workable model in the United States. The problem is that, like any form of government, it requires the will of the people to sustain it. In other words, people have to understand that their first loyalty and duty is to the Constitution and the welfare of all the governed,not some "Dear Leader". Where a situation develops in which those in power judge their first loyalty is to one man or woman over all other considerations then democracy will fall.

PPS: Those wanting to play games with marriage and family would be well advised to ponder here, as a start. Conjugal marriage and the lifelong heterosexual bonded couple with their children are part of the fabric of built-in natural law

How does granting homosexual couples the right to marry impair in any way the rights of heterosexual couples to marry? Homosexuals are not demanding that only they should have the right to marry. Which is exactly what so-called Christians are insisting on.

Arbitrary attempted redefinition in the face of reality has consequences, near and remote.) We trifle with it at civilisational peril, not least by injecting destructive precedents regarding law-making and law enforcing power, undermining key buttresses of liberty.

Human beings are predominantly heterosexual so that is what most partnerships will be. But a significant number of people are not heterosexual. That is what "is". There is nothing in the nature of humanity that says that homosexuals are any worse or any better than heterosexuals. Marriage is a cultural convention concerning the social recognition of a partnership between two people. A religion may decide what partnerships it approves between its congregants but it should have no authority over those who are not members of that faith. It comes under separation of church and state. Seversky

[SNIP -- persistently off topic after gavelling a second time. KF] Mac McTavish

F/N4 added to OP, U-Haul a riot, connecting dots. kairosfocus

F/N: The Louisville riots reveal a logistical trail: 1: unloading riot shields https://twitter.com/BGOnTheScene/status/1308829353120280576 >>Brendan Gutenschwager @BGOnTheScene · Sep 23 Unloading the riot shields from the Uhaul>> 2: Abolish the Police banners from said U-Haul: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1308837281852260359 >>Jack Posobiec Flag of United States @JackPosobiec · Sep 23 Anarchists pulling Antifa signs and shields out of a pre-parked UHaul truck in Louisville>> --> Abolish the police is misanthropic and anti-civilisational, such is not spontaneous when signs are coming out of a pre-positioned truck. 3: Who (per leaks it seems) credibly rented the truck: https://twitter.com/LeftyCrypto/status/1308858825492099072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw >>intelwave Evergreen tree @inteldotwav UHAUL RENTED OUT BY [SNIP] FOUNDER OF THE BAIL PROJECT IN LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY [snip] | The Bail Project bailproject.org 3:34 PM · Sep 23, 2020·Twitter Web App>> 4: Supportive documentation here The Bail Project connects to an unsurprising cluster of backers. Given the evident media-trumpeted distortion of facts regarding the latest case where a Grand Jury did not do what the mob wants, for cause, we need to do some pretty serious thinking on sobering dangers of mob rule. On balance we see demands of the mob, organisation and backing of riots tying to political pressure groups, their executive staff and funders/backers. This points to the wider pattern raised by the McFaul primer and pattern of red guard insurgencies with their backers. KF kairosfocus

F/N: It seems some of the recent media trumpeted agit prop and lawfare is beginning to unravel, tellingly:

Ari Fleischer @AriFleischer · 7h To investigate if Trump colluded w Russia, the FBI relied on info, paid for by the Clinton campaign, based on a source suspected by the FBI of being a Russian agent. The FBI then hid from the FISA court who paid for the info and the fact the source might be a foreign agent. Quote Tweet Charles @CharlesPHerring · 8h BREAKING: Fusion GPS, funded by the DNC & Clinton campaign, was colluding (primary sub-source) w/ a suspected Russian agent to overthrow the victor of the 2016 election. Durham brought info to Barr. US Atty Durham's criminal investigation is ongoing. See: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/AG%20Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Graham%209.24.2020.pdf

AG Barr to Sen Graham, per the last linked:

For months, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) have been declassifying and providing documents to the Judiciary Committee related to the Inspector General’s report, “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Cross?re Hurricane Investigation." In connection with your Committee’s investigation of these matters and ongoing hearings, you have been asking us to accelerate this process and to provide any additional information relating to the reliability of the work of Christopher Steele and the so-called “Steele dossier,” as long as its release would not compromise U.S. Attorney John Durham’s ongoing criminal investigation. A footnote in the Inspector Genera1’s report contains information, which up till now has been classified and redacted, bearing on the reliability of the Steele dossier. The FBI has declassified the relevant portion of that footnote, number 334, which states that “[t]he Primary Sub-source was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 201 1 that assessed his/her documented contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.” Further, at my request, the FBI has prepared a declassified summary of certain information from the counterintelligence investigation of the Primary Sub-source, which I am now providing to the Committee. I have consulted with Mr. Durham, who originally brought this information to my attention in the course of his investigation, and he has informed me that disclosure of the information will not interfere with his criminal investigation . . .

This is an exposure of how in key part the present climate of polarised hysteria was stirred up. KF PS: Ms Powell submits further information. It is likely that the Flynn case will prove the breakthrough point that unravels the whole fiasco. See commentary here. kairosfocus

MMT, We will not again go off on a toxic distractor from the focus set by the OP. You have already been sufficiently corrected on your perception of discrimination and by implication your evident utter lack of awareness of seriously destructive agit prop and lawfare targetting of people by homosexualist activists in recent years. That said, what you have managed to do is to highlight the fundamental hostility to foundational institutions patently vital to the future of civilisation. The obvious conclusion is that what is unsustainable will not endure beyond going over the cliff. Civilisations have collapsed and there is no good reason to assume ours is immune, in particular in the geostrategic centre of our civilisation, the buttresses that enable constitutional democracy are being undermined, pointing to collapse into drastically less free forms of state. I would not be so confident as you seem to be that those championing your agendas will be in charge of the outcome of the already in progress with ramping up kinetic element 4G civil war with red guards cannon fodder running riot; predictably, a lawless domineering oligarchy is the natural state of polities -- depressed urban areas under effective domination of feuding drug gang warlords are only one obvious example. (And, what do you think defunding/abolishing lawful police, undermining courts etc implies? Do you think urban centres can sustain themselves on their own resources or sustain themselves without logistics and utilities coming from the hinterlands in peasant uprising, or can sustain conquest and collectivising of same etc? With a 6.5 mm Creedmoor behind every distant rock on a hill? [Tank commanders and crews have to get out of their machines eventually.] Do you think this time around Marxism would do any better than the dozens of times it has come to power over the past 100 years? Get real.) As for geostrategic consequences, do you really believe a world in which the circling vultures -- drug gang warlords or the like writ large -- run things their way will be a better one on the whole? We need to wake up and re-think from first principles of moral government, with particular attention to first duties of responsible reason. KF PS: First principles of moral government under built-in law . . . something you have studiously side stepped time and again (with telling implications):

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

PPS: Those wanting to play games with marriage and family would be well advised to ponder here, as a start. Conjugal marriage and the lifelong heterosexual bonded couple with their children are part of the fabric of built-in natural law.(Cf. here on involved principle of identity, excluded middle and non contradiction informed by the axiomatic insight that truth accurately describes reality. The first move of facing reality is to recognise that A is itself, A i/l/o core characteristics that mark it out from not-A, so the world in this regard partitions W ={A|~A}, with all that flows from it. As just linked: " . . . The first question is about identity and difference. This is the material legal matter of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations." Arbitrary attempted redefinition in the face of reality has consequences, near and remote.) We trifle with it at civilisational peril, not least by injecting destructive precedents regarding law-making and law enforcing power, undermining key buttresses of liberty. There are reasons why Nero's attempted innovations failed. kairosfocus

Mac McTavish According to a Newsweek article, there are 71 countries where it is illegal to be a homosexual. Indonesia canes homosexuals to death. Other countries use stoning. What you won't find are many democracies on the list. Perhaps you should ask yourself why no one talks about the barbarism that continues to happen in far too many places in the world. Learn a thing or two about just how different each country is and open your eyes to what is happening, rather than what you perceive to be happening. https://www.newsweek.com/73-countries-where-its-illegal-be-gay-1385974 BobRyan

“When me and my partner stay in hotels, we long since have stopped checking in at the counter together. There have been too many times where we have been told that there are no vacancies.” Maybe there are no vacancies. It’s hard for me to imagine that they would not want gay partners. They are a highly sought after demographic. As a group they are affluent, very successful, respectful, responsible and I I would add “wholesome “ I’m speaking specifically of gays that have committed relationships. I would love to have them as my neighbor. Often times I have walked in to a hotel without a reservation and the hotel is booked. That’s why it’s best to get a reservation. “If part of this “war on family” means that I no longer have to fear being fired or denied services available to everyone else just because I happen to be gay, I welcome it.” You do realize that if your fired based on your sexual orientation you could sue on the basis of discrimination. Vivid vividbleau

ET, making it the law and making it fully accepted are not the same thing. It is against the law to discriminate against blacks and indigenous people, but it happens all the time. When me and my partner stay in hotels, we long since have stopped checking in at the counter together. There have been too many times where we have been told that there are no vacancies. Mac McTavish

Let them fire you for being gay:

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender in a blockbuster win for members of the LGBT community.

ET

KF

Once war was declared on family, lawful policing, courts, history etc, it became patent what we are dealing with despite bland denials.

If part of this “war on family” means that I no longer have to fear being fired or denied services available to everyone else just because I happen to be gay, I welcome it. Mac McTavish

785 Kairosfocus

You (Seversky) should be ashamed of yourself.

Don't hold your breath. Seversky is handling the utter failure of his ridiculous, amoral and unscientific we are all monkeys materialist cult. Truthfreedom

Seversky, what rock have you been under these past months? There is always need for sound reformation, which is the opposite of the red guards, rioting, arson, looting, mayhem and worse currently going on with agit prop, media amplification and lawfare in misanthropic enmity to civilisation. Once war was declared on family, lawful policing, courts, history etc, it became patent what we are dealing with despite bland denials. Sorry, you are here exchanging with someone who is a witness to 4G civil war. They tried to deny what was happening at the time too and to project blame to right wing reaction. Then, ten years later Mr Gorbachev sent a delegation to apologise for what the Russians had done. KF PS: FYI, the National Socialist German Workers' Party was a party of the left in an era when even conservative opponents expected the socialists to prevail. (They had seen the catastrophe of 1914 - 18 and collapse of four monarchical empires in Europe, with much more.) Your sly hint above that Trump-supporting Republicans are parallel to the Nazis is enabling a now all too widespread blood libel. You should be ashamed of yourself. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus/783

Seversky & MMT, do you think the fearless leaders behind an attempted cultural revolution or behind trying to turn impeachment into a routine parliamentary move are paragons of prudent good sense? Much less a lot of other things? KF

I don't know about a cultural revolution but there are badly-needed changes that need to be made. What concerns me are alarming signs that we could be seeing parallels to the last days of the Weimar Republic. Seversky

Seversky & MMT, do you think the fearless leaders behind an attempted cultural revolution or behind trying to turn impeachment into a routine parliamentary move are paragons of prudent good sense? Much less a lot of other things? KF kairosfocus

Vivid, fixed now. KF kairosfocus

TRuthfreedom “The “Recent Comments” section no longer links to the relevant posts, just to the blogs/ urls of the posters. Now you have to revise each and every post to see if there are new comments” I experienced the same problem Vivid. vividbleau

Mac McTavish/770

I agree, there is utter mad folly at the reins of government.

President Trump,

I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star ... to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius ... and a very stable genius at that!

Oscar Levant,

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Seversky

TF, if evolutionary materialism were true, we would have no credible minds much less ones open to facts, reasoning, prudent evaluation and warrant. Self-referential incoherence. KF kairosfocus

F/N: On impeachment, in an interview with NYT Journalist, Speaker Pelosi goes on record:

Swisher: All right, but I’m going to press you one more time. What is your power to do this? I get the election, but you can get up more. You can speak out more. You can do more impeachments, things like that. Do you have enough power? Pelosi: Well, we can impeach him every day of the week for anything he does.

This shows where we have reached in the polarisation and lawfare agenda. An extreme resort to address high crimes and misdemeanours is treated as though it were a no confidence Westminster Style vote with the added advantage of tainting the target. This is lawless, nihilistic and destructive. Yes, she goes on to suggest that Mr Trump is impeachable because there have been 200,000 deaths attributable to Covid-19. That is already highly dubious as there is no good basis to argue that the US on a reasonable per population basis is out of line with peer countries. A terrible contagious disease is spreading globally, there has been suppression of credible treatment possibilities on grounds that are dubious but make it very hard to respond in good time in ways that reduce deaths. Ventilator challenges were solved. A candidate vaccine is on fast track, though I am dubious on vaccines for corona viruses. The argument comes across as motivated by deep rooted hostility that is feeding lawlessness. Lawfare like this is destructive. KF kairosfocus

774 Kairosfocus Yes, the site is now running smoothly. :) Let's keep debunking all the "materialist" non-sense. Because materialists are open minded people who carefully address without reservations the challenges their materialist ideology faces. Especially, its epistemological blunder. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Oh, wait... Truthfreedom

F/N: Are people blind to the implications of threatened lawfare on voting outcomes, complete with talk of resorting to military action to forcibly remove an alleged defeated President? Further threatened impeachment over exercise of an undoubted Presidential power to nominate to full judicial vacancy, in a situation where a full SC may well be vital to a reasonable resolution of the lawfare? (Is it not patent that late justice RBG should have retired six or so years ago, if it was her desire to have a friendly follow on appointment to what has deteriorated into an appointed-member, life term super legislature by the back door? [How is that underlying problem going to be fixed?]) Do we see what dehumanisation of our living posterity in the womb and demanding freedom to effectively kill at will have done to institutions and to dynamics? Do we therefore realise the utterly corrupting influence of mass blood guilt under colour of law, rights, progress etc? Notice, Senator Graham's exasperated remarks at the Kavanaugh hearing here: https://streamable.com/owzwf2 Notice, how accusations were held back in reserve to be used in an ambush of accusations in a context where there is no true defence against defamation. I suspect, that will drive selection of a woman, and it will drive a far more tight reigning in of debate, to avert a similar toxic attempt to groundlessly destroy someone's reputation and life. I suspect that for many people, the general climate of the past several years is epitomised by that set of hearings. I would add, that many other accusations and ruthless abuses of parliamentary power and privileges fit the same sick, frankly demonic pattern. An exorcism is necessary, with accountability over what was done. KF kairosfocus

JAD, ethical egoism boils down to might and/or manipulation make 'right,' 'rights,' 'justice,' 'truth,' 'logic,' 'warrant,' 'knowledge' etc, i.e. it is nihilistic. Instantly, absurd. KF kairosfocus

TF, you may have noticed, the links to threads are back. Something must have been going funny with WP settings and widgets, likely tied to updates. KF kairosfocus

*Off topic: The "Recent Comments" section no longer links to the relevant posts, just to the blogs/ urls of the posters. Now you have to revise each and every post to see if there are new comments. Truthfreedom

Kf @ 754,

. . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement

What is the difference between moral subjectivism and ethical egoism? Here is SEP’s definition: “Ethical egoism claims that I morally ought to perform some action if and only if, and because, performing that action maximizes my self-interest.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/#EthiEgoi A second question is, how do we create an ethical, moral and just society if it is dominated by ethical egoists? john_a_designer

MMT, government and more properly governance are distributed across a range of institutions, tied to dominating worldviews and linked cultural and policy agendas. The current situation is a needless, likely horrifically damaging 4G civil war (with rising kinetic and lawfare components) driven by the accelerated radicalisation of the conventional left; tied to the resurgence of marxism in cultural form. As a measure I sometimes ask what is a community organiser of the Chicago School. It is highly significant that there has long been a studied silence on proper definition, as that for one would instantly tell us what the founders of the BLM are, by their own confession. In my experience very few can readily make the connexion to Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals and the Frankfurt School displaced to Columbia University. That becomes even more significant when we recognise the dominance of the media and how readily what they wish to promote spreads, sometimes to the point where some viral videos show them obviously singing off the same hymn sheet with virtually identical phrasing. Especially, when we are living with the consequences of just such an organiser being elected US president on a tide of media enthusiasm, twice. So, MMT, pray thee, kindly tell us just what a community organiser is _____ and is trained to do _____ . KF kairosfocus

KF

With utterly mad folly at the reins.

I agree, there is utter mad folly at the reins of government. Mac McTavish

Off topic. Am I the only one that is having problems navigating this website? It is very slow and there are no longer any links on the Recent Comments section. Mac McTavish

F/N: Here we go, a tweet on Holder on a show with Al Sharpton:

Profile photo, opens profile page on Twitter in a new tab Tom Elliott @tomselliott Replying to @tomselliott Holder: If Republicans replace Ginsburg and create an “illegitimate majority,” then "what Democrats have to do … at a minimum … additional justices need to be placed on the Supreme Court."

The improper use of "illegitimate" is incendiary language at this time, incitement. Coming, from a former AG of the US who should know and speak far better. That is already telling, with the further long since declared intent to put up to six further judges and to shift the number of US States on a partisan basis. Such is of course lawfare connected to the ongoing cultural revolution push that inserted Critical Race Theory into HR in US Govt agencies and it seems education (and not just through the 1619 ideological rewrite). An extremely radical, culture form marxist agenda is patently on the march and the lawfare intent targetting Supreme Court and Senate indicates likelihood of intent to strip inconvenient rights, freedoms and legitimacy from those who are already being blood libelled as Nazis etc. Such of course points to a further spiralling up of the kinetic dimension of the 4G civil war insurgency that is already in progress. Where if such things are being said publicly, what more is being discussed behind closed doors? (BTW, there is an extremely urgent reason to fill a Supreme Court vacancy quickly, the obvious potential for chaos surrounding the election. Which is sure to be caught up in lawfare. I add, the US SC nomination process is fundamentally changed given the scorched earth slander lawfare tactics used against Mr Kavanaugh. The borking was bad, things are far worse now post Kavanaugh.) The Juggernaut is spinning out of control. With utterly mad folly at the reins. Incredible. KF kairosfocus

Sev, no prudent person would encourage the invitation to chaos Vivid documented. Thanks for letting us know what you wish to enable in the teeth of warning. We will draw further, due conclusions. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, do you notice how you speak of POTENTIAL human lives above? Diagnostic of the very dehumanisation I spoke of. Next, as we know from self-defence issues etc., there are circumstances where we are forced to acknowledge justification in taking human life; that does not obviate the right to life, it reflects just how awful a choice we may be forced into. Even under such circumstances we have no right to dehumanise. KF PS: I find it interesting that you try to dismiss the marxist framework publicly admitted to by founders and built into CRITICAL Race THEORY, etc. FYI, a critical theory is a Marxist theory rooted directly in the Frankfurt School and onward in Marx's work (they picked up culture and class emphases). Such theories therefore are properly to be addressed as such. As to the Red Guards as cannon fodder insurgency using 4GW operational patterns, that too is manifest and now traceable through Colour Revolutions and the Arab Spring to McFaul's operating principles. Your refusal to acknowledge cogent evidence does not change our duty to act prudently in that light. PPS: Evidently you have forgotten the role played by Christians acting on gospel ethics principles in addressing the slave trade and slavery system. Similarly, for many other age-long ills. I again remind of Bernard Lewis. PPPS: Perhaps, it has escaped you that on the Biblical tradition, the human body and its functionality to specifically include reproduction, are not as originally designed. Where, death itself is an evil that checks a greater one, unlimited increase in wickedness. Death is specifically an enemy to be overcome at the culmination. kairosfocus

Oh boy, Seversky is pro-choice, although according to his obsolete and amoral materialist worldview, people do not have free will. No choice whatsoever. Ridiculous to the point of burst out laughing. Truthfreedom

681 Seversky

Still using the red herring of a mythical Marxist insurgency to distract attention from the endemic racism that underlies the BLM movement?

What were you doing before the marxist movement BLM started its (violent) activities to help minimize or erradicate that "endemic racism"? If it was so glaringly obvious, you certainly were doing something, because you are a devout SJW who fights "injustices" across the world with your mighty keyboard. For example, you were doing: 1. __________ Maybe you were reading all people "oppressed" by "racial inequality" passages from The Descent of Man?

Although best known for On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages:” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages. Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command” (97). Darwin’s specific consideration of intellectual capacities is especially alarming. The Dark Side of Darwinism

So you got your "morality" from The Descent of Man? No wonder you were so shy about it. Truthfreedom

Kairosfocus/760

DS, the pivotal issue is life. In 40 odd years the worst holocaust in human history has proceeded under our watch. Until we squarely face it and its consequences, we will simply erode the core of civilisation and even rationality as reason is morally governed. This is a big part of the current chaos. KF

If we are to be held morally accountable for the loss of millions of potential human lives due to abortions as a result of human intervention then so should the designer of the human reproductive process that is so poorly designed as to cause about the same number of miscarriages. You write of the 40-odd years of the worst holocaust in human history but are strangely silent about the much larger holocaust that has been taking place for thousands of years before. How many billions of potential human lives have been lost - unrecognized, uncounted and unmourned - to a reproductive process designed by an - allegedly - all-knowing, all-powerful Creator who could - and should - have done better, if He is the God in whom you believe. The responsibility for that much greater holocaust should be laid fairly and squarely at His door if we are going to apportion blame. Seversky

DaveS/758

More seriously, I think this is one reason why one reason why this issue is so polarized. The “pro-choice” side is concerned that once Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion could be banned altogether in some states. Even in cases such as ectopic pregnancy

If Roe v Wade is overturned then there will be an increase in "abortion tourism" to states where abortion is legal, for those who can afford it, or a return to the horrors of "back-street abortions" for those who can't. And the "compassionate" Christian response will be to throw all who are involved in jail and wallow in insufferable sanctimonious smugness. Seversky

Kairosfocus/753

Sev, neither you nor I have any power to extend or withdraw the right to life. We are only duty bound to recognise and respect it. That compounds the error. KF

I agree that the right to life is the most fundamental of all and should be respected by us even if we were to have the power to extend it. However, we also recognize exceptions to that right in specific cases. It is considered permissible to kill in defense of one's own life or those of others if there is no reasonable alternative and to kill those under arms against our country in time of war. I would also argue that in those tragic cases where a mother's life is endangered by the continuation of a pregnancy then aborting the fetus is allowable as the lesser of two evils.

PS: Vivid has already adequately highlighted the pivotal difference between established absentee voting and the more or less novel mail in game.

The article fromUSA Today that I quoted made it quite clear that all mailed-in ballots are subject to verification before being counted. Both the passage from the Washington Times article and VB's quotation of it are grossly misleading in my view. Seversky

DS, the pivotal issue is life. In 40 odd years the worst holocaust in human history has proceeded under our watch. Until we squarely face it and its consequences, we will simply erode the core of civilisation and even rationality as reason is morally governed. This is a big part of the current chaos. KF PS, I remind

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

Epictetus on inescapability of logic

DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]

F/N: A responsible discussion of ectopic pregnancies is here. F/N2: we need to reckon also with the use of legal positivism that has in effect turned the US Supreme Court into an appointed, life-term super legislature. The threat on the table to expand to 15, to load it with ideologues pushing agendas liable to cause chaos is a case in point. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus Excellent #751: Subjective Morality is Self-Refuting. More non-sense:

From William J. Murrays's: "10 Reason Why Atheists are Delusional" 1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/11-reasons-why-atheists-are-delusional/

Truthfreedom

More seriously, I think this is one reason why one reason why this issue is so polarized. The "pro-choice" side is concerned that once Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion could be banned altogether in some states. Even in cases such as ectopic pregnancy. daveS

KF, Just joking, of course I wasn't expecting an answer :P daveS

DS, the issue begins long before you ask such a question. Once we recognise what we are killing our answers shift in light of life. And it is the undermining of sanctity of life that has warped culture, institutions, government and more, opening the doors to the worst holocaust in human history, 800+ millions in 40+ years, mounting at 800,000 per week. When we first face what we have done and are doing, then we can give sound answers not warped by crooked yardsticks standing in the place to rule what is straight, upright, accurate. We are being weighed in the balances. KF kairosfocus

KF,

Sev, neither you nor I have any power to extend or withdraw the right to life. We are only duty bound to recognise and respect it. That compounds the error. KF

Should that 10-year-old girl have been allowed an abortion? daveS

Seversky, Re subjectivism/relativism in 684:

Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.

KF kairosfocus

Sev, neither you nor I have any power to extend or withdraw the right to life. We are only duty bound to recognise and respect it. That compounds the error. KF PS: Vivid has already adequately highlighted the pivotal difference between established absentee voting and the more or less novel mail in game. The latter is begging for ruthless exploitation and the refusal to acknowledge its dangers by people who should have every duty to know and speak better points to intent. Playing games with the integrity of elections like this is further playing with fire. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus/749

Seversky, do you realise that you are enabling the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb? That speaks volumes. KF

As I have stated before, I would extend the right to life to the earliest detectable stage of development of an individual human being. I would also require that the rights of the mother are accorded equal consideration, which is often not the case with anti-abortion activists. I would also point out that, by your beliefs, the human reproductive process was designed by your God. That process has a natural failure rate through spontaneous abortion roughly equivalent to that of medical abortion procedures. Since your God is apparently unconcerned by this natural "holocaust", why should you be so worried? As further evidence of God's indifference, I can cite once more the Old Testament account of the Great Flood. That supposedly wiped out all human life on Earth - save for a chosen few - and that must have included a large number of unborn children at various stages of development. And that wasn't just allowing preventable but natural failures to happen, that was direct action. Again, given your God's apparent indifference to such loss of life, why should you care? I would also draw your attention to this incident in Brazil

Anger in Brazil as 10-year-old rape victim's name put online

There has been outrage in Brazil after the personal details of a 10-year-old rape victim were published online. The girl's name was posted by an anti-abortion activist seeking to stop her from having a termination. Following the online post, abortion opponents gathered outside the hospital where the girl was due to have the procedure. The girl had become pregnant after being raped. Police arrested a man suspected of raping her on Wednesday. The case has caused widespread anger in Brazil and a judge has ordered Google, Facebook and Twitter to remove the personal details of the 10-year-old from their sites.

Even though the girl had been given legal permission to have her pregnancy terminated, anti-abortion activists tried to stop it from being carried out by holding a noisy protest outside the hospital. They shouted at hospital staff, calling them "killers", and at one point tried to force their way into the building, but were dispersed by military police. The girl was smuggled onto the hospital's premises in the boot of a car and entered the building by a side door, pro-choice activists said.

When anti-abortion activists demonstrate the same concern for the rights and well-being of the mother as they claim to have for the unborn child then they will have a stronger case. Seversky

Mac McTavish/746

Mail in ballots have been used for decades without any evidence of significant fraud.

Exactly, and when those who allege widespread voter fraud have been challenged to provide actual evidence for it they have come up empty. And for good reasons

Fact check: All mailed ballots — called 'absentee' and not — require voter verification

“Do you know the difference between mail-in ballot vs. absentee ballot? Absentee ballot REQUIRES you to prove who you are! Mail-in DOES NOT!” a post on Facebook reads. The claim echoes those made by President Donald Trump, who has alleged that absentee voting and mail-in voting are different — and that one is more vulnerable to fraud than the other.

To prevent fraud, all votes have to be verified to be counted. States have different ways to do that for in-person voting, but by mail, the principal method used to detect and prevent fraud is by verifying information on the mail ballot itself, according to the Brennan Center, a nonpartisan law and policy institute. To vote by mail, voters must include personal identifying information, such as an address, birthday, driver's license number or last four digits of a Social Security number. A voter’s remaining personal information is matched against the information stored on voter rolls, such as a signature.

States verify mailed ballots in different ways. For example, Alabama requires a copy of the voter’s ID to be included and either two witnesses older than 18 or a notary public must sign the envelope in addition to the voter. In Maine, a signature by the voter on the envelope is compared to the signature on the absentee ballot application. Likewise, Colorado uses bipartisan teams who compare the signature on every ballot to ones the state has on file for every registered voter.

The term “universal mail-in voting” refers to a mail balloting system in which ballots are automatically mailed to all registered voters. Only nine states and the District of Columbia plan to hold universal mail-in elections this year, USA TODAY reported. "It's a tiny number of states that do this," Lawrence Norden, director of the Election Reform Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York School of Law, told USA TODAY. "And they're not the states that are probably going to determine the outcome of the presidential election. "In the vast majority of states, voters are given the option to vote by mail, and we should expect that if the primaries were any indication, that many, many people are going to choose that option."

But the only difference between the absentee and universal mail-in voting is that in states that use universal mail-in voting, registered voters don’t have to ask to have ballots sent to them. Regardless of the system, a person must be registered to vote to receive the ballot. And for any mailed-in vote to be counted, the voter's information must be verified by state elections officials.

Seversky

Mac “Mail-in voting is entirely distinct from absentee voting, lacking necessary safeguards for voted ballots. Under mail-in voting, a blank ballot is mailed to every registration on the voter rolls, without the verification process of a ballot request form. It is enacting this system that has been made a national priority in the House of Representatives’ HEROES Act, which would require every voter registration in America to be mailed a blank ballot. Anyone — including campaign operatives — could collect these voted ballots from Americans’ homes and turn them in to the Elections Office. This system of mass mailing blank ballots to every registration was trialed in several states during the primary season this year, and in virtually every case, it was rife with trouble. In Nevada, following a wrongheaded lawsuit, blank ballots were not only sent to every active voter registration, but to inactive ones as well. The lawsuit demonstrates a fundamental ignorance about what an inactive registration signifies in Nevada, where registrations are moved to inactive only when mail has been received back as undeliverable. Thus, these undeliverable ballots flooded the streets across the state. Blank, votable ballots were seen littered around trash cans and stuffed behind bulletin boards in apartment complexes. How’s that for instilling confidence in our election results?“ Washington Times Vivid vividbleau

Seversky, do you realise that you are enabling the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb? That speaks volumes. KF kairosfocus

Vivid, with the chaos and lawfare to come you will need a complete court. KF kairosfocus

MMT, absentee ballots are quite different and there has been a cluster of recent evidence, multiplied by simply the sloppiness of the system. I predict, this will be a chaotic element. KF kairosfocus

Vivid

Mail in ballots are a disaster and opens the door wide open for fraud.

And one of the candidates even told his supporters how to do it. Mail in ballots have been used for decades without any evidence of significant fraud. Mac McTavish

Collins and Murkowski will be calculating how much of a token resistance they need to display to appease non-Trumpicans before caving to pressure from Trump and McConnell and falling into line with the craven Trumpican majority in the Senate. I would be more interested in knowing if they are giving any consideration to the damage that is being done to the body politic by a man who cares not one jot about constitutional democracy, which can only survive if enough of the electorate have confidence in it. Of great concern to all should be the evidence that Congress as a whole is held in very low esteem by the people. If Trump, with the continued connivance of the Federalist Society, persists with his plan to pack the Supreme Court with conservative judges as has been the case with vacancies in the lower courts then I would argue that we can no longer expect a fair and impartial administration of justice from an independent judiciary. And if McConnel'l's craven crew in the Senate remain supine when Trump finally breaks free of the checks and balances that were intended to restrain the totalitarian impulses of someone like him, then there will be only one course of action left to those who want to uphold the ideals of the Republic and the Constitution, a course of action that no one in their right mind would ever contemplate - unless there were no alternative. Seversky

Mac I think it goes to the House. Vivid vividbleau

“Especially after his non-supported claims that Mail-in ballots will result in a rigged election.” Mail in ballots are a disaster and opens the door wide open for fraud. The State of PA will accept mail in ballots for three days even if they are postmarked after Nov 3. Michigan up to 14 days after Nov 3 ( I’m not sure about the postmark in Michigan) Vivid vividbleau

Vivid

My other concern that I have expressed many times is that this election may well go to the Supreme Court with a 4 4 split, what a nightmare , things are going to be bad enough.

I read something, but I forget where, about this type of scenario. According to the article, if the election is contested, and there is no clear court decision by noon January 20, the Candidate originally declared becomes president and there is no appeal after that. Can anyone here tell me if this is true? Mac McTavish

This should be interesting. If Trump pushes through a candidate at this point it will be perceived by many on the fence as an attempt to sway any court decision should he contest the outcome of the election. Especially after his non-supported claims that Mail-in ballots will result in a rigged election. Mac McTavish

She was an amazing women and a real warrior. Her battle with cancer was an epic fight, most of us would have given up long ago. Obviously she did not want to die during a Trump presidency but that’s ok.I did not agree with her judicial rulings but I am deeply saddened by her passing. As to the politics for sure Romney, Murkoski, Collins, are a no. I don’t think a nominee could get confirmed by the Senate. I am really torn here. As a Conservative and one concerned for fairness I think Trump should say that we should let the people decide. This is offset by the knowledge that the left has no scruples and no concern for fairness ( just think back to the despicable trashing of Kavanaugh) and we are in a bare knuckle fight with an ideological foe that disregards all bounds of decency. Social media is already a fire with threats of riots and violence. If roles were reversed there is no doubt in my mind that they would ram through a nominee. I give the left credit they know how to fight. My other concern that I have expressed many times is that this election may well go to the Supreme Court with a 4 4 split, what a nightmare , things are going to be bad enough. So really really torn here. BTW Dave I don’t think you should vote and should sit this one out LOL Her death could not come at a worse time for my country. Vivid vividbleau

I'd like to know what Susan Collins is thinking now ... 🤔 daveS

F/N: I just picked up tweets on the US President's initial response on learning from the press pool:

Trump seemed not to know about RGB passing when asked on tarmac here in Minnesota. “She just died?” he asked. Praised her as an “amazing woman” who lived “amazing life” and said he was sad to hear the news. Did not respond to q on naming new justice — Justin Sink (@justinsink) September 19, 2020 “I’m sad to hear that,” said Pres Trump, informed by the press pool that word of Justice Ginsburg had died was released during his speech. “I didn’t know that. She led an amazing life,” he said of Ginsburg. pic.twitter.com/DrDuhDCjHn — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) September 19, 2020 President Trump on death of Justice Ginsburg: "She just died? Wow. I didn't know that…She led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman, whether you agree or not. She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I'm actually sad to hear that." pic.twitter.com/6oKuL671qO — CSPAN (@cspan) September 19, 2020

We must remember, he just lost a brother. KF kairosfocus

[deleted] mike1962

M62, let us pause before something so eternally freighted as death. KF kairosfocus

It looks like Mr McConnell is going for option A. My bet is not many days hence, Ms Barrett's name will be before the Senate, or just possibly a recently retired Judge who is a black woman, but who is not on the list he has put forward. KF kairosfocus

Bye bye Ruthie. You'll be missed. But not by me. mike1962

DS, the second for sure. The problem is, lawfare is going to be pivotal to the chaos ahead and the holocaust of the unborn has just been placed as the 800 lb gorilla in the room. The USA is at kairos, is being weighed in balances and may easily be found wanting. And yes, there are literally biblical issues here -- such, are the times that try men's souls. KF kairosfocus

PS: I should add, the court packing proposal just became a lot more central. kairosfocus

KF, According to some random tweets, it looks like a couple moderate Republican senators (Romney & Murkowski) are not voting to confirm until at least after the election. daveS

TF 727, The moral government of reason comes to bear long before we construct the reasoned path to lay out a periodic table. As I have highlighted:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

KF kairosfocus

Folks, I just saw the announced passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Condolences are due, as priority. Second, the implications need to be on the table. This factor of course pumps up the chaos factor. Option A: Mr Trump pushes for a rapid replacement in anticipation of post election lawfare, likely Ms Barrett. It is likely the slander tactics we saw with Mr Kavanaugh will reappear as there was no sharp price paid for such a resort. Option B: appointment is delayed due to political dynamics among Republicans unwilling to further stir the chaos pot before elections. On either option, there will be the injection of the ghosts of 60+ million victims of Abortion just in the US. The intensity of the forced decision on future path . . . or simply future . . . of the US just sharply intensified. KF kairosfocus

All meaning is in consciousness, and consciousness cannot be defined. Beyond science or definition. mike1962

Well, I have been revisiting the periodic table and not a single mention of "morals" there. Which is very strange, because if we are "nothing-but-molecules", why can't I see those pesky "morals" then? I'll keep searching. Maybe in "On The Origin of Species"? How exhausting. Truthfreedom

684 Seversky

Expressing your moral viewpoint is not necessarily dictating what others should believe, it’s just telling them what you believe. A "you" that's a "darwinian illusion". How bizarre . I still have not received a reply to my question: whence derive our "oughts', Seversky? Maybe from the periodic table? Since we are "nothing-but-molecules"...

Truthfreedom

ET

Truthful and competent people don’t run for public office.

So, what office are you running for? ;) Mac McTavish

Truthful and competent people don't run for public office. ET

KF, So, should I actually turn in a marked ballot? :-) daveS

DS, that too is a sort of vote. The issue is that we need a sober assessment of lesser of evils. The British and French had many sins by the 1930's that in aggregate far outweighed Germany's worst. By 1945 that had changed. KF kairosfocus

In that case, should I even bother voting in November? daveS

DS, there are no politicians of consequence that come even close to near that standard in the US and I daresay most significant states today. And, likely, the electorates would not vote for such, that is how bad it is. That, will have to be restored across generations, after the shattering impact of folly going over the cliff.It seems, we will only listen to shattering pain. KF kairosfocus

KF,

DS, no, you need a political culture of integrity.

Electing truthful and competent politicians is one concrete, achievable, and in fact necessary step in that direction. daveS

DS, no, you need a political culture of integrity. To return to such, you need to account for what has gone wrong, why and how. The answer, apostasy led by scientism and wider cultural corruption now in key part captive to culture form marxism (which is joined at the hip with deconstructionism, radical relativism etc) and spreading through institutions that should have guarded against it. A watershed was ratification of global holocaust of our living posterity in the womb, 800+ millions with the US share 60+. With that utterly corrupting guilt, all posturing about advancing rights, justice etc is exposed as cynically corrupt. That is the real cancelling out litmus test: do you stand up for innocent unborn life, that we should not be playing gods with life. If there is the slightest hesitation, disqualified as clear and present danger. Meanwhile you are forced to tickle the dragon's tail of working with the lesser of evils on the way to genuine reformation. The juggernaut is fast spinning out of control, the question is how much damage it will take to wake up to reality. Hopefully, not being in the pig pen wishing to eat pig slops. KF kairosfocus

BobRyan, I take it we are in agreement on this point: We need to elect presidents who are truthful and competent. daveS

Johnson's micromanagement of Vietnam meant strategic targets that were taken weren't being held. Costly battles to take hills ended up in withdrawing completely. There was a lack of accountability for those altering the news to make it appear the brutality of the VC was shifted to American soldiers. Whenever someone asked if the Vietnamese wanted us there, they never asked any of the Vietnamese. Those who risked their lives to get on boats to escape in the end, should have told everyone exactly what the Vietnamese wanted. BobRyan

M62, happy US Constitution day: Sept 17, 1787. KF kairosfocus

BR, yes, but it is necessary to move away from exchanges on deeply flawed personalities of the past several American presidents to the proper focus for the thread. Though, the two are not exactly unrelated as there is a reason for deterioration of general leadership and thought quality.You have rightly pointed out that geostrategic blunders have consequences. One of the key ones was mishandling of Iran 1978 - 9, part of the post Vietnam geostrategic retreat that was broken by Reagan. I find it interesting that unprecedented normalisation of relationships between Israel and key Muslim countries/cases is going largely unremarked . . . it does not fit the preferred narrative and agenda. BTW, it is arguable that by '72 Vietnam was won militarily once decisive force was brought to bear. A retaining presence as with Korea, Japan or Germany, or a willingness to back the South on violations '75/76 would have stopped the North cold (and that timing ties to a US Election cycle with a global pattern of Marxist pushes including in the Caribbean). Even some bombing and ground attacks would have done much, as would also have stopped ISIS cold before it wreaked such havoc. The reversal of ISIS' Islamic State is yet another key strategic accomplishment in the main passed over in silence. So, too, was the clear turnaround of slow growth globalist themed economic malaise; temporarily checked by the pandemic. And no, we do not need to speculate on its being a plandemic, the malaise mentality is sufficient to explain events without need for speculating on grand plots by people with the skin on. As there is a perpetual spiritual war, there are always conspiracies at another level we can only access by prayer. KF PS: If Clausewitzian war continued politics by other [high kinetic] means, 4GW continues war towards its target of subjugating the targetted or defeated by other low kinetic means often involving backed non state actors. That template makes a very interesting interpretive pivot for better understanding of many events over the past 50 years. For example Tet in Vietnam was a military disaster for North Vietnam and its backed insurgents (the VC were militarily essentially done after that), but opened up decisive operations on the US' home front. Ironically, decisive demonstration of will to stop so deters vultures that in the end it is less costly, less draining, less prone to a crescendo of defeats than a policy of weakness. Arguably, that is playing out in Red Guard plagued US cities as we speak. This same pattern applies to how WW2 emerged across the '30's and to how determination and resilience took the initial shock then built up enough to fight through to victory. The post Cold War era may be a case of a lost victory. kairosfocus

DaveS Bill Clinton lied under oath, which is a felony. He suborned perjury, which is a felony. White Water was a scam to rip off retirees who were looking to buy a house. Most people go to prison for doing any one of the three. Long term consequences matter. There was no nuclear North Korea when Bill Clinton was sworn into office. The deal he made led directly to nuclear armament, which they have shared much with Iran. North Korea had a history of breaking deals after making them. Obama's Iran deal was identical to Clinton's North Korea deal. 1993 was called the summer of terror, since al Qaeda spent much of that summer attacking the United States, including the World Trade Center bombing. After each incident, he sent the FBI to investigate, rather than use the military. Throughout his presidency, Clinton saw continuous attacks, including the USS Cole, and never believed it was a military matter. His lack of action led directly to 9-11. Bush was right to take Iraq, since they were one of the biggest sponsors of Sunni terrorism in the world, which included al Qaeda. By Obama pulling out of Iraq, it created a vacuum for Iran to take advantage of. BobRyan

Happy Second Amendment Day mike1962

Vivid,

Politicians lie and embellish that’s what they do, it’s like saying my gosh you mean there is gambling going on in Vegas. Come on man.

I get that politicians lie, and there is a phenomenon of "the scum rising to the top". However, I think it's important for people to express their dissatisfaction. At least historians in the distant future studying politics in the early 21st century will have some material to work with.

Just be honest you don’t like him and that I can understand.

It is true I don't like him, but I don't hate him, either. Some of his jokes are hilarious (remember the Rosie O'Donnell zinger during the campaign?), if completely inappropriate for a presidential candidate. What I don't want the president to do is habitually make statements that are immediately refutable or just dumb. That whole "If we stop testing right now, we'd have very few cases, if any" trope. I don't know what he thinks he's communicating there. Or "You can't [compare deaths from Covid-19 per capita between countries]" in that Axios interview. It's just embarrassing. [edit: KF, just saw your note in #710] daveS

Folks, this thread is also not about political personalities or cheering for the blues or greens or even whether purple makes a fine shroud or whether legio whatever is ready to march. The geostrategic pivot of our civilisation is in obvious serious trouble. We need to think seriously about that. KF kairosfocus

DaveS “There’s only so much blatant lying that a president can get away with.” Like Benghazi was a result of a video tape? Like if you like your doctor you can keep you’re doctor? Like I was going to save $2500 on my medical insurance and watched my premiums double. Politicians lie and embellish that’s what they do, it’s like saying my gosh you mean there is gambling going on in Vegas. Come on man. Just be honest you don’t like him and that I can understand. Vivid vividbleau

ET,

Trump can’t shut up

That's what does it for me. He just stands in front of the camera and throws out obvious falsehoods. And then his staff backs him up, compounding the insult. There's only so much blatant lying that a president can get away with. daveS

daves- Fitness is always relative. Trump can't shut up and when Biden speaks it's a disaster waiting to happen. However, the actions speak louder. The economy was going great and was only getting better. The President has been under constant attack from the left. Biden couldn't withstand that type of constant, belligerent badgering. All things considered, he has done very well. But it's still sad that half of the population seems intent of ruining the country just because they don't like him. ET

DaveS “Would you say flatly that Trump is fit for office“ Yep Vivid vividbleau

DS, I have also been more than willing to criticise the present NY Contractor in chief. Which is NOT a compliment. Recall, I had to pull back from a grey area remark boiling down to a pox on both your houses. The problem is we are literally dealing with those wishing to abolish lawful police and courts (doubtless to replace with committees for the defence of the revo and people's courts), erase court sentences en bloc on grounds of presumed built in racism, demolish the nuclear family, advocating critical theory outlandish claims (it's by no means just regarding Race, but a whole alphabet soup of other claims), promoting marxism and more. Recall, labour theory of value used to demonise investment services, business property, private capital etc as inherently oppressive and so to set up seizure, looting and destruction by arson etc. Hence, a most unlikely defender. That we are here is itself a sign of what we have squandered. A comparison that comes to my mind is the evidently Arianist-leaning Constantine backing orthodoxy to defend the unity of the empire. We are way beyond Churchill as defender of Christian civilisation. KF PS: Note my actual remark in context vs your clip:

. . . the backers of the colour insurgency have managed to make a most unlikely man into a defender of civilisation at this time. That is an indictment of how as a civilisation we have squandered our inheritance. I hope we don’t have to be in the pig pen wishing we could eat the carob bean pods for the pigs for us to wake up and come to our senses. And yes, that parable speaks directly to our civilisation.

PPS: On possibilities for election dirty tricks, including with vote by mail. kairosfocus

KF,

... a most unlikely man ... a defender of civilisation ...

You can say that again. :-) I will add that you were more than willing to criticize the previous occupant of the White House. daveS

DS, I am in the geostrategic analysis business not the endorsement business. That said, the backers of the colour insurgency have managed to make a most unlikely man into a defender of civilisation at this time. That is an indictment of how as a civilisation we have squandered our inheritance. I hope we don't have to be in the pig pen wishing we could eat the carob bean pods for the pigs for us to wake up and come to our senses. And yes, that parable speaks directly to our civilisation. KF kairosfocus

ET, Would you say flatly that Trump is fit for office, with no reference to any of his opponents? daveS

Compared to anyone the Democrats have, President Trump is very fit for office. Trump is the only candidate who can turn the economy around. He is the only one who will bring manufacturing jobs back to the USA. He is the only one able to negotiate fair trade deals with other countries. ET

KF,

The fact is, Mr Trump is a displaced Democrat, as was Mr Reagan before him.

We could talk about Mr Trump's political philosophy, but it has become a moot point. He's clearly unfit for office. (Source: See his twitter account). Have you acknowledged this fact? daveS

seversky says he should be ignored:

I find that ignoring the trolls is the only solution unless you enjoy trading insults.

Apologies but I will still call you on your asinine comments. ET

TimR:

I’m sure its been said here before, but the funny thing is that the escalation in riots, race tensions etc, in the US is happening under Trump’s watch.

Umm, the Governors have control over their States. The escalation in riots and race tensions are caused by the loser democrats. Had the lefty media condemned the police killing a white man by kneeling on his neck, the George Floyd incident could have been avoided. Why isn't anyone mad as heck about that? ET

On August 20, 1619, “20 and odd” Angolans, kidnapped by the Portuguese, arrive in the British colony of Virginia and are then bought by English colonists... Scholars note that the arrivals were technically sold as indentured servants. Indentured servants agreed, or in many cases were forced, to work with no pay for a set amount of time, often to pay off a debt and could legally expect to become free at the end of the contract. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-african-slave-ship-arrives-jamestown-colony Among the 20 Angolans who were freed was a man by the name of Anthony Johnson. Johnson did rather well for himself and died on the wealthy side. Early on after he became a freeman, meaning his contract was up, he purchased an indentured servant of African birth by the name of John Casor. Casor's contract was almost concluded and could not be renewed without consent of Casor. Casor sued when Johnson refused to release him and was persuaded to release Casor. Another farmer offered him a contract, which was accepted. Johnson sued the farmer saying the Casor belonged to him. The court ruled against Johnson, since slavery was not legal in Virginia. This was either in 1653 or 54. The following year, the same court reversed its decision and declared Casor property of Johnson. No law had been passed to support the reversal. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/ Below shows the dates when slavery laws were passed. Virginia was the first, but the other 12 soon followed. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/timeline/1662.html BobRyan

BR, do you have good documentation? Could you cite? KF kairosfocus

TF, what you say is true. However, those who believe their consciousness itself is a delusion imply they cannot even beware. M.uch less, reason logically (actual objectivity and reasoning also being at fire sale bargain pile discount). Self-referential incoherence beckons, shiv in the hand behind the back. A much more promising beginning is with the inescapable fact of rationality. Epictetus, again, shows how:

DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]

Then, let's broaden and deepen, using not only first principles of reason -- such as principle of distinct identity i/l/o core, esp. differentiating, characteristics with close corollaries excluded middle and non-contradiction -- but a linked family of first duties of responsible reason . . . with implication that to freely reason and act responsibly, we must be truly free this not simply meat machines:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

That is what our civilisation has been running away from, and is now seeing the ruin at the end of such flight. KF kairosfocus

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in lab-coats clothing, but inwardly are ravenous ignorants. For such persons do not serve science but their own appetites". From the "book" that explains everything and knows human nature to a tee. One can only guess why. :) Truthfreedom

Jamestown was the first successful British settlement in what would become the 13 colonies turned into the United States. It was founded in 1607, about a century after the Spanish were conquering and taking everything in the Americas. The first Africans to arrive on British soil in North America was in 1619. An English privateer ship, White Lion, had gone to battle against the Dutch ship, San Juan Batista, along with another English privateer, Treasure. The Dutch ship had slaves from Angola, which was a Dutch colony in Africa. 20 slaves were traded to Jamestown in exchange for food. All became indentured servants and freed after their contract expired. There were no laws allowing for slavery in Jamestown. Virginia was the first British colony of the 13 to pass a slave law, which happened in 1662. BobRyan

Seversky, you have long since shattered your credibility. I will note that "racism" has been so redefined into a marxist construct that in effect is blood libel that references to it become almost useless. No, while racism and other age-long ills are genuine problems they are not the defining essence of civilisation, constitutional democracy etc, nor is there the mark of Cain visible in every sufficiently white face. Which, manifestly, is utterly racist. In that context BLM etc have been shown to be Marxism-driven with clear admissions by founders and clear indications in propaganda and demands etc, are carrying out McFaul operations using updated Red Guards tactics, and are serving as the cannon fodder core of an insurgency. Critical Race theory is precisely that, the race-targetting form of critical theories tracing to the Frankfurt School of culture form Marxists seeking power on refactored cultural rather than class struggle narratives. And I thought totalising metanarratives were supposed to be bad? Where, as one who lived through 4GW civil war 1979 - 81 in my homeland, I am all too familiar with the gaslighting denial of what is manifestly going on. If it succeeds, none dare call it treason. KF kairosfocus

DS, obviously, any wealthy and widely celebrated figure is a potential presidential candidate. The fact is, Mr Trump is a displaced Democrat, as was Mr Reagan before him. The pivotal change is not that, it is the circumstance of the sharp radicalisations of the US Democratic party in the 60's - 70's then again over the past 10 - 20 years. That is joined to the rise to dominance of the marxist, critical studies movement and linked deconstructionism. Where after the shattering of its reputation at the turn of the 90's, a new generation, nurtured on political correctness and the like, is now deeply indoctrinated with that repeatedly failed ideology. Where, it is a matter of massive record since 1789, that radical revolutions strongly tend to create reigns of terror instituted by ideologues who seized power and find themselves facing the realities of politics. Over the past 100+ years, over 100 million have been killed by such revolutions. As for the linked labour theory of value, it's answer was given in the 1870's and it is utterly out of step in an information age; however it is handy propaganda to delegitimise investment services and private capital. Where, given the subjectivity of value and the complexity of transactions, central control of economies will grind to a halt due to the valuation challenge, known since the 1920's, shown practically by the 80's. We are seeing yet another refusal to learn hard-bought lessons of history . . . which has been distorted, ideologised [1619] and turned into yet another means of indoctrination. KF kairosfocus

684 Seversky

Unless others are persuaded by my arguments and choose to accept them.

Too funny because according to your "evolutive paradigm" we are meat-puppets and meat-puppets accept whatever their brain chemistry forces them to accept. So no choice here, kiddo. Maybe that's why you only write non-sense and contradict yourself almost in every post. For example when you say that "there is no universal moral code" but afterwards you write that we all "ought to practice the Golden Rule". Which then would become a universal moral code, a guide binding all members of society. Truthfreedom

KF, I read somewhere that the Opposition actually had been planning to run Trump since the late 1980's. It was only in 2016 that all the pieces fell into place. And you can take that to the bank. daveS

TR, nope, it's not merely happening under Mr Trump's watch. Closely, suspiciously similar cases have been happening for nearly twenty years, following the McFaul operational pattern of delegitimisation and destabilisation using red guards on the streets as core to protests and agit prop media. It's just that the expected outcome 2016 did not happen so instead of direct domination through captured institutions taken by way of cultural long march there is a 4GW insurgency now in the geostrategic centre of gravity state in our civilisation. . Where, we can clearly trace culture form marxist ideology rooted in so called critical theories and the closely related deconstructionism. Mr Trump is a target because he is not captive to the programme and opposes at least some of its key elements. In turn, he is not so much a one man band as the face of a peasant uprising by ballot box. KF kairosfocus

I'm sure its been said here before, but the funny thing is that the escalation in riots, race tensions etc, in the US is happening under Trump's watch. His campaign is saying he has to get voted in to stop the bad stuff that is happening with him as president. Vote Trump to save the country from Trump. TimR

Thanks, Vivid. I think that if Trump wins, and it comes as a surprise, some of those things could happen. However I do believe Biden would concede once it's reasonably clear that Trump's victory is legitimate. I am expecting to have to wait a few days to know the final result. daveS

DaveS “Trump wins the election” Dave here is a falsifiable prediction. If Trump is the winner on election night there will be massive civil protests, violence, Biden will not concede, the Color Revolution will proceed. There will be an attack on the electors. Because of mail in ballots every swing state will be litigated. We will teter on the brink of a constitutional crisis and its possible the military will get involved. https://www.revolver.news/2020/09/meet-norm-eisen-legal-hatchet-man-and-central-operative-in-the-color-revolution-against-president-trump/ Vivid vividbleau

John_a_designer/673

The argument that I have made here several time before is that if you are moral subjectivists you don’ have an argument when it comes to interpersonal morality or human rights.

An argument that fails since subjectivist arguments for an intersubjective morality have been presented here.

Unfortunately, “my side,” I am embarrassed to say, is just as foolish for enabling this kind of nonsense. When the so called debate turns into ridicule and insults (both sides are guilty here) then it means everyone has abandoned reason.

I find that ignoring the trolls is the only solution unless you enjoy trading insults.

I don’t see how the moral subjectivist is in a position to tell anyone else what to think and believe.

Expressing your moral viewpoint is not necessarily dictating what others should believe, it's just telling them what you believe.

It’s irrational to think that your subjective opinions are morally binding on anyone else.

Unless others are persuaded by my arguments and choose to accept them. A volunteered obligation is surely better than a coerced one.

Furthermore, to argue that moral subjectivism is true is self-refuting.

Any moral claim is about what 'ought' to be, not about what 'is' so, by the correspondence theory of truth, they are not capable of being true or false. Seversky

681 Seversky

What is more likely to fragment a state than a perception that the government believes only its base counts and the rest of the population is irrelevant?

Weren't you a darwinian? Survival of the fittest, kiddo. Truthfreedom

678 Kairosfocus

It is crushing events that will have to open eyes through pain. KF

And be sure that then they'll realize that consciousness is not an "illusion". :) Truthfreedom

Kairosfocus/670

DS, we already have Mr Carville talking of gaoling Mr Trump,...

I've heard worse ideas but it isn't going to happen while Trump is in power and can rely on a tame Justice Department to protect rather than prosecute him. It is unlikely to happen even after he leaves power (if he ever does) since he can afford to deploy battalions of lawyers to defend him.

...and there is talk of making a slice of a de facto city into a state and a main associated territory in hopes of locking in a radical left hold on govt...

What is more likely to fragment a state than a perception that the government believes only its base counts and the rest of the population is irrelevant?

...with supreme court packing too.

Trump, with the connivance of the Federalist Society, is trying to pack the Supreme Court with conservative judges and has already appointed a number of judges with strong to extreme conservative views to fill vacancies in the lower courts. What will happen to a legal system if a significant number of people come to believe that they can no longer rely on it to provide the impartial administration of justice?

The spiralling rioting, violence, slander and threat to destabilise credibility of elections several steps beyond 2000 add to this.

The flames being fanned by a President who believes he can benefit from such instability.

I suspect, arson in the streets is going to the forests now — with echoes of the 1831 Baptist War uprising in my homeland.

No need for arson, climate change seems to be quite sufficient.

The media are blowing their credibility’s remaining shreds as though this is the queen-move for setting up mate.

That seems to be a fair assessment of Faux News.

We already see marxist critical theory ideologies standing in for knowledge and shaping policy. McFaul playbook delegitimising slanders and Red Guard cannon fodder in the streets (bloody shirt next, with hired gun snipers?) are ramping up to the election, pointing to a crescendo through Jan next year.

Still using the red herring of a mythical Marxist insurgency to distract attention from the endemic racism that underlies the BLM movement?

The peasant uprising by ballot box 2016 is being beaten down by resort to utter ruthlessness with clear agenda to destabilise the election.

What peasant uprising? Hilary Clinton clearly won the popular vote. Trump got in through the anachronism of the Electoral College.

I still think the election will go to Mr Trump, leading to the cresting of the insurgency, maybe with deep state lawfare power moves too.

I think we are in uncharted waters and it could go either way at this point.

. Even were he to lose, look at the rewarding of extremism that such would represent, as in Venezuela.

I'm sorry but I think that the idea that the Democrats are going to turn this country into a Venezuela indicates an absurd level of paranoia.

Some big cities are about to learn how much they depend on hinterland resources and infrastructure, starting with what happens when the truckers say no or power lines go.

Both sides would do well to remember that they depend on each other. Cities cannot survive without supplies brought in from the hinterland and the hinterland cannot survive without the cities as a market for their produce.

Even if some semblance of normality is restored by Dec 21, the embrittlement of the nation, undermining of key institutions and of cultural buttresses will have happened.

All brought about both by a President who regards the Constitution, rule of law and political norms simply as irritating impediments on his unfettered exercise of political power and a legislature that has shirked its constitutional duty to provide a check on an administration's abuse of its power. Seversky

Supreme Court packing? If that's it, and it happens, I'll give you extra credit. daveS

DS, what you left out, again. KF kairosfocus

JAD, moral subjectivists are deaf to reason. It is crushing events that will have to open eyes through pain. KF kairosfocus

JVL, Europe is no longer the geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation. The USA is, and the McFaul tactical playbook perfected in E Europe and further refined through the Arab Spring is being put into effect there now. As for theological apocalypses, no one is suggesting such; though was it Grey who saw 1914, accurately as a tumble into the abyss: Austria, Turkey, Russia, Germany all lost their ancient monarchies, destabilising Europe and setting up two onward world wars, the Cold War being de facto WW3. The projection is chaos and embrittlement of the political system with a push to create a Venezuela (now in progress) that will fail but will wreak even more havoc than we already see. KF PS, go read Plato's Ship of State kairosfocus

KF, I tried to list the items where it's clear whether the event happened or not. I'm looking for falsifiable predictions, essentially. daveS

DS, kindly note what you left out, rather like the advice to read the Bible verses you did not highlight. That might be instructive. KF PS: Catch and release of arsonists does not help. Six fires after the first release was it? PPS: With highways being blocked, drivers beaten or threatened and cities in turmoil, do you think truckers are going to pretend it's business as usual? kairosfocus

JAD, Are there moral subjectivists here telling people what to think and believe? I'm not sure who you're addressing. daveS

Why do we always end up in the same rut when we’re engaging these kind of issues? The argument that I have made here several time before is that if you are moral subjectivists you don’ have an argument when it comes to interpersonal morality or human rights. Unfortunately, “my side,” I am embarrassed to say, is just as foolish for enabling this kind of nonsense. When the so called debate turns into ridicule and insults (both sides are guilty here) then it means everyone has abandoned reason. I don’t see how the moral subjectivist is in a position to tell anyone else what to think and believe. It’s irrational to think that your subjective opinions are morally binding on anyone else. It’s silly and foolish to argue that they are. If they’re subjective then your opinions apply only to you. No one else is obligated to even consider them. Furthermore, to argue that moral subjectivism is true is self-refuting. (See my comment @ #57 on a thread from 2 ½ yrs. ago.) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/why-do-atheists-deny-objective-morality/#comment-648486 john_a_designer

KF, Ok, I'll start making a list of events to watch out for. 1. Trump 'gaoled'. 1. [M]aking a slice of a de facto city into a state and a main associated territory in hopes of locking in a radical left hold on govt. (Where is this again? Washington, DC perhaps?). 2. Arson (already happening, unfortunately, not clear yet if politically motivated). 3. Trump wins the election 4. Truckers cease deliveries to some large cities. Power lines may be cut as well. daveS

Kairosfocus: you obviously are not following the rising spiral of destabilisation fed by an obvious Red Guards as cannon fodder 4GW insurgency following the McFaul playbook. Not in Europe. We're good. There's not going to be a political apocalypse. Nor a theological one. You are scaremongering as has been noted. In fact, you've been saying pretty much the same thing for years now. Strange isn't it that things were much more peaceful in America when Obama was President. I wonder why? JVL

DS, we already have Mr Carville talking of gaoling Mr Trump, and there is talk of making a slice of a de facto city into a state and a main associated territory in hopes of locking in a radical left hold on govt, with supreme court packing too. The spiralling rioting, violence, slander and threat to destabilise credibility of elections several steps beyond 2000 add to this. I suspect, arson in the streets is going to the forests now -- with echoes of the 1831 Baptist War uprising in my homeland. The media are blowing their credibility's remaining shreds as though this is the queen-move for setting up mate. We already see marxist critical theory ideologies standing in for knowledge and shaping policy. McFaul playbook delegitimising slanders and Red Guard cannon fodder in the streets (bloody shirt next, with hired gun snipers?) are ramping up to the election, pointing to a crescendo through Jan next year. The peasant uprising by ballot box 2016 is being beaten down by resort to utter ruthlessness with clear agenda to destabilise the election. Peak chaos is coming. I still think the election will go to Mr Trump, leading to the cresting of the insurgency, maybe with deep state lawfare power moves too. Even were he to lose, look at the rewarding of extremism that such would represent, as in Venezuela. On either case the polarisation has already gone too far, the power push is too willing to spend capital to back down. Some big cities are about to learn how much they depend on hinterland resources and infrastructure, starting with what happens when the truckers say no or power lines go. Beyond, a lottery, with a lot of needless damage. Even if some semblance of normality is restored by Dec 21, the embrittlement of the nation, undermining of key institutions and of cultural buttresses will have happened. And the vultures on the world stage are already circling. Folly has ruinous consequences. KF kairosfocus

JVl, you obviously are not following the rising spiral of destabilisation fed by an obvious Red Guards as cannon fodder 4GW insurgency following the McFaul playbook. On the weekend we had an ambush-shooting of police officers in the head (thankfully, both will live), met by cheering and crowding entrance to ER. We have yet to see clear repudiation of demonisation and target-painting on lawful police. Just in, the first two weeks of rioting seem to have cost US$ 2 bn in damage, wreaking particular havoc on the small business sector, the total to date is obviously a lot higher. We have seen assassination teams on the ground in Portland. There are open calls not to concede an election if defeated, with a demand to impose dubious unvetted voting by mail [quite different from well cross checked absentee voting]. The pattern of destabilisation is bad for the US and has global geostrategic import. Indeed, I wonder if the Gulf States are looking for new support just in case, as they have since C18 - 19, starting with the Royal Navy. And more. Have you seen how a 4G civil war plays out? KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: Unfortunately, we now face a 4 to 16 months remaining window in which geostrategically decisive outcomes will predictably occur. A wild ride, and liable to be badly damaging but that is the nature of the beast Funny thing about doomsday predictors: they always seem to get it wrong. JVL

KF, What do you expect to be happening in the US in two years, assuming we don't take corrective action? Can you sketch a plausible outcome? I don't know whether you're talking about something fairly mild (e.g., a struggling economy, declining power on the global stage, continuing small-scale violence) or a truly apocalyptic scenario (e.g., large-scale violence, perhaps > 100 killed daily, states seriously considering secession, the military attacking civilians). daveS

DS, have you noticed that what I wished were not so but pointed to is happening as we speak? Fear is a reasonable response to serious dangers, courage is to stand and do duty despite that danger. Duty one is to understand so we may act soundly and in good time. Unfortunately, we now face a 4 to 16 months remaining window in which geostrategically decisive outcomes will predictably occur. A wild ride, and liable to be badly damaging but that is the nature of the beast. KF kairosfocus

What fearmongering? The lefty media is queen of that play card. ET

KF,

Toxic side discussion over.

And now back to our regularly scheduled fearmongering. :-) daveS

TF, narcissism as mass phenomenon is suicidal. Wikipedia, testifying against ideological interests:

Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's idealised self image and attributes. The term originated from Greek mythology, where the young Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. Narcissism is a concept in psychoanalytic theory, which was popularly introduced in Sigmund Freud's essay On Narcissism (1914). The American Psychiatric Association has listed the classification narcissistic personality disorder in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, drawing on the historical concept of megalomania. Narcissism is also considered a social or cultural problem. It is a factor in trait theory used in various self-report inventories of personality such as the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. It is one of the three dark triadic personality traits (the others being psychopathy and Machiavellianism). Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love [--> weird terms those], narcissism is usually considered a problem in a person's or group's relationships with self and others.

Mayo Clinic:

Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism. A narcissistic personality disorder causes problems in many areas of life, such as relationships, work, school or financial affairs. People with narcissistic personality disorder may be generally unhappy and disappointed when they're not given the special favors or admiration they believe they deserve. They may find their relationships unfulfilling, and others may not enjoy being around them.

Scale up to nation and civilisation and that looks like serious trouble brewing. Especially if a significant fraction of cases also show desensitised consciences and highly machiavellian manipulative/abusive tendencies. KF PS: I would add an asymmetry regarding criticism and rhetoric. Namely, failure to regard duty to truth and fairness in pointing fingers at others while further twisting any response or questioning into reasons to stigmatise, further attack and cancel or marginalise. That is, injudicious, self-serving temperament. kairosfocus

MMT, you keep loading questions and pulling the thread off from a very serious topic. I am gavelling the side discussion now; it serves no purpose but to distract and taint. Those who want to think seriously have already been linked with a book that makes far more good sense than far too much of punditry promoted out there. Toxic side discussion over. KF kairosfocus

655 Kairosfocus

Hell has come to collect its due rent, and at this stage it is clearly predictable that a good slice of the freedoms that were enjoyed then turned to licence, one way or another, will be lost.

Some people refuse to grow up and their whole lives are just an incessant chain of desires that society is forced to concede. Again, our civilization is a massive kindergarten. Most people believe that their lifespan is 75-80 years and then, oblivion. Therefore, anything goes because nothing matters in the end. Thanks to Darwin and his stupid materialist followers. Although science DOESN'T support philosophical materialism at all. In fact, it invalidates it. But materialists are clever and evil manipulators. Very very evil and sick people. Truthfreedom

KF, there are some same sex couples and opposite sex couples whose marriages appear to be defined by their sexual relationship with their spouse. However, it is my experience that these are in the minority. Marriage is about much much more than sex. It is about companionship, commitment, mutual support, family, etc. I have one question with respect to your view on SSM. I think it is obvious that you would make SSM illegal again if you could. However, how would you deal with same sex couples like my partner and I who were married in church by an ordained minister? Would these marriages be retroactively revoked (anulled)? Mac McTavish

Mac and cheese:

Do you find it strange that sex isn’t the first thing they think about with opposite sex marriage?

I find it strange that you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse. ET

652 DaveS

Right. Two unrelated and consenting men should not be allowed to marry because otherwise we’ll have to allow siblings to marry.

DaveS, two men/ two women can not "marry". Why is incest a taboo? As long as they are consenting adults, what's the problem?

Can you make an anti same-sex marriage argument which doesn’t involve incest, farm animals, necrophilia, etc?

No. Because same-sex "marriage" is a counterfeit based on a desire of something that is not real. Any sexual behavior ought to be allowed then. As long as it fulfills people's desires. It's just that today is cool to support gay "marriage" and people jump into the bandwagon. Again, a civil union is not a marriage. Truthfreedom

daves:

Is that the first thing you think of when contemplating same-sex marriage?

No. The first thing I think of is it- same-sex marriage- is nonsensical pandering. And then I think of where will it- the nonsensical pandering- stop and why? ET

DS, the separation of genital sexuality from the conjugal context is ruinous, indeed part of what is driving the rising chaos is the blood guilt for 800+ million victims globally, over 60 million in the USA. That is what warped law and institutions, benumbing minds and consciences to the worst holocaust in history. Hell has come to collect its due rent, and at this stage it is clearly predictable that a good slice of the freedoms that were enjoyed then turned to licence, one way or another, will be lost. If perversity wins in the short run, attempted ever increasing imposition of perversities and coercions of all sorts under false colour of law backed by a cultural revolution state in a context where the hinterlands are heavily armed is explosive. But those playing Red Guards in the streets and their backers are patently deaf to the rumble of discontent. If those resisting the colour revolution win, the street chaos will surge -- there is a clear plan to use McFaul tactics to try to delegitimise the election -- and will trigger much the same outcome. Dragon's teeth have been sown, a like harvest seems to be coming. kairosfocus

KF,

The slicing off of sexual pleasure from that context is manifestly destructive, personally, familially, socially, civlisationally, and such patterns of behaviour, even when direct civil law is not appropriate, are properly subject to moral strictures.

It seems you consider same-sex relationships to be solely about sexual pleasure? I don't find that to be the case. I know several same-sex couples who quite visibly contribute a great deal to their communities. Anyway, we've had this "discussion" before; I doubt that there's any point in repeating it. daveS

DS, this is not hard; it is far simpler than say deriving the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Human beings reproduce heterosexually, and can only reasonably do so in small numbers, where linked child nurture easily takes 10 - 20 years and is best achieved in a stable heterosexual unit. In addition, it is quite normal for men and women of age to reproduce to fall in love and wish to make such a lifelong commitment. However, the act of union, being pleasurable, is also tempting outside of that context, leading to any number of destructive consequences tied to all sorts of behaviours, many quite manifestly pathological or even outright insane. Further to this, trying to form unions among close blood and family relatives is genetically unwise as well as known to be often socially disruptive. So the forming of stable heterosexual unions and expressing that union through acts of conjugal union closely (but not universally) tied to biological reproduction are hedged about with many moral considerations, of what ought to be done but is too often flouted for any number of reasons. Thus, we see naturally evident, creation order marriage and a framework for recognising, protecting and supporting marriage in civil law. The slicing off of sexual pleasure from that context is manifestly destructive, personally, familially, socially, civlisationally, and such patterns of behaviour, even when direct civil law is not appropriate, are properly subject to moral strictures. One of the worst of these abuses is the exploitation of the child by older, more powerful, more experienced persons, whether in family or out of family. especially when it involves relationships where such figures stand in positions of power and trust, such as teachers, medical practitioners, counsellors, pastors etc. For cause, there is consensus to address these and similar wrongs under penalty of civil law; which actually protects from the alternative, blood feuds in defence of exploited members of the clan. And more, all of this points to how the acid of self-refuting ideological evolutionary materialistic secularist humanism and fellow travellers have undermined major buttresses of our civilisation, contributing to the obvious mortal danger now increasingly spinning out of control in a state that is the geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation. A state that in many quarters seems hell-bent on suicidal misconduct driven by inverting responsibility and irresponsibility, soundness and unsoundness, truth and falsity, good and evil, the godly and the demonic, the normal and the perverse, sanity and insanity. Our choice is increasingly starkly clear, will we be heirs of Moshe, Jesus, Paul, or heirs of Nero, Caligula and co. That is, I suspect, going to be part of what gets caught up in the rising whirlwind of 4G civil war. KF kairosfocus

TF, Right. Two unrelated and consenting men should not be allowed to marry because otherwise we'll have to allow siblings to marry. 🙄 Can you make an anti same-sex marriage argument which doesn't involve incest, farm animals, necrophilia, etc? daveS

637 DaveS

It seems like in any discussion of same-sex marriage here, someone immediately brings up shtupping the livestock.

When we start to legislate based on desires, then any sexual inclination ought to be considered. Not doing so is discrimination against different lifestyles. Truthfreedom

642 DaveS

I just find it strange. We’re talking whether certain pairs of consenting adult humans should be allowed the privilege to form their own family.

A man and his daughter? A man and his son? Brother and sister? C'mon Dave, do not be archaic. Let's eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. Truthfreedom

634 Mac McTavish

Gay people marry,

Gay people engage in civil unions, not marriage. Marriage involves a man and a woman. Truthfreedom

UB, Re: 3: I don't recall us having any unpleasant interactions; I appreciate the thought in any case. daveS

. DS, 1. It doesn’t take a lot of scientific knowledge to throw up red flags when it is acknowledged that it takes a genuine symbol system to produce life. We are prolific symbol users, rocks aren’t. We know this very well. 2. No I don’t. 3. Was there once a time long ago when you and I got into a shouting match here on UD - a shouting match that I alone started? I cannot remember. I have searched my memory. I have meant to apologize to you for that, but I just cannot recall it enough to know. Upright BiPed

Mac McT, Yes, I do find it odd the degree to which heterosexual couples get a break on the issue of sexuality. I notice that the thread has been sidetracked into the "sewer". Hmmm.... UB, For my part, I don't know thing 1 about science, but I do occasionally comment on social issues, based on my life experience. I don't expect many people will be persuaded by my posts, but I think there is a sizeable group here which is on the same page as me. Many don't participate in these hot-button threads, however. Edit: Believe it or not, I was thinking specifically about you earlier, and whether you appreciate having all these "culture war" threads on the blog, when you appear to be focused more on science. daveS

. The materialists playbook Is always the same, particularly where the rubber meets the road. We have scientific questions and social questions. First, the materialist dismisses and denies the incontrovertible (physical) evidence that materialism is false, then second, turns around to the social (that which truly animates their beliefs) and simply assumes materialism is truth. It appears that both acts — denial and assumption — are required, or their ideology quickly falls apart. Upright BiPed

Folks, notice how the thread has been side-tracked into the sewer? Note, the opinion that manipulated opinion and abuse of court or parliamentary powers somehow makes legitimate law in the teeth of what is naturally manifest? Where do you think that such subjectivism, relativism, abuse, manipulation and nihilistic imposition under colour of law come from? Where do you think that leads, except shipwreck? Indeed, do you not notice that what was first done to bake shop operators and photographers under false accusation of discrimination to coerce them into celebrating such imposition is now being pushed by red guards rioting, looting, burning and worse? Do you think that is a mere accident? It isn't. KF kairosfocus

Dave

Is that the first thing you think of when contemplating same-sex marriage?

I think we both know the first thing they think about when same sex marriage is mentioned. Anal sex. Do you find it strange that sex isn't the first thing they think about with opposite sex marriage? That says a lot about their mindset. Mac McTavish

Then someone blurts out, seemingly out of nowhere, “Well, what if you fancy ‘orses?”.

I think the point is "procreation". A man mustn't marry an unfertile woman or a horse or a car or another man. AndyClue

ET, I just find it strange. We're talking whether certain pairs of consenting adult humans should be allowed the privilege to form their own family. Then someone blurts out, seemingly out of nowhere, "Well, what if you fancy 'orses?". Is that the first thing you think of when contemplating same-sex marriage? daveS

daves:

It seems like in any discussion of same-sex marriage here, someone immediately brings up shtupping the livestock.

It is a valid point- to bring up other species and objects as possible marriage partners. Why should there be any resistance to it, given same-sex marriages? ET

That is an ignorant argument, daves. ONLY opposite sex coupes can procreate. But I would be OK if opposite sex couples couldn't and were refused marriage because of that. ET

ET,

There is. It is called procreation. Only opposite sex couples can procreate. When same sex couples can procreate with their chosen partner, you will have a point.

Lots of people who cannot procreate are allowed to get married. daveS

Mac and cheese:

Same sex marriage has granted a privilege to homosexuals that was previously denied. Gay people marry, adopt kids, get divorced, just like opposite sex couples. This fact does not degrade the institution of marriage.

Your opinions are not facts and they are not evidence. By your "logic" all types of marriages should be allowed. Driving is also a privilege. Maybe would should allow blind people to drive cuz they have been denied that privilege. ET

It seems like in any discussion of same-sex marriage here, someone immediately brings up shtupping the livestock. daveS

daves:

I don’t see much of that attitude in my daily life.

I do.

People by and large still desire to leave the world in the best condition they can for their descendants.

Their actions betray their alleged desire.

What is happening is that ignorance is gradually receding.

Is it? Are lies a replacement for ignorance? Really?

People are interacting more and more with same-sex couples in their daily lives and realizing that there are no legitimate reasons for denying them the privileges accorded to opposite-sex couples.

There is. It is called procreation. Only opposite sex couples can procreate. When same sex couples can procreate with their chosen partner, you will have a point. ET

According to the ancient historian Suetonius, the Roman emperor known as Caligula loved one of his horses, Incitatus, so much that he gave the steed a marble stall, an ivory manger, a jeweled collar and even a house. Another chronicler, Cassius Dio, later wrote that servants fed the animal oats mixed with gold flakes. Famous for his madness and brutality, Caligula allegedly committed incest with his sisters, fed prisoners to wild beasts and had conversations with the moon—so coddling a beloved horse might seem among the lesser of his various evils. But did he really plan to make Incitatus a consul and only fail to do so because his assassination happened first, as Suetonius would have us believe?

https://www.history.com/news/did-caligula-really-make-his-horse-a-consul Well, at least Caligula didn’t try to marry his horse, but… (I am not sure I want to go there.) john_a_designer

Dave

What is happening is that ignorance is gradually receding. People are interacting more and more with same-sex couples in their daily lives and realizing that there are no legitimate reasons for denying them the privileges accorded to opposite-sex couples.

I would agree. It is very similar to my experiences with travel. Before I started travelling, I had misconceptions about people from different countries born of ignorance. Travel has made me realize that regardless of a person's race or culture, we have far more in common than we differ. We are now in a time when gay couples don't have to hide and people ar realizing that we are just like they are. Some people, sadly, prefer to maintain their ignorance, and there is little we can do about that. Same sex marriage has granted a privilege to homosexuals that was previously denied. Gay people marry, adopt kids, get divorced, just like opposite sex couples. This fact does not degrade the institution of marriage. I suspect that for some of those who think that it does, it is about blaming others for their own marital difficulties. Mac McTavish

631 DaveS

What is happening is that ignorance is gradually receding.

Au contraire. It's rapidly increasing. And bullying those who oppose this non-sense is also increasing.

People are interacting more and more with same-sex couples

Couples, not "marriages". Tail =/= leg. Even if you legislate that they're the same thing. Truthfreedom

629 ET

People understand that society is flushing itself down the toilet.

Makes sense, because Western society is now a t***. :) Truthfreedom

ET,

It’s that people don’t care any more. People understand that society is flushing itself down the toilet.

I don't see much of that attitude in my daily life. People by and large still desire to leave the world in the best condition they can for their descendants. What is happening is that ignorance is gradually receding. People are interacting more and more with same-sex couples in their daily lives and realizing that there are no legitimate reasons for denying them the privileges accorded to opposite-sex couples. daveS

628 Mac McTavish

Support for same-sex "marriage" has steadily grown over the past 15 years. And today, support for same-sex "marriage" remains near its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2019...

First: You can not support something that does not exist. Second: Many people think polls are stupid and lie to pollsters to make them look like fools. Third: even if the poll's results were true (doubtful), that would not change things and it would mean society is awfully wrong. This comment is quite accurate:

There is no such thing as gay “marriage”. Just because you call a tail a leg does not make it so. If you legislate pi to be exactly 3.2, that does not make it so. Acceptance of Homosexuality "Grows"

Fourth: most people are afraid of telling what they really think because not worshipping homosexuality is in today's climate a mortal sin with consequences (losing your job, being "cancelled", being insulted and bullied, forced to "bake the cake", etc...) Truthfreedom

I doubt support for same-sex marriage is growing. It's that people don't care any more. People understand that society is flushing itself down the toilet. And soon marriage won't mean anything as anyone will be able to marry anything they want to. ET

TF

First, that most part is a lie.

"In Pew Research Center polling in 2004, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 60% to 31%. Support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown over the past 15 years. And today, support for same-sex marriage remains near its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2019, a majority of Americans (61%) support same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose it." Mac McTavish

Mac and cheese:

Marriage is an institution created and maintained by people as a society.

That is your opinion. And only your opinion. ET

Mac and cheese:

Police unjustifiably kill more white people than black people, so there isn’t a problem.

Wrong again, loser. Police are killing white men so that means your asinine statement was wrong.

As is your tendency, you are misrepresenting the facts.

Liar. The rate is not the same as then total number, moron. In total number police kill more unarmed white men than black men And before George Floyd a white man was killed by a cop kneeling on his neck. It's as if Mac and cheese is just an evoTARD troll ET

622 Kairosfocus

Nero “married” a 9 year old boy he had castrated who resembled the pregnant wife he kicked to death, and later also “married” an older man, mockingly imitating the cries of the virgin bride.

Here are the testimonies of History:

Nero was in two same-sex ceremonies, once to the freeman Pythagoras as a “bride” and once as a “groom” to a boy named Sporus. In his Annals, Tacitus writes: Nero, who polluted himself by every lawful and lawless indulgence, had not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity, till a few days afterward he stooped to marry himself to one of that filthy herd, by name Pythagoras, with all the forms of regular wedlock. The bridal veil was put over the emperor; people saw the witnesses of the ceremony . . . And in The Twelve Caesars Suetonius says, He gelded the boy Sporus, and endeavoured to transform him into a woman. He even went so far as to marry him, with all the usual formalities of a marriage settlement, the rose-coloured nuptial veil, and a numerous company at the wedding. When the ceremony was over, he had him conducted like a bride to his own house, and treated him as his wife. 9 Things you Should Know about Same-Sex "Marriage"

But hey, if most part of society approves of it, then we better shut up and agree that the Naked Emperor is in fact wearing magnificent New Clothes. Truthfreedom

621 Mac McTavish

Marriage is an institution created and maintained by people as a society. As such, the society that created it can modify it.

So according to your reasoning: - Intrafamiliar "marriage" - "Marriage" between pre-pubescent kids - Intraespecific "marriage" (people and monkeys for example, we share a lot of DNA commonalities) - "Marriage" between people and objects - "Marriage" with yourself Etc... Are OK as long as most of the population approves of them. Truthfreedom

620 Mac McTavish

Thankfully the government and most of the population disagree with you.

First, that most part is a lie. And second, thankfully I do not care about fallacious appeals to numbers and about what the philosophically illiterate populace "believe".

If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.

- A child dressed up as a doctor is not a doctor. - A "vegan steak" is not a steak. Same-sex "marriage" is not marriage, and paired with abortion laws, it marked the unavoidable decline of the civilized West (now the pathetic kindergarten West). Truthfreedom

MMT, any number of people and of the new magisterioum may say what they will, what is by nature is simply not amenable to their opinions, decrees under colour of law etc. In the end, either such errors will be rescinded or, gathering mass and momentum in an avalanche of folly, they will wreck pivotal institutions of civilisation and carry civilisation over the cliff. Nero "married" a 9 year old boy he had castrated who resembled the pregnant wife he kicked to death, and later also "married" an older man, mockingly imitating the cries of the virgin bride. Despite the power of Roman Emperors to legislate by decree and precedent, it never "took" and could not. For cause, I am confident that this latest set of fiascos driven by ever accelerating sexual perversities and addiction-escalations, will also collapse. Unfortunately, the rush from liberty to nihilistic licence and cynical imposition is very likely to take down a lot of what was won through constitutional democratic self government with it. Already, we see the rise of lawless ideological oligarchy, manipulating the red guard cannon fodder in the streets. KF kairosfocus

KF

TF, therein lies the chaotic nihilism of legal positivism. Marriage has a genetically stamped, creation order nature that guides and duly delimits our rational, responsible freedom on the matter

Marriage is an institution created and maintained by people as a society. As such, the society that created it can modify it. Mac McTavish

TF

“Marriage” and “civil union” are NOT the same, and no document can change that.

Thankfully the government and most of the population disagree with you. Mac McTavish

TF, therein lies the chaotic nihilism of legal positivism. Marriage has a genetically stamped, creation order nature that guides and duly delimits our rational, responsible freedom on the matter; and trying to impose a counterfeit under false colour and solemn ceremonies of the law simply exposes the corruption of courts, parliaments etc and how manipulable the popular mindset now is under the steady erosion by the acid of a priory evolutionary materialistic secular humanism and its fellow travellers. But no, "civil unions" were not enough, the avalanche of collapsing values and institutions had to roll on under false colours of equality and rights. Equality obtains with identicals, this is not at all the same thing on the sides of the asserted equal sign. Likewise, one may only justly claim a right when one is demonstrably in the right; there can be no right to abuse force of law to compel participation in, verbal support of or enabling of wrong. That alone is storing up deep trouble. The buttresses of sustainable constitutional democracy have been willfully, even enthusiastically eroded by ideological acids for generations. Now, absent a miracle of utterly undeserved grace, there will be hell to pay as things crumble and collapse. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, At least, we can agree on a key defect of the parliamentary supremacy position, with recognition that a constitution by unwritten convention is now outdated in a day when gentlemanly conduct is hardly relevant. Turning back to your hoped for objections, they still simply fail for the reasons outlined:

[KF, 584:] Euthyphro was addressed to greek gods, that were not the necessary and maximally great being root of reality, so they were misdirected when transferred to the God of ethical theism, just as a conceptual matter. [--> evidently you don't understand the difference between contingent actual or possible beings and necessary beings framework to any world existing, especially in a context where an existing world has in it inescapably morally governed creatures, thus constraining the sort of NB root to reality to those candidates capable of adequately grounding moral government, i.e. inherently good and utterly wise] Taking in the Hume guillotine, all it shows is that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged in the root of reality. [--> your misquoted "root of being" is incoherent and specifically not what I wrote] But ethical theism is precisely at that level, and the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being answers decisively, just on concept. Where, the inescapability of moral government of our rationality . . . your own argument implies validity of first duties to truth, right reason, prudence etc . . . requires that the IS-OUGHT gap be so bridged, on pain of undermining our own rationality. The God so envisioned is a serious candidate necessary being, and so either is impossible of being or else is actual [--> a matter of logic of being]. Atheists and fellow travellers (especially post the Plantinga freewill defence . . . as opposed to theodicy) have no plausible arguments that God is impossible of being. The so-called dilemma and guillotine have long since passed sell-by date and should have been retired to the large museum of outdated atheistical and hyperskeptical arguments.

As for nihilism, it is unfortunately implicit in evolutionary materialistic scientism. As Provine admitted in his 1998 U Tenn Darwin Day keynote:

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]

Whether you are inclined to agree is beside the point; in prudence to defend the civilisation, we must take due note and act on it. Especially, with the juggernaut accelerating. KF kairosfocus

614 Seversky

The Golden Rule and common human needs and interests are sufficient for that in my view.

The "Golden Rule" means nothing under "evolutionary materialism". The doctrine that annihilates reason and that can not stand the minimum scrutiny. Nihil. Paraphrasing Dobzahnsky: "Nothing in Life Makes Sense in the Light of The Self-refuting Philosophy of Evolutionary Materialism.” Truthfreedom

615 Mac McTavish

We have a legal document from the state demonstrating that you are wrong. You may not like it, but I don’t give a sh&$.

The "State" can't invent what is not there. The "State" can legislate (and it did) that you are allowed to "own slaves", but no such a right to "own" another human being exists. "Marriage" and "civil union" are NOT the same, and no document can change that. Truthfreedom

Not that facts ever matter https://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/publications/empirical-analysis-racial-differences-police-use-force Disparities on use of non lethal force no disparities on the use of lethal force. Vivid vividbleau

Kairosfocus/584

Seversky, in your ideological dreams such are still relevant.

I disagree. Much as you would like to wish them away, the Euthyphro Dilemma and Hume's guillotine or is/ought gap are still relevant and effective arguments. The fact that the Dilemma was developed to address gods in the Greek pantheon does not make it any the less transferable against the single god of a monotheistic faith like Christianity. And, whether you are talking about the "root of being" or some higher level of existence, you are still talking about what "is" and still face the gulf between that and any "ought". The guillotine still stands. No, we cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of the God in which you believe but neither do we think it is necessary to invoke one so as to provide a foundation for morality. The Golden Rule and common human needs and interests are sufficient for that in my view. Seversky

TF

Not such a thing as same-sex “marriage” exists.

We have a legal document from the state demonstrating that you are wrong. You may not like it, but I don’t give a sh&$. Mac McTavish

ET

More unarmed white men are killed by police than unarmed black men.

Nice defence. Police unjustifiably kill more white people than black people, so there isn’t a problem. As is your tendency, you are misrepresenting the facts.

The rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 31 fatal shootings per million of the population as of August 2020.

In the stats you were referring to, George Floyd wasn’t included because he wasn’t shot. Mac McTavish

The invidious side of the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy is that what one administration can make, the next can undo. For example, one government could enact a broad law protecting freedom of expression but the very next government, in principle at least, could repeal it. A written constitution, which lists a set of basic human rights that are ring-fenced against the shifting currents of political opinion so as to prevent them from being easily tampered with or amended, is a much better idea in my view. Seversky

There is a series of podcast videos on YouTube called the Joe Rogan Experience. One of them is an interview with an ex-Navy SEAL. He pointed out that SEALs conduct long periods of training and preparation before moving out into the field on a mission. He believes that standard police training, by comparison, is pitifully inadequate. He argues that, rather than defunding or even abolition, the police need more money to fund longer and better training and to attract a higher standard of recruit. This is not to deny that there may be police departments that have entrenched, violent and discriminatory cultures which protect offenders just because they carry a badge and where dismantling and rebuilding them from the ground up may be the only way to reform them. Seversky

ET, as we have fists that serve as clubs/hammers, hands that can strangle, legs, feet and teeth, we are never un-armed, never without potentially lethal weapons. The danger radius for the knife thus for our natural weapons is conventionally 21 feet. Knives, guns, rocks, clubs, skateboards etc are more lethal, they by no means imply that one without such in hand is not potentially lethal. Where, too, tasers and the like are not reliable stoppers for those in a killing rage or high on drugs. We need to drastically rebalance our understanding of what police face in a society spinning down into nihilistic chaos. KF kairosfocus

Mac:

If you are black.

More unarmed white men are killed by police than unarmed black men.

For rational people that should be enough to raise an alarm.

Your ignorance of reality is not rational. ET

606 Mac McTavish

Does the legalization of same-sex-marriage give you the urge-to-merge with a sheep?

Not such a thing as same-sex "marriage" exists. It is a metaphysical impossibility. Civil union is a different thing. Yes, I have always wanted to merge with sheeps. They are cute and you can get cardigans for free. You disrespecting my sexual orientation is pure bigotry. And if you think that there are not people that enjoy having intimacy with animals, you are very naive. It probably has some "evolutionary explanation". And what therefore has "evolution" joined together, let not man separate. Truthfreedom

TF

Says the man who can’t oppose beastiality because it destroys same-sex “marriage” privileges.

Does the legalization of same-sex-marriage give you the urge-to-merge with a sheep? Doesn’t that say more about you than it does about me? Bahahah Mac McTavish

604 Mac McTavish

For rational people that should be enough to raise an alarm.

Says the man who can't oppose beastiality because it would destroy the same-sex "marriage" privilege. Truthfreedom

ET

Injustices? A policeman is more likely to be killed by a black man than an unarmed black man is to be killed by a policeman. That is why the police are so skittish when arresting violent people. And in that state, if you don’t comply you will most likely be hurt or killed.

If you are black. For rational people that should be enough to raise an alarm. For ET and TF, the jury is out. Mac McTavish

While our Darwinian interlocutors are out, I am adding a reflection. Those people say that: "evolution never meant for us to know truth." Which is a very weird thing, because if we unpack the statement, it is saying the following:

1) That truth was not meant for H. sapiens 2) But that there is at least one H. sapiens (the one uttering that phrase) that knows truth, meaning that proposition 1) is false.

Self-refutation or not? Truthfreedom

F/N: Waiting on the usual objectors, lurkers etc to comment on the latest ambush shooting of police, in LA this weekend: ________ Meanwhile, we may ponder this twitter thread aggregation and we may ponder the concept that the juggernaut is rolling faster and faster. KF kairosfocus

"Materialism" is a quagmire of "scarequotes" . You can not write a paragraph without being forced to include them. (Thank God for the predictive text or it would become an eternal task): - "matter", - "self", - "illusions", - "hallucinations", - "cheated by evolution", - "false perceptions", - "purposelessness", - "truth", - etc... How weird. Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom

538 Seversky

I would say that the Golden Rule is the basis of my standards

The "Golden Rule" reads as follows:

"Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."

Aaccording to "materialism" the "self" is an "illusion." Therefore, "The Golden Rule" should be re-written as follows:

"Do not impose on illusions what an illusion does not wish for an illusion."

Which makes this exact amount of sense = z.e.r.o. Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom

JVL, I know full well, I am speaking to the power of parliament to at any time make law of full Constitutional power instead of having reference to a written Constitution that is the declared supreme law with a supremacy clause and particular provision for Amendments, so subsidiary law is subjugated to a definite architecture of checks and balances. Also, some things should go to referenda, and for key things, should require super majorities. The story I was told was having power to declare every man a woman and every woman a man, though strictly that was for a derivative parliament. Where, for deeply entrenched clauses, high supermajority referenda should be prescribed, up to 3/4 majority for say bill of rights and 2/3 for key government structures. Other law by act of parliament would be under its supremacy and subject to appeal to high court then supreme court. Regulations and court precedents should be suitably curbed so no panel of judges should be able to rewrite Constitutions, I like the Cayman provision of judges petitioning parliament to initiate amendment. However a panel of ONE Judge has tried that rewrite stunt there. KF kairosfocus

562 Mac Mc Tavish

Advocate for beastiality if you would like. Nobody will stop you.

The Future of Marriage

Even the so-called “new” definition of marriage will quickly be seen as discriminatory, since it forbids three men marrying each other, people marrying animals, adults marrying children, fathers marrying daughters, and so forth. The Future of Marriage.

Truthfreedom

JAD, this may help http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_natlaw_frwk KF kairosfocus

Injustices? A policeman is more likely to be killed by a black man than an unarmed black man is to be killed by a policeman. That is why the police are so skittish when arresting violent people. And in that state, if you don't comply you will most likely be hurt or killed. ET

Kairosfocus: The degree of parliamentary supremacy is potentially dangerous . . . Um, the elected house, the actual ruling body, the House of Commons is part of Paliament. Anyway, I was asking BobRyan because of his very weird statement. JVL

Is the USA a democracy? If so, when did it become a democracy? The USA was founded as a Constitutional Republic and is a representative democracy, not a true democracy. ET

JVL, universal adult sufferage in the UK dates to the 1920's. Democratisation really began about 1688, and continued for about 250 years until the 1920's. It is not a big-C Constitutional democracy but by conventions and certain major legislation tracing to Magna Carta and Common Law, there is a constitution generally termed Westminster, Parliamentary Democracy. Major changes happened under the last labour Govt with Lords, and recently a Supreme Court was set up. I have seen hints of a Senate. There is also a Privy Council, whose Judicial Committee is looked to by several Commonwealth countries and Overseas Territories, as final court of appeals. Chain of oath-loyalty is to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, which also extends to much of the commonwealth which may still retain vestiges of being a confederate state though it's been rather long since I heard of Commonwealth Citizenship as a thing of significance. As of I last checked, Erskine May the de facto manual of Parliamentary Law, is still GBP 300+, for something of constitutional character. The degree of parliamentary supremacy is potentially dangerous, but then the US Supreme Court out of control is also dangerous. KF kairosfocus

BobRyan: No democracy has ever gone to war against another democracy. Do you think the UK is a democracy? If so when did it become a democracy? JVL

589 BobRyan

If Darwinists are right, and we are nothing more than animals with nothing but the illusion of freewill, how can their be any homosexuals? Sexuality is purely a chemical reaction for the purpose of procreation.

Darwinists are of course not right. The "materialist" cult can not prove that God/ minds do not exist. In fact, and ironically, "materialism", when coupled with the findings of science, forces materialism into subjective idealism ("matter" is a "creation" of "mind"). 17th Century Bishop Berkeley was the most prominent subjective idealist proponent.

George Berkeley (12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753) – known as Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne) – was an Irish philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideas in the minds of perceivers and, as a result, cannot exist without being perceived.

So all their "purposelessness" non-sense is just garbage philosophy without a scintilla of evidence. Truthfreedom

Truthfreedom Che Guevara should be thought of as the mass murderer that he was, even before he met Castro. Granted, it wasn't until after he started murdering people for Castro that it became something mechanical, but he was still a mass murderer. BobRyan

588 BobRyan

Under Lenin, homosexuality was against the law in the Soviet Union.

Che Guevara's Guahanahacabibes 5-Star Hotel anyone?

Anyone who deviated from the “new man” was seen as a ”counter-revolutionary.” Such was the case of gay men — whom Guevara referred to as “sexual perverts.” Both Guevara and Castro considered homosexuality a bourgeois decadence. In an interview in 1965, Castro explained that “A deviation of that nature clashes with the concept we have of what a militant communist should be.”

Truthfreedom

Mac McTavish Under Lenin, homosexuality was against the law in the Soviet Union. All Stalin did was increase the penalty when he took power. Despite the promises of socialism, the people always suffer, which includes homosexuals. BobRyan

Democracy is one of the oldest forms of government still in use. No democracy has ever gone to war against another democracy. If peace is an objective, then shouldn't there be a push towards more countries becoming democratic. About half of the African nations are democratic and the remainder under dictatorships, including communistic driven Ethiopia. With a little research, you'll find those who live under democratic rule are better off than those living under dictatorships. BobRyan

Mac McTavish @ 583 How could you choose to do anything without freewill? You chose to wait until later in life, which means you exercised freewill. If Darwinists are right, and we are nothing more than animals with nothing but the illusion of freewill, how can their be any homosexuals? Sexuality is purely a chemical reaction for the purpose of procreation. BobRyan

Seversky, on socialisms, you fail to recognise the decisive issue identified by von Mises in the 1920's, which worked out on the ground across the intervening years until it was insurmountable in the '80's. Namely, calculation of value. As value is not composed of manual labour, but is a cumulative effect of choices and preferences of individuals, firms, households etc, and is astonishingly perishable in a far flung, vast network of potential and actual transactions that often involve inter-temporal exchanges on alternative possibilities leading to particularity-riddled choice in a world now dominated by services and information, no centralised planning system becomes feasible. Dislocations and misallocations become systemic, inter alia choking innovation. The system grinds to a halt, especially in competition with decentralisation of planning through market freedom in jurisdictions with lawful order that respects property and investment services. Further, ideologised concentration of power under inherently nihilistic ideologies creates lawless oligarchy. This is precisely what you try to tax "capitalism" with, when in fact market/economic freedom, lawful states and democratisation have mutually reinforced and advanced hand in hand for centuries. The you're another argument fails. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, in your ideological dreams such are still relevant. Euthyphro was addressed to greek gods, that were not the necessary and maximally great being root of reality, so they were misdirected when transferred to the God of ethical theism, just as a conceptual matter. Taking in the Hume guillotine, all it shows is that the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged in the root of reality. But ethical theism is precisely at that level, and the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being answers decisively, just on concept. Where, the inescapability of moral government of our rationality . . . your own argument implies validity of first duties to truth, right reason, prudence etc . . . requires that the IS-OUGHT gap be so bridged, on pain of undermining our own rationality. The God so envisioned is a serious candidate necessary being, and so either is impossible of being or else is actual. Atheists and fellow travellers (especially post the Plantinga freewill defence . . . as opposed to theodicy) have no plausible arguments that God is impossible of being. The so-called dilemma and guillotine have long since passed sell-by date and should have been retired to the large museum of outdated atheistical and hyperskeptical arguments. KF kairosfocus

Sev

For what it’s worth, I am sorry you were treated as you were. It is hard to imagine being the victim of such irrational prejudice for so long.

Thank you, Sev. I was able to avoid much of this by not coming out of the closet until later in my life. The down side, however, was not being able partake in many of the open social interactions or discussions that heterosexuals took for granted. Mac McTavish

Materialism = ontological assertions hiding behind a façade of scientific verbiage. Dr. Dennis Bonnette is a genius that destroys each and any "materialist" attempt to salvage a decidious philosophy. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

Seversky (et al ) Your "materialist" pseudo-philosophy derived its authority from science. And now science says that "materialism" does not even exist: you are forced into subjective idealism. Aristotle (and the soul) are back. What a massive failure. Truthfreedom

BobRyan/557

Socialists and anarchists both use violence to reach their communistic goals.

One definition of socialism is,

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

… which doesn't sound like a bad thing on its face. Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, attempts by various societies to implement such a system have resulted in the state falling into the hands of what are effectively gangsters, a "thugocracy" as you aptly wrote. In such societies, wealth and power are actually concentrated in the hands of the privileged few, leaving the rest with relatively little. But how is that so different from a capitalist democracy? Again, the majority of the wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a privileged few. Is that good or bad? Seversky

i>Kairosfocus/556

Notice, particularly that the claim to a right implies moral duties on the part of others so that one may only justly claim a right by being demonstrably in the right; justice being the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities.

Rights are entitlements which a society agrees should be the privilege of all members of that society. They necessarily entail a respect by any individual member for the rights of all other members of that society in return for having one's own rights respected.

Lawless demands backed by riotous mobs are a direct assault on the civil peace.

What if groups are faced with a society which denies lawful rights and fair treatment which are available to the privileged majority? What recourse do they have? As I have asked before, was the civil disorder of the rebellious colonists in North America entirely unjustified in the face of the British government's refusal to countenance their demands? Seversky

Mac McTavish/555

Being a gay white man, I grew up in a time when being open about my sexuality just courted bullying and assault. I started my career in a time where if my sexuality were made public I would lose my job. I lived as a young adult in a time where expressing my sexuality with another consenting adult could result in criminal charges. Over the last couple decades I had to fight for the right to marry the person I love while others argued that it would lead to beastiality.

For what it's worth, I am sorry you were treated as you were. It is hard to imagine being the victim of such irrational prejudice for so long. All I can say is that accounts like yours and those from people of color have brought home to me just how relatively privileged I was without realizing it at the time.

So when I see people be pulled over because they are black, or be treated more violently by police because they are black, I don’t look for Marxist conspiracies amongst the people who protest against these discriminations. I see people who’s morality is higher than those who oppose them.

I agree. There is a video on YouTube, I think, in which Neil de Grasse Tyson talks of having an informal get-together with some fellow black academics. At one point he recounted being pulled over by the police on some minor pretext and asked if any of the others had had a similar experience. All of them had, some several times. And these were not kids out joyriding. Tyson was surprised that this was so prevalent and I was shocked when I heard it. Straight, white people simply have no concept of the daily experience of discrimination. We simply don't realize just how privileged we really are until we actually listen to the experiences of those not so fortunate. Seversky

575 Seversky

I can use reason, like you or anyone else,

Which shows that your atheist/ materialist cult is false. A pseudo-philosophy that collapses into subjective idealism without possibility of being salvaged (unless you want to renounce to your beloved science and lose your epistemic status):

The naturalist’s problem is that his own gratuitously-assumed physicalism leads him to the absurd inference that all he really knows are images inside his brain – a conclusion that contradicts his own initial direct experience! Dr. Dennis Bonnette

And Korzybski's map-territory non-sense can not salvage it either. Subjective idealism. Lol. Bishop Berkeley brought back to life. :) Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

KF

MMT, your repetition of erasing 60+ years of clear, dramatic progress inadvertently but tellingly underscores the real problem.

Nobody is erasing the progress. I wouldn’t be married today if there wasn’t progress. But to argue that blacks should accept there current status because it is better than it was 60 years ago is immoral.

And BTW, most wrongdoing is irrational, which does not change the point that it is wrongful. KF

Again, I don’t hear anyone hear arguing that the rioting is OK. But it is a fact that people who see injustices and nothing being done about them often react irrationally because their rational acts are ignored. Rodney King, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Philando Castile, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd... Mac McTavish

Kairosfocus/554

well do you know that the Hume guillotine and the far older so-called Euthyphro dilemma have decisively failed.

No they haven't. Both raise valid questions and answers have been proffered but neither has been answered conclusively in my view.

I suggest, you start with rationality, where Epictetus long since highlighted the antecedent, inescapable force and so also self-evident truth of core logic...

I am not disputing the value of rationality or logic.

Oh, how that chafes the nihilistic spirit! But, such is patently absurd.

What makes you think I am endorsing nihilism?

Now, let us observe how — though you have persistently side stepped in true Wilsonian fallacious fashion — you are first to appeal to governing first duties of reason, just to try to be persuasive. That is, you are forced to borrow from what you would overthrow and dismiss, likely imagining that such is naked imposition by those Christofascist would be tyrants.

I can use reason, like you or anyone else, but it does not lead inexorably or necessarily to the conclusions you have reached.

So, the roots of reality and of moral government are coeval.

Not if they stand on either side of the is-ought gap.

Rooted, in one who is a necessary, maximally great being, worthy of our loyalty and of our responsible reasonable service that does the good that accords with our evident nature.

Even if such a being exists, it does not earn our fealty by threats of eternal damnation nor by refusal to explain the nature of our existence or expand on the reasoning - which you have just asserted to be fundamental for intelligent beings - behind its moral prescriptions.

>>1) How did God arrive at His moral prescriptions?>> a: Arrive at suggests arbitrary invention or origin, things that could be different at will.

Are you saying God had no choice in the matter, that He lacked free will?

b: Instead, moral government and its first duties are inescapable and so self-evidently true concomitants of the liberty required to be genuinely rational. If rational then free; if free, subject to said first duties which are part of the fabric of a reality in which rational beings are possible.

If God has free will and exercises reason then He should have no difficulty explaining why He decided as He did.

>>2) Is it immoral for God to force His moral views on others?>> c: Loaded, with the arrogance that regards moral government rooted in first duties as tyranny; what folly. d: God is inherently good, utterly wise, root of our being, maximally great, his precepts will be a microcosm of that character and it is folly to dismiss them as though they were arbitrary tyranny.

Evasive. And you are cleaving to the horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma which asserts that whatever such a deity chooses to do and does is necessarily good, which means that all the atrocities attributed to God and His proxies in the Old Testament are necessarily good. Either the God in whom you believe is as you believe, in which case the OT must be in error, or He is as He emerges from the OT accounts, in which case He is not the being in whom you believe.

>>3) Are God’s moral prescriptions binding on Him?>> e: An imagined gotcha that fails to distinguish necessary being maximally great utterly wise inherently good root of reality and our status as contingent creatures.

Again, evasive. Seversky

573 John_a_designer

Their beliefs and opinions are clearly based on passion not reason.

Toddlers. Grown-ups are extinct specimens in the West. We are officially a stupid culture. :) Truthfreedom

Here is some evidence that what we now see erupting in the streets has been percolating just under the surface for some time. A few years ago student activists at Claremont Pamona College in California succeeded in shutting down a lecture by Manhattan Institute scholar and author Heather Mac Donald. In a letter to the school’s president they wrote:

The idea that there is a single truth — ‘the Truth’ — is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain,” the students’ letter stated, according to The Claremont Independent. “This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny.”

The following article gives several more long excerpts from the letter: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markmeckler/2017/04/letter-shows-exactly-campus-radicals-think-free-speech/ Libertarian writer, Kat Timf observes that…

“Once you start trying to argue that it’s bad to encourage people to seek the truth, you have officially reached peak idiot. For one thing, admitting that you find valuing the truth to be offensive hardly helps your case when you’re literally trying to convince others that something is true.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446862/pomona-students-truth-myth-and-white-supremacy Indeed, you can’t begin to make a moral argument unless it is based on moral TRUTH and that it is true that morality is really grounded in interpersonal moral obligation. It appears the Pomona students reject moral truth but still believe in some kind of interpersonal moral obligation. That is at best logically fallacious, at worse it is either hypocritical or absurd. Their beliefs and opinions are clearly based on passion not reason. When such idiotic thinking begins to spread through a democratic society it’s putting that society at risk. It will first lead to anarchy and then end up with tyranny or totalitarianism. Again, as I have asked before: From the standpoint of moral subjectivism, where by definition morals and ethics must be arbitrary, what basis do we have for universal human rights? Would a country like the US even be possible without a concept of universal human rights? Even though our concept of human rights at the founding of our country was very imperfect (slavery, mistreatment of native people, unequal rights for women) there is absolutely no basis for such universal rights from a moral subjectivist point of view. john_a_designer

571 Seversky

The best foundation for any morality, as I have argued before, are the needs and interests that all human beings have in common.

Poorly argued (as usual). A person who says " there's no Universal moral code" while saying that: "we have common needs and interests that ought to be acknowledged = universal moral code". Sigh. Truthfreedom

John_a_designer/553

That sounds nice and well meaning, however, how do we arrive at any kind of consensus without some kind of interpersonal standard which we can use to judge whose moral beliefs or opinions have merit and whose do not? If all moral beliefs and opinions are equal, which they must be according moral subjectivism and relativism, then such a standard does not exist and all talk of so-called consensus is illusory.

The best foundation for any morality, as I have argued before, are the needs and interests that all human beings have in common. Either we find a way to agree that among ourselves or, as we have seen all too often, individuals or groups that are willing to use whatever violence is necessary to achieve their ends will decide for us. That will be without consultation or consensus and we have seen where that can lead. It will not be easy and maybe, as a species, we are not yet ready for it. Maybe people prefer the certainty of a dictator to the democratically-elected "downright moron". Seversky

MMT, your repetition of erasing 60+ years of clear, dramatic progress inadvertently but tellingly underscores the real problem. And BTW, most wrongdoing is irrational, which does not change the point that it is wrongful. KF PS: Bernard Lewis is still equally tellingly correct:

. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

kairosfocus

The West is now a toddler-culture: "if the Government doesn't grant me my wishes, ("marriage", preferred pronouns, killing my children, it does not tear down statues I do not like/ understand, etc), I am going to throw a big tantrum, scream, break my toys and wet my diapers". Truthfreedom

562 Mac Mc Tavish

Advocate for beastiality if you would like. Nobody will stop you.

Then people who said that homosexual "marriage" would lead to bestiality were right. All wishes granted. And intrafamiliar "marriages" too. Truthfreedom

The fact that we are having this discussion on this thread shows that physicalism/ atomism is a totally false-ridiculous philosophy. This is what such a doctrine entails:

In this philosophy, (physicalism) there is no boundary to any collection of particles, all such boundaries being arbitrary and meaningless. Individuals do not exist; only collections of particles exist, wherever and whatever those particles might be. Strings, or whatever. The universe is like a bowl of undifferentiated particle soup, all chugging along with no intentionality. but completely determined. It is only certain collections of particles that define separations in the broth, separations which cannot have any significance.

As I mentioned, kindergarten philosophy. That there are adults spouting this utter non-sense is a testament of how deep down the rabbit hole has the West fallen. Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom

KF

MMT, rioting is never inevitable.

Rioting is not rational. But when rational actions repeatedly fail to show results, the irrational becomes more and more attractive for some. Mac McTavish

JAD, I notice how they tip-toe away in a Wilsonian studious silence when I put on the table:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

That silence is itself telling. KF kairosfocus

MMT, rioting is never inevitable. It reflects choice, a choice that is always ill advised and destructive of good order. Further to this, the claim, we have been treated unjustly so we respond in kind (often destroying the very businesses and blighting the business districts that serve the community for generations) is self-evidently self-refuting. Besides, the language I keep hearing is based on an agit prop lie that refuses to acknowledge sixty years of breakthrough progress that has in fact transformed the situation of racial minorities in the US; to the point that a member of said community was a two-term president of the US and so is the VP candidate of a major party currently. Further to this, such riots are following a clear, Red Guards as cannon fodder insurgency pattern coming out of the MacFaul playbook, where the attempts to delegitimise the historical and cultural roots of the US as well as the current presidency are based on patently willfully deceitful [1619 . . .] and even slanderous distortions. Were it to succeed, it would only lead to lawless ideological oligarchy, a tyrannical regression down the scale of political systems; predictably, the same minorities would pay a terrible price. As was proved by the horrifically bloody failure of the Marxist Leninist system. It won't succeed, but will do a lot of utterly needless damage. As my homeland still suffers from 40 years later, with likely another 40 to truly recover. Those who are playing with Red Guard matches have a lot to account for. KF kairosfocus

I think there are two basic type of people who actively participate in conversations and debates here at UD: those who are motivated by truth and reason and those who appear to have some kind of ulterior motive. I see myself as someone who is motivated by truth and reason. I have said this before for me truth trumps faith. That is, if you can convince me with facts, logic and reason that my beliefs are untrue, I will change my beliefs. If you are a moral subjectivist (who, by the way, must also be an epistemological subjectivist) there is no rational* way for your beliefs to be changed. In other words, you’re a dogmatist. (*Of course, since they are ad hoc to begin with I suppose you can change them for some ad hoc reason.) john_a_designer

TF

Why is bestiality exempted? Why are people attracted to animals lesser beings who should be denied their wishes?

Advocate for beastiality if you would like. Nobody will stop you. Mac McTavish

Unfortunately, many of our interlocutors have a very distorted if not cartoonish view of what most of us who advocate objective morality are arguing. Many of us here, including me, are not starting with the Bible we’re starting with natural law. The main quote we use when we quote from the Bible is Paul’s teaching in Roman’s 2:14 &15 where he argues “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them…” In other words, Paul is saying that all humans have access to natural law through their hearts and conscience. Whether or not it’s written down somewhere, there is a morally binding (or “objective”) natural law. Peter Kreeft gives a very clear and concise explanation of what natural law is in the following linked article:

What is natural law and why is it important? Moral laws are based on human nature. That is, what we ought to do is based on what we are. “Thou shalt not kill,” for instance, is based on the real value of human life and the need to preserve it. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is based on the real value of marriage and family, the value of mutual self-giving love, and children’s need for trust and stability. The natural law is also naturally known, by natural human reason and experience. We don’t need religious faith or supernatural divine revelation to know that we’re morally obligated to choose good and avoid evil or to know what “good” and “evil” mean… Speaking of pagans [or gentiles,] St. Paul says that “they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (Rom 2:15). The term “natural law” is sometimes misunderstood. “This law is called ‘natural,’ not in reference to the nature of irrational beings [that is, animals — it is not a law of biology], “but because reason, which decrees it, properly belongs to human nature”…

http://legatus.org/what-is-natural-law-and-why-is-it-important/ See also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ The point is that just because someone doesn’t believe the Bible or have a religion it doesn’t follow there are no objective moral obligations. Ironically that is actually a biblical teaching. john_a_designer

KF

MMT & Seversky, perhaps, you have failed to note the excerpt from Ac 19 in the OP, on a case in point on rioting and why it is unjustified.

I don’t think that anyone had suggested that rioting is justified. However, it is often inevitable when there are systemic and persistent inequities. Without fundamentally addressing the inequities, forcefully policing the riots is only a temporary reprieve. Mac McTavish

555 Mac Mc Tavish

Over the last couple decades I had to fight for the right to marry the person I love while others argued that it would lead to beastiality.

Why is bestiality exempted? Why are people attracted to animals lesser beings who should be denied their wishes? Truthfreedom

Materialism: The "Philosophy" Without Philosophers

"Atomism maintains that nothing really exists above atomic level (whatever ultimate physical particles these “atoms” may really be). That means that no macroscopic, substantially-unified things exist – not cockroaches, not kangaroos, not horses, and not human beings (including Dr. Dawkins). There may be amazingly-complex chemical bonding found in dynamic functional unities based on DNA rules (organisms), but none of it constitutes a substantial unity -- a real being distinct from other things: just countless infinitesimal particles doing a cosmic dance with different sets of temporary partners". Dr. Dennis Bonnette

A failed philosophy can only offer lame results. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

Socialists and anarchists both use violence to reach their communistic goals. Every incidence of violence, from shootings to riots, ends up with fingers being pointed at those not responsible. They ignore the failures of the past and unknown dead to reach their shared utopia. Communism is the idea of everyone working towards the same end with equal ownership in everything. Anarchists believe they can reach it by destroying governments, which is why they wanted to start WWI. Socialists believe the strong hand of government will lead to communism, which has never resulted in lessening of the stranglehold of government. BobRyan

MMT & Seversky, perhaps, you have failed to note the excerpt from Ac 19 in the OP, on a case in point on rioting and why it is unjustified. There are any number of ways to publish, petition, protest, organise for reform or even seek public office without resorting to lawlessness. For, lawless behaviour is a direct threat to the civil peace and to the general order of justice. Where also, I have repeatedly drawn attention to inescapable thus self-evident first duties of reason, which frame moral government and natural law, leading to a foundation for responsible lawful freedom and reform as necessary. Notice, particularly that the claim to a right implies moral duties on the part of others so that one may only justly claim a right by being demonstrably in the right; justice being the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Lawless demands backed by riotous mobs are a direct assault on the civil peace. As touching on historic issues, I have already pointed to Bernard Lewis' counsel on the sins and blessings of our civilisation. That is enough for the reasonable person; but it is manifest that we are not dealing with reason as a juggernaut of 4G Red Guard insurgency driven civil war accelerates dangerously. Those who have set such in motion or continue to enable it bear a heavy responsibility for predictable consequences. KF kairosfocus

Sev

Yes, I do. Which is why I am puzzled why you appear to deny that a proclaimed constitutional democracy has failed to live up to its ideals, practiced sustained, violent and murderous discrimination against a substantial minority of its population which has, once again, been driven to lawful and largely peaceful protests against such abuses.

Being a gay white man, I grew up in a time when being open about my sexuality just courted bullying and assault. I started my career in a time where if my sexuality were made public I would lose my job. I lived as a young adult in a time where expressing my sexuality with another consenting adult could result in criminal charges. Over the last couple decades I had to fight for the right to marry the person I love while others argued that it would lead to beastiality. So when I see people be pulled over because they are black, or be treated more violently by police because they are black, I don’t look for Marxist conspiracies amongst the people who protest against these discriminations. I see people who’s morality is higher than those who oppose them. Mac McTavish

Seversky, well do you know that the Hume guillotine and the far older so-called Euthyphro dilemma have decisively failed. Why, then, do you keep trying to resurrect them as though they would justify, somehow, that absurd nihilistic will to power that would impose might and manipulation to create a sad "progressivist" evolutionary materialistic metanarrative that is patently self-refuting? I suggest, you start with rationality, where Epictetus long since highlighted the antecedent, inescapable force and so also self-evident truth of core logic (pivoting of course on distinct identity and its close corollaries, non-contradiction and excluded middle):

DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not?

That already shows that we can rightly recognise the antecedent characteristics of true first principles that we do not invent but may discover and must acknowledge to make any progress. Oh, how that chafes the nihilistic spirit! But, such is patently absurd. Now, let us observe how -- though you have persistently side stepped in true Wilsonian fallacious fashion -- you are first to appeal to governing first duties of reason, just to try to be persuasive. That is, you are forced to borrow from what you would overthrow and dismiss, likely imagining that such is naked imposition by those Christofascist would be tyrants. Instead, we can all see for ourselves regarding how:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

So, the roots of reality and of moral government are coeval. Rooted, in one who is a necessary, maximally great being, worthy of our loyalty and of our responsible reasonable service that does the good that accords with our evident nature. So, your loaded questions collapse. As the like have collapsed over and over again: >>1) How did God arrive at His moral prescriptions?>> a: Arrive at suggests arbitrary invention or origin, things that could be different at will. b: Instead, moral government and its first duties are inescapable and so self-evidently true concomitants of the liberty required to be genuinely rational. If rational then free; if free, subject to said first duties which are part of the fabric of a reality in which rational beings are possible. >>2) Is it immoral for God to force His moral views on others?>> c: Loaded, with the arrogance that regards moral government rooted in first duties as tyranny; what folly. d: God is inherently good, utterly wise, root of our being, maximally great, his precepts will be a microcosm of that character and it is folly to dismiss them as though they were arbitrary tyranny. >>3) Are God’s moral prescriptions binding on Him?>> e: An imagined gotcha that fails to distinguish necessary being maximally great utterly wise inherently good root of reality and our status as contingent creatures. KF kairosfocus

Here is something Seversky said over a year and a half ago which I think is relevant here:

I believe that the overwhelming majority of ordinary, decent people, if honestly presented with the best information available will choose a moral solution. This is why I believe consensus morality is the only alternative to some sort of imposed command morality, whether theological or ideological. The problem in democracies is that politicians are rarely honest about their real intentions and treat good information as a rare and precious commodity not to be lightly handed out to just anyone. The problem is, how do we prevent the people we choose to run things for us from being corrupted by the power we hand them?

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/severskey-is-honest/#comment-672632 That sounds nice and well meaning, however, how do we arrive at any kind of consensus without some kind of interpersonal standard which we can use to judge whose moral beliefs or opinions have merit and whose do not? If all moral beliefs and opinions are equal, which they must be according moral subjectivism and relativism, then such a standard does not exist and all talk of so-called consensus is illusory. john_a_designer

John_a_designer/547

True or false? It is immoral for you to force your “personal” moral views or group think on someone else.

True Now, three questions for our theistic interlocutors: 1) How did God arrive at His moral prescriptions? 2) Is it immoral for God to force His moral views on others? 3) Are God's moral prescriptions binding on Him? Seversky

Kf, It’s a question for our atheist interlocutors. Here it is again. True or false? It is immoral for you to force your “personal” moral views or group think on someone else. john_a_designer

TF, dead right. JAD, we need to go back to underlying first duties of a creature free enough to be rational (and so capable of warranting knowledge claims). KF kairosfocus

Oh, and "morality" does not apply to meat-robots (which is how your outdated evo/ materialist cult describes human beings). It's only applied to moral agents (with free will). Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom

# 540 Fallacy hunting with Seversky:

I don’t believe here is any such thing as an absolute morality nor is there any need for one.

What you "believe" and what is true do not that have to be the same thing.

All that is required is a morality that protects the needs and interests of human beings and applies to all equally.

You are contradicting yourself (again) because you are stating the need for a Universal (applies to "all equally") moral code for humans. (After saying it is not needed). Truthfreedom

True or false? It is immoral for you to force your “personal” moral views or group think on someone else. john_a_designer

BR, worse, the repeated failure and the record of mass killing are on public record, readily accessible. The fallacy of state ownership and central planning was exposed in the 1920's. So any reasonably educated person promoting or enabling such today has no excuse. Where, given the sustained misanthropic, lawless behaviour on the part of red guards, no sensible person will buy the lie that they want Scandinavian type social welfarism (which is possible because somebody else is doing the heavy lifting globally . . . what happens if that goes away?). KF PS, every modern state of any scale is a social welfare state. kairosfocus

Every time socialism has been tried, it has failed. Might makes right is how socialists govern once they take power. Venezuela was the wealthiest nation in South America, but that was before the socialists came to power. Venezuela has become another failed state that can't even power most of the country. It's currently the longest running blackout the world has ever known. Venezuelans are starving and most likely cannibals due to a lack of any other food. Socialism spreads misery every time it is tried. Those in power fatten themselves at the expense of everyone they control. BobRyan

Seversky @ 540 I'm guessing you haven't studied much about what happened. Japan, Germany, Soviets, Italians, and every other thugocracy (might makes right) all believed they were morally justified in everything they did. It is only through absolute morality can anything be called wrong. BobRyan

Seversky, you try to double down on going beyond the pale. I stand by my response as already given, for cause. It is clear that you are locked into enabling behaviour. I will not allow my history and pain to allow my people to be robbed of one of the great advances of our civilisation; robbery that rests on a pseudoscientific ideology that distorts, denigrates, demonises and disrespects basic rights, showing itself profoundly misanthropic. Which is precisely what would lead to disaster yet again were the Red Guard insurgents and their backers to prevail. The track record of radical revolutions since 1789 is uniformly disastrous. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, you are again being distractive and refuse to see that riot is simply unjustified. This is, riot to suppress a view that contradicts indoctrination, in the context of a university, which exposes its intellectual bankruptcy and dereliction of duty.Where, youi try to equate defending the target of riot with getting into a brawl, telling. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, on evolutionary materialism, intellectual or cognitive function is reduced to blindly mechanical and/or stochastic computation on a substrate "programmed" by similarly blind forces, and is GIGO constrained. This cannot have the freedom to be rational or responsible. Knowledge collapses and reason collapses. It is itself a product of the mind and collapses itself. This is not novel, Churchland etc warned long since as did Haldane. KF kairosfocus

BobRyan/536

If morality is not absolute, then it is nothing more than an illusion.

I don't believe here is any such thing a an absolute morality nor is there any need for one. All that is required is a morality that protects the needs and interests of human beings and applies to all equally.

The Imperial Japanese Army believed they were acting in a moral manner that was suited to them. The Soviets believed they were acting in a moral manner when they committed similar atrocities making their way to Berlin. Even after taking their portion of Berlin, the atrocities did not come to an end. The rape of Nanking was called a war crime, but the rape of Berlin was largely ignored. How could the Japanese Army be guilty of a crime based on morality?

Do you think that the victims of the Imperial Japanese Army or the Red Army or the German Army felt that they were acting morally? I rather doubt it. Seversky

Kairosfocus/526

Seversky, whatever she is does not excuse the sort of riot in the video. Has that registered yet, that in any reasonably functional lawful state, riot is never justified? Is that hard to recognise? KF

Openly carrying an AR-10 on a university campus in light of all the school shootings was not just a wee bit insensitive? Don't you think, given her history, she was just went there trying to stir up some trouble because it would make good video? It wasn't exactly a riot as far as I can see. There were noisy protests and her security got into a brawl with some of the protesters. Riots are never justified? What about what happened before the DoI and the Revolutionary War? Seversky

John_a_designer/514

blockquote>I don’t approve of censorship.

So? How are your beliefs or opinions binding on anyone else? I don't hold that my opinions are binding on anyone else but that doesn't prevent me from expressing them.

What about the people who approve of censorship like the powers that be at Google and Twitter? They’re not bothered by anyone else’s so-called rights.

As I said, I don't approve of censorship in principle although I can conceive of certain cases where it might be necessary. I would also assume that Google and Twitter would justify their censorship on the grounds of protecting the rights of others which could be a legitimate reason, depending on circumstances.

Where are you getting your standard of right, wrong or better from? Whose standard is it? Your standard?

I would say that the Golden Rule is the basis of my standards and that Mill's On Liberty is my preferred source of a reasoned defense of such standards.

So any so called consensus is really just the result of the way you are able manipulate– perhaps by vilifying and demonizing– someone else’s opposing opinion because there is no overarching real standard of right or wrong.

Or I could be the victim of such manipulation, vilification and demonization. It works both ways. There are only two solutions that I can see. Either everyone gets together and works through all the differences, all the manipulation and vilification until they can come to some kind of consensus or someone with the power tells the rest "it's my way or the highway", in other words, might makes right. And the biggest example of the latter, of course, is God. Seversky

Kairosfocus/504

REALLY, you full well know that my race is black, that I am a convinced constitutional democrat and that I have openly stated that the following challenge to the establishment is in effect my political credo:

Yes, I do. Which is why I am puzzled why you appear to deny that a proclaimed constitutional democracy has failed to live up to its ideals, practiced sustained, violent and murderous discrimination against a substantial minority of its population which has, once again, been driven to lawful and largely peaceful protests against such abuses. You cannot be unaware that it was the failure of a lawful government to acknowledge and address the legitimate grievances of the colonial minority that led both to the declaration you just quoted and the riotous protests that culminated in the Revolutionary War. I have the impression that your direct experience of a failed Marxist insurgency had a traumatic effect on you. I suspect it has led you to prefer the narrative of the BLM movement as a façade for another Marxist insurgency rather than it being a genuine grassroots protest by the aggrieved against the failure of the majority of their society, as I said before, to acknowledge and take steps to address their long-standing and legitimate grievances. That the founders of the formal BLM movement are Marxists does not of itself take anything away from the legitimacy of that movement. I would argue that people only turn to such ideologies when they find their own society is blind to their needs and deaf to their protests against ill-treatment. And isn't the best way to undermine any insurgency to listen to the oppressed to whom the insurgency has the greatest appeal and do whatever is necessary to unburden them?. Seversky

Seversky If morality is not absolute, then it is nothing more than an illusion. The Imperial Japanese Army believed they were acting in a moral manner that was suited to them. The Soviets believed they were acting in a moral manner when they committed similar atrocities making their way to Berlin. Even after taking their portion of Berlin, the atrocities did not come to an end. The rape of Nanking was called a war crime, but the rape of Berlin was largely ignored. How could the Japanese Army be guilty of a crime based on morality? BobRyan

John_a_designer/501

Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights.

I would like to see an expansion of this argument as I don't see that one necessarily follows from the other.

Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard.

Those positions do not necessarily exclude the possibility of an "eternally existing transcendent moral standard" but they regard the concept as problematic.

Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights.

Those positions are about the nature of what 'is'. If the is/ought gap is unbridgeable then they cannot provide a basis for any moral code or set of human rights. Seversky

John_a_designer/500

As human beings we are all morally fallible. That’s not an opinion. It’s the self-evident truth– the honest Truth.

I agree. We are all fallible, which means I regard any claims to possession of some Absolute Truth as suspect. Seversky

Kairosfocus/491

You may not be interested in the first duties of reason, their inescapability thus self-evidence and worldview import, but these things are interested in you.

I recognize the survival advantages of reason to us as individuals and a species.

And the moreso as the storm mounts up with nearly unprecedented fury. And our God rides on the wings of the storm . . . Those who have stirred up a chaos storm, would be well advised to fear.

But I don't believe such apocalyptic visions are reasonable. Seversky

BobRyan/487

There is either absolute morality that applies to all, or there is no morality.

Which is more "moral", a morality imposed on a population by force from outside or a morality which a population freely acknowledges and agrees to be bound by? Seversky

John_a_designer/486

Two democratic societies A and B with virtually the same constitutional form of government have arrived at two distinctly different positions about race. Society A has laws opposing racism which it considers to be evil. Society B not only doesn’t have any laws against racism, it denies certain races full constitutional rights– freedom of speech, the right to vote, own property or travel etc. Not only that this is the overwhelming consensus of its citizens who do enjoy constitutional rights. Which society is morally better? If you are a moral relativist you would have to say neither. If morality and human rights are merely the result of consensus then one’s society’s view of morality cannot be better than another’s.

How do we determine what is "morally better"? What are the functions of moral codes and charters of human rights? In my view, their function to regulate the behavior of human beings towards one another in society. The purpose is to preserve and uphold the needs and interests that all human beings have in common. They are, in effect, both the embodiment and expansion of the Golden Rule which is the only basis required. From this perspective, Society A is the "morally better" as protections against racial discrimination apply to all its members, whereas Society B denies some of its members those protections. Seversky

MMT, has it crossed your mind that on long experience, for cause I have drawn the conclusion that s/he who has made a crooked yardstick a 'standard" for straight, accurate and upright will find that what is genuinely so will never match the standard of particular crookedness? In extreme cases, even including a plumb line, which is naturally straight and upright? Therefore, when I see something like, say, Lewontin's a priori materialism, I content myself with exposing it. Where, there are many other ideological lockouts that -- from the days of my observation and interactions with dyed in the wool marxists in my uni -- will only be changed in the face of collapse. Where, recent and current developments are demonstrating that such will lie low then repackage and try to rise from ashes like the mythical phoenix. Let's take you up on the heart of life. In the cell we find alphanumeric, 4-state digital, algorithmic code with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery. Something Crick realised by March 19, 1953 when he wrote to his son Michael. What is the only plausible, actually observed cause of complex language, algorithms and co-ordinated execution machinery? Design, and yet an ideological lockout is used to block that obvious possibility. Similarly, just to try to persuade onlookers, you are forced to appeal to first duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness etc. Such are inescapable, self-evidently and naturally true, and actually govern reasoning. Where, to argue that such is not the case or is delusional is self-defeating. Only a world rooted in the inherently good and utterly wise can ground such. But, I am prepared to bet that you will stoutly resist the inference that such is indeed the massively manifest root of reality. Which becomes material as it deranges the government of your reasoning. In that context, for six weeks you have refused to acknowledge the obvious, direct parallels between what has been going on in the geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation and the patterns of sponsored Red Guard insurgency. Today, I reminded participants and onlookers on what has been on the table on that. We know that culture form marxist ideologues are at work from their own mouths. The operations on the street come right out of the relevant patterns. Further, today, I laid out the playbook and the wargaming plotting among the American deep state, where months ago members of same shadowy establishment literally came out in published articles in leading newspapers. The connexions and links to events in Eastern and central Europe (esp. the shattering of a government in Austria by libellous hoax driven scandal) point to particular financiers as involved; implying funding of at least dozens of billions, with the further leverage over government budgets and media empires old and new. Yet further, a team assassination two months before an election points to a sobering level of capability, with connections pointing to likely conduits for capacity building: brigadistas. Such is further backed by my having lived through a Marxist insurgency based 4G civil war, which allows me to recognise things that others lacking such or the substantially equivalent won't. I have already noted Gorbachev's apology for the USSR's part in that disaster which has haunted my homeland for 40 years. And yes, many are in denial to this day, or have been inadvertently or even willfully misled. I have no expectation that you will be willing to acknowledge such. But, I have every intent to lay out on record, so that those willing to hear have the opportunity. And, I am comfortable that no empirically founded knowledge claims can have warrant beyond moral certainty. The abstract possibility of error is of no effect absent good warrant to recognise high enough likelihood to undermine what is on the table. Which you simply don't have, you are on the whole indulging selectively hyperskeptical dismissals. At this point with geostrategic, existential threats on the table, prudence dictates taking the threats seriously in good time so the OODA loop is not compromised. And that shall be my policy. For cause. KF kairosfocus

During Nuremberg trials after WWII where many of the Nazi leaders were tried and convicted of war crimes some of the allied prosecutors alluded to a law above the law. Is there such a thing? If there isn’t was it just to convict some Nazi leaders for just following orders that at the time (1933-1945) were based on German law? john_a_designer

KF

MMT, look on your last exchange with TF etc. KF PS: Maybe you imagine that comparisons to red guards are my conspiracy theory imagination. I cannot force open a closed mind but I can point to relevant facts and arguments already in play

KF, I have noticed a disturbing trend in your discourse. You tend to blame your inability to convince someone of your interpretation of events on the close mindedness of the other person. Has it ever occurred to you that it may be your interpretation that is flawed? Mac McTavish

TF, whatever point was there to be made was made, there is no reason to keep on like that. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, whatever she is does not excuse the sort of riot in the video. Has that registered yet, that in any reasonably functional lawful state, riot is never justified? Is that hard to recognise? KF kairosfocus

Souls Are Fashionable Again Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

523 Seversky

Bennett received media attention in 2018 for open-carrying an AR-10 rifle at Kent State University after graduating.

According to your outdated atheist/ evo superstition, carrying guns has to be the result of a very ancient "adaptive strategy" that helped Mr. and Mrs. Monkey gain some "reproductive advantage". Aren't you suggesting anything related to morality are you? The morality you have to steal from the Theist because your religion has this exact amount: z.e.r.o. Truthfreedom

Kairosfocus/517

A sampler on the Red Guards mentality on campus: https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1304186984320184322 (Pardon, language warning, I find a coarsening of manners that is part of the problem, too.)

Kaitlin Bennett

Kaitlin Marie Bennett (born October 15, 1995) is an American gun rights activist and conservative social media personality.[1][2][3][4] Bennett received media attention in 2018 for open-carrying an AR-10 rifle at Kent State University after graduating.[5] She and her husband run Liberty Hangout, which describes itself as a libertarian media outlet.[6] She has contributed to conspiracy theorist website InfoWars.[3]

Seversky

520 Kairosfocus

but once the genie is out of the bottle it is very hard to put it back in again.

Some people are so ignorant of the evil that lurks inside the human heart... It's astonishing. Once the genie is out and they realize that he ain't gonna grant them good wishes, all their smiles are going to freeze. Truthfreedom

512 Mac Mc Tavish

My sister was torn up by her ectopic pregnancy and you respond with this nonsense? Are you always this reprehensible?

It's the cult of atheistic materialism with its inherent amorality what is reprehensible. Look at what a prominent atheist/ evolutionist has to say about what happened to your sister:

In a Universe (or multiverse*) 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, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Pitiless indifference. Under Theism, your sister is a human being (not a "bunch of electrons", not a "selfish" gene), undergoing a traumatic event. Truthfreedom

F/N: McFaul and the E Europe style colour revolutions "playbook." This documents an operational pattern, associated with a deep state actor:

The years since 2000 have seen a surprising new wave of democratic breakthroughs in the postcommunist countries of Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine. This article compares and contrasts these three cases, naming seven common factors which made the breakthroughs in these countries possible: 1) a semi-autocratic rather than fully autocratic regime; 2) an unpopular incumbent; 3) a united and organized opposition; 4) an ability quickly to drive home the point that voting results were falsified, 5) enough independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote, 6) a political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to protest electoral fraud, and 7) divisions among the regime’s coercive forces.

That's circa 2005. The basic techniques have been in circulation for a long time (and were in fact used to target George W Bush too.) Now, inject a little Alinsky-style cynical nihilism, a 1619 critical race theory cultural marxist indoctrination project with deconstructionism used to reconstruct and stigmatise history of the US and constitutional democracy as inherently oppressive esp to minorities. Multiply by a huge deep state hoax to construct the target as a Russian puppet and traitor (with heavy doses of lawfare and illegal espionage feeding a drumbeat of lockstep media slander).Exponentiate by a reckless, ill-founded, abusive highly faction-driven impeachment process. Mix in some Red Guards rioting, burning, looting, committing mayhem, attacking civilisation icons, demanding to abolish police and courts (doubtless to replace with committees for defence of the revolution and volkish courts) being painted as legitimate protests . . . note, 48 out of the top 50 population cities. Toss in attempts to discredit a key constitutional check, the electoral college. Slander the target and his supporters as racist nazis wanting to install a fascist dictatorship. Take advantage of an oh so conveniently timed pandemic and panic to demand uncontrollable mail-in votes highly amenable to fraud and general chaos. Then, look at where we are today. If this does not give you pause, you haven't been paying attention. I suspect most of the deep state actors and their enablers don't want things to go to full bore cultural revolution, purge and terror, but once the genie is out of the bottle it is very hard to put it back in again. Life and death lie in the power of the tongue and those who love it will eat of its fruit for good or ill. The juggernaut is rolling. KF PS: Add to the toxic mix, the so-called transition integrity project, an obvious deep state, uniparty operation that builds on the above. To decode its significance, apply the mirror-projection turnabout accusation principle that from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks and the finger points accusingly:

>>In June 2020 the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) convened a bipartisan group of over 100 current and former senior government and campaign leaders and other experts in a series of 2020 election crisis sce-nario planning exercises.>> 1: This is operational planning based on war games by deep state operatives, so it will by the mirror principle tell us a lot about how they think, operate and intend to act. >> The results of all four table-top exercises were alarming.>> 2: Projected to the target but telling about themselves, their backers and those caught up in the operations already in progress >>We assess with a high degree of likelihood>> 3: Your credibility is on trial, and by the mirror principle we will infer on prudence. >> that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. >> 4: They intend to create an atmosphere of chaos to push the election their way, by delegitimising it if it somehow does not go their way, again . . . even worse than after November 2016. 5: Street chaos, mail in dubious vote claims, street theatre amplified through media mouthpieces into a drumroll and crescendo will accompany lawfare efforts to break an election that does not go where they want. 6: And if it DOES somehow go their way, the same attitudes will be there and they will be emboldened by their "win," so they intend to take repressive antiliberty measures targetting those they have already stigmatised. We have already seen a foreshadowing with the Gen Flynn case and others like it, the Kavanaugh USSC nomination and more. 7: Only, they will feel much less restricted. >>We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.>> 8: So, we are facing an intent to seize power by lawfare and lawless means. 9: Ask, is there any good warrant to infer that their target would not surrender office if defeated on any responsible basis? Do we not have good reason for concern on the push to uncontrolled mail in votes and the like? Did we not see some disturbing signs in 2000 with the hanging chads election? >>Recent events, including the President’s own unwillingness to commit to abiding by the results of the election,>> 10: A major twisting of the facts, and more than counter-weighted by the advice to Mr Biden not to concede. >> the Attorney General’s embrace of the President’s groundless electoral fraud claims,>> 11: There is an history of significant fraud and evidence that in 1960 fraud decided the election. Resistance to simple commonly used anti-fraud methods such as identification and the rise of an open to abuse mail in votes push show just the opposite. >> and the unprecedented deployment of federal agents to put down leftwing protests,>> 12: Troops have repeatedly been used to suppress riots, which are what has been on the ground for months. This deceitful characterisation confirms that we need to apply the mirror principle in prudence to the TIP. >> underscore the extreme lengths to which President Trump may be willing to go in order to stay in office. >> 13: This points, rather, to the extreme measures that are in play to seize power. Which is telling. 14: The weasel word, may, implies that they have not one iota of solid reason to conclude treason or a long train of usurpations pointing to despotism on the part of their target. Such an implication must never be put on the table without very strong proof indeed. Contrast the US DoI 1776 with its long bill of particulars and surrounding circumstances a full year after fighting had broken out. 15: That shows the recklessness, irresponsibility and nihilistic intent at work.

Where are the adults in the room? Is Mr Kissinger incapacitated? kairosfocus

MMT, look on your last exchange with TF etc. KF PS: Maybe you imagine that comparisons to red guards are my conspiracy theory imagination. I cannot force open a closed mind but I can point to relevant facts and arguments already in play: July 28 to you https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/wp-admin/comment.php?action=editcomment&c=708386 , To DP https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/control-and-anarchy/after-100-years-and-100-million-needless-graves-dinesh-dsousa-on-the-c21-revival-of-socialism/#comment-708427 then on Arab Spring https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/control-and-anarchy/after-100-years-and-100-million-needless-graves-dinesh-dsousa-on-the-c21-revival-of-socialism/#comment-708504 esp the Egypt case, with on colour revolutions here https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/control-and-anarchy/after-100-years-and-100-million-needless-graves-dinesh-dsousa-on-the-c21-revival-of-socialism/#comment-708595 . Notice, the Red Guards of 1966 on here https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/control-and-anarchy/after-100-years-and-100-million-needless-graves-dinesh-dsousa-on-the-c21-revival-of-socialism/#comment-709274 -- it's not want of evidence of direct parallels but for want of willingness to heed it on your part; things are now moving to the predictable, the election was rigged, ground being laid now. Given the announced, even boasted of insurgency and its marxist roots, our duty is to prudence in the face of credible threat, not to try to prove to closed minds. Threat duly noted, implications of defund/abolish police, coming on three months of riot, arson, mayhem, attacks on cultural icons, media chorus agitprop on don't believe yer lyin eyes and more duly noted. The 4GW insurgency is steadily ramping up in intensity and will be resolved in 6 - 16 months now; some urban areas are going to learn the hard way just how much they depend on the hinterlands they so blatantly disregard and disdain. Unfortunately, the damage will linger for much longer than that and geostrategic consequences are liable to be bad, watch Taiwan, Korea, Philipines ME as usual and elsewhere. the sheer irresponsibility of what is going on is appalling. kairosfocus

KF

PS: You are showing that the consequences of evolutionary materialistic scientism are un-livable.

I don't know where this is coming from. All I have done is disagree with your Red Guard theory. Mac McTavish

A sampler on the Red Guards mentality on campus: https://twitter.com/KaitMarieox/status/1304186984320184322 (Pardon, language warning, I find a coarsening of manners that is part of the problem, too.) I note, an example of the concerns in reactive tweets: >>Gumisie @TajemniczyDo . . . A very non-PC (in conservative circles) question: is everything ok when the police officer (0:15 and on) blames the intended target of the Leftist mob for the "dangerous situation"?>> Some very serious soul searching is in order. kairosfocus

___

"Materialism is in fact one of the last superstitions and one of the final myths that we have created". Dr. Edward Feser. The Last Superstition

Truthfreedom

514 John_a_designer

Where are you getting your standard of right, wrong or better from?

From the theist obviously because under the failed "materialist" paradigm, "morality" doesn't even exist. Meaning that the materialist/ atheist is a copycat.

So any so called consensus is really just the result of the way you are able manipulate– perhaps by vilifying and demonizing– someone else’s opposing opinion

You have just described marxism "to a tee". (That pseudo-scientific garbage of CRT for example). And under the failed "materialist" paradigm, you do not "reason" with people. You "program them" via mechanically-transmitted air-waves/ noises. "Materialism" = kindergarten , absurd philosophy. But there's a worldview that: - is compatible with science - understands human nature - restores humans dignity - can ground morality Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom

Here are some questions from another thread which Seversky has never answered. Seversky:

I don’t approve of censorship.

So? How are your beliefs or opinions binding on anyone else? What about the people who approve of censorship like the powers that be at Google and Twitter? They’re not bothered by anyone else’s so-called rights. They have the power to censor anyone they want for any reason they wish. That’s all that they need. It’s an example of the ancient principle of might makes right. (A question to anyone, didn’t Plato use that phrase in one of his dialogues?) Seversky:

It is far better to have contentious arguments, views or opinions out there in the open where they can be examined by anyone. If they are right then we learn something new and if they are wrong then we still learn something by discovering how they are wrong.

Where are you getting your standard of right, wrong or better from? Whose standard is it? Your standard? So any so called consensus is really just the result of the way you are able manipulate-- perhaps by vilifying and demonizing-- someone else’s opposing opinion because there is no overarching real standard of right or wrong. That sounds pretty disingenuous to me. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/medicine/the-frontline-doctors-put-some-plausible-mechanisms-for-hydroxychloroquine-on-the-table/#comment-710096 john_a_designer

MMT, yes. I took a moment to look at the promo clip to clarify what was going on, only to shut it off real quick. If I caught some sicko inducing a young 11 yo girl to behave like that on camera, I would be calling the cops. After knocking the camera to the ground and yelling to the child to leave, pronto. I am not going to link, it is in news and on Twitter but it is bad, grooming bad. I think Turkey sensibly banned it. KF PS: You are showing that the consequences of evolutionary materialistic scientism are un-livable. kairosfocus

TF

Well, the “illusion of a decision” under (metaphysical) ”materialism” (NEVER to be mistaken for science, in fact, if materialism were true, gaining knowledge wouldn’t be possible).

My sister was torn up by her ectopic pregnancy and you respond with this nonsense? Are you always this reprehensible? Mac McTavish

KF

Probably a reference to a horrible Netflix movie that somebody should have realised is at minimum desensitisation through outrageous sexualised behaviour of pre-teen girls. That it made it through production says something chilling.

Did I miss something? What are you talking about? Mac McTavish

Probably a reference to a horrible Netflix movie that somebody should have realised is at minimum desensitisation through outrageous sexualised behaviour of pre-teen girls. That it made it through production says something chilling. kairosfocus

Mike

The pedos are coming out, folks. Watch.

WTF? Mac McTavish

The pedos are coming out, folks. Watch. mike1962

JAD, Are there moral subjectivists who believe that literally anything goes? That there are no universal principles which imply that human societies should not engage in oppression of women, genocide, slavery, etc.? I don't believe we were endowed by a creator with our rights, but I do believe that there are very good reasons not to engage in these practices. For example, if a society condones slavery, then everyone ultimately ends up worse off, and as we see, those corrosive effects can last a long time after slavery is eliminated. These principles which say slavery and so forth should not be allowed are based on economics, psychology, mathematics, etc., so they are transcendent in a way. daveS

Again, as I have asked before: From the standpoint of moral subjectivism, where by definition morals and ethics must be arbitrary, what basis do we have for universal human rights? Would a country like the US even be possible without a concept of universal human rights? Even though our concept of human rights at the founding of our country was very imperfect (slavery, mistreatment of native people, unequal rights for women) there is absolutely no basis for such universal rights from a moral subjectivist point of view. While not infallible the morality of western civilization is based on Judeo-Christian thought. There is no historical evidence that a society based on moral relativism can endure for very long. To suggest that moral subjectivist view would be an improvement over a moral objectivist view is completely irrational. Any kind of moral progress requires moral standards-- indeed, it requires an overarching or transcendent standard. Moral subjectivism which is an utterly arbitrary approach is the rejection of all standards. john_a_designer

Oh wait. According to the self-defeating, sinking ship of "materialism", qualia are "illusions" too, so we can not even be sure of what is "black" or what is "white", because, in fact, only "molecules" exist, so we are all "hallucinating". A "theory of knowledge" according to which "racism" exists, but "racists" (people), do not. 10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/11-reasons-why-atheists-are-delusional/ Truthfreedom

Seversky,

400 years ago white men enslaved black people. And sold them. And treated them as less than human. For 250 years.

REALLY, you full well know that my race is black, that I am a convinced constitutional democrat and that I have openly stated that the following challenge to the establishment is in effect my political credo:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . 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, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], 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 . . . .

Your condescending tone and rhetorical, loaded suggestion that I am unconcerned about racism, slavery, colonialism and other ills UNLESS I sign up to the rhetoric of a culture form marxist pressure group currently fielding Red Guard rioters in an insurgency to overthrow advances such as lawful policing and courts -- doubtless to replace with the equivalent of friendly local Committees for the Defence of the Revolution and People's Courts -- demonstrating utter disregard for basic rights of all human beings through what is happening in the streets as it seeks to impose its political will are simply unacceptable. The policy platform, roots and present behaviour of the BLM movement expose what it is, even as the behaviour of orthodox marxist leninists exposed what they were never mind splendid rhetoric on capitalist oppression. FYI, I lived through a 4GW insurgency connected to an election, driven by Marxist strategists (10 years later, Mr Gorbachev sent a delegation of public apology), and for 40 years have had to live with destructive consequences in my homeland. I paid in blood and tears for what I know. You should apologise and withdraw such a comment, but predictably you will not. Even more predictably you will try to double down if you can get away with it, or slink away if you can't. Credibility zero confirmed, yet again. I simply point out instead the far sounder counsel of Bernard Lewis (who is Jewish), on the sins of the West:

. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

For shame! KF kairosfocus

502 Seversky Acording to Seversky, "Black Lives Matter". How curious, coming from a "person" ( meat-robot according to himself) that subscribes to an outdated cult ("materialism") that could not be more opposed to knowledge because leads to subjective idealism/ total skepticism and can not ground morals because, of course, stupid "molecules" in motion can ground nil and then steals morals from the theist while laughing at him. 10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/11-reasons-why-atheists-are-delusional/ Truthfreedom

Kairosfocus @ 497

DS, one thing that haunts me is that the collapse of the W Roman empire led to what a thousand years to claw ourselves back up to a comparable level. A lesson.. Another is the sorry record of the various totalitarians of the past century. KF

If they haunt you then so should this:

In case it’s still unclear, 400 years ago white men enslaved black people. And sold them. And treated them as less than human. For 250 years. While white men built the country and created its laws and its systems of government. While 10, 15 generations of white families got to grow and flourish and make choices that could make their lives better. And then 150 years ago white men "freed" black people from slavery. But then angry white men created laws that made it impossible for them to vote. Or to own land. Or to have the same rights as white people. And even erected monuments glorifying people who actively had fought to keep them enslaved. All while another 5, 10 generations of white families got to grow and accumulate wealth and gain land and get an education. And then 60 years ago white people made it "legal" for black people to vote, and to be "free" from discrimination. But angry white people still fought to keep schools segregated. And closed off neighborhoods to white people only. And made it harder for black people to get bank loans, or get quality education or health care, or to (gasp) marry a white person. All while another 2-3 generations of white families got to grow and pass their wealth down to their children and their children's children. And then we entered an age where we had the technology to make PUBLIC the things that were already happening in private-- the beatings, the stop and frisk laws, the unequal distribution of justice, the police brutality (in the south, police began as slave patrols designed to catch runaway slaves). And only now, after 400+ years and 20+ generations of a white head start, are we STARTING to truly have a dialogue about what it means to be black. White privilege doesn't mean you haven't suffered or fought or worked hard. It doesn't mean white people are responsible for the sins of our ancestors. It doesn’t mean you can’t be proud of who you are. It DOES mean that we need to acknowledge that the system our ancestors created is built FOR white people. It DOES mean that Black people are at a disadvantage because of the color of their skin, and It DOES mean that we owe it to our neighbors-- of all colors-- to acknowledge that and work to make our world more equitable. BLACK LIVES MATTER. #blm

This is what the protests are about, not "cultural Marxism", not "Red Guards brigades", not "assassination squads". Do you deny this? Seversky

Here is an argument I have presented before at UD which I think is worth repeating here for some context.

Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights. Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard. Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights.

Please notice what I am not arguing: *(1.) That atheists do not believe in human rights. Many do and do so sincerely if not very strongly. But strongly held beliefs and opinions are not the same as moral obligations. (How am I or anyone obligated to your personal opinions?) Human rights are moral obligations. Atheistic naturalism/materialism has no logical basis for human rights. *(2.) That atheists do not have human rights. They do. Again the argument is that they have no BASIS for human rights or any kind of objective moral standard. *(3.) That Christian theism is the only possible basis for universal human rights. Rather the argument is that the standard needs to be an eternally existing transcendent one. Platonic philosophy, for example, at least appears to provide such a standard. Are there others? Apparently so. However, I do believe that Judeo-Christian moral teaching provides a better grounding than Platonic philosophy or any other world view. Obviously any kind of antirealist or moral subjectivist view is not only a very poor basis but it is a completely untenable basis for morality, civil law or fundamental human rights-- nor does it provide any kind of starting point for creating a broad societal consensus which is absolutely necessary for functioning democratic society. It’s basically self-righteous narcissism or outright moral nihilism. In other words, moral subjectivism is a totally irrational basis for interpersonal morality or universal human rights. john_a_designer

As human beings we are all morally fallible. That’s not an opinion. It’s the self-evident truth-- the honest Truth. john_a_designer

"In the end, there’s something wrong with me." DaveS, I think you've made a breakthrough. We all have to address this problem with ourselves. It not too late for you to discover that Science or Scientism or Mathematics or Current Political Fads do not provide a solution. You have to start thinking outside all the lies you've been told. Andrew asauber

DaveS 496

In the end, there’s something wrong with me.

And yet, "you" do not know what that "you" is. Although you are halfway there. You know part of that "you" is: - a "physical brain" - and "something abstract but not-locatable". Materialism got (I am using the past tense due to its failure) part of the picture right. Now hylemorphism recovers what materialism ditched to draw a complete picture of human nature and reality. Poor Aristotle has travelled a long journey. :) Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom

DS, one thing that haunts me is that the collapse of the W Roman empire led to what a thousand years to claw ourselves back up to a comparable level. A lesson.. Another is the sorry record of the various totalitarians of the past century. KF kairosfocus

JAD, Not to put too fine a point on it, but I almost posted earlier predicting this sort of progression:

Believing something, even if you believe it very strongly is not a logical argument. Deductive arguments need to begin with premises that are either self-evidently true, provably true or probably true. Just starting with your opinions and beliefs gets you nowhere. To claim it does it being presumptive and/or arrogant.

In other words, I would argue that it’s pretty self-evident.

If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is.

If human life has no real value then I suppose it’s not self-evidently true for you. However, if we accept that as a society that’s the end of any form of democratic, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” self-government. Your moral blindness is your problem Dave.

In the end, there's something wrong with me. daveS

My post @ 478,

The “fetus cannot survive and the mom could suffer life-threatening internal bleeding.” In other words, the moral thing to do in that case is to save the life of the mother. If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is.

Dave @ 480,

But I suspect if I used the criterion “If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is”, you would shoot it down. How do I tell the difference between a genuine self-evident truth and mere opinion?

If human life has no real value then I suppose it’s not self-evidently true for you. However, if we accept that as a society that’s the end of any form of democratic, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” self-government. Your moral blindness is your problem Dave. By the way, if there is no such thing as self-evident human rights then the “pro-choice” (pro-abortion) side doesn’t have an argument either. john_a_designer

KF,

But in the end, pain is a very effective teacher. MUAhahahaha....

:-) daveS

489 Kairosfocus

But in the end, pain is a very effective teacher.

Suffering: The un-escapable feature of human existence on this "existential stage" (Earth). We Christians have been warned and given the solution. And falling prey of the "materialist" superstition is not going to help humanity escape reality. God or nothing. :) Truthfreedom

Philosophies Come and GO

"In 1887 almost every philosopher in the English-speaking countries was an idealist. A hundred years later in the same countries, almost all philosophers have forgotten this fact; and when, as occasionally happens, they are reminded of it, they find it almost impossible to believe. But it ought never to be forgotten. For it shows what the opinions, even the virtually unanimous opinions, of philosophers are worth, when they conflict with common sense". David Stove (circa 1987)

"Materialists", your philosophy is garbage that belongs into the dustbin of History. You have been fooled and sold an unsinkable vessel that will be kissing the bottom of the ocean before you realize it. A very cold and uncomfortable place to end your days. Aristotle (and the soul) are back. Truthfreedom

Sev. 485: Any number of times your attention has been drawn to the following, which you inadvertently illustrate even as you habitually revert to the fallacy of Wilsonian studious evasion:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

You may not be interested in the first duties of reason, their inescapability thus self-evidence and worldview import, but these things are interested in you. And the moreso as the storm mounts up with nearly unprecedented fury. And our God rides on the wings of the storm . . . Those who have stirred up a chaos storm, would be well advised to fear. KF kairosfocus

TF, all true, though of course the comfortable are not inclined to hear shattering critique . . . until pain walks in the door as teacher, exposing the clever manipulators. And, the storm is here, a doozy. KF kairosfocus

WJM, 473:

The single largest defining difference between the attempted marxist cultural revolution going on here and that which has succeeded in other countries is that they failed to disarm the population beforehand. Right now, the population is armed to the teeth. The election of Trump interrupted their plan for continuing a slow-motion takeover. They have to do it right now. Four more years of Trump dismantling their power structure is unacceptable to them. The smarter play after 2016 would have been to fall back to a longer-term strategy even if it meant losing some ground. Which makes me think that waiting until 2016 to run Trump and implement the counter-strategy was due to sophisticated game-planning that probably dates back to the immediate post-Reagan era. Unfortunately, the only way to wake up most people is to let the wolves howl and scratch at their door. And, perhaps the only way to get the marxists to overplay their hand was for them to have the goal in hand and then snatch it away from them at the last second. Get them to abandon the long game due to their own personal narcissism and sense of entitlement.

An interesting read of the strategic course of events, moves, counter-moves. In any case, we are in the storm, now and it is beyond generalship (though the nightmare of "the strategic corporal" pulling a stupid stunt like abuses at Abu Ghraib gaol and triggering a massive media pounce must haunt key authorities . . . though I must say that Mr Sandmann in particular gives us good reason to see the metal of at least some rising youth). We are in the hands of operational actors, and this election is an audit on whether the people of the urban centres will defend our civilisation. It is beyond the idiosyncracies or flaws of a New York contractor in chief now. I think the urban centres will on average vote for chaos, likely not realising that that is the implication; the issue will be, how much so. In the next 4 - 16 months those urban centres will take a hard lesson in just how much they rely on the hinterlands and on hinterland culture. I have no doubt on ultimate outcome but frankly fear that shattering damage will be done. With soberging global geostrategic consequences. But in the end, pain is a very effective teacher. KF kairosfocus

482 Mac Mc Tavish

DaveS480, my sister had an ectopic pregnancy and had it aborted. That was the best decision she ever made.

Well, the "illusion of a decision" under (metaphysical) ''materialism'' (NEVER to be mistaken for science, in fact, if materialism were true, gaining knowledge wouldn't be possible).

She now has three beautiful kids.

Three "meat-robots" according to the materialist superstition (again, this has to do with metaphysical materialism, not science). That are not even beautiful, because "beauty" is also an "illusion" under metaphysical ''materialism''. Which shows that metaphysical ''materialism'' is the doctrine of the intellectually comatose/ dead. And that is why the West is now a laughing stock. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

There is either absolute morality that applies to all, or there is no morality. The first requires human exceptionalism and the latter requires humans to be nothing more than animals. BobRyan

Here is a non-hypothetical hypothetical: Two democratic societies A and B with virtually the same constitutional form of government have arrived at two distinctly different positions about race. Society A has laws opposing racism which it considers to be evil. Society B not only doesn’t have any laws against racism, it denies certain races full constitutional rights-- freedom of speech, the right to vote, own property or travel etc. Not only that this is the overwhelming consensus of its citizens who do enjoy constitutional rights. Which society is morally better? If you are a moral relativist you would have to say neither. If morality and human rights are merely the result of consensus then one’s society’s view of morality cannot be better than another’s. john_a_designer

John_a_designer @ 433

You’re missing the point Dave. I am simply asking how your, or anyone else’s, moral beliefs are binding on me? I am not necessarily focusing on just abortion. I am thinking about moral obligation in general.

Do you regard yourself as "bound" by any moral obligations and, if so, on what grounds?

For example, suppose a BLM activist were to argue, “You have to listen to me because I have THE RIGHT to demonstrate and protest because I feel oppressed but I don’t have to listen to you because if you don’t agree with me you are an oppressor.” How do you reason with that kind of thinking?

I would counter that the BLM activist has the right to protest but there is no requirement for me to listen to them if I don't choose to, any more than the BLM activist has to listen to me if they don't want to.

Believing something, even if you believe it very strongly is not a logical argument. Deductive arguments need to begin with premises that are either self-evidently true, provably true or probably true. Just starting with your opinions and beliefs gets you nowhere. To claim it does it being presumptive and/or arrogant.

If there is no way to derive "ought" from "is", if there is no way to ground a logical argument concerning moral claims in what we observe of the natural world, then where else can we start except with our beliefs and opinions? Seversky

DaveS @ 412

I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception is a “person” as you and I are. My understanding is that it isn’t conscious or aware of the outside world, cannot experience emotions, feel pain, or form memories.

Allowing that the concept of personhood is somewhat vague, I would also argue that it is irrelevant. The only right I would grant to an unborn human being at the earliest stage of development we can detect is the right to life. Nothing else is required. A right, in one sense, is a guarantee of entitlement. The right to free expression, for example, is a guarantee granted by society that any member of that society shall be allowed to express their thoughts at any time and in any way they choose. An individual may observe a vow of silence for ten years, for example, but still be free to say whatever he or she wants when the vow expires. A universal human right is not a use-it-or-lose-it deal. The right to life on this understanding is a guarantee that the life of the unborn shall be preserved until such time as the individual is able to take full control of their affairs and decide what they want to do with their life. Moreover, it is something we as a society decide for ourselves. The fact that some other being or civilization might have the power to destroy us whenever they chose does not confer on them any authority to decide what rights we are to be accorded. If you allow that then you are allowing that might makes right. Seversky

DaveS @ 480

But I suspect if I used the criterion “If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is”, you would shoot it down. How do I tell the difference between a genuine self-evident truth and mere opinion?

I would argue that, except perhaps within formal systems like logic or mathematics, there are no such things as "self-evident truths" in the sense that there are no observations would be accepted as true for any observer, regardless of any contextual information, beyond the existence of an observation. I could look at an automobile in a parking-lot and could claim that it was self-evidently a 2004 model Chevrolet Impala sedan because that is what I see. But if I showed the same car to an alien who knew nothing about terrestrial motor vehicles and didn't perceive colors in the same way as human beings then it would not be self-evident at all. Claims of self-evidence are more a rhetorical device where a claim is asserted to be true without any need to provide evidence for that claim. Seversky

DaveS480, my sister had an ectopic pregnancy and had it aborted. That was the best decision she ever made. She now has three beautiful kids. Mac McTavish

DaveS The "brain" problem still is on the table. :) We "people": - "have brains" and - "have minds" Who/ what is the "owner" of those 2 things above? Truthfreedom

JAD, FTR, in very rare cases, both mother and child survive an ectopic pregnancy. But I suspect if I used the criterion "If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is", you would shoot it down. How do I tell the difference between a genuine self-evident truth and mere opinion? daveS

I think the whole problem of what’s going on in not only the U.S. but western society and culture in general centers on the idea of human rights. To understand the problem we need to focus on two basic questions: (1) What are human rights and (2) from where do they originate? What are human rights? I would argue very simply that human rights are universal moral obligations. That is every human being living anywhere at any time in history has certain fundamental rights. From where do they originate? It seems to me that in our current cultural milieu there are two competing possibilities being considered: (A) Human rights are human inventions; or (B) human rights have some kind of transcendent cause or grounding. The problem is that modern secular progressive society which presently dominates American culture is that it wants, on one hand, to co-opt the long standing traditional assumption that human rights are universal moral obligations that transcend space, time and culture but, on the other, assert they are human inventions. But if they are human inventions how can they be in any way transcendent and morally binding? Unfortunately the modern secular thinkers don’t seem to be able to grasp the moral dilemma and logical contradictions in their thinking. But maybe they don’t really want to. The long standing traditional idea of human rights, after all, is a very powerful idea that can be used to, artfully if not deceptively, frame some very persuasive rhetorical arguments-- that is the arguments that sound so good and seem so logical, whether they really are or not. john_a_designer

The “fetus cannot survive and the mom could suffer life-threatening internal bleeding.” In other words, the moral thing to do in that case is to save the life of the mother. If that is not self-evident I don’t know what is. john_a_designer

DS, none of that tortured logic is needed, simple self defence obtains. Albeit, rather unusual circumstances. KF kairosfocus

JAD,

You can’t do your own homework?

Huh? What brought that on? That [ectopic pregnancy] is one scenario I had in mind when I typed up my earlier post. It doesn't answer my question, however, which concerns whether termination in such a case is moral. Now like you, I believe it is moral. But I don't know how to argue that it's self-evident that it's moral. How would that go? I guess I could work backwards and try to abstract some general principles from the situation (for example, the rights of the mother supersede those of a barely developed embryo) and claim that they are self-evident. Then I could assemble a deductive argument. Does that get me anywhere though? daveS

Dave, it took me 15 seconds to find this:

An ectopic pregnancy is one that occurs outside the womb, usually in one of the fallopian tubes. Because the fetus cannot survive and the mom could suffer life-threatening internal bleeding, ectopic pregnancies, which may account for as many as one in 40 pregnancies, are terminated at the earliest sign.

You can’t do your own homework? I would argue that under those specific circumstances terminating the pregnancy is morally the right thing to do. In other words, I would argue that it’s pretty self-evident. But maybe there are pro-life people who would disagree with me. john_a_designer

473 William J Murray

It must be SO infuriating to throw everything you can at the guy, and it have absolutely no effect.

Marxists deserve 1000 thousand "Trumps". Truthfreedom

The single largest defining difference between the attempted marxist cultural revolution going on here and that which has succeeded in other countries is that they failed to disarm the population beforehand. Right now, the population is armed to the teeth. The election of Trump interrupted their plan for continuing a slow-motion takeover. They have to do it right now. Four more years of Trump dismantling their power structure is unacceptable to them. The smarter play after 2016 would have been to fall back to a longer-term strategy even if it meant losing some ground. Which makes me think that waiting until 2016 to run Trump and implement the counter-strategy was due to sophisticated game-planning that probably dates back to the immediate post-Reagan era. Unfortunately, the only way to wake up most people is to let the wolves howl and scratch at their door. And, perhaps the only way to get the marxists to overplay their hand was for them to have the goal in hand and then snatch it away from them at the last second. Get them to abandon the long game due to their own personal narcissism and sense of entitlement. Trump is perfect for the job, because he can trash-talk with the best of them. In sports, that's how you get into the head of your opponents, put them off their game and get them to make mistakes. It must be SO infuriating to throw everything you can at the guy, and it have absolutely no effect. William J Murray

Any perspective that connotes generalized character traits onto people because of the color of their skin is 100%s racist. William J Murray

"Since we touched on the issue, I don’t agree that it’s impossible for a white person to be non-racist. I think it’s very difficult to achieve that in the USA, but not impossible. " = flat out racist perspective. William J Murray

The "Illusion Mongers" Materialism Subverts Itself

The materialist uses qualia and abstraction to get to materialism and then turns around and claims that qualia and abstraction do not exist.

Truthfreedom

MMT, when I get time I will do further point by point. I put it to you that walking with a hit team, conveniently suppressing their identities, having a weird side talk to oneself on painted up riot protection boarding up, then taking in the hit with little immediate reaction and the unresponsiveness to a genuine onlooker who is obviously shocked and reaching out instinctively to the police, speaks for itself. The behaviour is suspicious to the point of being a person of interest for investigation, in the current legally advised waffle-speak used by police. Not that I now expect you to acknowledge the force of any of this or the relevance of the annotated vid linked from the OP, or a lot of other things. Been there before, noticed how not even a public apology by the USSR shifted the views of the ideologically locked in. KF kairosfocus

Materialism's epistemological blunder is irretrievable. Materialism's epistemological status = z.e.r.o. You can no longer be a "philosophical materialist" and say that "science" is on your side. Materialism is OVER. Truthfreedom

465 Kairosfocus

A humbled, hurt, damaged US will have to take its needless, march of folly shipwreck losses and move forward on a very different basis, beyond the window.

The dominant worldview (academia that feeds schools, Universities and the media), "materialism" (atheism) is FALSE. This existence (reality) is comprised of: - material aspects (characterized by size, weight, color, etc...) - immaterial aspects (they EXIST but can not be weighted/ sized/ mathematically characterized): love, truth, beauty... etc ( abstract ) The dominant worldview is FALSE and until we dismantle it, the problems will not disappear. The "brain" is a part of the person, but not the WHOLE person (the soul exists). Materialism is a superstition NOT backed up by science. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

DS, sadly, we are now in a full orbed Ac 27 storm (and note the date on that blog post). We may not be interested in 4 GW insurgency and its use by culture form marxist ideologues dominating academy, education, media etc, but such is interested in us. The Red Guards are here, already not only running riot in 48 of the 50 most populous cities and more, but invading suburban neighbourhoods. They have climbed up to people's upstairs windows. They now routinely use skateboards as war hammers, shine retina destroying lasers into people's eyes, toss molotov cocktails and increasingly have firearms. There are now, manifestly, assassination teams. 4GW insurgency crouches at the door. KF kairosfocus

WJM, the juggernaut is already rolling and the kinetic aspect of the 4G civil war steadily rises. I find it charmingly naive that the evidence the assassination in Portland exposes -- team based hit capability of the Red Guards -- is being denied by many. Assassination, of course, was a major part of the course of events in say Lebanon, and the 9/11 attack began with assassination of a Northern Alliance leader in Afghanistan. We are now a couple of months into the decisive window . . . which we can nod to a certain cult out there and call the storm . . . which will play out over the next four to sixteen months. (St Luke riffed off Plato's Ship of State through his experience with St Paul in Oct-Nov AD 59, nigh on 2,000 years ago. A real case of a storm. The basic tension of somewhat democratic polities is that absent strong cultural buttresses and an informed, sober minded, morally strong public spirited public, the manipulated, money games driven mob takes over, leading to marches of ruinous folly.) I expect Mr Trump will win the election, I expect an avalanche of unregulated dubious mail in ballots (as opposed to properly vetted and authentic absentee ballots) and demands to count every vote, there will be lawfare and street chaos, with a much nastier tone than hitherto; after all "nazi" lives DON'T matter; c.f. F/N3 to OP above. The US body politic is hell bent on doing itself grave hurt. In the end the peasant, populist deplorables MAGA uprising will win over the culture-form marxist indoctrinated urban Red Guards and their backers. Some of that is going to involve serious shooting and street violence. Hopefully, we will not reach the sort of dystopian, sci fi apocalyptic state envisioned in a survivalist genre (also cf. essay here with segmentation analysis here), or states like what happened in Lebanon, Syria, the Balkans or the Ukraine. I think not, at most, an urban centre or two may learn the hard way what happens when the police are absent, the lights go out, water stops flowing, highways are effectively blocked and the truckers stop coming. At basic level, urban centres depend on the hinterlands on the scale of weeks to months, not the reverse. Also, rule 6.5 x 1000 applies. Just as an example, the low kick, 1,000+ yard range 6.5 mm Creedmoor rifle creates a reach for snipers that simply cannot be policed, at least on a widespread basis. Starting at about US$ 1,500. After that, I think there will be prolonged pockets and outbursts of chaos, and there will be a badly damaged political system. The media, the academics, the pundits, the political classes and education administrators are spending their moral capital in ways that will bankrupt them in terms of intellectual credit, respect as sincerely truthful, morally respectable etc. This means, we face an Acts 27 situation -- the US is geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation -- and better leadership will come from the counter culture. However, the world will face geostrategic consequences that will be unhappy. A humbled, hurt, damaged US will have to take its needless, march of folly shipwreck losses and move forward on a very different basis, beyond the window. KF kairosfocus

The pursuit of socialism has failed every time it has been tried. It always creates a thugocracy where might makes right. Human suffering is the result. For those who believe it can work, ask the Venezuelans how socialism is working out for them. Socialists claim to care about suffering, but always turn a blind eye. What have the wealthy of San Francisco, including Nancy Pelosi, done to alleviate the suffering of the homeless problems in San Francisco? Too many homeless and not enough facilities means human waste ends up on the street and washes into the bay. Raw sewage is getting into the ocean, which is not environmentally sound. Not once has Nancy Pelosi or any wealthy socialist every built anything with their own money. Not a single shelter and not a single bathroom. BobRyan

WJM Here is one scenario as reported by the NYT and why IMO Hilary told Biden that under no circumstances should he concede. “But conveniently, a group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat, presumably reached after weeks of counting the votes in Pennsylvania. For their war game, they cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede, just as Mrs. Clinton had. But Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College. In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned. The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do. Ben Smith is the media columnist. He joined The Times in 2020 after eight years as founding editor in chief of BuzzFeed News. Before that, he covered politics for Politico, The New York Daily News, The New York Observer and The New York Sun. Email: ben.smith@nytimes.com @benyt Vivid vividbleau

Truthfreedom @455 They are smart sociopaths. They can do a lot of damage. But they lack what the rest of us know. Never forget that. mike1962

460 DaveS

Sorry, I should have said “mind”. I don’t believe my mind is identical with my brain.

So you: - "own" a mind (you wrote "my") - "own" a brain (you wrote "my") Is there a 3rd element here then? The "owner" of those things above (mind + brain)? :) Truthfreedom

TF, Sorry, I should have said "mind". I don't believe my mind is identical with my brain. daveS

437 DaveS

I’m conversing with someone, my brain

Are you "your" brain or not? On other posts you said: NOT. If not, what else is missing in this equation? Truthfreedom

JAD, I'm asking you, is the proposition I stated a self-evident truth? I'm talking about objective truths here, not subjective opinions. daveS

Thanks, Vivid. daveS

451 Mike1962

CRT is non-scientific B.S. (P.S. I’m only 1/2 white)

Anything marxist is crap. Truthfreedom

451 Mike1962

Communists are showing their colors. Weirdos, who don’t understand human nature.

The problem is that they know human nature to an astonishing level of perfection. They know how to manipulate and brainwash the ignorant masses with their pseudo-scientific bull until they confess their Original Sin. It is a sick, twisted form of priesthood that is trying to give people a sense of religion (but without God). How pathetic has our society become. Truthfreedom

Dave @ 439, Personally proposing that something is self-evidently true doesn’t make it so. It’s just another way for you to state your personal beliefs and opinions. Morality is useless and meaningless unless it is about interpersonal moral obligation. That leads to the following argument:

I have no obligation (epistemically or morally) to accept baseless or ungrounded personal (subjective) opinions as true. On the other hand, interpersonal morality requires real binding moral obligation (what we ought or ought not to do.) Therefore, it is impossible to base any kind of interpersonal morality on ungrounded personal opinions.

In other words, to state the argument very succinctly morality is about (based on) obligation not on personal subjective opinion. Someone’s subjective beliefs and opinions carry no such moral obligation. If he claims they do he is contradicting himself. Of course, I suppose he has a right to believe whatever foolish nonsense he wishes to believe (as long as it doesn’t cause harm to anyone else) but there is no obligation for me or anyone else to take him seriously. Secondly, if his “morality” is completely subjective then he is the one who sets the moral standards for himself. His moral standards don’t apply to anyone else. How could they? Finally, to have any type of meaningful discussion about morality, it has to be honest. Honesty requires an objective standard-- doesn’t it. But by whose standard? Yours, mine or somebody else’s? Unless there is a non-arbitrary or objective standard of honesty any discussion or debate about morality and ethics is totally meaningless. Why should I trust anyone unless I know he/she is being completely honest? But how can I know that they are being honest unless there is an objective standard of honesty? Mindless pretense and posturing about morality has nothing to do with morality. It’s totally useless nonsense. john_a_designer

DaveS “Edit: I don’t mean to be curt, it’s just that I have minimal interest in CRT.” Got it and I will respect your choice. I just want to end with this. I know you to be a very polite and respectful poster. I have a lot of respect for you. Take this I in the spirit it is being offered. It is people like you that need to start taking MAXIMUM interest in CRT\CSJ. If you value the classic liberal enlightenment values and discourse you cannot be an idle bystander because CRT/CSJ is coming after you and your liberal enlightenment values as well. Vivid vividbleau

For the smart kids reading, get a mentor (of your own race if it matters to you), and learn how successful people become successful. And then do what they do. mike1962

CRT is non-scientific B.S. (P.S. I'm only 1/2 white) mike1962

Vivid, Since we touched on the issue, I don't agree that it's impossible for a white person to be non-racist. I think it's very difficult to achieve that in the USA, but not impossible. I'm not interested in entertaining further hypotheticals or delving more deeply into CRT at the moment. Edit: I don't mean to be curt, it's just that I have minimal interest in CRT. daveS

DaveS “I don’t think it would be fair to do that. I would want to take the time to read primary sources and really get to know the material. Not that I think you’re unreliable.” I’m not asking for you to base anything on my reliability I’m asking you for the sake of argument, it’s hypothetical. Surely it would be fair to engage in a hypothetical, you are not agreeing that my characterization is true. Nothing unfair about that. Besides you have already put forth the CRT/CSJ espousing implicit bias yet now claiming you have to read primary sources before you can comment. What more of a primary source do want there is also a video from Netroots Nation. Vivid vividbleau

Vivid, I don't think it would be fair to do that. I would want to take the time to read primary sources and really get to know the material. Not that I think you're unreliable. daveS

DaveS “I haven’t studied CRT, so I couldn’t say.” Assume for the sake of argument that what I wrote in 302 is an accurate description of Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory and Critical Social Justice Theory . Assume that the you tube video I posted on 362 All White People are Racists and that because of implicit bias white people can never be non racist no matter what they do because of their color. For sake of argument what do you agree with? Vivid vividbleau

Mac McTavish: I’ve always thought the objective vs subjective morality debate was a waste of time. Maybe because you have no idea what's going on, on planet earth. Okay, fair enough. Haha Hahaha. Hold on to your knickers, it's going to get interesting. mike1962

Communists are showing their colors. Weirdos, who don't understand human nature. Haha. Hahahaha. mike1962

JaD

You’re missing the point Dave. I am simply asking how your, or anyone else’s, moral beliefs are binding on me?

I’ve always thought the objective vs subjective morality debate was a waste of time. If I believe that morality is subjective, how do I make these morals binding on those who believe that they are objective? Especially where they differ. And if I believe that morality is objective, how do I make these morals binding on those who believe they are subjective. In the long run, it either comes down to those who have the most convincing argument, or to those with the most power. Mac McTavish

Vivid, I haven't studied CRT, so I couldn't say. daveS

DaveS What else do you agree with as it relates to Critical Race Theory besides implicit bias? Vivid vividbleau

DaveS “I didn’t “knowingly treat someone unfairly” because in the moment, I thought I was being fair. Or at least I wasn’t aware of any unfairness. My control panel had all solid green lights. There weren’t any amber or red lights warning “you’re being a racist or sexist”. Yep that’s what I said. You knew what you were doing you did not know it was wrong. Vivid vividbleau

WJM We are already being conditioned. Hilary” no conceding under any circumstance “ was not some off the cuff remark just as we are being conditioned to submit to the Govt because of Covid. If Biden is ahead on election night he is in no danger of losing because of mail in ballots. If Trump is ahead every battleground state will be contested, it will be all out war. We are far past any kind of peaceful transition of power., it’s going to be very very ugly. Unless Trump or Biden wins in a landslide on election night we are going to see blood in the streets. Vivid vividbleau

JAD, PS to above: Perhaps this is a better way to "frame" my posts above. I propose that it is self-evidently true that it's moral to terminate a very early pregnancy if it presents a significant threat to the mother's life. (Yeah, "very early" and "significant" should be specified at some point). Thoughts? daveS

Is everyone ready for the coup that is scheduled for November-December? Shall we organize a watch party? William J Murray

Vivid, Certainly I was conscious in all these occasions. :-)

You knowingly treated someone unfairly based on incomplete information ( knowledge) that was available to you at the time.

I didn't "knowingly treat someone unfairly" because in the moment, I thought I was being fair. Or at least I wasn't aware of any unfairness. My control panel had all solid green lights. There weren't any amber or red lights warning "you're being a racist or sexist". Back to the conscious/unconscious thing: Maybe I'm strange, but I believe much of my interaction with others is automatic/instinctive/"unconscious". I thought everyone was like that. If I'm conversing with someone, my brain isn't fast enough to logically plan out sentences ahead of time---I know roughly where I'm going, but I rely on instinct to get me there. daveS

DaveS “I think it does exist because when I look back on my life, I see that at times I unknowingly* (at the time) have behaved unfairly toward others.” No you did nothing “unknowingly” You knowingly treated someone unfairly based on incomplete information ( knowledge) that was not available to you at the time. When you became more knowledgeable you recognized you were wrong and changed your behavior. There was absolutely no unconscious anything going on, you were aware ( conscious) at all times. At what point were you unconscious in these circumstances? Vivid vividbleau

Vivid, If implicit bias simply doesn't exist, then my question is meaningless and can be ignored. I think it does exist because when I look back on my life, I see that at times I unknowingly* (at the time) have behaved unfairly toward others. It sometimes takes me a suprisingly long time to realize these things. I now believe that some of those actions were racist, sexist, etc. Even though implicit bias (assuming it exists) is unconscious, I believe we can sometimes become conscious of it at a later date, and then consider whether it is racism or not. *This is aside from all those situations where I knowingly acted in a biased manner. daveS

JAD, I don't deny that there is an underlying moral truth here. I've taken a shot at describing what that moral truth is above. If I'm wrong, please correct me. daveS

You’re missing the point Dave. I am simply asking how your, or anyone else’s, moral beliefs are binding on me? I am not necessarily focusing on just abortion. I am thinking about moral obligation in general. In other words, if there is no such thing as moral truth-- that is, there is no such thing as moral facts which are really right or wrong for everyone-- what are we left with? Just moral beliefs or opinions. But how or why am I obligated to accept your moral beliefs or opinions? Are your moral beliefs and opinions morally binding on me? Logically no, but this where the pretence of moral obligation enters in. For example, suppose a BLM activist were to argue, “You have to listen to me because I have THE RIGHT to demonstrate and protest because I feel oppressed but I don’t have to listen to you because if you don’t agree with me you are an oppressor.” How do you reason with that kind of thinking? Believing something, even if you believe it very strongly is not a logical argument. Deductive arguments need to begin with premises that are either self-evidently true, provably true or probably true. Just starting with your opinions and beliefs gets you nowhere. To claim it does it being presumptive and/or arrogant. john_a_designer

DaveS “It is true that there is controversy about what these tests actually measure. The test I took is called an Implicit Association Test, to be clear. It is supposed to identify your implicit biases indirectly” Maybe things have changed since this article was written about IAT. the paper is quite long so I have copied a summary below. https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html “So it’s an open question, at least: The scientific truth is that we don’t know exactly how big a role implicit bias plays in reinforcing the racial hierarchy, relative to countless other factors. We do know that after almost 20 years and millions of dollars’ worth of IAT research, the test has a markedly unimpressive track record relative to the attention and acclaim it has garnered. Leading IAT researchers haven’t produced interventions that can reduce racism or blunt its impact. They haven’t told a clear, credible story of how implicit bias, as measured by the IAT, affects the real world. They have flip-flopped on important, baseline questions about what their test is or isn’t measuring. And because the IAT and the study of implicit bias have become so tightly coupled, the test’s weaknesses have caused collateral damage to public and academic understanding of the broader concept itself. As Mitchell and Tetlock argue in their book chapter, it is “difficult to find a psychological construct that is so popular yet so misunderstood and lacking in theoretical and practical payoff” as implicit bias. They make a strong case that this is in large part due to problems with the IAT.” Vivid vividbleau

JAD, You're welcome to correct me, of course. I'm not claiming the authority to define "personhood" myself; it was just the best word I could think of. daveS

DaveS “Of course you wouldn’t; you might never realize it. But that unconscious bias could be harming others, preventing them from reaching their full potential, and so forth.” You have yet to provide evidence that I have unconscious bias! You assume that I do or that you do or that others do but have no way to rigorously demonstrate it. You said it yourself “It is true that there is controversy about what these tests actually measure.” “ Who knows “is not a good model. Behavior harms others not some ghost in the machine. Point out racist behavior and I will condemn it but I am not into the mind reading business. Vivid vividbleau

427 ET

The blind watchmaker.

Poor blind oldie is out of business. There is evolution of life forms, whose mechanisms are subject to review/ correction, but what is going to give Dawkins some headaches is to know that God is back into the picture. ("Mind"). "Materialism" + "science" = irrretrievable collapse of the former into subjective idealism. If Mr. Dawkins wants to save his beloved "science", then he has to open the "Lewontinian" door. Or keep being an un-scientific materialist, out of the circle of rational human beings. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). The tide is turning. Truthfreedom

Dave @ 412 wrote,

I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception is a “person” as you and I are.

Who is Dave to define “personhood” for everyone else? How are his beliefs and opinions binding on everyone else? john_a_designer

JVL:

Additionally somewhere around a quarter to a third of conceptions spontaneously abort with no intervention.

Which should tell us that life is very precious. Yet it doesn't.

Who’s responsible for killing those human beings?

The blind watchmaker. ET

Materialism is a SCAM. Truthfreedom

asauber, Yes, that's correct. daveS

If materialism were true (note the conditional form), Darwin could not have gained knowledge about evolution (per the argument above). Because he would not have been "material" (remember the collapse "materialism" + "science" = subjective idealism). THIS IS THE R.I.P MOMENT FOR MATERIALISM. But there is a worldview that: - preserves science - guarantees rational faculties - restores human dignity and value - is true to the world Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

420 JVL

Who’s responsible for killing those human beings?

Duh? You can not kill an eternal soul. You can only destroy its physical substrate. And re-create it if you wish (and are God, of course). The West has become blind to those things that have no weight/ size. But "goodness" and "evil" and "suffering" are absolutely real. Truthfreedom

JVL, the eventual death rate -- 100%. When it happens does not change what is formed at conception, a distinct new human being. KF kairosfocus

- Materialism is no longer viable. - Idealism was the consensus of the Victorian Era

Idealism says reality doesn’t exist per se as something outside our thoughts, or perhaps outside the thought of some superior being, perhaps God, perhaps a powerful (computerized, these days) demon. There Are Only Two Errors: Idealism and Materialism

Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

DaveS: I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception is a “person” as you and I are. My understanding is that it isn’t conscious or aware of the outside world, cannot experience emotions, feel pain, or form memories. Additionally somewhere around a quarter to a third of conceptions spontaneously abort with no intervention. Who's responsible for killing those human beings? JVL

Science says that life starts @ conception. And with the successful mating of two humans, that newly started life will also be human. ET

"I don’t believe a human life one minute after conception is a “person” as you and I are." DaveS, But you do recognize that it's the early stage of a human being? Of every human being? I just want to make sure you understand what you are saying. Andrew asauber

412 DaveS

So if my wife were at a very early stage of a pregnancy that was endangering her life, I would want that pregnancy to be terminated, as horrible as that experience would be.

Well, although you are not aware of it, you are practicing hylemorphism. Our intellects grasp certain "forms" or categories (most people, except the most deranged savages, sorry for being blunt) can understand that a being of a certain size inside a woman's womb with arms, legs, and a head and a heart = human being. But what's the problem? Our intellects are very limited and prone to error. Up to the "scientific revolution" theism was the dominant worldview. But humans, being the imperfect creatures we are, got greedy, and decided to take God ("mind") out of the picture. What was understood as immaterial ("soul") and which could not be weighed/ measured/ categorized using numbers, got catalogued as "non-existent". But this is the horrible philosophical mistake that has brought us here: not having size, weight, color and NOT existing are NOT the same thing!!! You know you exist, and your wife, and your love for her, and as you mentioned earlier, numbers and "goodness" exist too. This mistake (materialism) has distorted the meaning of "reality", and what was known as the "soul" was then translocated to a physical substrate = ("brain"). A horrible category mistake!!! But it has been proved that materialism is false and has failed, it is absurd, therefore this "brain" = "soul" equation is BLATANTLY ridiculous. The problem: people are terrified of "theism", because they have been told that "it's incompatible with science" (another blatantly manipulative atheist lie!!!) Theism guarantees science by grounding our rationality to help us overcome our "defective" brains and encourages us to use our God given faculties. There is a worldview compatible with science that restores human dignity (no more "purposeless monkeys") and grounds our morals: Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

asauber, It is true that there is controversy about what these tests actually measure. The test I took is called an Implicit Association Test, to be clear. It is supposed to identify your implicit biases indirectly. And no, you don't have to take it while in a trance. You can read for yourself here. daveS

"I have taken simple online tests" DaveS, How do these tests evaluate the unconscious bias? How do they know you are giving answers that accurately reflect the unconscious? Certainly you don't go into a trance when you take them. Do you? That Kool-Aid must taste awfully good, huh. Andrew asauber

Vivid,

Implicit bias in Critical Social Justice terms means unconscious bias. If it’s unconscious you don’t even know it’s there. If you don’t know it’s there then how do you know it’s there?

Of course you wouldn't; you might never realize it. But that unconscious bias could be harming others, preventing them from reaching their full potential, and so forth. I have taken simple online tests for various sorts of implicit bias and I scored at the "average" level. Even though I was striving to do better than average (as we all would do), it was still detectable. I don't think that means I'm a bad person. I didn't want or choose to grow up to be racist or sexist, but it's there, and I have to work to minimize its effect on others. daveS

A key premise behind Critical Race Theory is that blacks are oppressed because of their race and whites are privileged. Here are a couple of quotes which proves that is what the proponents of CRT really think and believe.

“Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do. Access to privilege doesn’t determine one’s outcomes, but it is definitely an asset that makes it more likely that whatever talent, ability, and aspirations a person with privilege has will result in something positive for them.” ~Peggy McIntosh “White Privilege is the other side of racism. Unless we name it, we are in danger of wallowing in guilt or moral outrage with no idea of how to move beyond them. It is often easier to deplore racism and its effects than to take responsibility for the privileges some of us receive as a result of it… once we understand how white privilege operates, we can begin addressing it on an individual and institutional basis.” ~Paula Rothenberg

Here are some examples of what they mean:

Examples of Privilege Being able to… *assume that most of the people you or your children study in history classes and textbooks will be of the same race, gender, or sexual orientation as you are *assume that your failures will not be attributed to your race, or your gender *not have to think about your race, or your gender, or your sexual orientation, or disabilities, on a daily basis...

https://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/what-is-white-privilege Vilifying or demonizing any human beings because of the color of their skin is racist. Not only is such a view counterproductive it is flagrantly hypocritical. Once again the only path forward is to recognize that all lives matter. john_a_designer

TF,

Why is being a “racist” “bad” and being an “ageist” not? Is being pulled off the road worse than being murdered?

I don't believe a human life one minute after conception is a "person" as you and I are. My understanding is that it isn't conscious or aware of the outside world, cannot experience emotions, feel pain, or form memories. So if my wife were at a very early stage of a pregnancy that was endangering her life, I would want that pregnancy to be terminated, as horrible as that experience would be. daveS

Did I mention that materialism is dead? Truthfreedom

247 Seversky

And before anyone complains, I regard racism as a human problem. The seeds of it at least are in every one of us and all the ‘races’ have been guilty of it to some extent and at various times throughout history.

It's called Original Sin, Seversky. People far more intelligent than you and your "molecular cult" have understood it for centuries. Yes. We are oriented towards goodness but fragile and prone to temptation. What's your point?

Until we all accept that we are not going to overcome it.

And what's the solution? Acceptance of your faults to overcome them requires intellect and free will, the ones your bizarre materialist doctrine said (in the past, because it is dead due to its irretrievable collapse into subjective idealism ) "did not exist". Immateriality = intellect and free will = not subject to change and corruption (the opposite of matter) = eternity. Oh. Big 'G'. Of course. God. And the Christian one is awesome. Truthfreedom

408 Kairosfocus

they come from so-called critical race theory, a pseudoscientific ideology

Anything marxist is pseudo-scientific garbage. Truthfreedom

F/N: Let me follow up on various rhetorical attack-points since 338, just for record: Sev, 339: >>will you walk back your support for the Alinskyite strategy that is clearly intended to discredit the BLM movement as the agent of a Marxist conspiracy>> 1: this is classic turnabout projection that refuses to face clear, decisive evidence that Red Guards are on the streets, carrying out riotous insurgency and that from founding to platform to operational patterns and platform demands, we are dealing with culture form marxism working through critical theory, deconstructionism and red guard tactics (with implication of backers). >> intended to overthrow Western civilization in face of the undeniable, systemic and endemic racism that has infested US society – although not just US society – for centuries?>> 2: The very terms being used are documentation of the point, they come from so-called critical race theory, a pseudoscientific ideology that frames what we are confronting. Kindly see the cluster of documents just above and the summary from Enc Brit, yet again:

Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities. The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s. The launch of the CRT movement marked its separation from critical legal studies (CLS), an offshoot of critical theory that examined how the law and legal institutions function to perpetuate oppression and exploitation.

3: Further to this (witness the 1619 pseudo history, indoctrination under false colour of education project) there is clear intent to attack the cultural fabric and framework of our common civilisation, to deconstruct, cancel, set to year zero and rebuild in a culture form marxist framework. 4: Here, tainting irredeemably with race prejudice and linked oppression is used to brand with a scarlet, stigmatising R. Of course, racism has long been a besetting sin of Western Civ (along with essentially all others). I suggest, that by way of balancing corrective that drains the suppurating hate, Bernard Lewis' counsel given in the context of addressing Muslim rage, in 1990, is well worth heeding, coming from a Jewish scholar doubtless all too familiar with antisemitism but who patently identifies with our civilisation instead of festering in hate:

. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

Sev, 342: >>The only thing restraining the more extreme Trump supporters is that he is currently in power . . . . [cites] ‘No Blame?’ ABC News finds 54 cases invoking ‘Trump’ in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults President Donald Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from acts of violence in communities across America, dismissing critics who point to his rhetoric as a potential source of inspiration or comfort for anyone acting on even long-held beliefs of bigotry and hate."">> 5: I would take this turnabout projection more seriously if we did not see a background pattern of enabling of coming on four months of rioting and worse. 6: I point out again, that I do not endorse or even like much of Mr Trump's behaviour, but must recognise that we face a situation where a clear radical power grab motivated by a demonstrably totalitarian ideology confronts us. Like Churchill on Stalin, I say if the devil declared war on Hitler, I would find a few favourable things to say on that infernal fallen angel. >>There is little doubt that Trump is regarded as an inspiration to extreme nationalist and racist groups>> 7: Which are a tiny fringe which he has clearly, repeatedly repudiated as I noted on record, starting with what appears in F/N1 OP above. Your unresponsiveness reflects the fallacy of the closed, hostile mind using projection as defence mechanism. >>I will accept no lessons on morality from Christians while the Old Testament presents as praiseworthy behavior accounts of slavery, sexism, racism, rape and genocide.>> 8: The usual evil bible rhetoric, answered in ever so many places by so many distinguished voices; I only add a 101 intro here. The resort to such inadvertently exposes hostility to our civilisation as it is manifest that the JudaeoChristian ethics pivoting on neighbour love shapes that civilisation, for all its flaws. 9: Your real problem why you want to shut out, censor, suppress and shut up the Christian voice, is that evolutionary materialistic scientism simply has no root-level worldview resources capable of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap, so you try to deconstruct and disqualify through dubious rhetoric backed by patent bile. For shame! MMT, 343: >>But whether the level of force used to defend yourself is justified is open to interpretation.>> 10: There is abundant law on self defence, where it should be noted that for cause hands and feet are potentially lethal, that the conventional radius for lethal threat of one using a knife is 21 feet (which also gives a lethal radius for hands and feet), that swarms, attacks from behind, verbal threats, acts such as surrounding etc all count. >> If I am being slapped by someone half my size, shooting him might be considered murder (or, more likely, manslaughter).>> 11: Strawman. Where Antifa often fronts its swarm attacks with small women precisely to create a turnabout projection in propaganda as well as to trigger that moment of fatal hesitation in face of lethal threat. Note, a frozen water bottle is equivalent to a brick or club on impact and a skateboard is a war hammer and narrow edge club rolled into one, both reflecting 4GW calculations. Since it is an obvious case, Mr Rittenhouse has an excellent case for self defence and an arguable one for legal carrying of a weapon, in a context where he had been rendering first aid to rioters using his orange back pack's contents. He was first swarmed when he tried to p[ut out a deliberately set dumpster fire. In the second case he was pursued for a long distance asnd in his last shot stopped a fatal headshot only a fraction of a second before the trigger was pulled by a man declaring regret he did not empty a magazine into him. >>But what about killing someone to defend your property?>> 12: Note, again, lethal threat radius, likewise "your money or your life" is a threat to both and one who sets out to destroy your livelihood or home is threatening your life by that act. He who would rob me of daily bread would rob me of life. This also obviously extends to a personal or work vehicle and valuable tools of one's trade . . . which cannot be taken in bankruptcy precisely out of concern that one threatens livelihood, health and life of man, wife and family. 13: The but it's insured fallacy fails. For, often -- and especially in a hardship time like this pandemic -- there will be insurance problems. Likewise, the rioting, looting and arson of an area blights it, destroying investment climate and impoverishing its people. Often for generations -- implicit robbing of daily bread again. 14: Speaking of, arson is next to murder as people are often trapped in fires, bombings etc. Felony murder is a real issue. 15: Underlying is the marxist, twisted form of the outdated economic theory, the labour theory of value. In this form, the only valuable labour is effectively working class manual labour producing physical products so savings, investment and capital (and associated valuable services and ideas) constitute accumulated theft, liable to seizure or destruction by the vanguard of the proletariat or other designated oppressed group. 16: There it is again, the Marxism lurks just beneath the surface. Sev, 347: >>How about a Federal agency like the OMB requesting copies of the Sandia training materials to discover if they are as Petersen alleges? How about them reviewing those of other agencies before concluding that they represent “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…” or “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…”>> 17: Just scroll up to 405, as I said, documentation will likely be forthcoming. 18: Besides, sound journalism (as is so in the relevant case) is a first, rough draft of history. And indeed, as the whistleblower thread documents in supplementary materials, the NY Post article that seems to primarily be what is alluded to contains clips of such documents. >>Trump, apparently cares nothing about due process. Do you?>> 19: Animosity-laced projection and personalities, rapidly shattered by the predictable course of events. Sev, 349: >>Would you say that atheism is the prevalent belief around the world today or is it those of the world’s various faiths? Who bears responsibility then of the perceived ills of society?>> 20: This comes after a century in which atheistical regimes were directly responsible for the killing of 100+ million victims and subjected the world to 40 years of de facto world war 3, with major blame for the rise of the single worst holocaust in history, the slaughter of 800+ million unborn children which continues at 800,000 per week. 21: In that context, domibnation of key institutions and undermining of first duties of responsible reason is not to be overlooked. I again draw attention:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

Time is up for now, to be continued . . . KF kairosfocus

Philosophies have consequences. 800+ million humans murdered in the womb because "their brains" had not reached "stage X" of "maturity". By a group of savages playing the "rationalist" card. But being human is much more than the physical ("brain") part. Materialism's legacy is one of blood (Iet's add the 100+ million victims "outside the womb" murdered by the communist insanity). Just because a group of fools do not want to acknowledge the existence of God. Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Truthfreedom

Seversky, Chuckdarwin et al. You can keep your "materialism", but then you'll have to ditch your beloved "natural science". Because science is serving you some papers. The findings of science, coupled with logic, tell the world that: -" materialism" simply does not exist if you want to keep being part of the scientific community. Because knowledge comes from God. God and the soul are back. Lewontin, open the door. :) Truthfreedom

F/N: letter further documenting CRT "training" https://www.scribd.com/document/475073517/Letter-to-Seattle-Mayor-Durkan-8-31-2020 where this documents indoctrination in a college https://www.scribd.com/document/468733048/Macalester Here can be found a collection of training materials from Seattle https://christopherrufo.com/seattle-office-of-civil-rights-training-on-internalized-racial-superiority-for-white-people/ 4GW, of course, is waged on many battlefronts and "spaces" simultaneously, most of them so subtle that they will not be perceived as part of an actual war. The point of war, of course, is to bend an opponent to your will by any and all effective means, with the kinetic space being just one. In the end, the victor dictates the terms of surrender and often of subjugation and spoils-taking. KF kairosfocus

F/N: To get a picture of the global war, let me clip on a point of speculation or debate that some at least of the M16's that cropped up in 1980, were ex-Vietnam, likely by way of Cuba: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/vietnam-covertly-supplied-weapons-to-revolutionaries-algeria-and-latin-america >>Reports that the Vietnamese communist regime in Hanoi was providing weapons, ammunition, and other support to leftist insurgencies around the world have circulated for many years, but while the Vietnamese government and the Vietnamese Communist Party openly provided verbal support to such insurgencies in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, the Vietnamese have never admitted to actually providing weapons and equipment to these revolutionary movements. During the 1980s the U.S. Government accused Vietnam of supplying U.S.-made M-16 rifles that Vietnam had captured when South Vietnam fell in 1975 to the leftist insurgents fighting to overthrow the pro-American government of El Salvador. In 1986 General Pinochet’s Chilean government announced that it had captured large caches of weapons and ammunition, including 3,000 M-16 rifles that had been originally shipped to the South Vietnamese Army, and accused the Vietnamese of supplying these weapons to the Chilean insurgents. While the serial numbers of many of the M-16s captured from El Salvadoran insurgents could be traced back to pre-1975 U.S. weapons shipments to the South Vietnamese army, there was never any definitive proof that it was the communist government of Vietnam, and not unscrupulous private individuals or arms dealers, that had provided the weapons to the El Salvadoran guerrillas and other Latin American insurgents.[1] In 2008 a Vietnamese website devoted to serving Vietnamese army veterans posted excerpts from an official internal Vietnamese army history that provides documentary evidence that the Vietnamese armed forces had in fact shipped captured American-made weapons to Latin American insurgents, apparently through the Cubans, during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The documents also reveal that in 1958 the Vietnamese, in apparent cooperation with Poland and the Soviet Union, covertly provided a large quantity of captured French submachine guns to Algerian rebels fighting for independence against French colonial rule.>> --> The page continues, discussing a purge of relevant documents, then cites in translation. --> This can be taken as providing warrant on balance of probabilities that weapons recovered from paramilitaries in Jamaica in key cases likely did come from Vietnam by the suggested routes (Note, some years ago a case with IIRC North Korean Missiles.) --> Further, this shifts the degree of weighting to be given to evidence of similar involvement elsewhere or on other subjects (such as reports of Cubans being involved in intelligence operations in VN, etc), and on that weighting, use of a translation of "brigadistas" by activists in the US points to the presumption of Cuban technical support, directly or indirectly, e.g. through activists and training sites in Venezuela or the like. --> In turn, this makes evidence and interpretations pointing to assassination teams and activities more plausible than otherwise. The known pattern of ruthlessness of the Castro regime since 1958/9 and its export of revolution (e.g. Guevara's capture in Bolivia) creates a further support to plausibility. kairosfocus

PPS: Kindly see 5:26 here, on Brigadistas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GbOcq4GwHA The programme as a whole will be instructive. One of the first acts of the new Seaga administration was to send Amb Estrada packing and the Cuban Embassy was closed. Some years later, a Cuban embassy staff neighbour on the street of close family, was reported to have been killed in Grenada during the invasion there. Viewers of the video should note that, ten years later the then still USSR, under Gorbachov's Glasnost, sent a delegation of apology to Jamaica for their part in what happened. Of course, at the time, much was lost in the fog and concealing smoke of war. Let us remember that in war, truth is an early casualty, one that has to be fought for. kairosfocus

MMT, I spoke to the reaction he made at the time. As he would be a suspected party to events given suspicious taping behaviour of suppressing identity of the stalking parties he was taping in the lead up to the assassination would indeed force him to cooperate with police. His suspicious behaviour before the fact, non reaction on witnessing murder and unresponsiveness to an onlooker still add up suspiciously; per right of fair comment. He may exculpate himself in the end or turn state evidence but he is to be seen as part of a context and construction of a false narrative. As for your attempt to dismiss the direct evidence of lying in wait with a blocking wall then coming out at a coordinated time [with signs of signalling in a linked video with annotations], multiplied by other coordinated events tells us all we need to further know about your patterns given what has happened already. Let me add, after forfeiture of weapons on earlier arrest, the shooter bought a 0.380 pistol for apparently $100 and 1/4 lb of marijuana, the weapon that seems to have been used; the purchase already being a felony. I note on the two involved vehicles, as just one point -- the jeep and the other car that runs up from around the corner almost instantly, cartoonishly, with "medics" etc rushing out who are pushed away by the victim's companion as he realises something is suspicious . . . there could easily have been a second victim; these vehicles box in the scene and swarm it with personnel who would be "of interest." Then of course there is a credible signal that the police are arriving. I only mention, too, policing up of spent cartridge[s] after the shooter flees; it seems they missed one. We of course have spreading of a false narrative on circumstances, claiming self-defence. The pattern here is that we see a team assassination, which points to a level of organisation and capability that give pause. Indeed, it is leading security people on the "deplorables" side of the ramping up civil war to re-evaluate the balance of kinetic forces at work. Which, may be a part of the intent. In the wider context, reference to "brigade[s]" in regard to highway blocking incident points to Cuba as a likely source of technical support to Red Guards in the US, perhaps through Venezuela as a relatively easy place to do discreet training. 40 years ago, that sort of thing was most definitely going on. For sure, brigade is a characteristic word for teams and groups including paramilitary ones deriving from that influence; something I know directly from having witnessed a 4G civil war 40 years ago. And BTW, there is a direct parallel to this incident, do a web search on "Gold Street Massacre," 1980. BTW, I add, one of my check up searches reminded me of attacks on police stations; the Gold Street Massacre marked the introduction of a shocking new level, M-16 automatic rifles used on full auto; a reservist officer I spoke with at the time indicated "riding up" i.e. the hit squad were not fully expert in handling full automatic fire, in his view his Platoon, with SLRs and perhaps Sterling SMGs, would have been more deadly. However, shock waves spread over the whole country with M-16 mystique and talk of 500 yard deadly range. At this point, for cause, I give your opinions and assertions (such as, "conspiracy theory") little credibility, no I will not disbelieve my "lyin' eyes." KF PS: In response to MMT, to make it crystal clear, I updated above, [U/D: In response to an onward comment, I amend to make it clear: ” . . . implicated in highly suspicious conduct.” Frankly, even the dwelling on painted boarding up of shops strikes me as odd, inadvertently signalling behaviour.] kairosfocus

Just because one rejects Critical Race Theory doesn’t make him or her racist. Personally I wholeheartedly agree that we need to continue to improve race relations in the U.S. but you can’t do that by starting with the position that there has been no progress on civil rights in the last 50 years or shaming all whites of being consciously and unconsciously racist. But that is what Critical Race Theory doctrine is. I remember back in the 1960’s (yes I was around back then) someone coined the term “reverse racism.” I’m not sure what that originally meant back then but it perfectly describes CRT in the present. As Vivid has just pointed out, typically are regular interlocutors are ignorant of what they are arguing about. That’s been more than evident with this so-called debate around CRT. For those who are too lazy to do the research because it requires some reading, here is a brief video description of CRT which hits all the key points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQSkNO-MXsg The big problem with CRT? IT IS RACIST! john_a_designer

KF

A normal person witnessing murder will react, and video avoidance of identifying features is telling;

The name of the person who took the video was made public and he cooperated with the police. Any suggestion that he was in on the attack is libellous and, frankly, reprehensible.

Further, this was coordinated with a choreographed flow of operations from setup and lying in wait to spreading a narrative, implying both rehearsal and coordination; likely by radio.

This is pure speculation. I have seen the same images as you have and it looks more like some crazy waiting for anyone who obviously has a different world view than he does. And he picks someone who is wearing clothing that clearly identifies him as the “enemy”.

No, you don’t do this for a nonentity, my best guess would be there is an intelligence connexion for the target.

Except you have absolutely zero evidence supporting this conspiracy theory.

But then, by now we expect denial, obfuscation and willful obtuseness.

From the person who is clearly jumping to conclusions that support his narrative rather that basing them on the evidence. Mac McTavish

Sev “So we have an unsourced video “ Nope https://www.netrootsnation.org/nn_events/nn-17/diversity-is-for-white-people-strategies-for-organizing-against-white-supremacist-violence/ You see Netroots Nation in the background. Gotta love the “PayPal” on the bottom. “What’s that supposed to prove?“ This is Critical Race and Critical Social Justice Theory in 5 words. “All White People are Racists“ The board on the left is also a correct summation of CRT/CSJ. That you don’t know anything about Critical Theory doesn’t surprise me since you live in a fact free world. I suspect you agree with CRT\CSJ theory. “And this is supposed to be evidence for Trump’s wild claims?“ What wild claims? This is Critical Race Theory and Critical Social Justice Theory In a nutshell, your ignorance about the subject matter Is not Trumps fault. “Talk about “fact free world”!” Indeed. Why do keep digging your own grave Sev? Vivid vividbleau

De Anima. Make Way. Aristotle is shaking his chiton. :) The man has travelled a loong way to come to our rescue, because we were drowning in the materialist superstition and general non-sense associated to that failed, superstitious, forever tainted philosophy.

"Aristotle pointed out that universals are another issue entirely. Knowledge of universals like good and evil — the kind of knowledge on which free will is based — is mediated by intellect and will. Intellect and will entail knowledge of concepts, not particular things. How can a concept be instantiated in matter? Well, it can’t. Concepts (universals) are not particulars. Therefore concepts cannot be instantiated as a particular in brain tissue or as a particular in any material substrate, such as a brain state. Simply put: brain states are particulars, and concepts are universals, so a concept cannot be a particular brain state." Dr. Michael Egnor Aristotle on the Immateriality of Intellect and Will

And, on the danger of trying to get away from the Source of all Wisdom and Knowledge (God):

That we take (took) free-will deniers seriously is a pitiful commentary on our gullibility and the poverty of our intellectual culture.

Aristotle on the Immateriality of Intellect and Will Verse: (Bornagain77, this one is for you) :)

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?" -Mark 8:36”

We can not "loose" our soul physically speaking, because it is not extended in space. It is not a hat, or a keyring, or a pen. But we can "loose" it in a far different and much more dangerous way. MatSpirit: you have not a "material" spirit, because, by definition, it is impossible. Res cogitans. You are an embodied soul. And so are we all human beings. Take care of such a precious gift. Truthfreedom

Seversky, you are talking about an ambush murder based on setting up, spotting, signalling, lying in wait, stalking and shooting from close range, videotaped and with a canned narrative to discredit the victim -- notice the further interview of the murderer by Vice. Where, the photo in F/N2 above shows the lying in wait and signalling of when the target had entered the stalk-kill box, with the shooter apparently drawing even as he moved to stalk; BTW, there is no one murderer here, all including the videographer are implicated. [U/D: In response to an onward comment, I amend to make it clear: " . . . implicated in highly suspicious conduct."] Your reaction tells us again all we need to know about your attitude to the right to life. As in, F/N3 above. Credibility zero confirmed. KF kairosfocus

Game over, kiddo. Truthfreedom

Vividbleau @ 362

I know you live in a fact free world but this is an actual class example from the real world. https://twitter.com/dpsztur/status/1302768273344401408?s=21

What's that supposed to prove? What's the provenance? What's the context? Where was it shot? Ashleigh Shackleford comes up as a contributor to HuffPo

Ashleigh Shackelford is a queer, nonbinary Black fat femme writer, cultural producer, and artist. She has been a contributing writer at Wear Your Voice Magazine and For Harriet. As a fat hood feminist, Ashleigh is committed to centering ratchet politics, body acceptance, accessibility, and anti-respectability within her work as a creator, producer, and speaker. You can reach her at: AshleighShackelford.com

So we have an unsourced video featuring someone who is also described as a social influencer posted by someone with a track record as an agent provocateur? And this is supposed to be evidence for Trump's wild claims? Talk about "fact free world"! Seversky

Mark my words: materialism is OVER. So much for that "materialist science" being touted by Seversky, who did not even notice he is an idealist, as was Bishop Berkeley. Lool. God always wins. :) Truthfreedom

Mac McTavish @ 385

I think it is pretty obvious that the shooter was planning to target some right wing protester but by all accounts the person targeted was random. To make the jump from what is known to claim that it was a centrally planned and coordinated assassination is just pure fantasy as wild as the craziest things that Alex Jones has said.

The victim was found to be armed with a Glock pistol and three spare magazines so it looks like both sides were out looking for trouble. The Antifans ambushed the Patriot Prayer members and killed one, the police later killed the shooter. What was gained by this spilling of blood? Nothing that I can see. If this was some sort of assassination squad op it was pretty poorly planned and executed. They did it where they could be caught on cell phone and surveillance camera video. One of them was interviewed about it after then went back to his residence where the police caught up with him. As far as possible, assassination squads try to do their killings where they are unlikely to be observed and they have an exfil plan in place to get them out of the area as soon as possible. They certainly don't go back to where they were staying. As you say, Red Guards brigades assassination squads is Alex Jones-style conspiracy theorizing. Seversky

Can you imagine it? A brain taking a walk out of its skull? :) That would be the nuttier non-sense ever uttered by a materialist, and those people are very apt at spewing non-sense. Because with a false worldview, you will never get to TRUTH. Truthfreedom

DaveS, Someone had to use his eyes to view the brain of a cadaver and draw the pictures of a brain found in Gray’s Anatomy. The Argument presented in this thread crumbles materialism to dust. Because the chain of events that has been presented shows that: if materialism were true, the first person to gain that knowledge (about the brain), COULD NOT have gained it, because he would have also been "a brain" (instead of a person), permanently locked in a skull, without the possibility of escaping it, never, ever, ever (unless you want to argue that brains escape their skulls, which would be quite nuts). Truthfreedom

389 Vividbleau

Implicit bias in Critical Social Justice terms means unconscious bias. If it’s unconscious you don’t even know it’s there. If you don’t know it’s there then how do you know it’s there?

Because those pests have Messiah complex. The marxist pestilence even plagiarizes The Doctrine of Original Sin. You are born at fault just well... because you are born with "sinful" genes. But do not worry, because they are our saviors, who will cleanse humanity of its fault. So one day we all will enjoy paradise on Earth. They will CRISPR the hell out of our genes to get there. Truthfreedom

DaveS “Do you believe that implicit bias (against a particular race, for example) is itself a type of racism?“ No Implicit bias in Critical Social Justice terms means unconscious bias. If it’s unconscious you don’t even know it’s there. If you don’t know it’s there then how do you know it’s there? Vivid vividbleau

MMT, A normal person witnessing murder will react, and video avoidance of identifying features is telling; as is unresponsiveness to the true bystander-witness. Further, this was coordinated with a choreographed flow of operations from setup and lying in wait to spreading a narrative, implying both rehearsal and coordination; likely by radio. No, you don't do this for a nonentity, my best guess would be there is an intelligence connexion for the target. But then, by now we expect denial, obfuscation and willful obtuseness. KF kairosfocus

Hylemorphism explains where was Darwin's idea of "evolution by means of natural selection". Materialism, you can not. Sorry for your catastrophic failure. Well, not sorry at all. You can not explain neither the human sensory experience nor what's the purpose of this existence. That's why intelligent people find you so repellent. You are repellent to the immaterial human intellect. Truthfreedom

Which Philosophy Understands Human Nature and Is Compatible With Natural Science? (Obviously it is not the materialist/ physicalist fiasco).

Sense experience of extramentally-given objects simply cannot be located at all, even though it is associated with neural patterns located inside the brain.

Truthfreedom

KF

Look in the pic and you see a team in action, down to videographer if you add in the vid.

As far as I know there were two vids. One from a known Facebook blogger and one from a surveillance camera. In an age where everyone and their dog carries a phone, it would be surprising if it weren’t captured on a video. I have seen enough of the protest videos to be struck by the number of people with their phones up. I think it is pretty obvious that the shooter was planning to target some right wing protester but by all accounts the person targeted was random. To make the jump from what is known to claim that it was a centrally planned and coordinated assassination is just pure fantasy as wild as the craziest things that Alex Jones has said. Mac McTavish

Mac:

I think if you are white, and being honest with yourself, the answer would be the latter.

I just read a book on being an anti-racist. The author was a black male and he said he would also choose the latter- meaning is was also terrified of black men wearing hoodies. That is until he realized that is how he was programmed ET

Cultures practicing child sacrifice: Aztec, Inca, Maya, the "advanced West" (s. XX-XXI, influenced by the "materialist superstition"). What a sad legacy. :( Truthfreedom

MMT, I assume nothing. Look in the pic and you see a team in action, down to videographer if you add in the vid. It takes a lot to put such in place (and a pretty well known lot over years, this is sign points to signified), that's a capability seen with intelligence agencies and established terrorism networks, not even the Mafia. Many Russian hits -- the notorious mafia state -- are not as effectively done technically. Such teams are not casually deployed, so I infer Danielson is somehow a high value target, for an unknown reason. Your dismissiveness simply reflects your denial of reality right before your eyes, as is expected. KF kairosfocus

DaveS Then yes, you are an ageist. :( Why is being a "racist" "bad" and being an "ageist" not? Is being pulled off the road worse than being murdered?

Sensory neural activity is located inside the brain. But, the only way to infer from that fact that all knowledge is located inside the brain is by illicitly adding the assumption that sense knowledge is a purely material phenomenon, which can be spatially located. Such an assumption does not come from natural science, but from the philosophy of materialism.

And materialism/atheism has been proven false/ incoherent (it collapses into subjective idealism, WITHOUT any possibility of recovery). Materialism ’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back). Materialism can not explain what is being human. It's the 21th Century and the "advanced" West is drowning in superstition. Truthfreedom

KF

But all of this is frankly distractive at this point, on the table now are assassination teams two months ahead of an election with all that that signifies.

You are assuming the existence of centrally organized assassination teams based on your bias rather than real evidence. But, let’s assume that there are centrally organized assassination teams in play. You have concluded that they are being controlled by a Marxist bent philosophy. However, if I wanted to get the general public in an uproar against the left, I would have these assassins target people wearing MAGA hats, all lives matter, or blue lives matter clothing. Mac McTavish

TF, Perhaps, I'm not sure. You would doubtless call me an ageist because I don't believe a human life one minute after conception should have exactly the same legal protections as a human life one week before the due date (or the mother). daveS

DaveS, anyone else Do you believe that implicit bias (against a particular stage of development, for example being below X weeks old) is itself a type of ageism? So you deserve to die? And the w-omb is now the t-omb? Truthfreedom

KF, I was just curious, due to different definitions of "racism", etc. It seems we all agree the answer is "yes". daveS

MMT, it depends on context. I had an experience once, scarcely 1/4 mile from my home (in my homeland) in a main financial district, of cutting across a parking lot behind two young men on a Saturday morning. I was about 10 feet behind. I then overheard, 'im just cut a gal throat, ah nuh nutten. My threat assessment shot up and I quietly walked along until I could cut through a gap in a wall and go into a gas station. I never ever cut across that short cut again. But all of this is frankly distractive at this point, on the table now are assassination teams two months ahead of an election with all that that signifies. KF kairosfocus

DS, really, now. Filters not connected to relevant criteria of merit will be unjustifiable discrimination. That is irrelevant to the open, materially false and demonising theses of Critical Race Theory, which is itself highly racist. But we are beyond that point, we are dealing with assassination teams in action, with what that implies. KF kairosfocus

I would argue that we don’t necessarily have an implicit bias against a certain race, but that we have an implicit bias in favour of what we are familiar with. For example , from the perspective of whatever race you are, what would make you more nervous, seeing three young adult white men wearing hoodies approaching you, or seeing three young adult black men wearing hoodies approaching you? I think if you are white, and being honest with yourself, the answer would be the latter. Mac McTavish

Yes, daves. Implicit bias against a particular race, is racism. ET

KF, Vivid, JAD, anyone else, Do you believe that implicit bias (against a particular race, for example) is itself a type of racism? daveS

Kairosfocus, Miracles are God's part and parcel. :) So let's humble ourselves and pray. This the old tale of humanity's rebellious nature. People: speaking of blood and seeing/ touching/ smelling it are very different things. You have been warned. The road ahead is paved with suffering. Truthfreedom

___ ATTENTION EVERYONE Metaphysics =/= natural science. *** Materialism/ physicalism is NOT natural science. *** This is the THE POINT OF DISPUTE: you materialists have been equating for decades your philosophy to natural science to make materialism/ physicalism look as "legit" (therefore the "true" worldview; "it offers tangible results, you know" being your mantra) so you could spread your atheist gospel without resistance. You have been perpetrating this SCAM for DECADES. But you have been betrayed by your own mistress, "logic". And that's what I have shown in this thread. As I promised. :) Aristotle (and the soul) are back Truthfreedom

TF, absent a miraculous pullback, that is where this is further headed, blood has already been spilled and the Red Guards have revealed a team assassination capability two months before an election. KF kairosfocus

367 Kairosfocus

F/N3 to OP: “NAZI” lives don’t matter . . . where this is headed if we don’t stop the juggernaut now.

Blood. Truthfreedom

F/N3 to OP: "NAZI" lives don't matter . . . where this is headed if we don't stop the juggernaut now. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus Always in Christ. :) The Way, the Truth and the Life. Truthfreedom

364 Kairosfocus

> I believe white people are born into not being human . . . will always be racist etc etc.

Same old same old. Marxists at work. Not different from their tactic of pitting men against women ("all men are potential rapists and women batterers and killers just for the sake of being born males"). God help us because as I mentioned above, there is more than flesh being involved in this ongoing battle. Truthfreedom

353 DaveS

Of course it’s alarming. But an alarmist is someone who becomes alarmed to an irrational degree. For example, in talking about the US “going over the edge”, western civilization collapsing, etc.

Of course Western Civilization has morally "collapsed". We have legislated as a "right" the murdering of millions of innocent human beings at their most vulnerable stage in life (inside their mother's wombs). Based on the false philosophical materialist premise (NOT science) that "humanness" "resides in the brain". Which I (and Dr. Bonnette) and others have shown is FALSE. Yes. A fatal blunder. That SHALL be corrected. We are humans SINCE the moment of conception. Truthfreedom

Vivid, I watched the clip. Dear God in Heaven, have mercy on us sinners and fools, rescue us from the dragon's teeth we are sowing. In Christ's name, AMEN. KF --> I believe white people are born into not being human . . . will always be racist etc etc. kairosfocus

Sev “How about a Federal agency like the OMB requesting copies of the Sandia training materials to discover if they are as Petersen alleges? How about them reviewing those of other agencies before concluding that they represent “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…” or “…divisive, anti-American propaganda…” I know you live in a fact free world but this is an actual class example from the real world. https://twitter.com/dpsztur/status/1302768273344401408?s=21 Vivid vividbleau

DaveS That guy Earl Jones I do not know who he is. :) But my intellect, being in-formed by my brain (because I AM NOT only my brain, neither are you) can grasp the meaning of "reading" (an abstract ) and of irony. :) Truthfreedom

DaveS # 129 I know where "goodness" is. :) The one you recognize in your friend and we both know exists. Truthfreedom

TF, I like to imagine your posts being read by James Earl Jones. daveS

KF 357 Agree with you 100% Vivid vividbleau

Vivid, actually, the juggernaut is already picking up speed and things will go crazy regardless of the outcome of the US election at this stage, given Red Guard brigadistas freely at work up to hit teams of unprecedented level. (Cf. F/N2, OP above.) A win under influence of rioting etc will invite a sense of open season on "nazis," a clear loss will lead to rage out of control against the projected totalitarian threat of "nazis," a near run will directly go to chaos and lawfare with media manipulation and polarisation. The US political system, regrettably, has now been successfully significantly destabilised. The past two weeks passed a threshold, especially revelation of hit teams two months out from an election, a whole new level of destructive capability. KF kairosfocus

DaveS

Of course it’s alarming. But an alarmist is someone who becomes alarmed to an irrational degree.

For example in talking about the Universe being "purposeless" without having a shred of proof and trying to make a corrupt philosophy being passed as "science" (science can NOT determine such things). But power is alluring and the Academia a comfy place to sit your buttocks while you are fed and praised. Truthfreedom

Sev ‘The only thing restraining the more extreme Trump supporters is that he is currently in power. If that were to change then this could become a lot more common:‘ My point still stands. Yet in fact the Nazi behavior is being exhibited by Trumps opposition . “There is little doubt that Trump is regarded as an inspiration to extreme nationalist and racist groups’ My point still stands Yet in fact the Nazi behavior is being exhibited by Trumps opposition . “But I will accept no lessons on morality from Christians’ Yet you were the one that was giving the morality lesson not me, just another example of the fact free, upside down world, alternative universe you inhabit. “Earth to VB, minority groups in the US have been subject to the most savage racism for hundreds of years rather than just 100 days.’ Total distraction, this was not your claim, you were referring to the PRESENT, this is what you said “I remind you that extreme white right-wing groups have been responsible for more terrorist acts in the domestic US than the left or radical Islamic groups.” “Sure they will.’ Yes that’s what i said and thanks for agreeing. “But if they do, will Trump? ‘ Doesn’t matter he will be removed and if it’s a free fair election I will vociferously support his removal. Do you think Biden will concede after all he is being told that under no circumstances should he concede. “And if the extreme elements among his supporters are threatening or committing violent acts now, “ The ones COMMITTING the overwhelming amount of violence NOW is coming from your side. “what do you think they will do if he loses?” What do you think your side will do if he wins? All hell is going to break loose that’s what. Vivid vividbleau

Sev, first, kindly read the F/N2 to OP to see what is already going on, then think again. Notice, we have cheering assassination on record. And no, you have not taken back your slander. We duly note and draw our own conclusions. As for Sandia you obviously have not watched what was put on the table. As for press reports, just wait, OMB is a serious organisation. KF kairosfocus

JAD, Of course it's alarming. But an alarmist is someone who becomes alarmed to an irrational degree. For example, in talking about the US "going over the edge", western civilization collapsing, etc. daveS

Seversky (et al ) Go, and from now on sin no more (philosophically speaking). Truthfreedom

No more teaching children in the schools that "their lives are purposeless" disguising the failed philosophy of materialism as "science". The lab-coat trick is OVER. Truthfreedom

People need to comply. If the police tell you to stop, you have to stop. If they tell you to drop the knife, you have to drop the knife. If they tell you to drop the gun you have to drop the gun. This where I don't understand the George Floyd case. They had him in handcuffs. He was complying, by all accounts. He should have been secured, in a police car. THAT is the training they need. Handcuffs, secured, questioning of the suspect and any witnesses. ET

Kairosfocus @ 317

At the heart of these things is precisely the sort of institutional subversion and imposition of atheistical, a priori evolutionary materialism that twenty years ago now Richard Lewontin inadvertently exposed.

Would you say that atheism is the prevalent belief around the world today or is it those of the world's various faiths? Who bears responsibility then of the perceived ills of society?

To all but the hopelessly indoctrinated, we are here seeing the signature of intelligent design as basis for a world of biological creatures including ourselves.

If true, shouldn't you be raising these social ills with the designer who made them possible in the first place?

The proud, ideologically atheistical post modern world is intellectually and increasingly morally bankrupt.

Except the world is not predominantly atheist so, if there is moral bankruptcy, the blame rests elsewhere?

It is high time for a reformation.

I agree. Seversky

Kairosfocus, I am adding The Argument That Buries Materialism here (your post): Thoughts On The Soul And how hylemorphism is the only viable option (matter+spirit). Aristotle is back. My pleasure. :) Truthfreedom

Kairosfocus @ 316

It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date “training” government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda. For example, according to press reports...

"According to press reports..."? How about a Federal agency like the OMB requesting copies of the Sandia training materials to discover if they are as Petersen alleges? How about them reviewing those of other agencies before concluding that they represent "...divisive, anti-American propaganda..." or "...divisive, anti-American propaganda..." Trump, apparently cares nothing about due process. Do you? Seversky

Seversky You never had "the map". Your materialist amoral fantasy has collapsed into idealism. Materialism shall be buried as the superstition that has hindered The West for decades. It's just a "matter" of time. :) Bye bye. Truthfreedom

John_a_designer @ 290

True or false? Black lives matter because all lives matter.

True. Seversky

Seversky 340

But I will accept no lessons on morality from Christians...

Lol! Then go pray Allah, because your materialist cult is dead. Only theism can ground morality. And among theism, Christianism is King. Your fallacies regarding The Old Testament are laughable. A child having a tantrum. Truthfreedom

ET

You shall not murder. Self defense isn’t murder.

But whether the level of force used to defend yourself is justified is open to interpretation. If I am being slapped by someone half my size, shooting him might be considered murder (or, more likely, manslaughter). But what about killing someone to defend your property? Mac McTavish

Vividbleau @ 254

Yet in fact the Nazi behavior is being exhibited by Trumps opposition . I don’t recall the abhorrent behavior perpetrated on Trumpers going to their hotels or cars after the RNC Convention being done by Trumpers to the Dems after their convention. It is not the Trumpers that are going into restaurants or movie theaters to harass Democrat officials. I have not heard from Trumpers call for what Maxine Waters called for which was to incited people to accost Republicans wherever they’re might be. No Trumpers have tried to take out 17 members of the Democrat leadership on a baseball field. The modern day Nazi brown shirts with their own Hitler salute that they force people to do(Antifa BLM) are not Trumpers. The facts are clear the Nazis are here and they are not the Trump supporters.

The only thing restraining the more extreme Trump supporters is that he is currently in power. If that were to change then this could become a lot more common:

'No Blame?' ABC News finds 54 cases invoking 'Trump' in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults President Donald Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from acts of violence in communities across America, dismissing critics who point to his rhetoric as a potential source of inspiration or comfort for anyone acting on even long-held beliefs of bigotry and hate. "I think my rhetoric brings people together," he said last year, four days after a 21-year-old allegedly posted an anti-immigrant screed online and then allegedly opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 and injuring dozens of others. But a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 54 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault. After a Latino gas station attendant in Gainesville, Florida, was suddenly punched in the head by a white man, the victim could be heard on surveillance camera recounting the attacker’s own words: “He said, ‘This is for Trump.'" Charges were filed but the victim stopped pursuing them. When police questioned a Washington state man about his threats to kill a local Syrian-born man, the suspect told police he wanted the victim to "get out of my country," adding, "That’s why I like Trump." Reviewing police reports and court records, ABC News found that in at least 12 cases perpetrators hailed Trump in the midst or immediate aftermath of physically assaulting innocent victims. In another 18 cases, perpetrators cheered or defended Trump while taunting or threatening others. And in another 10 cases, Trump and his rhetoric were cited in court to explain a defendant's violent or threatening behavior.

There is little doubt that Trump is regarded as an inspiration to extreme nationalist and racist groups.

You are in no position to lecture anyone about moral standards when you support policies that allow for killing an unborn baby literally within days of its birth and if the baby survives kill it anyway. Spare me you moral outrage.

I have made it clear previously that I believe the individual's right to life should cover the entire lifespan of that individual. That said, there are two individuals with rights that should be considered, both the mother and the child. I would allow abortions on medical grounds, for example, where the mother's life is at risk, but the presumption should be of the right to life in all cases. But I will accept no lessons on morality from Christians while the Old Testament presents as praiseworthy behavior accounts of slavery, sexism, racism, rape and genocide.

Earth to Sev terrorists groups have been terrorizing Seattle and Portland for about 100 straight days! You are so unattached to reality it boggles the mind.

Earth to VB, minority groups in the US have been subject to the most savage racism for hundreds of years rather than just 100 days. For example ,

According to the Tuskegee Institute, 4,743 people were lynched between 1882 and 1968 in the United States, including 3,446 African Americans and 1,297 whites. More than 73 percent of lynchings in the post–Civil War period occurred in the Southern states.[10] According to the Equal Justice Initiative, 4,084 African Americans were lynched between 1877 and 1950 in the South.[11]

“His base would almost certainly support his ambition to be President-for-life. Would you?”

No his base would not support that since that would be unconstitutional. You really don’t have a clue do you.?You just make [SNIP] up.

You think so?

Trump says maybe U.S. will have a president for life someday Politics Mar 4, 2018 9:58 AM EDT WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump says he thinks it’s great that China’s president now holds that office for life and muses that maybe the U.S. will do the same someday. Trump’s remarks were met with laughter and applause during a luncheon for Republican donors Saturday at his South Florida estate. CNN said it obtained a recording of the remarks.

If it is a fair election and Biden wins the vast majority of Trump supporters will accept the results and will not commit violence,...

Sure they will. But if they do, will Trump? And if the extreme elements among his supporters are threatening or committing violent acts now, what do you think they will do if he loses? Seversky

KF@332, I watched it until he said that anecdotal evidence is garbage. So I took him at his word at stopped watching this anecdotal evidence. But seriously I agree that this training, if accurately presented, is a little extreme. Is it dangerous, polarizing and divisive? I guess that depends on the context it is presented in. As I have said, I have undergone several courses on diversity in the workplace and they have all been enlightening. Mac McTavish

Dave @ 335,

And as The New York Times reported recently: “It has been nearly a quarter century since New York City experienced as much gun violence in the month of June as it has seen this year.” (On Sunday, there were at least nine killings in the city.) An additional 11 cities provide year-to-date murder data. Murder is up 21.8 percent in all 36 cities with 2020 data through at least May, with 29 of those cities seeing an increase this year relative to last year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/upshot/murders-rising-crime-coronavirus.html Nothing to get alarmed about? john_a_designer

Kairosfocus @ 252

I suggest to you that you would have been better advised to walk back and apologise for such bigotry and projection. Instead, you have first tried evasions, turnabout projections and distractions, amounting to doubling down.

I did qualify what I wrote. Now, will you walk back your support for the Alinskyite strategy that is clearly intended to discredit the BLM movement as the agent of a Marxist conspiracy intended to overthrow Western civilization in face of the undeniable, systemic and endemic racism that has infested US society - although not just US society - for centuries? Seversky

Seversky, As an illustration, start with this, that the received consensus c 50 BC was “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” Framing in more detail:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

From this base in the built in law of our morally governed nature a whole systematisation of law can be developed, indeed that thinking is behind the US DoI 1776 and Constitution, 1787 - 9. Yes, we can play all sorts of games with law, similar to many disciplines. That is why legal drafting is a serious professional grade study. That said, legislatures, courts, etc do not have arbitrary power to decree as they would, that is nihilism. KF kairosfocus

You shall not murder. Self defense isn't murder. ET

Kairosfocus @ 250

BR, actually, the Common law in key part grew out of cumulative precedents, but because of law of nature and biblical influences, was restrained. The key breakdown was the rise of legal positivism which is about 100 – 150 years ago, and it was of course influenced further by darwinist thought. The result was to destroy the restraints and allow cumulative steps of distortion with the premise that institutions, groups and individuals with enough clout made law by direct decree or rulings etc. Where law was redefined as product of such processes. Implication, might and manipulation make law, justice, right, rights, logic, warrant, knowledge, truth etc. Which is patent nihilism. KF

The laws which regulate human society are written by human beings using human languages which are inevitably subject to interpretation, however carefully they are drafted, unless you ascribe to them the infallibility claimed for religious texts. For example, on its face "Thou shalt not kill" seems unambiguous but does it mean we should not kill any living thing? Does it mean we should not kill to defend ourselves or others who are in danger of being unlawfully killed? Does it mean we should not kill in defense of our country? If laws are open to interpretation then, like it or not, somebody has to decide which interpretation should apply in a given case. In a democratic society that role is assigned to the courts. It is not necessarily judicial activism if the court reaches a verdict with which you disagree. If a law is so poorly drafted that it is capable of conflicting interpretations that cannot be resolved by the courts then it falls to the legislature to make whatever changes it decides are required. Seversky

There is an element of that. He's saying to the alarmists, "c'mon, get real!". daveS

Dave @ 325,

It’s a mildly snarky tweet.

No Dave, it is smug condescension. john_a_designer

ET, I am pretty sure that SERIOUS background tests and checks are given before one can get in the door at Sandia. All the way back to childhood. Psychological instabilities tied to racism etc, for cause, would not come in the door. I recommend that people listen to Mr Petersen; which seems the correct spelling. KF kairosfocus

MMT, I linked a specific case with a specific whistleblower [who speaks at length in very familiar terms], perhaps you need to start from nuke weapons lab, Sandia . . . and what that implies about how widespread this is. In coming days, we will doubtless hear and see a lot more. KF kairosfocus

ET

If schooling and the parents cannot alleviate the ignorance with respect to racism, I doubt any government training will help.

I am sure you are correct with the true racist, but they aren’t really the problem. In most employment situations, except where the employer is also a “true believer”, these people get identified and weeded our pretty quickly. It is the subtle prejudices that cause the real damage. And I am talking about the prejudices that people who consider themselves to be non-racist often have.

Maybe people should be asked questions before being hired- given a test with racial overtones, for example.

I guess this might be possible, and it might work for a true racist, but I don’t know if it would identify people who have prejudices due merely to ignorance. Mac McTavish

If schooling and the parents cannot alleviate the ignorance with respect to racism, I doubt any government training will help. Maybe people should be asked questions before being hired- given a test with racial overtones, for example. ET

Does having a negative attitude towards Trump make one more susceptible to death by C19?

We have found a negative and significant correlation at the 0.01 (bilateral) level between D.Trump’s net approval and the case fatality rate, (? = ?0,57 ; P = 0,000035), in particular, the higher D.Trump’s net approval is, the lower the case fatality rate

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/medicine/the-frontline-doctors-put-some-plausible-mechanisms-for-hydroxychloroquine-on-the-table/#comment-711601 jerry

KF@316, unless I have missed something, which I admit is quite possible, what appears to be missing from Trump’s edict are clear examples of the types of training he is referring to. I work for the feds and as is the case with most federal employees, I have received ridiculous amounts of training. The only thing that comes remotely close to what is being claimed are the various diversity in the workplace courses, of which I have taken several. Do they talk about prejudice and racism? Absolutely. As they do misogyny, homophobia and other mindsets that lead to inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Do they talk about systemic racism? Absolutely. Because it still exists in many areas of our lives. We all have prejudices. They are born of ignorance. What these courses try to do is provide the information necessary to reduce our ignorance. How can this be a bad thing? Maybe if you could provide a link to some of the training material that Trump is so opposed to we could discuss it. Mac McTavish

321 Kairosfocus

Those we disagree with and may have to fight are also human beings made in God’s image;

True. Although they degrade themselves and society by cheapening human life to the level of H. sapiens, meat-robots, bags of chemicals, whatever epithet among their general non-sense. Let's be honest. All this mess stems from the existence of suffering, the so called: "problem of evil", which tests our human nature like anything else. Lots of people are then tempted by--that-guy-who-reeks-of-sulphur-you-know-who-I-am-talking-about to reject God because God is evil/ an uncaring Father. And then they start to gain knowledge and believe that paradise exists, but here on Earth (which is impossible). But that is a big, fat lie. Look at all the marxist utopias and their results: gulags, torture, poverty, rivers of blood and piles of corpses = death. So, by rejecting God, the amount of suffering is not only not reduced, but increased tenfold. Suffering is the key to understand what kind of play is being played on this stage (Earth). Truthfreedom

KF

The big conversation we should be having instead is how to equip ordinary people and their children how to be technically and economically competitive in an ever increasingly digital age where artificially intelligent machines will be part and parcel of production of goods and services.

On this we completely agree. But if the availability of this education disproportionately favors non-blacks, as is the case today, BLM will never become redundant. Mac McTavish

I don't follow Krugman, but I'm guessing that he is using hyperbole to comment on the more extreme accounts of the state of NYC. He implies that (according to some reports), you can't look anywhere in the city without seeing hordes of black-clad anarchists and buildings in flames, a clear exaggeration. It's a mildly snarky tweet which is meant to convey more than its literal meaning. Krugman is obviously intelligent enough to recognize and avoid elementary logical fallacies. daveS

Yeah you’re right Dave. He's not really claiming anything. So what’s his point? john_a_designer

Can anyone else see the logical fallacies in what Krugman is claiming? I can.

What is Krugman claiming? I see a report of a single observation. daveS

Don’t worry folks Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman assures us that things are not as bad as we really think. This is what he posted on twitter last week:

I went for a belated NYC run this morning, and am sorry to report that I saw very few black-clad anarchists. Also, the city is not yet in flames. 10:39 AM · Sep 2, 2020

That’s it. Krugman said it… that settles it. One observation from a world renowned economist and noted NYT columnist is all that it takes. Can anyone else see the logical fallacies in what Krugman is claiming? I can. But who am I? I have been wrong about one thing. I thought this type of thinking was limited to anonymous internet troll wannabe’s… I guess not. For a more in depth analysis see the following commentary: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6188171548001?playlist_id=4249245556001#sp=show-clips john_a_designer

TF, we too must be restrained in our dealings. Those we disagree with and may have to fight are also human beings made in God's image; part of the tragedy we face, that we are too often forced to fight what boils down to a human civil war. In that light, it is time for reformation. I don't think we can totally wreck civilisation (short of nuke war) but we can do a lot of damage. Right now, I think serious damage is unavoidable, but maybe we can contain it. KF kairosfocus

Good stuff, TF. 😂 daveS

It is no coincidence that the marxist pest is so apt at manipulating language. A bunch of retarded H. sapiens could not have achieved such a mastery all by themselves. But those atheist evo-tards are nothing but insects trapped in a giant web of lies, a web whose owner is having great fun and many laughs at them. What I call the "Lewontinian door" will be toppled down. And when they realize who is the owner of the foot that has been kicking it, they will **** their pants. :) Those morons who are always complaining about injustice and suffering, lol. Oh boy, at least here, on this side of reality, you can have moments of relief. But there, on the other side, you won't enjoy a single one. The crying and gnashing of teeth is going to be legendary. Truthfreedom

317 Kairosfocus

The proud, ideologically atheistical post modern world is intellectually and increasingly morally bankrupt.

And it is a disgusting place to be born into. Thank God there is a God. Atheism brings nothing to the picture. You can not legislate based on 'natural selection' and 'random molecules'. Atheists leech off the immense Christian heritage they have received. Then they spit in its face as the prideful and disgusting creatures they are. Like a cancer that destroys its host and then realizes there is nowhere else for it to attach itself to.

It is high time for a reformation.

I believe we are witnessing the utter collapse of our civilization. Strategically planned and with spiritual help. Truthfreedom

F/N: let's pull back to a wider picture. Yes, what is going on is significant in itself and exposes ideological agendas and the sort of rhetorical and agit prop smear tactics design thinkers have long faced. Yes, we can see wanton recklessness and disregard for duty to truth, right reason etc. Yes, such exposure equips us to have an intuitive grasp for how ideological manipulation works and where it is liable to end up, disaster. But then more comes into the picture, we are seeing a battle for the heart of civilisation, dominant worldview, mainstream cultural narrative and linked institutional and policy agendas. At the heart of these things is precisely the sort of institutional subversion and imposition of atheistical, a priori evolutionary materialism that twenty years ago now Richard Lewontin inadvertently exposed. So, it is time to draw attention to a key fact that won Nobel prizes: in the heart of the living cell we find the answer to SETI. Namely, alphanumeric, 4-state element based digital code expressing algorithms with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery; as core aspects of the cell's functionality. Code, string based alphanumeric code is language antecedent to cell based life. Algorithms are goal-directed, finite sequences of steps carrying out a function. To all but the hopelessly indoctrinated, we are here seeing the signature of intelligent design as basis for a world of biological creatures including ourselves. Backing it, there is a fine tuned cosmos set to a deeply isolated operating point that enables C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life on terrestrial planets in galactic habitable zones. Even more tellingly, we find ourselves to be inescapably morally governed creatures, starting with the first duties of reason:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

The proud, ideologically atheistical post modern world is intellectually and increasingly morally bankrupt. It is high time for a reformation. KF kairosfocus

MMT: I see you at 299:

then there is Trump’s recent edict to eliminate “ critical race theory“ from government training, referring to it as indoctrination. Now, let’s be honest here, he is talking about getting rid of “diversity in the work place” training, which used to be called “sensitivity training”. This sort of training will not eliminate all unacceptable behaviour in the work place. But what it is very good at is making us examined our own actions and behaviours from an informed perspective rather than an ignorant one.

We already saw a whistleblower courageously expose what is really going on, at risk of his future employability. You were conspicuously absent from that thread. Your characterisation as cited is blatantly false, misinformed and misleading. And if earlier training was cut from the same cloth, it is also to be utterly condemned. Let's clip the actual OMB memo repudiating indoctrination in critical race theory:

It has come to the President's attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date "training" government workers to believe divisive, anti- American propaganda. For example, according to press reports, employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that "virtually all White people contribute to racism" or where they are required to say that they "benefit from racism." According to press reports, in some cases these training have further claimed that there is racism embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should receive a job. These types of "trainings" not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce. We can be proud that as an employer, the Federal government has employees of all races, ethnicities, and religions. We can be proud that Americans from all over the country seek to join our workforce and dedicate themselves to public service. We can be proud of our continued efforts to welcome all individuals who seek to serve their fellow Americans as Federal employees. However, we cannot accept our employees receiving training that seeks to undercut our core values as Americans and drive division within our workforce. The President has directed me to ensure that Federal agencies cease and desist from using taxpayer dollars to fund these divisive, un-American propaganda training sessions. Accordingly, to that end, the Office of Management and Budget will shortly issue more detailed guidance on implementing the President's directive. In the meantime, all agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on "critical race theory/9 "white privilege," or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil. In addition, all agencies should begin to identify all available avenues within the law to cancel any such contracts and/or to divert Federal dollars away from these un- American propaganda training sessions.

In conclusion, it adds:

The President, and his Administration, are fully committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals in the United States. The President has a proven track record of standing for those whose voice has long been ignored and who have failed to benefit from all our country has to offer, and he intends to continue to support all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed. The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.

Consider yourself further exposed. KF kairosfocus

310 BobRyan

The false gods that have always been worshiped continue to be worshiped. The name may change over time, but the attributes do not.

Earth is nothing more than a spiritual battlefield. The play being played on stage is the old dichotomy evil vs. good. And on the stage, among the actors, The tree of knowledge keeps casting a long shadow. Atheism is nothing but unadultered pride. A sin born born of free will that ends up denying the same free will that fuels it. There's nothing new under the sun. Truthfreedom

F/N: I have added to F/N2, the OP, a video link to an analysis of the team assassination of Mr Danielson. Note, that only amplifies what is demonstrated already in the photograph of the assassin drawing as he emerges from ambush where neither he nor his target could see one another, once he was instructed -- likely by UHF radio -- that his target was in the "kill" box. With the videographer across the road, notice, not fazed by witnessing murder and brushes off an onlooker pressing him to go to the police. I bet, the vid may be subtly edited to exclude incriminating evidence. This act of teamwork terrorism is pregnant with implications for what has been going on for years to develop capacity to do something that is more typically done by intelligence agency wet work teams or seriously organised terrorist groups. That also means, the backers are signalling civil authorities that they have sophisticated assassination capacity; a shot across the bows coming two months before an election . . . we can take out targets at will. This incident is causus belli for any serious counter intelligence agency that is not fatally penetrated and compromised itself. The next several weeks should be telling in that regard; if there is no rollup of core Red Guard activists, then things are really, really bad. The juggernaut is rolling faster and faster. KF kairosfocus

F/N: The big conversation we should be having instead is how to equip ordinary people and their children how to be technically and economically competitive in an ever increasingly digital age where artificially intelligent machines will be part and parcel of production of goods and services. This is an age where already driverless vehicles are on the roads; ponder the rise of a robotic transport sector. I am told of trading floors for markets being replaced by server farms using AI to invest in arbitrage with millisecond precision. Soon, engineers, doctors, nurses and technicians will work with software assistants. Same, for how the pandemic has forced digital distance education technologies to the fore. How do we prepare for such a world of intelligent information, communication and control technologies? KF kairosfocus

Vivid, We are seeing a newspeak rewrite of meaning also, e.g. in the claimed contrast between equality by nature under God and "equity." Let me go to Enc Brit:

Samuel Clarke (1675–1729), the next major intuitionist, accepted More’s axiom of benevolence in slightly different words. He was also responsible for a “principle of equity,” which, though derived from the Golden Rule so widespread in ancient ethics, was formulated with a new precision: “Whatever I judge reasonable or unreasonable for another to do for me, that by the same judgment I declare reasonable or unreasonable that I in the like case should do for him.” As for the means by which these moral truths are known, Clarke accepted Cudworth’s and More’s analogy with truths of mathematics and added the idea that what human reason discerns is a certain “fitness or unfitness” about the relationship between circumstances and actions. The right action in a given set of circumstances is the fitting one; the wrong action is unfitting. This is something known intuitively and is self-evident . . .

Pull back a bit, AmHD:

eq·ui·ty (?k?w?-t?) n. pl. eq·ui·ties 1. The state or quality of being just and fair. 2. Something that is just and fair. 3. Law a. Justice achieved not simply according to the strict letter of the law but in accordance with principles of substantial justice and the unique facts of the case. b. See court of equity. [--> In the UK, hist. Court of Chancery judged that the Lady Mico trust be used to support ex slaves in the WI, through establishing Mico Schools, in Jamaica a teacher's college and in Antigua an Agricultural one] c. An equitable right or claim: an analysis of the equities and inequities brought about by the current trade bill.

In short, equity, proper, is a meta-legal question of true fairness reflecting our built in moral government. The notion of forced equality of outcome -- ajudicated by radicals already showing utter disregard for innocent reputation, property (reconceptualised as theft subject to forfeiture at will through the Marxian version of the outdated labour theory of value . . . thus to burning, wrecking or looting), liberty (notice, mobbing and false imprisonment by raging mobs), even life -- is absurd on its face. All of this brings us back to the matter of antecedent first duties of reason:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

Such, we need to hammer home. KF kairosfocus

F/N: It should by now be clear that what is at stake is civilisation with as a chief value, liberty with good order through the civil peace of justice. As a reminder, let us ponder what was put on the table before the whole world, July 4th, 1776:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . 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, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], 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 . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Yes, the men who put that on the table were flawed (are any of us perfect?) and made compromises that would lead to civil war just over eighty years later. That does not grant us licence to cancel them out and impose yet another predictably bloodily tyrannical year zero reset. The sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears; those who neglect, dismiss or reject them doom themselves to pay in the same coin over and over again. It is time to put truth and reconciliation on the table, and to seek a prudent way forward. Just perhaps, that might reduce the terrible cost that it seems we have already doomed ourselves to pay. Perhaps, too, we will need to learn sobering lessons from this year of crushing shocks. KF kairosfocus

Truthfreedom The false gods that have always been worshiped continue to be worshiped. The name may change over time, but the attributes do not. BobRyan

Vivid, sobering. KF kairosfocus

BobRyan

Women sacrifice their unborn to their false god of choice, Margaret Sanger.

It's even worse. Men and women sacrifice their children to Aphrodite . :( We have returned to paganism. Truthfreedom

Seversky If we are our brains, then: Seversky = brain Therefore, when visiting a brain doctor due to you experiencing pain, you could say; Hello brain that makes itself pass as a doctor (because doctors are brains too), I am brain in pain (instead of hello doctor my brain hurts). You a/ mats never get bored in your life. Like childs, with all your fantasies running wild. Truthfreedom

Truthfreedom @ 304 Women sacrifice their unborn to their false god of choice, Margaret Sanger. BobRyan

Seversky It looks like you are evading me. :) You say: thou shall not derive an "ought" from an "is". Whence should I derive my "oughts" then? Kindly, write it down. 1. __________ Was " darwinian theory " inside Mr. Darwin's head/ skull ? Yes/ no Kindly, write it down. 1. __________ That "supervenience" thing looks to me more like "magic". "Everything is physical except those things that are not physical but are created by the physical" (which violates causality/ logic). Do you believe in magic? Yes/ no Kindly, write it down. 1. __________ It seems like your materialist worldview is full of gaps. Like the fossil record. Truthfreedom

Bob Ryan Marxists are very apt at rebranding everything. Child sacrifice for example rebranded as 'abortion'. Truthfreedom

Critical Race Theory is nothing more than eugenics rebranded. BobRyan

Mac Let me help you out here. This from a letter I sent to a few of my friends awhile back. “Critical theory is the theory of hegemonic culture which is defined as anyone who is white, male, heterosexual, cis gender, native born American, Christian , and other various qualifiers ( the top of the intersectionality ladder) OR identifies with that group regardless of their color. From this theory flows the idea of intersectionality ( those at the top of the ladder oppress those below) and group racist guilt. Critical Theory is more concerned with NARRATIVE rather than TRUTH, the facts don’t matter. The Critical Theory I am addressing is of The Frankfurt School of Marxist critics which includes György Lukács, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse for instance held to among other things that tolerance of views are repressive and he can be called the father of intolerance and the cancel culture.I am being specific here and giving names for a reason, so that you can do your own fact checking.These scholars left Germany in the 30s and after a stop in Switzerland landed in America and taught at Columbia. The big picture agenda of the Frankfurt School was to marry Marxian economic theory to Freudian psychoanalytic theory to explain the rise of fascism and put forth the reasons that the communist revolution was not taking place in Western democracies as Marx had predicted. Marx was a historical determinist. The Frankfurt School looked at systems of power in terms of how they exploited and oppressed the working class and more broadly the everyday citizen. One of the goals of the Frankfurt School was to address CULTURAL power. They decided that the reason the communist revolution had not yet been successful in the West is that something in Western culture must be preventing it. The goal of the Frankfurt School was to identify what those issues were and DISMANTLE them. You might stop for a moment and ask yourselves what is the basis of Western culture? Western culture is based on The Enlightenment and Judaeo Christian values and principles, the ultimate TARGET of Critical theory is the Judeo culture and It’s target also is aimed at classic liberalism. Sources: Wikipedia The Frankfurt School New Discourse Critical Theory The Gospel Coalition The Incompatibility of Critical Theory and Christianity Https//plato.stanford.edu./entries/critical-theory/ Felluga, Dino Franco. Critical Theory:The Key Concepts (Routledge Key Guides). Taylor and Francis Kindle Edition Neil Shenvi Intro to Critical Theory The Gospel Coalition “Important Articles on Critical Theory” Voddie Bauchan You Tube “Cultural Marxism” I would like to now pivot to addressing Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice Theory, and White Complicity Theory. “Beware lest anyone take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition according to the elemental spirits of the world not to Christ” Col 2:8 Critical Race Theory: Critical Race Theory( CRT) is a sub theory of Critical Theory that questions the very foundation of the liberal order, including equality theory. For instance if you pay attention to words you will notice that proponents of CRT substitute the word “equity” for “equality” two entirely different meanings. CRT also questions legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law. CRT argues that the axis of America social life revolves around race and systemic power, racism permeates everything and must be uncovered using critical methods. Critical race theory explicitly endorses historical revisionism such as the 1619 project or eliminating historical monuments. CRT is openly and aggressively anti liberal. Liberal does not mean left wing. A liberal society aims to make sure that everybody is treated equally and works toward a society where barriers are removed that prevents that from happening. CRT views this as nothing more than the existing power structure maintaining its dominance (hegemony). CRT theorists reject color blindness as myths and illusions that allow white people to perpetrate their inherited privilege. CRT rejects Martin Luther King’s position that we should judge people on the content of their character not the color of their skin. CRT does not advocate color blindness but rather diversity narratives ,but not diversity of opinion , equity but not equality. In practice CRT holds that racism is subconscious in many cases. Sources: Https//plato.stanford.edu.entries/critical-theory/ New Discourses Critical Race theory Cummings, Andre Douglas Pond “ A furious kinship: Critical Race Theory and the Hip Hop Nation Delgado, Richard and S,Jean “Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge Third Edition Payne, Hilrado. “The Role of of Critical Race Theory in Higher Education” Applebaum Thompson, Sherwood. “Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice DiAngelo and Sensoy “White Fragility” Voddie Bauchan You Tube “Cultural Marxism” Critical Social Justice Theory: “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means” Inigo Montoya “Princess Bride” From new discourse “Social Justice is the ultimate “Trojan Horse”term, where it seems to mean one thing , a good thing, as most people would understand it, which is a more fair and equal society but it actually means something else in Critical Social Justice Theory. That something else is very specific, and most people, if they knew what they were encountering ,would be unlikely to accept. The idea advertised by the phrase “social justice” doesn’t match the ideology and worldview bearing the seemingly identical name. This is because the phrase “social justice”, here intentionally left in the lowercase, means something that most people in society can get behind, more fairness, equality, egalitarianism, less bigotry ,discrimination, disenfranchisement and the like. There are very few people today who would say they don’t seek social justice. Any disagreements are about how to achieve it and what it would look like.This is because most people in the West are broadly liberal, in the philosophical and true meaning of the word, not how it is used in American politics. On the other hand , “Social Justice”, here intentionally capitalized , means something more specific, it means “Critical Social Justice”. That is, in fact, an ideology that very aggressively pursues the social, cultural ,institutional, and political installation and enforcement of a very specific and radical understanding of social justice as derived from various critical theories. As such they do not necessarily seek to achieve “social justice” in the broad sense, or in the sense that many would assume of the term. Instead they seek to empower and enforce their own particular worldview that revolves around one narrow and authoritative interpretation which is hegemony, result of the processes by which one dominant culture, which is currently the Judaeo Christian, maintains its dominant position. Let me put it this way. If your a classic liberal and embrace Enlightenment principles or if you embrace Judaeo Christian values the mob is coming after you. Critical Social Justice theory also does not advocate for equality which they see as an oppressive ideology. Instead it advocates for equity which I have mentioned means something different ie equal outcomes. Equal outcomes are what they mean by diversity as opposed to meritocracy. Nor does it tolerate diversity of opinion. The enforcement of the meta narrative uses what is termed “canceling “or “cancel culture” to enforce conformity of thought. Last week alone we have seen the canceling of movies, TV shows and approximately seven editors of major media organizations canceled.The editor of the New York Times had to step down for allowing an op ed piece that went against the predominant meta narrative. A college football coach had to apologize for wearing the wrong shirt. American history is being cancelled, monuments are being torn down. One apology is never enough. An this is just the tip of the iceberg and is escalating. You cannot replace a culture without erasing its history. Critical Social Justice Theory demands acknowledgement of white complicity as a first step, a necessary albeit not a sufficient step , as a requirement of challenging systemic racial oppression. This complicity arises from the nature of “white privilege”, which white people benefit from whether they want to or not. In other words based on ones color, without any evidence, one is accused of something based on the color of their skin, the opposite of MLKs position. I can think of nothing more racist than targeting an entire ethnic group with a collective crime regardless of the innocence or guilt of its individuals. Just last week Webster changed the classic historical definition to one more suitable to Critical Social Justice Theory which in a nut shell is that if you are white or “think white” you are a priori a racist because you are white or think white. For instance “thinking white”,whatever that is, creates an open season on any African American and opens them up to the most vile epithets, slurs and slanders because they are identifying with the current hegemonic culture. They are often portrayed as not being black or not being black enough. Thus you have racism without a racist. In short for the Critical Social Justice advocates the whole system is rotten to the core, it is “systemic” and we must dismantle the “systemic” dominant culture, which is the Judaeo Christian and classic liberal enlightenment culture.This is why a certain dominate player and strong advocate of Critical Race and Social Justice theory states on their web page statement of beliefs “we are dedicated to transgender rights and the disruption of the classic Western nuclear family”. From what book is the Western nuclear family derived ? Critical Social Justice Theory as distinguished from true social justice, wants cultural revolution not reform. Sources: Sensory, Ozlem, and Robert DiAngelo “Is everyone really equal?” An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, first edition. Teachers College Press:New York, p.xviii Adams, M.,et al (2016). Teaching For Diversity and Social Justice. New York: Routledge. P.1 Bell, L., (2013) Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W.J.Blumenfeld, C. Castaneda,,H.W Hackman, M.L,,Peters, and X. Zuniga. (EDS), Readings for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge Lemisko, Lynn “Unpacking Presuppositions for Social Justice” “Un packing and Repacking Generative Concepts in Social Justice Studies” Todd A Horton and Lynn Lemisko Ed’s Sense Publishers , 2015 Black Lives Matters Official Website “What we believe” New Discourses Critical Social Justice Theory The Gospel Coalition “ Social Justice, Critical Theory ,and Christianity : Are They Compatible Voddie Bauchan You Tube “Cultural Marxism” Vivid vividbleau

Mac “And then there is Trump’s recent edict to eliminate “ critical race theory“ from government training, referring to it as indoctrination. “ Which it is. “Now, let’s be honest here, he is talking about getting rid of “diversity in the work place” training, which used to be called “sensitivity training”.” Do you know what diversity means in Critical Race and Social Justice theory? Do you know anything about Critical Race and Social,Justice theory? If you do then you are not being honest here ,if you don’t your talking about something you know nothing about. If it’s the latter you need to get”educated” Vivid vividbleau

Mac:

Trump keeps accusing people like Kaepernick and other sports figures who take a knee during the national anthem of being unpatriotic.

Right. Taking a knee does nothing but divide. Make a stand. The pro athletes have the platform to be heard. Too bad they haven't got a clue.

Those who truly believe that this is the case must accept that the discrimination suffered by blacks is supported by the constitution.

That doesn't follow. ET

Sev

I wrote that “I do not believe Christian nationalists are all neo-Nazis”. And I don’t. However, for me, the difference between a “patriot” and a “nationalist” is that the nationalist believes “my country, right or wrong” whereas the patriot does not bring shame on his country by doing or condoning wrong just because it was done by that country.

You make a very good point. Trump keeps accusing people like Kaepernick and other sports figures who take a knee during the national anthem of being unpatriotic. Those who truly believe that this is the case must accept that the discrimination suffered by blacks is supported by the constitution. And then there is Trump’s recent edict to eliminate “ critical race theory“ from government training, referring to it as indoctrination. Now, let’s be honest here, he is talking about getting rid of “diversity in the work place” training, which used to be called “sensitivity training”. This sort of training will not eliminate all unacceptable behaviour in the work place. But what it is very good at is making us examined our own actions and behaviours from an informed perspective rather than an ignorant one. Mac McTavish

JAD, sad. And telling. Note FN2 to OP. KF PS: I note this looks to be at least coming on two months ago. kairosfocus

Seversky, enough time has passed, I clip from 247: >>When I watch Trump’s rallies I see uncomfortable echoes of the Nazi rallies. The way he whips up anger amongst the crowd and then directs it towards the press.>> 1: Projection, in large part. Backed up by refusing to ask, who struck the first blow in the fight. 2: If the US had a better balance in defamation law, much of the studied, persistent slander in its media would be stayed. 3: As it is, a good slice of the media have been a conduit of bigotry, defamation, irresponsible accusation and just plain lying, which has damaged many, many people's right to innocent reputation. So, a measure of anger in return is actually to be expected. 4: To fix the problem, further slander by suggestion that Mr Trump et al are nazis is not going to help the matter. Instead it is time that adults in the room sponsored a truth and reconciliation commission and set about coming to terms with the harm done. 5: The case of Mr Sandmann is only a harbinger to what will happen if the present course of habitual defamation continues. >>He hasn’t done so yet but is there any doubt that, if he asked them, those crowds would happily burn books or newspapers or anything else he pointed them towards. >> 6: You cannot have it two ways, if you wish the freedom to protect burning the flag that has draped many a coffin as freedom of expression, or tearing down monuments and worse; burning newspapers or books as a mark of protest -- with due explanation -- is just as legitimately free expression. 7: Of course, others looking on have a perfect right to draw their own conclusions on what is being burned, why. As I do, for cause, from the burning of Bibles and churches. >>Trump is trying to foment outrage and manipulate to his own political advantage>> 8: Projection again, you really need to ponder the case of how the Poles attacked German radio stations, provoking German Counter-attacks in 1939. That is, we have a classic case on the sort of character who sets up he hit back first rhetoric. 9: instead of fomenting causeless anger, it seems to me that a narcissistic political, celebrity, pundit and media elite have scorned and smeared many, many people for a long time and have imagined that those inferior deplorables and fundies should just suck it up in silence as their reputations, livelihoods and even lives are needlessly wrecked. 10: That brings us back to, time for a truth and reconciliation commission. >>you will understand how outrageous – and I mean outrageous – I find your attempts to discredit and delegitimize the BLM protests – in face of the massive evidence of persistent racism in US society which has animated them – by stereotyping them as “Red Guard” puppets of some ruthless and powerful Marxist conspiracy.>> 11: Your pretended outrage in the face of clear evidence fazes me not one whit. BLM is from its founders and platform a culture form, marxist 4GW insurgency front. It is using operational patterns that clearly come out of the Red Guards books, and it is using riots, looting, arson, intimidation, mayhem and verging on worse. So, for cause I hold that instead of being primarily a legitimate civil rights protest, it is a Marxist front operation that ruthlessly exploits the sufferings and pain of my people for ends that are frankly anticivilisational. 12: As a capital case in point, defunding/abolishing lawful policing and courts etc is a Rubicon-crossing step. Yes, there is plenty of room to discuss and carry forward reasonable reform, but that is not what is being put on the table. 13: Antifa is similar in telling ways and the hit-squad operation that has just been documented is a revelation on its true nature, cf F/N2 to OP. 14: Those who have been enabling and hoping to ride on the chaos are also open to serious challenge. >>I regard racism as a human problem.>> 15: That is precisely what BLM and by extension Antifa et al do not accept, as may be discerned from the now exposed tenets of that pseudoscience known as critical race theory . . . by its very name, yet another arm of the cultural marxist anticivilisational programme. I again cite Enc Brit as handy reference:

Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities. The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s. The launch of the CRT movement marked its separation from critical legal studies (CLS), an offshoot of critical theory that examined how the law and legal institutions function to perpetuate oppression and exploitation.

16: This is the intellectual muscle behind the push to abolish lawful policing. >> for me, the difference between a “patriot” and a “nationalist” is that the nationalist believes “my country, right or wrong” whereas the patriot does not bring shame on his country by doing or condoning wrong just because it was done by that country.>> 17: Do you hear the many mean-spirited projections and false, prejudiced insinuations behind your words, once we bear in mind the exposure of that pseudoscience, critical race theory? Indeed, critical race theory is itself patently racist. >>the [Christian] faith will be much truer to its core principles when it speaks out in forthright condemnation of a man who is both immoral and amoral by its standards rather than have some of its leading figures fawn over him and blaspheme about him being favored or even chosen by their God>> 18: The pagan king, Cyrus, is spoken of in Isa 45 as The Lord's anointed, the scriptures teach that promotion comes from God, and Rom 13 (written with pervert in chief Nero on the throne and as part of a book that exposed his perversities as sinner in chief) call us to responsible respect and obedience to lawful authority. In so doing, it neither endorses Cyrus' machinations and paganism nor Nero's perversities and murders from the age of 14. Nor, does it imply that such will escape solemn accountability before the One to whom all authority belongs. 18: With that balance in mind, I can freely note that significantly many Christians and Christian leaders have publicly and privately spoken to Mr Trump and others over the years regarding their sins, while maintaining due respect. Falsely accusing him of nazism and would be tyranny does not count. (Also, you were here when I had to pull back some remarks that were in a grey area for an organisation such as this, i.e. I by no means give or have given the current NY contractor in chief a blanket endorsement.) 19: Doubtless, some Christians and Christian leaders have gone overboard in supporting him, which they should correct. 20: That said, the extremism of what we are seeing has turned this most unlikely figure into a champion of civilisation in the face of outright misanthropes, anticivilisational zealots and people caught up in a patently destructive march of folly. Those caught up in a march over the cliff need to stop and at least try to turn back, though I fear it may now be too late, the cliff's edge is clearly cracking underfoot even as the juggernaut accelerates further out of control. Utterly needlessly. >> Put very simply, if the need arose, would you be prepared to fight for Trump and all that he stands for or against him?>> 21: I have never ever given blind allegiance to any politician. I will stand to preserve civilisation in the face of misanthropy, which is exactly why I am doing so now. >>There is a Trump party ruled by members his family and those trusted as loyal minions and stooges and the rest who make up a personality cult around him and believe that whatever Trump says goes. It is an abject betrayal of everything the Founding Fathers sought to create.>> 22: Projection, kindly look soberly in the mirror. >>Trump is a dictator-in-waiting. >> 23: Accusation based on demonisation rather than any significant sound evidence. >>His base would almost certainly support his ambition to be President-for-life. Would you?>> 24: Further projection of nazism made up out of whole cloth, utter folly given that the base you so slander have long looked at successors once terms are up under the US Constitution. 25: I am not nor do I desire to be a US citizen. You know or should readily know that I am a convinced supporter of constitutional democratic self government as one of the greatest achievements of civilisation. >>the two founders are self-proclaimed Marxists but I doubt that the great majority of the protesters are. >> 26: The framework, fabric and animating pseudoscience are marxist and are exploiting the sufferings of my people to advance a civilisation-wrecking agenda. I know all too well who would pay the harshest price of both "success" and failure, my people. 27: That you choose to continue shutting your eyes to the clear signature of Red Guard brigades at work is your problem, not mine. Duly noted. 28: Also duly noted, you double down on blatantly false accusation despite protest and substantiated correction:

[Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]. –> Let me add the rest of his comment to Vivid: >>And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.>>

Duly noted. KF kairosfocus

I just learned about this incident a few minutes ago. Jessica Whitaker is the example of someone who was silenced permanently for just daring to say that “All lives matter.” “Jessica Whitaker was murdered in Indianapolis, Indiana after a standoff between two armed groups, one a group wearing Black Lives Matter shirts, and the other defending her. They were defending her after she told the Black Lives Matter group that "All Lives Matter". The two groups apparently worked out the disagreement, only to have Jessica shot and killed after walking away. The investigation continues to verify these events, or find the Truth.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hSj9yRDMJs Why didn’t I find any coverage of this incident from the MSM? Why does it take a group of young blacks who don’t agree with BLM to report this news? And why isn’t the MSM media telling us anything about blacks who don’t support BLM? Where is the bias and bigotry again? john_a_designer

Materialism (or how to pose a defeater to your own lunatic, un-scientific and enemy of knowledge worldview). Truthfreedom

I wasn’t talking about the organization, Black Lives Matter (cf. 290). I was talking about the idea that black lives matter. I can’t rationally disagree with the rhetorical claim that black lives matter. I don’t see how anyone living in a just, open and free democratic type society could disagree with that. That is because in that kind of society( in which I happen to live) all lives matter. If they don’t then you don’t really have a just, open and free democratic society. As the U.S. Declaration of Independence states unambiguously: “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.” So it is self-evidently true that “black lives matter because all lives matter.” However. That is not what the organization Black Lives Matter is all about. According to a very prescient study done back is 2016,

Black Lives Matter presents an alternative view of the American story, rooted in Marxism and one that thrives on encouraging division. Many have criticized its avoidance of facts about bias in policing — facts that would directly counter the Black Lives Matter narrative. Nevertheless, it has captured the nation’s attention through its use of social-media and cameras but also by recruiting the young Americans who will ? ll the streets with their presence and engage the public’s interest with their fervor. If Black Lives Matter succeeds, it will have reengineered the minds of America to view our system, our history, and our future, through the lens of division and hate. In its dishonest weakening of public trust in the police of?cer, the representative of law and order and equality before the law, Black Lives Matter weakens the very foundations of our country. To counter this advance, marketers of freedom must understand why they are losing mindshare to the left’s Black Lives Matter ideology if they are to effectively counter their messages and rebuild demand for our principles.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/black-lives-matters-a-thing-of-the-left-anchored-on-a-cop-hate-strategy/ In other words, Black Lives Matter is using some very deceptive rhetoric to undermine a society and culture founded on the principle that all lives matter. Already there have been people shouted down, cancelled and permanently silenced by BLM supporters for simply standing up and saying “all lives matter.” See the following. It’s very commentary from someplace down under (not Hell, Australia) about what is going on in the U.S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSwVt1tZces Whoever this guy is, he is spot on. john_a_designer

287 DaveS

Could you elaborate? I don’t know what post #285 is supposed to convey.

Well, after being shown philosophical proof of the irretrievable epistemical failure of materialism, the materialist, being the intellectual dishonest creature he is, tries to salvage his dead materialist beast with what I call "the map" gimmick (meat-robot Seversky and his beloved Novella are two excellent examples). What is "the map" gimmick? - Well, once he understands that the combination materialism + science leads to collapse into subjective idealism, (we are forever trapped inside our skulls without any possibility of escaping it), he uses the mind he negates he has and tries the following tactic:

One naturalist defense is the distinction made between map and territory, between belief and reality – a distinction proposed by Alfred Korzybski, who insists that “the map is not the territory” in a book that claims to introduce “non-Aristotelian systems.”1  Unfortunately for naturalism, the “map,” in this case, is its own invention, since the causal chain from external object to occipital lobe is a product of scientific materialism. Naturalisms' Epistemological Nightmare

At this point, the naturalist can only be considered either a pitiable fool or a liar that knows he has been exposed but relies on societal approval to keep the boat afloat some more time. Truthfreedom

JAD, I would not even give them their phrasing. Life is the first right, without which there are no rights. Instantly, that points to the ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb, the worst in human history. If an interlocutor will not recognise this, further discussion is futile, s/he is playing at logic with a swivel games. Thinking straight is the first step to sorting out this mess and I refuse to play at rhetoric games like the gostak distims the doshes. KF kairosfocus

False. Two reasons- 1) Black Lives Matter because black people get pulled over by the police for driving while black. Laws had to be made to mandate that black people be treated equally. 2) All lives don't matter. ET

True or false? Black lives matter because all lives matter. john_a_designer

F/N: Observations of on the ground operations in "protests." Put this with swarm-lynch mob tactics, hit teams and more. Ask yourself what went into what we see, for how long and why some folks are spending money and social capital like that right now. KF kairosfocus

It is where all this mess caused by the stupid materialist worldview begins. We have a man named Dr. Egnor. He lives in the past, and one day he decides to open a human skull to see what is inside. FIRST TIME EVER. VERY IMPORTANT. Can you imagine it? Truthfreedom

Could you elaborate? I don't know what post #285 is supposed to convey. daveS

I dislike false worldviews, of course. Once you get the argument, you will understand. :) We are not "bags of chemicals" (that is ONLY a part of us). Truthfreedom

DaveS, sorry, but you do not even begin to grasp what all this is about. Imagine the FIRST person who opened a human skull. This person opened a human skull and saw a brain inside. Fine? Truthfreedom

TF, I'm starting to get the idea that you don't like materialism. :P daveS

Materialism's epistemological blunder is the final nail in its coffin. Philosophical materialism is a belief , NOT A FACT BACKED UP BY SCIENCE. IF materialism were true, logic dictates that science (double access to the external world so we can cross-check the information being feed to us by OUR brains (=/= than we BEING our brains) would be impossible. The fact that we KNOW that science exists and offers results INVALIDATES the materialist thesis. Truthfreedom

TF, Is there scientific evidence demonstrating that apprehending sphericity (at the human level) requires something beyond the brain? I would guess that workers in computer vision have researched the problem of detecting spheres/balls. It would be useful to have software that could track a tennis ball or basketball, for example. daveS

Materialism, being a false, corrupt philosophy, hinders human progress. Human consciousness is not WHOLLY material. The brain is part of the process, BUT not the process. Materialism shall be discarded. A false worldview is leading us astray. Truthfreedom

Republicans have too much class to riot and loot. We are the business owners. So, yes, my comment was fully tongue-in-cheek. Should have added a smiley face to it. ET

ET, I take the above as satire, or else it would be snipped. For those looking for cheap shot rhetorical turnabouts it is blatant that the vast majority of Republican voters would not resort to nor remotely enable such. KF kairosfocus

DaveS The baby's brain apprehends the concrete ball (object), but his brain does not apprehend the concept of "sphericity" (universal) (until later stages). The latter faculty is only possible using the intellect (intimately associated with the brain BUT not ONLY the brain). Truthfreedom

If Biden wins all republicans should become rioters and looters. Force the closure of all businesses and blame the democrats for what we did. See how they like it. :razz: (this comment was in jest) ET

Materialism is a corrupted, failed philosophy from a superstitious era. It is a false worldview. Materialism can no longer use "science" as its validator/ walking stick. Materialism's epistemological blunder is irretrievable. Truthfreedom

Here is something I wrote back in 2017, a few months after the last election, which is still relevant today.

I think fascist is sometimes gets used too loosely to mean any kind of politically inspired street thuggery, bullying or repression of free speech etc.– but these thing are just as typical on the far left as they are on the far right. However, I still do think nationalism is important in distinguishing fascism from Marxist communism. The Marxism that is presently entrenched on U.S. university campuses is a cultural form of Marxism that comes to us via the Frankfurt school which expanded Marxist ideology from the oppressed working class to other oppressed classes– blacks, women, gays etc. (Thus the mantra: race, class, gender.) Ironically, as the last Presidential election demonstrated, at least in the U.S., the left and far left have pretty much written off the working class. For sure, American workers still want economic justice but I don’t think they see Marxism as the solution. Why? Because they want to own property and live comfortable lives. Historical economic Marxism is just too extreme.

https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/free-speech/you-fascist-really-what-is-a-true-fascist/#comment-625353 What are the roots of Race Critical Theory (RCT) and BLM? They’re clearly Marxist. The particular brand of cultural Marxism which is espoused by RCT and BLM divides the human race into two classes: (1)The Privileged (oppressors). (2)The Oppressed. Whites are in the privileged class. Blacks are in the oppressed class. In other words, if you are you are racist. That’s the fundamental premise of Black Lives Matter. john_a_designer

TF, Let me use an example of a very young child crawling on the floor near a ball. Are you saying that the child, when seeing the ball for the first time, would have no way of associating the corresponding brain changes with a spherical object nearby? So the child is indeed receiving stimulus from the outside world through xir senses, but it would just be "random noise" to the child. The child's brain could not assemble it into a coherent picture of the world. daveS

We are not ONLY our brains. So murdering babies in the womb because their brains (where according to materialism is where personhood resides) "are not mature enough" is a monstrosity. We are murdering humans (not "blobs" of cells). Truthfreedom

DS, if Biden wins, I will be surprised by that. However, that would just mean capture of the power centres by the radicals who will predictably ramp up their misanthropic behaviour. The resulting sharply escalated conflict will resolve itself in the time window in hand. KF kairosfocus

PS: Note, esp. from Lindh et al:

In broad terms, fourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between "civilian" and "military" may disappear. Actions will occur concurrently throughout all participants' depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a physical, entity.

Picking up the conceptual leap and paradigm shift involved, to begin to see and make sense of what is going on? As in, a key to victory is breaking the other side's OODA loop. If we do not see and orient accurately in good time and decide and act soundly and decisively, our civilisation will go over the cliff. Notice, the operations already in progress target the centre of gravity of our civilisation. kairosfocus

267 DaveS You are not understanding the argument.

I’m suggesting this dependence provides a pathway for information about the object to reach our brain.

How can you "know" you "have a brain"? If materialism is true, a brain never can escape its skull. It is been feeding a ONE way flux of incoming information. "Checking" information of X means you have Version A (of X) Version B (of X) Only then can you compare how much they overlap. Under materialism = only version A. Forever. And ever. :) Truthfreedom

KF, I'll be curious to see whether you revise your views if Biden wins. daveS

F/N: Start-point to think about 4GW, note too from Wikipedia: >>Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians.The term was first used in 1980 [--> just when my homeland was going through an ultimately failed 4GW insurgency connected to an Election, with several external interventions tied to de facto WW3, the Cold War] by a team of United States analysts, including paleoconservative William S. Lind, to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states' loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times. The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor. [--> which obviously includes state faction sponsored Red Guards brigades, agit prop, street chaos, media trumpeting of narratives, lawfare and the variable levels of kinetic engagements]>>. KF kairosfocus

TF, I'm suggesting this dependence provides a pathway for information about the object to reach our brain. The brain changes correlate with properties of the object. So indirectly, I do obtain information about the object. Let's say my wife attends a performance of a community play. Maybe I can't go, so she streams the play to me using her phone. My wife sees the actual play in person, but I only see a sequence of pixel arrays on my phone. Nevertheless, I will be able to describe features of the play at the conclusion---the plot outline, the protagonist, etc. In the end, I could truthfully say that I saw the play. Do you watch sports on television? daveS

And it is even worse: We can not even know that we have a "head" and a "brain". Materialism literally destroys all knowledge gained by our science, which is the result of us using our senses to apprehend the external world. Truthfreedom

DaveS

It isn’t it true that in your vision illustration, the changes inside the brain depend the properties of the object being viewed?

That's the PROBLEM, DaveS. We can not know it, because if "we" ="only brains", then we can NEVER escape our skull. Under materialism, it is a forever locked prison. That's the gist of the argument that kills materialism once and for all. :) Truthfreedom

DS, in a highly polarised climate with obvious pressure to avoid appearing to be a deplorable, polls are unreliable as was seen four years past. Further, the precise point is that there are about sixty days to go, there have been no presidential debates as of yet, the first September smear has visibly flopped and the kinetics of the 4GW are rapidly accelerating, while the US Economy is clearly accelerating despite efforts to keep it in lockdown. The hit on the streets of Portland -- cf. F/N2 to OP -- is revelatory, for those willing to wake up and smell the gunpowder. Particularly note, the sophisticated ambush. For some reason, Mr Danielson was a high value target . . . and was fatally naive about his status. KF kairosfocus

September 29th- First Presidential debate. On September 30th Joe Biden should be toast. :cool: ET

TF, Isn't it true that in your vision illustration, the changes inside the brain could depend the properties of the object being viewed? So different messages on the printed pages could result in different changes in the brain? Note: I'm guessing at how a materialist would respond to your argument. I don't know the first thing about these putative changes in the brain. daveS

seversky: ?

I believe that human society progresses not by limiting itself to the “truths” embodied in its various religious texts but by the simple admission of “I don’t know”.

Then you should be writing to all schools telling them to teach "we don't know" instead of pushing the unscientific evolutionism on unsuspecting kids. Or are you a proud hypocrite? ET

F/N: While we give time for Sev et al to respond to what is already on the table from Vivid etc, kindly note F/N2 above to OP on the anatomy of a Red Guard Brigadista hit a week ago, with what it points to. Do, tell us, have the major media been pulling in talking heads and analysing what say the above photo and associated vids show? Ask yourself why/why not and where that points, given principles and patterns of 4G war. KF kairosfocus

___ (Continuing from my posts: #210, #236) The Argument According to natural sciences' description of vision, the final stage of the visual process is: 4) changes in the occipital lobe deep inside the brain.

And now: The immanent logic of "scientific" materialism/ physicalism forces the logical conclusion: that what we actually know by empirical verification is: - NOT the external world at all, but - some sort of *presumed image or neural representation* of it inside our heads. (AND HERE IS WHERE MATERIALISM/ PHYSICALISM COLLAPSES.) R.I.P.

Physicalist P.O.V: Occipital lobe (head) |External World (Forever trapped here) |(Inaccesible)

Materialism+ science = epistemological idealism (which contradicts its starting point: "there is an external world that we can know").

How can the materialist escape this epistemological nightmare?. He can NOT, because any appeal to science to rescue him is just a vain attempt at using his senses to gain information from an external world that ends always inside his head. An endless cycle of vicious regress. Materialism's death sentence:

- The thesis: everything that exists is material (no "minds") invalidates knowledge. - Materialism is the enemy of knowledge. - Materialism is a failed philosophy: it invalidates its own epistemical tool (its beloved science).

*** And now, the "map" gimmick. Truthfreedom

KF, Do you think Trump would win if the election were held today? It looks to me like Biden would win decisively. I expect some tightening, but no dramatic shift. daveS

F/N: a former intel analyst's analysis of US election trends https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intelligence-analyst-predicts-trump-victory-2020-ron-aledo/?trackingId=grC1NLNqa9kj4THe86eSRA%3D%3D -- as backdrop. You tell us what is likely to drastically reverse over the next two months. Next, blend in the late mailed in "votes" switcheroo being projected https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/09/the-red-mirage-theory-provides-the-justification-for-democrat-mischief-post-election-day/ multiplied by the sort of agit prop hostility and bigotry leading to rising violence from Red Guard Brigadistas and their attack swarms . . . let's use the correct, Cuban Spanish term . . . and consider where that leads over the next four to sixteen months now, given 4G war dynamics. Then, kindly scroll up to the OP and glance at my 2016 geostrategic situation summary, asking what consequences may flow from the current utter irresponsibility of far too many influencers in the USA. One thing is for sure, the Overton Window of political plausibility and associated circumstances c Dec 2021 will look a lot different from now. Get strapped in for a major political storm and wild -- sadly, likely, bloody -- ride. KF kairosfocus

BR, precedent has been built into law since forever, indeed in Exodus 18 (which set up a system of judgements), the lower judges were to follow Moses' rulings. What is new is arrogation of law-making power through suppression of the validity of the built in moral law of justice. KF kairosfocus

Vivid, thanks for points, do note [SNIP] on language. KF kairosfocus

Sev You do indeed live in a make believe world where up is down and down is up. We can call it Sevs fact free world. “ It’s very simple. When I watch Trump’s rallies I see uncomfortable echoes of the Nazi rallies” Yet in fact the Nazi behavior is being exhibited by Trumps opposition . I don’t recall the abhorrent behavior perpetrated on Trumpers going to their hotels or cars after the RNC Convention being done by Trumpers to the Dems after their convention. It is not the Trumpers that are going into restaurants or movie theaters to harass Democrat officials. I have not heard from Trumpers call for what Maxine Waters called for which was to incited people to accost Republicans wherever they’re might be. No Trumpers have tried to take out 17 members of the Democrat leadership on a baseball field. The modern day Nazi brown shirts with their own Hitler salute that they force people to do(Antifa BLM) are not Trumpers. The facts are clear the Nazis are here and they are not the Trump supporters. “The way he whips up anger amongst the crowd and then directs it towards the press. He hasn’t done so yet but is there any doubt that, if he asked them, those crowds would happily burn books or newspapers or anything else he pointed them towards.” Correct he hasn’t done so yet but there is no yet from your side, this is exactly what your side is doing now. “I will be much happier but, much more importantly, the faith will be much truer to its core principles when it speaks out in forthright condemnation of a man who is both immoral and amoral by its standards” You are in no position to lecture anyone about moral standards when you support policies that allow for killing an unborn baby literally within days of its birth and if the baby survives kill it anyway. Spare me you moral outrage. “I remind you that extreme white right-wing groups have been responsible for more terrorist acts in the domestic US than the left or radical Islamic groups.” Earth to Sev terrorists groups have been terrorizing Seattle and Portland for about 100 straight days! You are so unattached to reality it boggles the mind. “I believe there is no longer a Republican Party in the traditional sense. There is a Trump party ruled by members his family and those trusted as loyal minions and stooges “ Like the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas? Sheesh ? “His base would almost certainly support his ambition to be President-for-life. Would you?” No his base would not support that since that would be unconstitutional. You really don’t have a clue do you.?You just make [SNIP] up. He would lose his base I can guarantee that and you would know that if you could ever get rid of your TDS.and get out of your fact free world and abandon the media stereotypes of Trump supporters. “But these are minor points compared to the political crisis we are facing in the US which I fear could get a lot worse if this President remains in power” The election is going to be a [SNIP] show. It will not be decided on election night, we may not know for months after all Hilary Clinton has told Biden under no circumstances do not concede if he is on the losing end. You are correct if Trump gets elected there will be violence because that’s in the DNA of leftists ideologs. If it is a fair election and Biden wins the vast majority of Trump supporters will accept the results and will not commit violence, the same cannot be said for the other side. Hell Stacey Abrams thinks she is the Governor of Georgia. The left will never accept Trump as a legitimate duly elected President. So your right if Trump is re-elected we haven't seen anything yet from your Nazi goons, it’s going to get really ugly. Vivid vividbleau

kairosfocus @ 250 Precedence did exist, but wasn't taught in law schools. Teaching precedence ensured more judges could manipulate the law as they saw fit and shift the blame elsewhere. The result should have been to move towards an Amendment to the Constitution requiring federal judges to rule on the wording of the law and original intent. As is often the case, what should have happened and what did happen are two very different things. BobRyan

Seversky, I see yet another round trying to defend the utterly indefensible in 83 above:

[Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]. –> Let me add the rest of his comment to Vivid: >>And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.>>

I suggest to you that you would have been better advised to walk back and apologise for such bigotry and projection. Instead, you have first tried evasions, turnabout projections and distractions, amounting to doubling down. That speaks volumes and not in your favour. Later, I will see if I should take time to further respond on points, bed calls. (Likely, I will respond to excerpts.) For now, you have unfortunately made yourself a poster child for the sort of toxic agit prop and indoctrination that have been at work, needlessly feeding into the rising kinetic spiral of 4G civil war. Where, the latest news on Red Guards brigades is they are trying to block interstate highways and have been photographed on roofs next to upstairs windows, in a context where assassination teams have gunned down at least one person on the streets, on a flimsy fig leaf of claimed self defence. Their own video contradicts the claim. (Likely, this was a "retaliation" for a much more plausible case of self defence where another swarm pursuing an armed youth who had been guarding looting targets and put out a fire set by rioters took serious casualties, the last being a gun arm hit just before lining up the youth's head for fatal shots.) The juggernaut is sharply accelerating out of control. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Memo issued to reudiate critical race theory mainstreaming by HR in US Fed Govt https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf KF PS: Those making the accusations in 83 etc, should note the closing paragraph of the memo (to be followed by more detailed regulations from OMB):

The President, and his Administration, are fully committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals in the United States. The President has a proven track record of standing for those whose voice has long been ignored and who have failed to benefit from all our country has to offer, and he intends to continue to support all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed. The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.

kairosfocus

BR, actually, the Common law in key part grew out of cumulative precedents, but because of law of nature and biblical influences, was restrained. The key breakdown was the rise of legal positivism which is about 100 - 150 years ago, and it was of course influenced further by darwinist thought. The result was to destroy the restraints and allow cumulative steps of distortion with the premise that institutions, groups and individuals with enough clout made law by direct decree or rulings etc. Where law was redefined as product of such processes. Implication, might and manipulation make law, justice, right, rights, logic, warrant, knowledge, truth etc. Which is patent nihilism. KF kairosfocus

This is not something that just started within the last 2 to 3 generations, but goes back much further. They started to teach case precedence over the wording of the law a little over a century ago. That was the first strike that led us to where we are today. Case precedence has nothing to do with the law, but twists the wording into taking any meaning judges wish it to take. BobRyan

U/D: with attacks on restaurants already routine, Red Guards have now been climbing up unto people's homes. The degree of violence is steadily accelerating, and home invasions like this invite armed responses, which seem to be desired to trigger confrontations to feed the agit prop optics and stories. At this threshold, people are going to die in numbers. KF PS: When arrested for blocking highways, RG's complained they were allowed to block roads. Highway patrol reply, this is not Seattle. Then, a signature term drops. They refer to themselves as "brigade[s]," the precise term used in Cuba and extended to my homeland 40 years ago, albeit in Spanish. Cuban-influenced training and organisation? kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @ 215

1: Why then did you try to plaster with fronting, being in “an unsavory collection” — collected by what criteria, apart from constant allusions to Nazism and its implied racialist supremacism — and talk of how MAGA hats are just missing Nazi swastikas, with implication that red is a Nazi flag colour . . . which meant socialist BTW . . . so black swastika against white circle would recreate the Nazi flag?

It's very simple. When I watch Trump's rallies I see uncomfortable echoes of the Nazi rallies. The way he whips up anger amongst the crowd and then directs it towards the press. He hasn't done so yet but is there any doubt that, if he asked them, those crowds would happily burn books or newspapers or anything else he pointed them towards. And, yes, I do remember the Bible-burning incidents. I think we both agree that this is an alarming dangerous situation which Trump is trying to foment outrage and manipulate to his own political advantage.

3: For cause I find that seriously out of line to the point of being blood libel, with specific intent to taint with nazism.

Then you will understand how outrageous - and I mean outrageous - I find your attempts to discredit and delegitimize the BLM protests - in face of the massive evidence of persistent racism in US society which has animated them - by stereotyping them as "Red Guard" puppets of some ruthless and powerful Marxist conspiracy. And before anyone complains, I regard racism as a human problem. The seeds of it at least are in every one of us and all the 'races' have been guilty of it to some extent and at various times throughout history. Until we all accept that we are not going to overcome it.

4: You chose “nationalists” rather than patriots, and used a key qualifier, ALL.

I wrote that "I do not believe Christian nationalists are all neo-Nazis". And I don't. However, for me, the difference between a "patriot" and a "nationalist" is that the nationalist believes "my country, right or wrong" whereas the patriot does not bring shame on his country by doing or condoning wrong just because it was done by that country.

8: What you instead said is that the slogan and position of a main party garnering 60 million votes at its last outing serves as a FRONT for “an unsavory collection”; one that should be represented by a version of the Nazi flag . . . which pivots on a BROKEN cross, a classic sign of antichristian heresy. (And yes, that is an implied aspect of its symbolism, cf Hiene’s famous prophetic text of warning.)

I will be much happier but, much more importantly, the faith will be much truer to its core principles when it speaks out in forthright condemnation of a man who is both immoral and amoral by its standards rather than have some of its leading figures fawn over him and blaspheme about him being favored or even chosen by their God.

11: Clarification to include the left duly noted. That is, having been called on the matter, you latterly try for balancing.

It isn't simply a question of balance. Put very simply, if the need arose, would you be prepared to fight for Trump and all that he stands for or against him?

12: That noted, the implication of nazism clearly continues. In response I suggest to you that there is no credible objective evidence that any significant Republican faction is against the American republican framework of significantly democratic — We the people — character established 1776 – 1779.

I believe there is no longer a Republican Party in the traditional sense. There is a Trump party ruled by members his family and those trusted as loyal minions and stooges and the rest who make up a personality cult around him and believe that whatever Trump says goes. It is an abject betrayal of everything the Founding Fathers sought to create.

13: The shift from fronting language is telling. You cannot contend against what fronting means, so have retreated to a different position. Similarly, I find the insinuation of tacit endorsement of no merit, as Mr Trump is obviously a displaced democrat with quite “progressivist” views; hitherto widely celebrated in the media culture.

Trump is a dictator-in-waiting. As the head of private companies, not answerable to boards of directors or shareholders, that is what he has been for most of his working life. The only things that have restrained him as President so far are the constitutional checks and balances built into the US political structure. If he ever finds that those restraints can be bent or broken and brushed aside when those who should be upholding them give way to him then what is there to stop him? His base would almost certainly support his ambition to be President-for-life. Would you?

15: Neatly left out, that BLM is explicitly marxist by confession of its founders — who by implication are Alinsky School community organisers (i.e. literally, trained, ideological, marxist/communist agitators) — and platform, with an emphasis on the cultural form. Further left out, that it endorses an across the board radical marxist position and has specifically sought to use critical race theory to advance it.

Yes, the two founders are self-proclaimed Marxists but I doubt that the great majority of the protesters are. But even if they were, would Marxism have had any traction unless there was a deep reservoir of grievance for which society at large was providing no adequate redress? I remind you that the Revolutionary War of 1776 arose from just such a sense of unrecognized and unaddressed grievance. You would be foolish to make the same mistake as Lord North's administration.

16: Also neatly side stepped, the course of events this year and earlier which clearly show a Red Guards insurgency strategic pattern being pushed through operationally, where co-optation, subversion, front groups etc are a cluster of signature marxist tactics.

A one-sided picture that both exaggerates the threat from the left and completely ignores that posed by extreme right groups who have been restrained so far mainly by the belief that they have 'their guy' in the White House. I remind you that extreme white right-wing groups have been responsible for more terrorist acts in the domestic US than the left or radical Islamic groups.

19: Blood libel has long since been extended to other materially parallel case. This fits that extension, for cause.

Has it? What "materially parallel cases" are there?

22: Libel falls before truth and before responsible analysis. I have shown, with significant evidence, the character of the current Red Guards insurgency, which does exploit and manipulate pain, history, perceptions and need for genuine reform. But once thresholds such as rioting under colour of protest, mayhem and murder, attempts to demand defunding/abolition of police and linked courts — including racially based reversal of verdicts across the board — are crossed, we are dealing with misanthropic anticivilisational radicalism of a type well known since 1789.

And I would argue that all of the above constitutes a libel against the BLM protests which are a culmination of literally centuries of discrimination and oppression. You defame them by accusing them of being "anticivilizational" yet what they are protesting against is a civilization which has failed to uphold the very principles by which it could be judged to be civilized.

27: All of that is a side track from the central point: you went over the line, beyond the pale of civil discourse and have refused to acknowledge, apologise and walk back. Duly noted.

I have always tried to remain within the bounds of civil discourse and I believe that, for the most part, I have. I can assure you I could be a lot less civil if I chose. But these are minor points compared to the political crisis we are facing in the US which I fear could get a lot worse if this President remains in power. Seversky

Oh. And the "killing babies in the womb is ok" because "they are not humans until their brains are 3-5 months old" (the mistake of equating personhood with the brain), that monstrosity is over too. Humans are humans since the moment of conception. (With proof). Truthfreedom

DaveS @ 224

It is conceivable that physicalism in true. I have seen lectures by Robert Sapolsky that cover some of the same issues you raised and find them persuasive. For the moment, I identify as a very naive dualist however.

That's fine by me. I identify as a materialist/physicalist but I also recognize that there is so much that we don't yet know so it's silly getting into partisan fights over whose viewpoint is the most 'right' or 'true'. We've only recently learned of the existence of neutrinos or the size of the observable Universe or black holes or, most recently, gravitational waves. How much more is there still to be discovered that could change our whole picture of reality still more radically? I believe that human society progresses not by limiting itself to the "truths" embodied in its various religious texts but by the simple admission of "I don't know". Seversky

TF, I'm complaining because (apparently) you're misreading my posts. I don't know anything about how vision or the brain works, that is true. There's not much point in asking me about it, is there? Perhaps you're trying to refute the "standard materialist understanding of vision"? Anyway, please proceed. :-) daveS

DaveS You complained because I was debunking the physicalist P.O.V. and not yours and now you complain because I am focusing on yours. :) Truthfreedom

241 DaveS

I’m saying I don’t know how to explain it purely in terms of physics.

Because it can not be done. :) Materialism is a failed philosophy. According to natural sciences' dictum, the final step is number 4) (4) changes inside the brain (occipital lobe) And you can add nothing after this 4th step (you say you "don't know"). Truthfreedom

TF, I'm not making any suggestions about how the experience of vision is actually produced. I'm saying I don't know how to explain it purely in terms of physics. I stated that I think belief in God could be rational. The same is true of belief in souls. Edit: Here's an idea. Instead of focusing on my position, just say "this argument refutes the following position: ________." Then state the argument, and we all will hopefully learn something. daveS

And now the plot thickens. :) Truthfreedom

236 DaveS

I don’t claim that vision is a purely material process. As I said above, I don’t know how to explain the experience of seeing a printed page using only physics.

You mentioned some "abstract" ideas ("numbers" and "goodness"). Are you suggesting they are part of the chain of events I wrote? - and you said that "God is ok for others" (if miracles) but not "for you" personally and soul is a no-no. Truthfreedom

TF, I don't claim that vision is a purely material process. As I said above, I don't know how to explain the experience of seeing a printed page using only physics. You are reading my posts, aren't you? :-) I do agree with part of your post, in that my experience is not of the printed page itself. It's triggered somehow by the light reflecting off the page. Like how a bat senses objects indirectly via sound waves bouncing off the object. daveS

Seversky, I am coming for you and your "map" non-sense. Truthfreedom

233 DaveS Thank you. Now, let's examine your position (some parts are repeated for the sake of clarity). The Argument

Chain of Events DaveS wants to read the dictionary (#200) to gain knowledge, using his eyes (entry point of information). 1.Natural science tells us that light bounces off objects, passing through space, to enter the eye. 2.Photons striking the retina are then converted into nerve impulses which pass through the optic nerve into the occipital lobe of the brain deep inside the brain. 3. Occipital lobe of the brain: where visual experience takes place. *** The question is what exactly do we experience in vision: (1) the external object as it is at some distance from the eye, (2) the external object as it is presented to the end organ in the eye (retina), (3) changes in the end organ itself (retina), or (4) changes inside the brain (occipital lobe) which appear to terminate the visual sequence? *** Assuming that vision is a purely material process (DaveS' P.O.V.), this causal chain of events necessarily implies that what we know, in the last analysis, is: - NOT the external object, but rather - changes in the occipital lobe deep inside the brain

Truthfreedom

JVL, insofar as the common sense view includes the principle of distinct identity and close corollaries, non contradiction and excluded middle, yes. For, the physicalist/naturalist view of the world either collapses into self-refuting evolutionary materialism (mind = brain as computational, GIGO-limited substrate thus a dynamic-stochastic entity not free enough to be rational) or else it is forced to smuggle in elements of other worldviews it would dismiss. KF kairosfocus

TF, If you delete this part:

But other aspects of reality that may fall under the category abstracts are “pants-on-the-head-crazy”, namely “God” and “souls”.

(reread #209) the rest is ok. daveS

Truthfreedom: “Scientific” materialists/ physicalists propose certain epistemological and ontological claims, allegedly in the name of natural science, that conflict with man’s common sense experience of the world. Is this a problem? I'm thinking of things like the fact that the earth is rotating about its axis and revolving about the sun and the solar system is travelling around the galactic core none of which is obvious to common sense. Perhaps you should be more specific. JVL

One appetizer (while I await DaveS' and Seversky's replies): "Scientific" materialists/ physicalists propose certain epistemological and ontological claims, allegedly in the name of natural science, that conflict with man’s common sense experience of the world. This thread will show :

(1) that such claims are not based on sound natural science, but the assumed philosophy of materialism, (2) that the materialist/atomist worldview is fundamentally flawed, and (3) that "we" have a worldview that offers scientifically-compatible alternatives that align with reality.

Truthfreedom

223 Seversky From a physicalist P. O.V: Was "darwinian theory" (an abstract) inside Mr. Darwins' head (brain)? Yes/ No Truthfreedom

229 DaveS

I will add that I don’t/didn’t claim I am identical with my brain.

So, to clarify your position: -You believe that reality (existence) is comprised of:

A. "physical stuff": it can be located via spacetime coordinates and B. non-"physical stuff": not locatable via spacetime coordinates Examples of *B* would be "numbers" and "goodness" - which are abstracts. But other aspects of reality that may fall under the category abstracts are "pants-on-the-head-crazy", namely "God" and "souls". *Although you have not offered a reason for this discrimination regarding the abstract category.

*** And you know that a physical "brain" is part of "you", but there is "more that you can not explain". Then "DaveS" = "brain" (physical) + "something more" Am I right? So I can proceed with the argument. Truthfreedom

I will add that I don't/didn't claim I am identical with my brain. I do not know how to explain my experience of seeing a printed page solely in terms of my physical body. (Erm, there's a lot that I cannot explain). daveS

225 DaveS

Would it be possible to lay out this ‘argument’ in a single post, so as to accelerate the pace a little? Presumably it should end with a conclusion rather than a question.

It is an exceedingly complex issue. I will do my best to be succint , but this ain't a child's question. Yes, there is a conclusion. So please be patient. :) Truthfreedom

TF, Ok, let's say you have refuted physicalism. Do you have an argument against my position? daveS

223 DaveS

I don’t know, but that’s typical of animals with vision, no? Dogs, fish, and bees all can see but I doubt they have any idea how it all works.

Logic dictates that if you are something (X), then you have that something's characteristics. X = X If you are a brain, (and the brain "creates" consciousness), this means that: - you are matter and you are "conscious" of yourself (your own existence and characteristics) But: I have asked you (Mr. Brain) :) about your workings (your "seeing" processes) and you say "I (Mr. Brain) :) , do not know". Therefore: You =/= brain. (No identity). The physicalist thesis fails. *** Animals have imagination (they can form images). Humans have imagination (they can form images ) + intellect (they "understand" they are "seeing"). Truthfreedom

TF, Would it be possible to lay out this 'argument' in a single post, so as to accelerate the pace a little? Presumably it should end with a conclusion rather than a question. daveS

Seversky, It is conceivable that physicalism in true. I have seen lectures by Robert Sapolsky that cover some of the same issues you raised and find them persuasive. For the moment, I identify as a very naive dualist however. daveS

TF,

How can you do your work (“seeing”) without knowing how the process you are carrying out works?

I don't know, but that's typical of animals with vision, no? Dogs, fish, and bees all can see but I doubt they have any idea how it all works. daveS

Seversky, if all that is is physical, how then does a knowing we exist to warrant such a claim as accurately referring to reality? For, conceptual reference is not a physical phenomenon, neither matter nor field etc. In short you simply illustrate that there is no stable middle between tumbling to inherently non rational GIGO limited computational substrates, or smuggling in key ideas from theism or the like without acknowledgement. Which implies an untenable worldview trying to dress itself up in a lab coat. Noting on the incidental discussion, where of course evolutionary matertialistic scientism -- naturalism, so called -- has in it no capability to bridge not only the reference gap or the freedom required to be rational gap but the is-ought gap that is faced by morally governed creatures. No wonder then we find the cynical nihilism that is part and parcel of the rolling juggernaut issue. KF kairosfocus

Seversky, for reference I have provided a F/N to OP with condemnation several years ago, by Mr Trump, of neo-nazis etc. Quote: "they should be condemned totally." Where, despite much correction on record the false tainting accusation continues to be circulated, including in the past few days in the current election campaign. I point this out for record, without thereby generally endorsing the NY Contractor in Chief. I do recognise that sometimes a populist outsider is a useful corrective to the entrenched establishment, its self-selecting nomenklatura class interests and conventional wisdom. The obvious conclusion is that we are dealing with toxic disregard for truth and fairness, ruthlessly and recklessly proceeding with tainting to gain an advantage from sowing division, polarisation and hostility. That speaks volumes as to intent. KF kairosfocus

213 Seversky

The thesis (physicalism) is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis.

ATTENTION EVERYONE Metaphysics =/= natural science. *** Materialism/ physicalism is NOT natural science. *** This is the THE POINT OF DISPUTE: you materialists equate your philosophy to natural science to make materialism/ physicalism look as "legit" (therefore the "true" worldview; "it offers tangible results, you know" being your mantra) so you can spread your atheist gospel without resistance. You have been doing this (illegitimately) for DECADES. But you have been betrayed by your own mistress "logic". And I am going to show it in this thread. :) Truthfreedom

213 Seversky

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical.

Physical meaning? 1. __________ Truthfreedom

211 DaveS

I don’t know, maybe none of the above? Perhaps a quale (if that’s the right term)? My actual experience is that of seeing a printed page.

But you = the brain that is doing the perceiving. So Mr. Brain :) , I ask: How can you do your work ("seeing") without knowing how the process you are carrying out works? Truthfreedom

F/N: It seems that the assassin from Portland has been killed in a police shootout involving reportedly dozens of shots. One can take no pleasure in violent death. Given signs of a team based assassination, it is hoped that a thorough investigation will be undertaken. KF kairosfocus

PS: Heine:

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 . . do not overlook the obvious], 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 [--> an irrational battle- and blood- lust]. … 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. [Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831]

kairosfocus

Seversky, I will comment on points: >>I do not think that the KKK, neo-Nazis or right-wing militias all share the same beliefs and political agendas.>> 1: Why then did you try to plaster with fronting, being in "an unsavory collection" -- collected by what criteria, apart from constant allusions to Nazism and its implied racialist supremacism -- and talk of how MAGA hats are just missing Nazi swastikas, with implication that red is a Nazi flag colour . . . which meant socialist BTW . . . so black swastika against white circle would recreate the Nazi flag? 2: Let me remind, again, of exactly what you said which I object to, as extended to take in your onward remarks:

[Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]. –> Let me add the rest of his comment to Vivid: >>And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.>>

3: For cause I find that seriously out of line to the point of being blood libel, with specific intent to taint with nazism. >> I do not believe Christian nationalists are all neo-Nazis, for example.>> 4: You chose "nationalists" rather than patriots, and used a key qualifier, ALL. 5: Given context, it is fair comment to note that the first term in the name of the Nazi party is "National[ist]" so in context the tainting intent is manifest. 6: In such a context, the distinction ALL becomes rhetorically artful, as a SINGLE exception breaks an All assertion. The implication is, that you imply or suggest the typical or a material proportion of are Nazis. Which is a gross slander to the point of being blood libel. 7: Had you said that some Christians are influenced by racism or totalitarianism and nietzschean superman political messianism, which are heresies, that would be a different matter. 8: What you instead said is that the slogan and position of a main party garnering 60 million votes at its last outing serves as a FRONT for "an unsavory collection"; one that should be represented by a version of the Nazi flag . . . which pivots on a BROKEN cross, a classic sign of antichristian heresy. (And yes, that is an implied aspect of its symbolism, cf Hiene's famous prophetic text of warning.) 9: Christian [--> by implication, White] NATIONALISTS are in the list, one framed by KKK, Neo-Nazis etc. Your implication is clear, as is the underlying bigotry. 10: While doubtless Christians have struggled with racism and the like, as I already pointed out in 122, the explicit Christian, scriptural teaching could not be clearer:

Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,3 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave7 nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

>>What I do believe is that such groups on the right – or the left – of the political spectrum pose a threat to democracy. That is because their views are exclusivist to varying degrees in that, if they were able, they would without compunction impose those views on the rest of us to the exclusion of all others. >> 11: Clarification to include the left duly noted. That is, having been called on the matter, you latterly try for balancing. 12: That noted, the implication of nazism clearly continues. In response I suggest to you that there is no credible objective evidence that any significant Republican faction is against the American republican framework of significantly democratic -- We the people -- character established 1776 - 1779. >>The MAGA movement is an umbrella for Trump supporters of all stripes under which these extreme right-wing groups have also found shelter.>> 13: The shift from fronting language is telling. You cannot contend against what fronting means, so have retreated to a different position. Similarly, I find the insinuation of tacit endorsement of no merit, as Mr Trump is obviously a displaced democrat with quite "progressivist" views; hitherto widely celebrated in the media culture. (And recall, I am here giving Jack his jacket.) >>you have persistently stigmatized and scapegoated the BLM protesters by continual references to their being Red Guard stooges manipulated by some vast Marxist conspiracy.>> 14: The turnabout attempt, you might want to reconsider on who were the most prominent advocates and practitioners of this tactic. As, it is a signature. 15: Neatly left out, that BLM is explicitly marxist by confession of its founders -- who by implication are Alinsky School community organisers (i.e. literally, trained, ideological, marxist/communist agitators) -- and platform, with an emphasis on the cultural form. Further left out, that it endorses an across the board radical marxist position and has specifically sought to use critical race theory to advance it. 16: Also neatly side stepped, the course of events this year and earlier which clearly show a Red Guards insurgency strategic pattern being pushed through operationally, where co-optation, subversion, front groups etc are a cluster of signature marxist tactics. 17: To go with this, the narratives being pushed on several key incidents are agit-prop narratives in the teeth of fairly well established objective facts. The police genocide narrative is obvious, only slightly less so is that if you disagree with them, question, object or resist rioting, attacks on cultural icons across the board etc, you are a nazi who has forfeited rights now up to and including that to life. 18: And, antifa is a similar pea from the same pod. >>The definition of “blood libel” I quoted before is the original and most common usage>> 19: Blood libel has long since been extended to other materially parallel case. This fits that extension, for cause. >>If you mean that my argument that extreme right-wing groups are accepted under the MAGA umbrella is so defamatory as to constitute a “blood libel”>> 20: That was not your argument, you are trying to reshape what you said to less unpalatable forms. You explicitly said: "Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection . . . " That and what follows is blood libel, and I explicitly pointed it out repeatedly above. >>I can, by the same reasoning, argue that your pejorative references to the BLM movement being no more than Red Guard stooges of a Marxist conspiracy is also a “blood libel”. It works both ways.>> 21: A further resort to turnabout projection, telling as it shows it is habitual. It invites the mirror principle inference that one projects from "the abundance of the heart." 22: Libel falls before truth and before responsible analysis. I have shown, with significant evidence, the character of the current Red Guards insurgency, which does exploit and manipulate pain, history, perceptions and need for genuine reform. But once thresholds such as rioting under colour of protest, mayhem and murder, attempts to demand defunding/abolition of police and linked courts -- including racially based reversal of verdicts across the board -- are crossed, we are dealing with misanthropic anticivilisational radicalism of a type well known since 1789. >>There is an explosive admixture of implacably hostile groups,>> 23: The operational signature of Marxist led Red Guard insurgency is clearly present and attempts to project elsewhere are immaterial to the clear, present danger that threatens to destabilise the electoral process and further accelerate 4G civil war. Which has been my fundamental warning for a considerable time, it is almost amusing that as -- regrettably -- what I warned of begins to unfold, that is studiously avoided, Wilson style. >>If those citizens come to believe that administrations have become so corrupted so that they no longer act in the best interests of all people, if they come to believe that the legislature has become little more than a rubber stamp for the President’s personal wishes, if they come to believe that the bench has been packed with partisan judges so that those of a different persuasion can no longer expect justice to be administered fairly and impartially for all, then that democracy will – and perhaps should – eventually fall.>> 24: largely, turnabout projection, especially with insertion of legislature rubber stamping the Presidency, which has simply not been the case. >>If a culture can be honest, however, not just about its great achievements but also about its past failures and present shortcomings then I would argue that, for from being weakened or undermined, it is made much stronger and placed on a much firmer footing by those acknowledgements.>> 25: That is very different from anticivilisational insurgencies and attempts to construct false critical theory narratives then impose by syllabus and by media. 1619 project, I call you by name. (And yes, I intend the parliamentary, disciplinary reference.) >> there are groups on both right and left who are trying to exploit these protests to further their various political agendas – sadly that was inevitable – but they do not in any way alter the fact that these protests are a culmination of longstanding and genuine grievances which, as a culture, we owe it to them to address.>> 26: when protests are subverted into being the sea for the Maoist fish who transmute them into riotous insurgency a la Red Guards etc, then the priority shifts to first restoring order. Ongoing reformation is the opposite of Red Guard, anticivilisational insurgency and its implied power broker backers. After all, operations require planning, logistics, capacity building and funding, typically extending over at least several years. 27: All of that is a side track from the central point: you went over the line, beyond the pale of civil discourse and have refused to acknowledge, apologise and walk back. Duly noted. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @ 177

[Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Nazis]

Do you see the key word, fronting and the utter want of responsible balance, coming mere days after someone was cold bloodedly murdered, mafia hit man style on the streets of Portland (there is no serious reason to even suggest self-defence)?

Let me be quite clear that I regard the above as a misrepresentation of my views. I do not think that the KKK, neo-Nazis or right-wing militias all share the same beliefs and political agendas. I do not believe Christian nationalists are all neo-Nazis, for example. What I do believe is that such groups on the right - or the left - of the political spectrum pose a threat to democracy. That is because their views are exclusivist to varying degrees in that, if they were able, they would without compunction impose those views on the rest of us to the exclusion of all others. The MAGA movement is an umbrella for Trump supporters of all stripes under which these extreme right-wing groups have also found shelter. This is because, by failing to repudiate them unambiguously, Trump has indicated tacitly that their support is not unwelcome. To that extent, MAGA is a front for those groups

A front group etc is short for false stalking horse front as maskirovka, i.e. the direct implication is that the advocates of the slogan are at best dupes used to provide cover for the following list, a list that makes several invidious associations that stigmatise and scapegoat.

Which is how you have persistently stigmatized and scapegoated the BLM protesters by continual references to their being Red Guard stooges manipulated by some vast Marxist conspiracy.

Such is clear blood libel (which does not just apply to events hundreds of years ago as was suggested in attempted red herrings).

The definition of "blood libel" I quoted before is the original and most common usage, I would argue. That does not prevent anyone using it to mean something different if they choose but, if they want that meaning to be understood as the one intended, then it would be helpful if that was made clear from the beginning. If you mean that my argument that extreme right-wing groups are accepted under the MAGA umbrella is so defamatory as to constitute a "blood libel" then I can, by the same reasoning, argue that your pejorative references to the BLM movement being no more than Red Guard stooges of a Marxist conspiracy is also a "blood libel". It works both ways.

The resort to red herring tactics indicates that those trying such stunts know their assertions are indefensible. Which, they are. Blood libel leads to blood, as was shown by the Portland hit on the weekend past.

There is no red herring. There is an explosive admixture of implacably hostile groups, some of whom are hotheaded and armed, which means, as we have seen with the Portland and Kenosha shootings, that those guns are going to be fired sooner or later if nothing is done to defuse the situation. If you want to know where this can lead, I suggest you look up the Tulsa massacre of 1932. No one in their right mind wants something like that to happen again.

Notice the sort of accusations that are being made against our civilisation in general, and one of its greatest achievements, constitutional democratic self government of a key people with government seen as mandated to protect God-given, unalienable rights. it is not for nothing that the reply to the 2nd para of the US DoI is in effect to try to taint its authors and more broadly the emerging state they founded and framed.

A constitutional democracy, more than any other form of government, depends on the trust of its citizens for its ultimate survival. If those citizens come to believe that administrations have become so corrupted so that they no longer act in the best interests of all people, if they come to believe that the legislature has become little more than a rubber stamp for the President's personal wishes, if they come to believe that the bench has been packed with partisan judges so that those of a different persuasion can no longer expect justice to be administered fairly and impartially for all, then that democracy will - and perhaps should - eventually fall. If a culture can be honest, however, not just about its great achievements but also about its past failures and present shortcomings then I would argue that, for from being weakened or undermined, it is made much stronger and placed on a much firmer footing by those acknowledgements. We can recognize, for example, the noble aspirations of the Declaration of Independence while accepting that the personal behavior of some of those who drafted it fell short of those ideals. We can recognize the achievement of building a great continental power while not closing our eyes to the fact that it was done by dispossessing the original inhabitants by deception, fraud and violence that, on occasion, came close to genocide. We can recognize the development of the industries that made this country the foremost economic power in the world while recognizing that they were built on the exploited labor of the poor Chinese or Irish and that attempts by workers to organize for better pay and conditions were sometimes violently crushed by private gangs of thugs and even the National Guard. We can recognize the great service rendered to their country in World War II by Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and George Patton while also noting that between the wars, they led a detachment of infantry and tanks that violently dispersed a large number of World War I veterans who had camped in Washington to demand bonus payments they had been promised. Finally, we can recognize that this country fought a bloody civil war in order to put an end to slavery while also recognizing that even those sacrifices have not put an end to racial discrimination that persists to this day. Yes, there are groups on both right and left who are trying to exploit these protests to further their various political agendas - sadly that was inevitable - but they do not in any way alter the fact that these protests are a culmination of longstanding and genuine grievances which, as a culture, we owe it to them to address. Seversky

DaveS @ 185

Physicalism Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical

As to whether abstract entities such as religious beliefs or moral principles or numbers are physical, it is at least arguable that they only exist within the conscious mind that perceives them and the only conscious minds that we know of are closely correlated with physical brains. So closely correlated in fact that, when the physical brain is destroyed, the associated consciousness is lost for good. Since the brain is a physical entity occupying a specific location in space and time we can say that, to that extent, abstract entities are physical or at least supervene on the physical. Seversky

MMT, Please remember what you lent support to:

[Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]. --> Let me add the rest of his comment to Vivid: >>And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.>>

(And no, the just cited and annotated is patently not sarcastic or satirical commentary to be lightly set aside. I know, i know, the media narratives can make such seem almost conventional wisdom if one is immersed in a suitable bubble environment, but it is actually a classic of agit prop accusations, invidious associations and pivoting on deadly misrepresentations of reality. Blanket labelling dozens of millions of people as FRONTING nazism and several things closely associated therewith in context like that is hateful bigotry and should be walked back. The KKK was founded by and long associated with the Democrat Party of the US, witness a former Grand Kleagle. One can be a Christian and a patriot of the US without being a Nazi or Christofascist, insofar as such has any legitimate meaning. Nazism, more correctly is a left wing ideology insofar as the R/L political spectrum has any coherence, and more.) Sorry to have to be direct, but enabling blood libel is anything but civil or a matter of opinion. This is part of what is setting off things so potentially horrible that it is hard to put such in words. Recall, Seversky spoke in terms of FRONTING, with not the slightest modicum of nuance or recognition of legitimately different views, much less, corrective facts. Oh, again: things such as what the national socialist german worker's party ideology actually is, or the like. Some very serious rethinking is needed to drain out a lot of toxic polarisation that if left to itself, will predictably lead to blood. KF kairosfocus

TF, I don't know, maybe none of the above? Perhaps a quale (if that's the right term)? My actual experience is that of seeing a printed page. daveS

The Argument

You decided to inspect the dictionary (#200) using your eyes (entry point of information). 1.Natural science tells us that light bounces off objects, passing through space, to enter the eye. 2.Photons striking the retina are then converted into nerve impulses which pass through the optic nerve into the occipital lobe of the brain deep inside the brain. 3. Occipital lobe of the brain: where visual experience takes place. *** The question is what exactly do we experience in vision: (1) the external object as it is at some distance from the eye, (2) the external object as it is presented to the end organ in the eye (retina), (3) changes in the end organ itself (retina), or (4) changes inside the brain (occipital lobe) which appear to terminate the visual sequence?

Truthfreedom

TF,

So believing in “unlocated in spacetime numbers” is “rational” but believing in other “unlocated in spacetime things” is “pants-on-head crazy”.

No, just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I think it's crazy to believe in that thing. People have told me that they have witnessed miraculous events; I have doubts, but if these experiences are genuine, then their belief in God is rational, IMO. The rest of the post mostly does not reflect my views. It is correct that I don't think I came about through a process guided by a divine being. daveS

Mmm, my monkey brain missed the irony. So believing in "unlocated in spacetime numbers" is "rational" but believing in other "unlocated in spacetime things" is "pants-on-head crazy". Sounds a bit strange. And you "are" a brain, the product of an "evolutionary process" that is usually classified as a "botched-job" (not my words), that for "neurochemical reasons" believes that being "rational" (close to truth), is something "good" (we should 'aspire' to 'know truth' and not be misled by non-sense). Am I right in what I wrote? Truthfreedom

TF, No, I don't. daveS

KF

you are simply enabling blood libel. Unsurprising, on your track record at UD.

Well, I don't think that attitude is called for. I have always been civi to you, even when I disagree with you. As I do in this case. Sev used sarcasm, possibly more than necessary, to make a valid point. You can't argue the fact that there are some very unsavory characters who put on the MAGA hat and think that this justifies their hateful action. Just as there are other very unsavory characters who wear the BLM shirts to justify their hateful action. The vast majority of Trump supporters are friendly, generous, law-abiding people, as are the vast majority of BLM supporters. You can't discredit the views of a group of people because of the actions of a few. Mac McTavish

DaveS

Well, I don’t think it’s pants-on-head crazy to believe in such things. I do, anyway.

-Do you believe in "gods" and "souls"? Truthfreedom

Well, I don't think it's pants-on-head crazy to believe in such things. I do, anyway. Edit: I'll say "yes". daveS

198 DaveS Last one before proceeding with the argument:

An abstract entity is an entity that does not have spacetime coordinates. At least that’s how I understand the term.

So it is rational to believe in "things" that are not located in space-time. (Things that are part of reality/ existence but not bounded by the spacetime constraints). - God for example? Fits the bill. - A "soul" would be "possible"? Truthfreedom

DS, I think a far more likely explanation is polarised, toxic fog of war; as opposed to the binary alternatives you suggest; political arms races and polarisation have spiralled up and someone had the bright idea to start playing with culture form marxism. Which is contributing to the speeding up of the juggernaut. I don't like it but I smell trouble. KF kairosfocus

KF, I think your answer to my question would then be something like "not necessarily"; presumably you simply don't know Ms Obama's intentions well enough to answer "yes" or "no" confidently. TF, Yes, I believe my brain is physical. daveS

DaveS

I’ll refer to a dictionary if I need clarification.

I am not being snarky. Ok. Let's imagine you want to gain knowledge about something and read the dictionary. Although this part may seem pretty obvious, it is very important for the argument: -I assume you accept the findings of the natural sciences and you consider your brain "physical" (locatable by spacetime coordinates). Am I right? Truthfreedom

DS, let me give a key historical example. As Europe tumbled into the abyss in July to September 1914, almost every country saw itself as acting defensibly for itself or an ally or guaranteed buffer state. Including Germany; one reason why it spiralled so deeply out of control. Fog of war. At this point I believe many perceive the despised deplorables much in the terms Seversky used, and would see a defeat for their favoured party as catastrophic. Given the Red Guards already on the streets for months -- cf again the direct parallels pointed out -- and enabling behaviour of local officials, the exceeding danger is patent. It is that that I am speaking to, it does not at all need to be deliberate double speak to be dangerous. I mark the difference between making threats and acting in ways that are dangerously threatening, i.e. escalatory. KF kairosfocus

TF, I think I understand what "physical" means fairly well. I'll refer to a dictionary if I need clarification. An abstract entity is an entity that does not have spacetime coordinates. At least that's how I understand the term. daveS

168 DaveS So you do not understand the meaning of "physical"? You wrote

I am a dualist in the sense that I believe there are two kinds of entities, abstract ones and concrete ones.

"Abstract" meaning? Truthfreedom

KF, If my question cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no", I think that would mean that the statement "Michelle Obama was dog-whistling a threat [in the instance cited]" has no truth value. Or, if we unpack it a bit, the statement:

Michelle Obama intended to send a coded message to her followers. The message was that if Trump wins in November, then the left will retaliate, making things worse than they presently are.

has no truth value. daveS

DS, what I have implied is that the question is mal-formed. It cannot be simplistically answered. What is clear is the polarisation in such a situation will lead to dangerous projections that feed into the already accelerating kinetic aspect of the 4G war in progress. My view is, the aftermath of the election will be pivotal, and unfortunately is likely to be bloody as well as chaotic and economically destructive, possibly making shipwreck of the credibility of the US political system. Which can be disguised cf the early Roman Empire. On the scenario of a Trump election night win (with or without mail in vote chaos) many will have been led to believe a new Hitler has emerged as Chancellor, and current chaos would with high probability accelerate. Beyond a certain point, people are going to fight for their lives, homes, businesses and families regardless of narratives and some will reach the nothing left to lose level. The Red Guard rioting is approaching a threshold you don't want to cross. KF kairosfocus

I'll take that as "no" (or perhaps "no comment" on that specific question). daveS

DS, I think she is caught up in the polarisation of the moment and projects to the despised other, imagining that those she champions will be justifiably resisting nazis and enablers of nazis as well as those knowingly fronting for them. In short, the US is in material part now in a media distorted plato's cave world of dangerously destructive shadow shows. Some call it the fog of war. Meanwhile she is actually enabling a situation where the juggernaut is already rolling. I shake my head and remember what I have already seen play out. KF kairosfocus

DS, on physicalism, there is no stable mod point between, mind reduces to brain as GIGO limited inherently non-rational computational substrate and poof magic emergence which smuggles in elements of a contrary worldview . . . theism, pantheism or the like . . . to get around difficulties. On the first pole, self-referential incoherence emerges. On the second, physicalism is implicitly abandoned. KF kairosfocus

KF, So you think Michelle Obama was dog-whistling a threat then? daveS

MMT, you are simply enabling blood libel. Unsurprising, on your track record at UD. Notice, the utter want of balance, the direct implication of false front for Nazism in direct and veiled form and more:

[Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Christofascist Nazis]

I put it to you that you have tried to soften what was done after the fact, with no accountability for the blood libel. That tells us all we need to know. KF kairosfocus

A great comment from Scott Adams

How do you tell someone (or some group) that their strategy for a better life has never worked for any human, and will never work for them either?

Could certainly be applied to BLM and white supremacists. Aren't both of the left. I could never understand the use of "right" to describe anything in current politics. "Left," yes but not "right." jerry

DS, 'right wing + Militias" routinely means nazi or fascist in much of the discourse. Put it in company as given and with fronting, and you see my concern. As for things will get worse, ask yourself, who have been rioting, burning, looting, attacking cultural icons and proposing revolution in the streets for months now. In that context, which is of course downplayed or even dismissed by many major media houses hoping to dominate the narrative, the words you cited do take on sobering colour. Mix in things like election night vote count goes one way, thereafter highly questionable mail in balloting(as opposed to proper absentee voting with its checks and balances) will reverse the verdict and the like and some of the context becomes clear for my warning that over 6 - 18 months and counting down now, an in progress 4G civil war will reach strategic decision, and will wreak untold, incalculable havoc with serious geostrategic consequences. Looking on as a concerned neighbour, I can only plead that your troubles have global, potentially devastating implications. KF kairosfocus

KF

Do you see the key word, fronting and the utter want of responsible balance, coming mere days after someone was cold bloodedly murdered, mafia hit man style on the streets of Portland (there is no serious reason to even suggest self-defence)?

It is a fact that some of the groups that Sev mentioned use Trump's MAGA slogan and movement to justify their individual brands of hatred. You can't condemn all Trump supporters because of the actions of a few of his supporters. Just as you can't condemn all BLM supporters because of the actions of a small group that have latched onto that movement to justify their own unique brand of hatred. With respect, might I suggest that your reaction to Sev's comment has more to do with your particular worldview and the biases entailed than it does with the actual meaning and intent of his comment. Mac McTavish

If Biden wins things will get much worse than they are now. The guy is a career politician with no idea how to run a business, let alone a country. ET

Eh? I don't know much about physicalism, so there could be problems with your statements in #182 that I am unaware of. But I can't identify any at the moment. daveS

183 DaveS Your reply doesn't make any sense. You can not say you "do not have objections'' about something "you do not know'. Truthfreedom

TF, I don't have any objections at this point, but that could be due to my ignorance of physicalism. Edit: I know it sounds weasely, but I just want to be clear I'm not claiming to be making a competent defense of physicalism. daveS

DaveS, from your post #168 "Physicalist" P.O.V.

Working assumption: 1. Darwin’s brain was physical, and was located in spacetime. DaveS: no problems here. 2. Darwin’s theory was inside Darwin’s brain (at some point in time).  DaveS: I guess a physicalist could say something like this. Me: a "physicalist" has to say this. Physical Darwin -- physical head/skull -- physical brain (inside his head). Again: this means (for the "physicalist") that the "darwinian theory" was born (at some point in time), inside Darwin's brain (brain being located inside his head). Up to this point, any objection?

Truthfreedom

Somewhat related, regarding miscommunication between our two tribes---I read a post yesterday I believe, concerning this statement Michelle Obama made during the DNC:

If you think things cannot possibly get worse, trust me---they can, and they will, if we don’t make a change in this election...

I can't remember which thread it was in. The poster interpreted this statement as a threat of retaliation by the left if Trump wins the election. I understand it to mean that if Trump wins, he and his allies will make things worse. Who's right? I think I am. daveS

Yeah, but you're implying that by "right-wing militias" Seversky means Nazis. Which is not evident from the text. It seems like you are exaggerating a tad. daveS

DS, I am quoting Seversky, who put the assertion in a context:

[Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Nazis]

Notice, "fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”]." FRONTING, for AN UNSAVOURY COLLECTION. What is that list, "KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = (let me expand, Christofascist) Nazis]." Where, recall, the standard assertion of the radical left from Stalin on, is that the fascists are "right wing," and the "right wing" is fascist. That association, in the teeth of considerable evidence, is generally taken for granted by many likely most. (As a youngster in school that was standard. Learning what nazi really means gave me huge pause and further investigation led to a very different understanding.) KF kairosfocus

KF,

right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers]

This is perilously close to "blood libel" itself. Some of these militia members are probably Nazis, but I doubt it's a significant fraction. A lot of them are just boomers who like to run around in the woods with guns. daveS

MMT (ATTN Seversky & DS): This is the focus of my objection and calling out, for cause:

[Seversky, 83:] Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Nazis]

Do you see the key word, fronting and the utter want of responsible balance, coming mere days after someone was cold bloodedly murdered, mafia hit man style on the streets of Portland (there is no serious reason to even suggest self-defence)? A front group etc is short for false stalking horse front as maskirovka, i.e. the direct implication is that the advocates of the slogan are at best dupes used to provide cover for the following list, a list that makes several invidious associations that stigmatise and scapegoat. Such is clear blood libel (which does not just apply to events hundreds of years ago as was suggested in attempted red herrings). The resort to red herring tactics indicates that those trying such stunts know their assertions are indefensible. Which, they are. Blood libel leads to blood, as was shown by the Portland hit on the weekend past. I could go on to address the wider agit prop, deconstruct the civilisation tactics being used by culture form marxists, as can be shown in significant details. (Indeed, see my immediately following OP on so-called Critical Race Theory and a whistleblower at Sandia Labs; a context that instantly shows this is no marginal fringe, it is coming into a core US top secret facility through its HR department, so we can readily infer it is "everywhere." Note, the slides I annotated are in fact well substantiated.) A link suffices. The point is, that critical race theory so called directly asserts and implies that:

Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities. The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s. The launch of the CRT movement marked its separation from critical legal studies (CLS), an offshoot of critical theory that examined how the law and legal institutions function to perpetuate oppression and exploitation. [Enc Brit. Critical Theories/Studies are directly rooted in the Frankfurt School of Marxism (with others) and linked advocacy of revolution by long march through cultural institutions. Alinsky Community Organisers and Rules for Radicals are also connected.]

That is no marginal fringe argument, it is at the heart of say the 1619 project etc and is an attempt to deconstruct and delegitimise our civilisation and its main worldview, ethical and theological tradition. This theory's signature is also all over the various movements that are now operating red guards on the streets as already noted. If you don't understand what red Guards are and do, here, again is Wikipedia speaking against known ideological interest, forced to do so by massive and horrific evidence:

Red Guards (simplified Chinese: ???; traditional Chinese: ???; pinyin: Hóng Wèib?ng) was a mass student-led paramilitary social movement mobilized and guided by Chairman Mao Zedong in 1966 through 1967, during the first phase of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which he had instituted.[1] According to a Red Guard leader, the movement's aims were as follows: Chairman Mao has defined our future as an armed revolutionary youth organization.... So if Chairman Mao is our Red-Commander-in-Chief and we are his Red Guards, who can stop us? First we will make China Maoist from inside out and then we will help the working people of other countries make the world red...and then the whole universe.[2] Despite being met with resistance early on, the Red Guards received personal support from Mao, and the movement rapidly grew. The movement in Beijing culminated during the "Red August" of 1966, which later spread to other areas in mainland China.[3][4] Mao made use of the group as propaganda and to accomplish goals such as seizing power and destroying symbols of China's pre-communist past ("Four Olds"), including ancient artifacts and gravesites of notable Chinese figures. Moreover, the government was very permissive of the Red Guards, and even allowed the Red Guards to inflict bodily harm on people viewed as dissidents . . . . In August 1966, the 11th Plenum of the CPC Central Committee had ratified the 'Sixteen Articles', a document that stated the aims of the Cultural Revolution and the role students would be asked to play in the movement. After the 18 August rally, the Cultural Revolution Group directed the Red Guards to attack the 'Four Olds' of Chinese society (i.e., old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas). For the rest of the year, Red Guards marched across China in a campaign to eradicate the 'Four Olds'. Old books and art were destroyed, museums were ransacked, and streets were renamed with new revolutionary names, adorned with pictures and the sayings of Mao.[14] Many famous temples, shrines, and other heritage sites in Beijing were attacked.[15] [Of course, it also came to abuses of people and murder, with many being induced to suicide also. There are reports on how far it went in remote areas that shock the conscience beyond all bounds.]

If that does not instantly remind you of what has been happening for past months, I will simply say there is none so blind as s/he who refuses to see. I should note too that nazism and fascism were ideologies of the left, totalitarian statist, nietzschean superman political messianism pivoting on the narrative of rescue of a key aggrieved identity group by a political saviour beyond ordinary law and morality; actually being a consciously reworked form of marxist thought after the failure of the hoped for international proletarian revolution in the context of the great war, similar to today's culture form marxism and associated so called critical X-theories. (See link.) Notice the sort of accusations that are being made against our civilisation in general, and one of its greatest achievements, constitutional democratic self government of a key people with government seen as mandated to protect God-given, unalienable rights. it is not for nothing that the reply to the 2nd para of the US DoI is in effect to try to taint its authors and more broadly the emerging state they founded and framed. We have all rights of prudence to ask, what is being advocated by those who would overthrow the cultural buttresses of such democracy and use deconstructionist revisionism to try to taint and delegitimise it. The answer comes back, the sort of tyrannical ideologically driven oligarchy and mob rule that we see already being foreshadowed in the streets by today's red guards. In that context, as responsible thread owner I have more than justification to call blood libel and demand walking back of demonstrably deadly false accusation. KF kairosfocus

168 DaveS The "contradiction" you mention is due to the mix/ conflation of the 2 different P.O.V. Each one has to be argued separately. It's late. I will continue tomorrow. Truthfreedom

DS, blood libel leads to bloodshed. KF kairosfocus

KF, I just wasn't prepared for such a savage evisceration. daveS

DS, what conclusion do you expect, given what was done and the attempt to play rhetorical games when called on it? The defamation, the blood libel was meant. Duly noted. KF kairosfocus

Whoa. 😟 daveS

Sev, you tried a sidetrack, there is not just one blood libel out there and you know it; especially as specifics were given. Game over kiddo, you are now officially classified as a slanderous troll driven by utter, inexcusable bigotry. Credibility, nil. KF kairosfocus

TF, Are you an evo engaging in some very unsubtle trolling? Or perhaps playing around with GPT-3? :-) daveS

In a recent issue of National Review John McCormack notes that the 2020 Democratic National Convention quite surprisingly took a “muted approach to the issue of abortion.” This was a stark contrast with the 2012 and 2016 DNC’s which he describes as “pro-abortion extravaganzas.” He then goes on to discuss several reasons why he thinks 2020 was so different but it was the last reason he gives that I find is the most ironic.

Amid the pandemic that has taken 170,000 American lives, a major theme of the convention was the dignity and worth of every human life. Vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris spoke on Wednesday night about the Biden–Harris commitment to “a vision of our nation as a Beloved Community — where all are welcome, no matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we love. A country where we may not agree on every detail, but we are united by the fundamental belief that every human being is of infinite worth, deserving of compassion, dignity and respect.” Biden said in his acceptance speech that “as God’s children each of us have a purpose in our lives.” He spoke of the need for America to “finally live up to and make real the words written in the sacred documents that founded this nation that all men and women are created equal. Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/democratic-convention-downplays-abortion/ Well, maybe it’s not really ironic, rather maybe it’s more like it is downright hypocritical. Unfortunately for some reason hypocrites are never able to see their own hypocrisy. Indeed they love to self-righteously proclaim their “wokeness.” But don’t dare criticize them for virtue signalling. They’ll get offended and they have a right to not be offended. Most of the rest of us don’t have that right but they do-- well, at least they think the do. john_a_designer

TF, I'll begin with the last things you said:

Accepting “darwinian theory” = accepting dualism.

Whether this is true or not, of course I have already stated that I am a dualist in the sense that I believe there are two kinds of entities, abstract ones and concrete ones.

Answering your question: “ideas” are then not “located’ in brains.

If that's an acceptable answer, why did you ask the question again in #148? I already indicated that ideas are not located in brains in #142. **** Backing up to #151, here's your argument, where I've numbered your steps:

1. Darwin’s brain= physical = located in space-time. 2. “Darwinian theory” was inside Darwin’s head (“brain”). (He “discovered” it). 3. But the theory was “inside” and “outside” his brain at the same time (theories are abstract/ not physical). 4. Materialism + darwinian theory = incompatible. 5. Darwinian theory implies dualism.

I'll paraphrase/rewrite the first few steps and add a few comments:

1. Darwin's brain was physical, and was located in spacetime. No problems here 2. Darwin's theory was inside Darwin's brain (at some point in time). I guess a physicalist could say something like this. Presumably Darwin's theory could have also been in other people's brains, in books, and so forth after it was published as well. 3. Theories are nonphysical, so Darwin's theory could not have been in his brain. No one, physicalist or dualist, would say this, immediately after stating the opposite in #2.

If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to present an argument without a blatant contradiction in the first few lines. daveS

161 Kairosfocus

PS: Interesting how a worldviews issue emerges from a discussion on tumbling into deeper, even more destructive conflict.

It could not be any other way :) There's a Master Plan to everything. And it is NOT "grounded" in "matter". We Christians can offer a coherent (therefore TRUE) worldview. Materialism even undermines its flagship ship "science". Because matter can NOT ground knowledge, and NO knowledge = NO science (how curious that 'science' comes from the latin scire = know). We CAN NOT PRACTICE SCIENCE WITHOUT SOMETHING THAT GUARANTEES THE RELIABILTY OF OUR COGNITIVE FACULTIES. And matter undergoing "darwinian processes" can not. Therefore: Big 'G'. (Or can anyone offer a 'better' alternative?) Truthfreedom

The cat is now inside the bag. Big 'G' is allowed to return from exile. That "foot" has been kicking the "door" since forever. (Lewontin). Because it is his friggin' door. It is his friggin' creation. Truthfreedom

162 Kairosfocus

starting with self-government.

Everything stems from this. "Love thy neighbour as thyself". You can not love your neighbour if you hate yourself. And it is impossible to love yourself if you are degraded to the level of a useless monkey whose only redeeming value is being a good soil fertilizer. No matter what the atheist jihad says. Their worldview is OBJECTIVELY DEFICIENT, SELF-REFERENTIAL ABSURD and therefore, FALSE. Atheism CAN NOT bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, no matter how much they appeal to their stupid "goddess" "natural selection". Logic dixit. Truthfreedom

162 Kairosfocus

TF, I already pointed out how we can bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, which can only be in the root of reality on pain of ungrounded ought as Hume et al pointed out. What is being question-beggingly assumed (often implicitly) is that you cannot have IS-es that are inherently moral, when in fact that is precisely what we are by virtue of being significantly free . . . or else we cannot be rational.

If we are part of "nature" and "nature" is ''brutal", then it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to be anything but "brutal". "Mindless" "nature" can NOT give what "she" does not have (kindness, justice). If I were a BAV (brain.in.a.vat), I could not know that I am a brain in a vat. BAV means that you are "programmed" "to be cheated", not to understand your real "nature" (BAV). Knowing the concept BAV means that I know exactly the true nature of existence. Knowing there is "goodness" ("morals"), I know I am a part of "nature" but that THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING ELSE. Big 'G'. Truthfreedom

Vivid, the agit prop tactic of turnabout projection of accusations is notorious and invites using the mirror principle. It is those who betrayed the academy who led us into a worldviews and ideological morass, an utterly incoherent moral-cultural chaos. They hold institutional high ground, want to remake civilisation in their image (too often involving perversities starting with the holocaust of 800+ million of our living posterity in the womb), imagine that twisting things out of proper end is freedom rather than chaotic evil, pose Euthyphro and IS-OUGHT gap as though such discredit knowable moral law and duty, then appeal to the very first duties they deny to try to manipulate us to follow their lead in a march of folly. For all his many blatant faults, Mr Trump is an outsider and is brash enough to directly challenge the Emperor's nakedness. Their BATNAs are being challenged, and they fear loss of licence to do as they please with us as the Overton window threatens to shift back. They have likely never truly learned or absorbed the lessons of failure of Athenian democracy and Roman Republic, much less many other cases and do not understand why moral-cultural buttresses are vital to sustainability of democratic freedom under justice. So, we see Red Guards being sponsored, enabled, mobilised and presented as heroes against fascist tyranny, excusing rioting, burning, looting, mob swarmings and beatings, now murders. Now they are shocked to find support eroding and try to cast blame on handy targets. What is really needed is to expose culture form marxism and its follies, then return to sounder worldview frames. Frames, they have demonised and caricatured through one sided narratives substituted for sound history and news; truth they have despised, now it comes back with teeth. So, expect heightened conflict and chaos. As I keep saying, six to eighteen months, a bit less now. KF kairosfocus

TF, I already pointed out how we can bridge the IS-OUGHT gap, which can only be in the root of reality on pain of ungrounded ought as Hume et al pointed out. What is being question-beggingly assumed (often implicitly) is that you cannot have IS-es that are inherently moral, when in fact that is precisely what we are by virtue of being significantly free . . . or else we cannot be rational. Once we recognise freedom, we see choice and it is natural to recognise wise/unwise, true/false, warranted/ unwarranted, good/bad etc. In that context we see that the mechanical and statistical laws governing inanimate matter are one thing, the guidance of choice to the good is wholly another. Plato long ago noted that the en-souled is the self-moved, not merely reflexive due to memory and feedback. Genuine initiative requires power of choice, thence he argued to the roots of reality in the supremely good soul. And that is precisely the answer, we were made to achieve the good, but goods of mind and freedom are moral so morally governed. Which ties back into government of the community starting with self-government. We have undermined the worldviews foundation of sound government and are beginning to pay the price. KF kairosfocus

Jerry, the neuronal patterns, pulse repetition rates etc REPRESENT the abstracta, they don't embody such. Meaningful (not merely functional) communication with understanding is itself an abstract thing, involving many layers of relationships. It is in our MINDS, not primarily in our heads. KF PS: Interesting how a worldviews issue emerges from a discussion on tumbling into deeper, even more destructive conflict. kairosfocus

157 Vividbleau

Sev wants us all to live in the alternative universe he inhabits that is totally disconnected from realty.

Seversky is descending Mt. Sinai, overburdened with his tables. Only one carving appears there, and it reads as follows: Thou shall not derive an ought from an is. And now Seversky teaches us: Whence to derive our "oughts" then. Seversky, kindly, write it down. 1. __________ Truthfreedom

152 DaveS

If something is abstract, it can’t be inside one’s brain, can it?

Darwin (a "brain located in space-time") discovered "darwinian evolution" (something that "is not located in space-time"). (According to you, post #145). So Darwin was part of a dual reality. One "concrete" (his "physical brain") and one "abstract" (the "evolutive idea"). Accepting "darwinian theory" = accepting dualism. Answering your question: "ideas" are then not "located' in brains. Truthfreedom

152 DaveS

Edit: I don’t believe you have a sound argument here. Consider it from the point of view of someone who claims to be a physicalist.

A "physicalist" can not even coherently explain that "darwinian evolution" is "true". To a physicalist, "darwinian theory" is just another "neurophysiological state". But "neurophysiological states" are neither "true" nor "false". They are simply connections between neurons, difference potentials, rates of fire, and all the causal inputs and outputs. -A "neurophysiological state" is not a "truth" bearer. - How can a "difference potential" "know" if another "difference potential" is "true" or "false"??? Truth does not exist for the physicalist. Therefore, physicalism is incoherent. Truthfreedom

Evidently Sev wants us to believe that Trump is the one inciting violence https://mobile.twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1300290897922453504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1300290897922453504%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsamj-3930%2F2020%2F08%2F31%2Fmost-important-video-of-2020-every-time-a-democrat-blames-trump-for-the-violence-show-them-this-damning-video-of-themselves%2F That Trump will not accept election results when just the other day it was Nancy ( going to the hair salon, eating her 20$ a pint out of her 20,000 refrigerator) Pelosi, that told the politician Joe ( been in office 47 years, sponsor of the 1994 crime bill that disproportionately targeted minorities, eulogized a klansman, who did not want his children to be in a racial jungle) Biden ,not to accept the election results. Sev wants us all to live in the alternative universe.he inhabits that is totally disconnected from realty. Vivid vividbleau

Kairosfocus @ 122

I have already pointed to your blood libel:

According to Wikipedia, as Mac McTavish has already pointed out, "blood libel"

... is an antisemitic canard[3][4][5] which accuses Jews of murdering Christian children in order to use their blood as part of religious rituals.[1][2][6] Historically, these claims—alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration—have been a major theme of the persecution of Jews in Europe

As far as I'm aware, we have not been discussing this medieval "fake news" story

Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [–> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [–> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with “mostly peaceful protests”] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [–> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [–> = Nazis]

Apart from a very few token mild denunciations, the President of the United States is apparently quite comfortable with the support of these groups, which they appear to have interpreted not unnaturally as encouragement. He has also been dropping heavy hints about rejecting the outcome of the next election should he lose and wanting to be allowed to serve a third term. Where do you think that will end? Most recently, he has been making inflammatory accusations against the media which, given the volatility of some of his supporters, is both irresponsible and highly dangerous.

It is time to walk it back.

What exactly would you like me to walk back? Are you prepared to walk back your support for a man with alarmingly autocratic tendencies?

Otherwise, we have every right to hold you responsible for incitement in aftermath of the murder of a man just standing there in Portland and a lot more besides.

I have not incited anyone to violence but it is only going to get worse while we have a man who clearly sees inflaming the situation rather than trying to cool things down as a path to re-election. He is playing with fire but other people have paid and will pay with their lives.

FYI, the national socialist german worker’s party [= nazi party] meant the worker’s party and the socialist.

I am well aware that Nazi was the common abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. I think we are both aware of how the Nazis rose to power in part by exacerbating and exploiting the very real fear of the German people of social, political and economic instability and potential collapse. My parents and those of their generation had to fight in a second world war against the gangster regime of the Third Reich which followed the Nazis successful exploitation of those conditions. The real lesson to be learned is not that the Nazis were a peculiarly German phenomenon but that if it happened there it could happen anywhere, including the US. I don't think you want that any more than I do.

Fascism is statist, politically mesianistic, politics of a Nietzschean superman above law coming to rescue the aggrieved identity group in times of crisis through Roman style Dictatorship, using totalitarian statism, bringing existing institutions under ideological control through various arrangements backed up by the Gestapo or equivalent. As its history and core claims show, it is an ideology of the left, yet another revision to the marxist scheme.

It doesn't really matter whether the various "isms" are to the right or left of the political spectrum. When the checks and balances of a democratic society are swept aside the way is open for whoever is prepared to be the most ruthless and violent in their pursuit of power to seize absolute control of the state. That is the real danger here. Seversky

Umm, Mac, given the context it is obvious kf was talking about a "false and maliciously perpetrated accusation". Get out of the box, mac ET

KF

MMT, on a weekend where someone was just murdered for the capital crime of wearing a patriot prayer hat, such accusation loaded invidious associations are exposed as blood libel.

KF, you might want to rethink your over-the-top blusterings.

Blood Libel: an accusation that Jewish people used the blood of Christians in religious rituals, especially in the preparation of Passover bread, that was perpetrated throughout the Middle Ages and (sporadically) until the early 20th century.

Mac McTavish

If something is abstract, it can’t be inside one’s brain, can it?

I believe some have argued that neuron connections would explain this. They can create exquisite colored dreams which give the appearance of being real. Any abstract concept probably resides in some neuron connections just as memories do or made up things found in dreams and stories. The story doesn’t exist on a piece of paper or sound wave but in our heads after reading it or hearing it. jerry

TF, If something is abstract, it can't be inside one's brain, can it? Edit: I don't believe you have a sound argument here. Consider it from the point of view of someone who claims to be a physicalist. daveS

139 DaveS

I already said in #135 I don’t know the answer to that question, (where does the"darwinian theory/ abstract concept" reside) which I understand is vigorously debated by philosophers.

Darwin's brain= physical = located in space-time. "Darwinian theory" was inside Darwin's head ("brain"). (He "discovered" it). But the theory was "inside" and "outside" his brain at the same time (theories are abstract/ not physical). Materialism + darwinian theory = incompatible. Darwinian theory implies dualism. Truthfreedom

MMT, on a weekend where someone was just murdered for the capital crime of wearing a patriot prayer hat, such accusation loaded invidious associations are exposed as blood libel. They need to be walked back. KF kairosfocus

TF, I already said in #135 I don't know the answer to that question, which I understand is vigorously debated by philosophers. Where do you think abstract concepts are "located"? daveS

145 DaveS

If by “beyond space and time”, you simply mean “not located in spacetime”,

If something ("darwinian theory") is "not located in space and time"; Where is it? Truthfreedom

It has been decades of bullying, prosecuting and killing (by the MILLIONS) theists/ deists by atheists/ marxists. Ridiculed because "we believe in fairy-tales". Expelled from academia. Forced to accept "marriages" that do not exist and the also inexistent "right to kill your own defenseless children in the womb". Being denigrated and told we are "useless", nothing but "monkeys" and "bodily fluids"/ "neurochemicals". Because atheism is "cool" (although IRRATIONAL). You convert to it willingly or unwillingly. The atheist jihad. Truthfreedom

KF

It is time to walk it back. Otherwise, we have every right to hold you responsible for incitement in aftermath of the murder of a man just standing there in Portland and a lot more besides.

KF, I think you have missed Sev’s point. You can’t lump all MAGA hat wearers in with the white-supremacists, neo-Nazis, etc who wear MAGA hats. Any more than you can lump all BLM protesters in with those that loot and burn. Mac McTavish

If by "beyond space and time", you simply mean "not located in spacetime", yes. Like how Edwin Hubble discovered Hubble's Law. daveS

142 DaveS

Yes, the abstract concept “Darwinian evolution” has no spacetime coordinates.

Then Darwin discovered something that is "beyond space and time". Truthfreedom

140 Jerry

I believe BA77 just posted a long list of why atheism is deficient. And I agree but again it will sway very few. Beliefs are based more on emotions rather than evidence and logic.

They can choose not to believe in God. But they can no longer play the "we are the rational ones" and deists/ theists "the stupid ones". Because emotions =/= logic. Because as I always say, logic is a very demanding mistress . If you dismiss "her", she will bite you "in the rear end". Materialism has been betrayed by its own mistress. Logic dictates that materialism is A FALSE WORLDVIEW. We won. Truthfreedom

Yes, the abstract concept "Darwinian evolution" has no spacetime coordinates. daveS

139 DaveS

I’m not a materialist. I believe abstract things, which do not have a location in space or time, do exist.

"Darwinian evolution" is an abstract concept. So according to what you wrote, "darwinian evolution" "does not have a location in space or time''. Truthfreedom

I can’t be certain, of course

Thesis, an omniscient God would make sure there was no certainty. Why? If there were certainty one way or the other then life would be meaningless. I posted this concept a few years ago and Kf, proceeded to go through a long discussion of why there is a God. My response to his very good analysis is that it would sway no one or probably almost no one. I believe BA77 just posted a long list of why atheism is deficient. And I agree but again it will sway very few. Beliefs are based more on emotions rather than evidence and logic. Of course once you convince someone that atheism is nonsense that does not lead to any particular creator. Deism was once popular in the world and I assume there are still a fair number. There are still some pagans too. There are also believers in other types of gods besides the Judeo/Christian God, maybe even some Manichaeans. jerry

TF, I'm not a materialist. I believe abstract things, which do not have a location in space or time, do exist. As I said, I don't know exactly how they exist, but I believe they are just as real as concrete things. Edit: IOW, I believe both material things, e.g., rocks, and nonmaterial things, e.g., numbers, exist. Edit 2: If it helps move things along, I believe there most likely are no gods. I can't be certain, of course. daveS

135 DaveS

I believe the number 17 exists, but it’s not located anywhere. Is it?

If you are a materialist (are you?), you affirm that everything that exists is material (per definition). So you can not logically say that you believe in only material things WHILE at the same time, you also believe in no material things ("numbers''). Incoherence. If I say I am a "reddist" ("everything" is "red"). I can not say at the same time that "I am a blueist" (blue exists). Then I would be a "reddist"-"blueist". (A DUALIST). Reality would be to me "dual". Truthfreedom

I believe the number 17 exists, but it’s not located anywhere. Is it?

It's a relationship. Does a cousin, mother, teacher etc exist? Examples of them do just as examples of 17 exist but they are applied to physical entities and they become 17, cousins etc only in a relationship to another entity or entities. These abstract relationships are very useful for existing in the real world if just for communication clarity or as explanations of interactions between entities. jerry

131

Truthfreedom: But you are speaking of it. Meaning it “exists”. (To DavidS). RHolt : That doesn’t make any sense to me. ‘We’ can talk about unicorns, vampires, werewolves, orcs, hobbits, and Sauron and according to the logic you are trying to apply these things ‘must’ exist. I think we can speak of many things that don’t.

Materialism proposes that everything that exists is material, being coded by our "neurochemicals". If our "neurochemicals" code for "fairies", then "faires" HAVE TO EXIST (because "neurochemicals" are real). But WE KNOW that "fairies" do not exist (outside our heads/ imagination). Materialism contradicts itself. According to materialism, "fairies" ("neurochemicals") both exist and not-exist at the same time. Incoherence. Truthfreedom

TF,

But you are speaking of it. Meaning it “exists”. Meaning that it has to be located somewhere. Where?

I believe the number 17 exists, but it's not located anywhere. Is it? Anyway, I don't have an answer for how and "where" abstract entities exist. A while back I downloaded a lengthy reading list on that subject (compiled by Ted Sider) which I hope to chip away at in the years I have left, but I don't expect to come to a final answer. daveS

131 Mac Mc Tavish Ouch. Now please explain me why do I need "help". Have I done something "wrong"? (This only concerns atheists/ materialists. Theism is not incoherent: it offers an immutable foundation for morality- big 'G'). Now, Mac, answer the question. Truthfreedom

Mac- why are you a quote-mining loser? ET

TF

But you are speaking of it. Meaning it “exists”.

That doesn't make any sense to me. 'We' can talk about unicorns, vampires, werewolves, orcs, hobbits, and Sauron and according to the logic you are trying to apply these things 'must' exist. I think we can speak of many things that don't exist, e.g., alien technology found on Mars. TF

Meaning that it has to be located somewhere. Where?

So where do unicorns and hobbits exist if your premise is to be taken at face value as being true? TF

I can not, because I can not assume what you are thinking.

DaveS isn't asking you to assume you know what he is thinking. He is asking what you are thinking? RHolt

TF

I am in need of help.

I think this is something we can all agree on. Mac McTavish

129 DaveS

I don’t know that goodness resides anywhere.

But you are speaking of it. Meaning it "exists". Meaning that it has to be located somewhere. Where?

I assume this line of questions is leading somewhere? Perhaps you could fast-forward to the chase.

I can not, because I can not assume what you are thinking. I need to hear (read) it coming out of your mouth (typing fingers). It can't be done any other way. I am not "trolling" or being obtuse on purpose. It is a step-by-step process. Truthfreedom

TF,

Where does that “goodness” reside and how can you know it?

I don't know that goodness resides anywhere; it's an abstract thing as far as I can tell. I can tell my friend is good through his actions; in short, he makes the world a better place to live in (that's one definition of a "good person" which I believe virtually everyone would accept). My friend is a good person today because, over his lifetime, he has cultivated the habit of making the world a better place to live in (that's my belief, anyway). I'm sure he gives credit to Jesus for helping to develop his character over the years. I assume this line of questions is leading somewhere? Perhaps you could fast-forward to the chase. daveS

LoL! @ seversky:

Any more then I’m obliged to accept someone else’s subjective view of morality even if they try to justify it by claiming it comes from their preferred deity.

It is very telling that most of what we have called objective morals are actual laws with actual consequences for breaking them. So go ahead- break them and see how obliged you are to go to Court and then to prison. ET

point. kairosfocus

124 Kairosfocus

The worldview issue is absolutely central to the cultural, civilisational disintegration and mounting kinetics of a long brewing 4G insurgency and civil war in the geostrategic centre of the civilisation, the USA. KF

Of course. It could not be any other way. Science is the "apple" being offered to mankind (again). It won't end nicely. Truthfreedom

I smell a "Seversk-ian" fallacy coming along. It'll include: -"Slavery" -"Deuteronomy" - An "objective" moral pronouncement (although moral truths "do not exist") -A strawman wearing a hat And: The SOURCE of atheism's "wisdom" ("nothingness?", "neurochemicals?", Pastor R. Dawkins?) Truthfreedom

TF, you are right to point to the challenge of accounting for rational responsible freedom required to warrant knowledge claims and make moral choices on evolutionary materialistic a priori ideological scientism and fellow travellers. Reducing mind to GIGO driven computational substrates ends in absurd self-referential incoherence and self-falsification. The worldview issue is absolutely central to the cultural, civilisational disintegration and mounting kinetics of a long brewing 4G insurgency and civil war in the geostrategic centre of the civilisation, the USA. KF PS: I have already exposed the core fallacy in you cannot derive ought from is. OUGHT and IS do pose a key gap, only capable of being bridged in the root of reality. There is just one serious candidate to provide that bridge, a familiar figure: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. So, the is and ought are unified in necessary, reality root being, framework to any possible world being conceived or actualised. Ought comes from God as IS, which is what Hume et al tried to push off the table of serious discussion, with a lot of effect. But, fundamentally fallaciously, begging big questions. Further, we know our moral government is pervasive, starting with reason itself:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

kairosfocus

Seversky is praying to his neurochemicals to make him write a witty (and not severely fallacy-ridden) reply. But, hey, Seversky IS his neurochemicals. How can neurochemicals ask for help to themselves? What a conundrum for "Seversky"... Maybe some atheist "poofery" will help him. Poof-poofity-poof. Truthfreedom

Sev: I have already pointed to your blood libel:

Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting [--> notice, accusation of hiding a core agenda] for an unsavory collection [--> notice utterly imbalanced characterisation by one who doubtless would agree with "mostly peaceful protests"] of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias [--> = Nazi SA storm troopers] and Christian nationalists. [--> = Nazis]

It is time to walk it back. Otherwise, we have every right to hold you responsible for incitement in aftermath of the murder of a man just standing there in Portland and a lot more besides. This is an example of the juggernaut rolling I have mentioned above. FYI, the national socialist german worker's party [= nazi party] meant the worker's party and the socialist. Stalin's propagandistic labeling of everyone who disagreed with him as fascist, thus fascism is right wing, needs to be corrected; notice even the unlamented Berlin Wall was labelled an anti-fascist barrier by the E German Communists, a big clue then and now on the agit prop and the signatures in it. Fascism is statist, politically mesianistic, politics of a Nietzschean superman above law coming to rescue the aggrieved identity group in times of crisis through Roman style Dictatorship, using totalitarian statism, bringing existing institutions under ideological control through various arrangements backed up by the Gestapo or equivalent. As its history and core claims show, it is an ideology of the left, yet another revision to the marxist scheme. Fascism is idolatrous and antichrist, not Christian. Which has been pointed out on record, courageously, in the Barmen Declaration of 1934. the projection of Christofascism as a stigma against Christians needs to stop, likewise invidious lumping together with islam-IST extremists (where we have on the table just now a demonstration that even most Muslims are not in agreement, with a current peace treaty with direct involvement of Mr Trump's JEWISH son in law). The proper stand of the Christian, Biblical faith on racism etc is directly shown in the following texts:

Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,3 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave7 nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Yes, Christians have too often struggled with racism and the like, such are heresies. And, the projection, Christian nationalists, invites stigmatising the Christian faith, indeed the murder of the man in Portland may well in key part trace to that. It is time to walk back. KF kairosfocus

Seversky I am in need of help. I want to be a "good" person (or meat-robot ) and your 5th commandment compels me "not to derive an ought from an is". Whence should I derive my "oughts" then? Kindly write it down: __________ Truthfreedom

119 DaveS

No, I’m suggesting that the qualities “good” and “wealthy” are similar in a way, though.

If you say "good" and "wealthy" are "similar in a way", that means you are saying that both are true (part of this reality/ existence). Now I ask: - Where does that "goodness" reside and how can you know it? Truthfreedom

TF, No, I'm suggesting that the qualities "good" and "wealthy" are similar in a way, though. Goodness and wealth occur in different forms and to different degrees in people. Therefore I don't think it's possible to give a rule which will determine precisely whether a person is good or not. I think this is more obviously true of wealth, so I am using that as an analogy. daveS

Playing with fire kairosfocus

Seversky Since you and all other darwinians are so fond of pareidolia , look, Tjguy has left an EXCELLENT comment for you in another thread: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/one-secret-of-darwinian-just-so-stories-is-boundless-imagination/#comments (@15) When you teach other people how to be "good Christians", how can you be sure that your "arguments" make any sense?

Perhaps your conclusions are pre-determined by the chemical interactions in your evolved monkey brain so that both you and I believe what we believe because of the brain that evolution blessed us with. We evolved to think the way we do and we really can’t do anything about that. That’s a lovely thought to dwell on because it makes real knowledge and truth inaccessible. We interpret the data the way we do because of the monkey brain we inherited.

And how can you be sure that your conclusions about pareidolia make any sense too? Thank you Tjguy! Truthfreedom

97 DaveS

Truthfreedom: There can only be one standard of goodness. Because if not, it is NOT a standard. DaveS: I’m not sure there can be such a thing. What is _the_ standard for judging whether a person is wealthy?

I am not sure I understand this. Are you saying that "wealth" = "goodness''? Truthfreedom

KF,

DS, if you claim to value life but refuse to address the ongoing worst holocaust in human history, that tells. Really, really tells. KF

I believe in doing what's possible, with what you have. In a tutoring program, I would stick to the subject matter being taught, and let the students and parents deal with the abortion issue on their own. daveS

Vivid, You're welcome. I should have been clearer. daveS

DaveS @ 86

I was trying to think of such an example, and that’s a good one. I will add that some of my MAGA friends are unironically very good people, but there are a lot of jerks in the mix.

I'm sure there are. If I were to judge Christianity in the US by some of its public faces - the prosperity gospelers, the megachurch pastors, the Christian dominionists/nationalists, the Westboro Baptist church and, to a lesser extent, some of the more fundamantalist churches - I would come away with an impression of a faith that is venal, corrupt and morally-depraved. But I know that not all Christians are like that. They are genuine, decent people. In fact I know of one small church that owns no buildings or property, their 'clergy' depend entirely on their congregations for support and they try to live a life as close to that of Jesus and his disciples as possible. I don't share their belief in God but I respect their attempt to live by what I consider to be the core principles of their faith rather than using it as a springboard to personal fame, wealth and power. Seversky

DaveS Thank you. Vivid vividbleau

KF & Vivid, In replying to Sev, I meant that his was a good example of a positive-sounding slogan, where I do not endorse the views or activities of all the followers. I don't mean to imply that they are mostly Nazis etc. Just like BLM is a positive slogan, but I don't approve of the actions of every adherent of the "organization". daveS

“Vivid, just out of curiosity, when last was there a public gathering of the KKK, in which FBI agents etc were not 1/4 or more of the crowd? “ Well the only one that comes to mind was at KKK Robert Byrds funeral where he was eulogized by the Clintons and Biden. :) Of course we shouldn’t be surprised since the Klan was founded by Dems so they do have an affinity for them. I suppose that’s why Richard Spencer has endorsed Biden. Vivid vividbleau

Vivid, Please see my edit above. 0 Klansmen or Nazis. daveS

Vivid, just out of curiosity, when last was there a public gathering of the KKK, in which FBI agents etc were not 1/4 or more of the crowd? How many actual members are left? KF kairosfocus

DaveS I am very busy. I will answer your questions (but later). Truthfreedom

DS, disappointing. Endorsing blood libel. And that there are bad or ill-mannered people in any movement of significant scale is a given of the human condition: finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill-willed. KF kairosfocus

Daves How many were Nazis or Klansman? Vivid vividbleau

DS, if you claim to value life but refuse to address the ongoing worst holocaust in human history, that tells. Really, really tells. KF kairosfocus

JaD, We face the challenge of inescapable moral government and where it points:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

KF kairosfocus

98 Seversky

You aren’t. Any more then I’m obliged to accept someone else’s subjective view of morality even if they try to justify it by claiming it comes from their preferred deity.

The unsurmountable problem you have is that your worldview: evolution + atheism is objectively (logically) self-defeating. Such a deadly combination (evolution + atheism) poses a defeater that invalidates sound logic. Courtesy of Mr. Alvin Plantinga. A universal alkali to counter-act Darwins's acid. Atheists Can’t Trust Reason (Or Anything) https://wmbriggs.com/post/22122/ No amount of crying or praying to your goddess "evolution" will help you. Atheism can only be accepted on an irrational basis. You and your pals, the "champions" of logic. Truthfreedom

Sev:

Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting for an unsavory collection of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias and Christian nationalists.

Blood libel, walk it back. KF kairosfocus

Vivid, I don't think it's especially ironic, I just wanted to be clear I wasn't using the term "good people" ironically, that is, to mean "not-good people". I think this usage is becoming more common on the internet, but it must have backfired here. My bad. I don't know any Klansmen or Nazis. I do know a few QAnon types and other extremists who are Trump fans, who have really lost the plot, IMHO. I would classify them as "jerks". daveS

DaveS .” I will add that some of my MAGA friends are unironically very good people, but there are a lot of jerks in the mix.” Curious why would you find that ironic? Is it because it does not fit your stereotype? How many of your MAGA friends are Klansman? How many are Nazis?.How many in the jerk group are Klansman? How many are Nazis? Vivid vividbleau

John_a_designer @ 81

How am I obligated to accept a view of morality and human rights that is based on someone else’s made-up subjective opinion?

You aren't. Any more then I'm obliged to accept someone else's subjective view of morality even if they try to justify it by claiming it comes from their preferred deity.

On the other hand, I certainly have a right to reject such nonsense. If your main premise in your argument is “this is my personal opinion,” or, “this is what I believe,” then you don’t really have an argument.

On the other hand, if there's no logical way to derive 'ought' from 'is' what else do you have but something subjective like the Golden Rule, the assumption that there are certain basic subjective preferences that we all have in common on which we can base some moral code by mutual agreement?

In other words, human rights are not something that were invented or made up by you.

Not by me personally but by other human beings not so different from you and I. What's the matter? Don't you think you're up to the job? Seversky

TF, You're welcome.

There can only be one standard of goodness. Because if not, it is NOT a standard.

I'm not sure there can be such a thing. What is _the_ standard for judging whether a person is wealthy?

What should we humans adhere to? Our own opinions? Science? (which is a human endeavor saddled with human follies and morally blind?)

People have been debating that for millennia, and I don't have a ready answer. I simply believe we're on our own here. If there is an answer, and we want to find it, it's up to us.

If there is no God, we are useless creatures and not even Hitler’s existence matters. Things just “are”. “Matter in motion”.

Do you have an argument supporting this? It looks like a non-sequitur. daveS

93 Vividbleau

You (Seversky) seem a bit deranged I must say.

He says he is "trapped inside his head" (he babbles about an "unknowable reality" "out there" - which is incoherent, because if he knows it is "out there", then it is not "unknowable"). Too much Darwin is not a good thing. Truthfreedom

We are broken watches. We need to find our Watchmaker (who is not blind , but omniscient) to help us being whole again. There is no other way. Or just keep reproducing in this "uncaring" Universe until the next "mass extinction". Truthfreedom

“I was trying to think of such an example, and that’s a good one” DaveS seems like you and Sev are neighbors. Vivid vividbleau

“The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.” Sev lives in Alices wonderland where up is down and down is up. Sev it’s your tribe who employ the brown shirts , it’s your tribe that are pushing the Nazi program to dismantle the police. You seem a bit deranged I must say. Vivid vividbleau

90 DaveS

I believe he’s “good” according to the standards you adhere to.

Thank you four your reply. There can only be one standard of goodness. Because if not, it is NOT a standard. What should we humans adhere to? Our own opinions? Science? (which is a human endeavor saddled with human follies and morally blind?) If there is no God, we are useless creatures and not even Hitler's existence matters. Things just "are". "Matter in motion". Truthfreedom

seversky:

Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting for an unsavory collection of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias and Christian nationalists.

'That is only your uneducated opinion. On the other hand it is a fact that BLM has Marxist roots ET

TF, I believe he's "good" according to the standards you adhere to. He's a God-fearing man who is a shepherd in his church. He loves his neighbors and contributes to the community. He is faithful to his wife and has raised three healthy children and has several grandchildren who are thriving. Is there any point in me describing my understanding of what a "good" person is? I don't believe that you will listen. daveS

Seversky

The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground.

Bwahahaha! Seversky the self-refuting- fallacious - appealling to emotions - meat-robot. What does "evolution" have to say about "nazis"? Have you talked to "her" lately? Truthfreedom

Maybe Seversky "knows" what "goodness" is (although he says he lives inside his head, he "senses" an "external world" that he can not fully "grasp"). He "has the map but not the territory" (which is incoherent). Truthfreedom

DaveS

some of my MAGA friends are unironically very good people

"Good" according to what "standard"? What is a "good" person? Truthfreedom

Seversky,

Much like “Make America Great Again” fronting for an unsavory collection of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias and Christian nationalists.

I was trying to think of such an example, and that's a good one. I will add that some of my MAGA friends are unironically very good people, but there are a lot of jerks in the mix. daveS

KF,

Any movement that claims to be protective of life but fails to address this, can safely be dismissed as manipulative and destructive.

Suppose I start a program to provide tutoring to young students in a poor community, where those students happen to be largely black. Of course one of my aims would be to "protect life", and if the program is successful, that would be a likely outcome. These students would perform better in school, which opens up more opportunities to them, thus increasing the chance that they will have a happy and prosperous life (as opposed to dying young due to violence, drugs, or even mundane things such as untreated hypertension, which afflicts minorities disproportionately). I don't have to address abortion directly, and I probably would not want to, for a number of reasons. However, it's possible that this program would actually result in fewer abortions in that community, in part because there would be fewer teen pregnancies. So, in pitching this program to parents, I would just assume it to be self-evident that tutoring is one factor that would tend to make their childrens' lives better, regardless of their values or position on the legality of abortion. My goal would be to get as many students in the program as I can and help them with their school work. I don't think such a program would be manipulative and destructive; rather, it would be a modest and pragmatic attempt to effect incremental change. Do you agree? daveS

The real problem with the current SJW/BLM thinking, which dominates the secular progressive left, is that it based on a dishonest bait and switch tactic. You can’t just proclaim something to be unjust unless you are using an objective standard. But secular progressive SJW’s posits no such standard. At its roots it's morally subjective and relativistic. Obviously a subjective standard cannot be an objective standard. The problem is that these people are motivated by power and passion not truth, reason and logic. They claim to be right because they believe they are right but, again, your subjective beliefs are not binding on me. Claims to the contrary this thinking is not progressive because it provides no way for us to measure progress. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis: Moral progress “means not just changing, but changing for the better.” Again, without some kind of objective standard whose view about morality, justice and human rights can we judge to be better? john_a_designer

Vividbleau @ 74

Yes front groups use slogans that no one disagrees with to promote hidden agendas. Who disagrees with the slogan “ black lives matter”? Of course they do but BLM is a Marxist front group and could give one stinking piece of ………about black lives!!!

Much like "Make America Great Again" fronting for an unsavory collection of KKK, neo-Nazis, right-wing militias and Christian nationalists. And we have a pretty good idea of the only people that lot and their idol care about. The only thing missing from the MAGA hat is the black swastika on a white ground. Seversky

John_a_designer Please. Atheists ''know'' via "darwinian processes" what is good for us. They have been blessed with un-ending knowledge of how "meat-robots" should be governed to "enjoy purposeless lives". Now bow down or you will be negated "their" magic ("science"). Because only atheists can practice/ understand "science" due to their unlimited blessings (not to mention they have escaped the clutches of that pesky "evolution" thing). NOT a religion, of course :) They do NOT want power. Truthfreedom

To our regular interlocutors: How am I obligated to accept a view of morality and human rights that is based on someone else’s made-up subjective opinion? The answer: I’m not. On the other hand, I certainly have a right to reject such nonsense. If your main premise in your argument is “this is my personal opinion,” or, “this is what I believe,” then you don’t really have an argument. Please stop trying fooling others and then fooling yourself. (Well, maybe it’s really the other way around.) It is a waste of everyone’s time. In other words, human rights are not something that were invented or made up by you. Try reading a little history sometime. john_a_designer

Vivid, Horst Wessel. KF kairosfocus

PPS: I updated OP to include a model of political dynamics that explains how we so readily tumble into tyranny. kairosfocus

Folks, There is an old saying about never missing the water until the well runs dry. There is an underlying taking for granted of many blessings of liberty that come from a stabilised, constitutionally democratic political order that respects and guards rights. Demands are to further claim rights (sometimes in ways that will undermine buttresses of said order, e.g. by demanding to be upheld in evils such as the mass slaughter of millions of our living posterity in the womb and much more under false colour of law and justice). Meanwhile, because we have been calculatedly robbed of the history of our civilisation, and because through said critical theory and deconstruction etc there has been assiduous effort to delegitimise what has been achieved, we are in danger of critically undermining cultural buttresses of liberty. In that regard, I have often pointed out that it is invention of printing, rise of vernacular Bibles and linked literacy, widespread printing of bills, newspapers, books, creation of coffeee shops as discussion centres and more that opened up political participation to a far wider public than hitherto possible. These set in motion the democratising and civil rights reforms that opened up modern constitutional democracy. Before, one's options boiled down to autocracy, oligarchy or at most lawful oligarchy valuing justice. Anarchy or the state of nature is a chaotic repeller pole. Of course, there is a secondary, libertarian debate, arguing for a minimalist state, which too often forgets why say the 1778 US confederation failed within a decade. What is being trifled with by the academy and those who carry its notions far and wide, is the moral-cultural order that buttresses constitutional democracy and liberty with order. Democracy itself being highly unstable and prone to mobs, factions and marches of manipulated folly. As such erodes, the threat or reality of chaos -- and defund the police etc are very much precisely along that line -- opens up tumbling back into tyrannical oligarchy or autocracy. Which, BTW, is precisely what Marxist states have consistently been. The red guards roaming the streets,rioting, looting, burning, bullying, murdering and shouting loaded agenda driven slogans, the trumpeting media, the radicalised politicians and parties enabling such and more haven't a clue as to the fire they are playing with. How could they, they have been calculatedly robbed of sound history. And BTW, Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, adjusted to understand that the national socialist german worker's party meant the worker's and socialist parts, will be helpful. So will be the Gulag Archipelago. As for certain slogans, there is a single, sharp corrective litmus test. Over the past 40+ years, we have been plagued by the single worst holocaust in history, the slaughter of 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb under false colour of law. It proceeds today at about 800,000 additional victims per week. In the US, black children in the womb have been especially over-represented in it's part of the toll, 60+ millions, and in Asia, girls --- leading to large, unbalanced populations with a significant deficit of women (which directly leads to dangerous global threats). Any movement that claims to be protective of life but fails to address this, can safely be dismissed as manipulative and destructive. It can be taken as axiomatic that life is the first right; without life, there are no further rights. So, any movement that tries to delegitimise that all lives are precious and to be protected -- "matter" is the cleverly loaded term -- including by labelling such as racist or nazi, is illegitimate at the root. The rioting, mayhem, destruction of businesses representing lifetime efforts, savings and hopes, intimidation of other voices etc all speak to that. So, we may safely conclude that movements that act like Red Guards are red guards serving as somebody's insurgents and unwitting cannon fodder. Where, it is manifest that in just a lawful state, much less a constitutionally democratic one, riot cannot be justified. And, relabelling sustained rioting as "mostly peaceful" "protest" reveals the enabling behaviour of the fundamentally destructive and subversive. BTW, maybe, people need to ponder critical analyses of the agendas of several movements associated with carrying out or enabling and trying to legitimise riot. Turning back to sounder foundations, I again put on the table:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

This argument I have championed for months is pivotal. It allows us to reset our thinking and start afresh, with sound discernment, including when rights claims that are popularised by various interests are unsound. Also, we can readily see that ideologies and underlying worldviews that imply that we are not free or are not morally governed, starting with our rationality itself, are fundamentally incoherent, self-refuting and necessarily false. Where, we see also, how understanding such built in law allows us to soundly address civil law including constitutions, instead of falling for nihilistic notions that sever law from core first principles of justice, substituting the rule making power of those with sufficient clout and cleverness to impose their will. Thus, too, we begin to understand why there are pushes to grab power by fundamentally illegitimate and manipulative means, as well as the likely consequences. We had better wake up, the juggernaut is rolling. KF PS: BLM and Antifa, of course, endorse a slate of progressivist demands. This includes delegitimisation of the nuclear family, all sorts of radical sexual agendas . . . directly tied to the ruin of the family . . . and much more. kairosfocus

Mac McTavish @ 71 says he supports Black Lives Matter, which should add when it's convenient to the end. Black lives don't matter to BLM, any more than Jews matter. They support BDL, which was founded by people who do not see Jews as human being and have no right to life. If black lives mattered, they would not ignore the black on black violence that costs more black lives than just about anything else. There is no mention of abortions slaughtering millions of black babies. BobRyan

Mac McT, I think it does make sense to be specific about which "Black Lives Matter" one supports. From the wiki page:

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a slogan, a social movement, a political action committee, or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice.

Probably many people support the larger social movement, but perhaps not every organization in the network of groups which receive many millions of dollars in funding. Not that there's anything wrong with raising funds, but not all charitable groups are run equally well. Some even take money from George S*ros, who is considered to be worse that Hitler in some quarters. daveS

Mac McTavish is a (probably young) ignorant nincompoop. But Seversky going off the rails. Hahaha. Fun to watch. :D :D :D :D mike1962

“Example of why we need to know real history. Organizations often used marginal, violent people to front their activity. “ So true, unfortunately people think history starts on their birthdays. Just finished rereading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, very sobering. We are watching the brown shirts all over again. The defund and dismantling of the police force was one of the first things Hitler put in motion in 1933. Yes front groups use slogans that no one disagrees with to promote hidden agendas. Who disagrees with the slogan “ black lives matter”? Of course they do but BLM is a Marxist front group and could give one stinking piece of .........about black lives!!! Vivid vividbleau

Hey Mac, do you practice karate? Also there are two different and confusing things here- yes, the lives of black people matter. Then there is the Marxist group and movement "black lives matter". Semantics? I don't think so. We have witnessed those involved in the BLM loot and burn minority owned businesses. ET

70 Kairosfocus

Irrelevant. Marxism is a world conquest ideology.

Jihad. Truthfreedom

KF

Have you lived through a marxist insurgency? I have, it failed but wreaked havoc.

No, but I did grow up gay in a country where this was a crime, in a country where acknowledging it would deny me many employment opportunities, in a country where my persecution was condoned. Where I was not free to openly love the person I loved. Where I couldn’t talk to my own priest about it because I was considered an abomination. Where I watched a close friend get stabbed by some queer-basher. My life has been tough, and sometimes violent, but it could have been worse. I could also be black, with the added challenges that would result from that. So, yes, I completely support Black Lives Matter. Those who oppose it are opposing a statement of fact. Mac McTavish

DS, irrelevant. Marxism is a world conquest ideology, I am speaking from observation of its operating patterns. Which, I had sincerely hoped I would never have to think about again. Sadly, that is no longer so. And BTW, both Cubans and Chinese have been saying quite similar warnings. KF kairosfocus

KF, My grandparents grew up during the Great Depression, and it affected their entire lives (into the 2000's). They never quite had a normal relationship with money; their frugality was pathological. That experience forever distorted their view of the world. daveS

MMT et al, what you may imagine dismissively makes no difference to the operational signatures on the ground. Go read the basics as were laid out in previous threads, we are seeing a red guards insurgency, which implies backing and strategic direction. As for feckless pols playing with fire they don't understand, Lenin had a contemptuous term about such, starting with their being useful. He also said the capitalists were so strategically short sighted they would sell him the rope to be used to stretch their necks. Have you lived through a marxist insurgency? I have, it failed but wreaked havoc. KF kairosfocus

Sev, go to the next thread over, read and weep. You should have done homework before spouting off dismissively about conspiracy theories. I think it is beyond reasonable dispute on history of 100 years, that Marxists see themselves as vanguards of socialist revolution and routinely undertake political,agit prop, subversive, insurgency and outright military operations to that end. If you thought the collapse of the Iron Curtain saw them off the stage, think again; indeed founders of BLM openly admit that they are marxist operators, on live tape. Just, things are a bit more sophisticated now, 4th Gen War tactics are in play. KF kairosfocus

The Democrats have caused the division. Their hatred of Trump was apparent during his campaign when the sitting President used the FBI to investigate him. He has been constantly attacked from the leftwingnuts. When he stopped flights from China he was called racist. Months later he is chastised for not stopping them sooner. And not just from China, from all of Europe. Then he wanted to take control during the pandemic only to be attacked again for not understanding the Governors control their respective States. But when it all went bad they blamed him anyway. Total losers ET

I agree entirely with Mac McTavish. Conspiracy theories about critical race theorists and cultural Marxism are not the solution to the deep and long-standing racial divisions in US society, they only distract from it. What to me is much more alarming is that we have a President who is not only clearly willing to exploit these divisions for his own political advantage but is also dropping heavy hints about rejecting the results of any election he does not win, refusing to leave the White House even if he loses and wants not just a second but a third term. This is a man who not only has effectively erased the old Republican Party and replaced it with the Trump Party but is also trying to remove any constitutional restraints on his exercise of political power with the ultimate purpose of becoming President-for-Life. He would like nothing more than to change the United States into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. That is the sort of conspiracy we ignore at our peril. Seversky

I’m afraid that I can’t buy into any global, or even national, conspiracy using red guard tactics to turn the country into a Marxist state. What I see are very legitimate, and largely peaceful, protests over the long history of police violence against black people. This has attracted a small number of instigators, as often happens during protests. What has made the issue worse is a president who fans the flames with is Twitter rants and divisive rhetoric. Unfortunately, it often takes protests and violence to attain any meaningful change. I wish that it didn’t, but history doesn’t lie. Mac McTavish

I don’t think there are really any deep dark conspiracies behind the current social unrest that is gripping some American cities. What I see instead are ruthless left wing politicians being supported by an agenda driven main stream media. Frankly these people don’t really care about so-called social justice. What does allowing an out of control mob looting, vandalizing and burning down minority owned businesses have to do with advancing cause of social justice? Very early on I said that locking down the American economy because of Covid-19 would cause social unrest. I think my prediction was spot on. What I didn’t predict was how cynically the left wing mayors and governors along with a complicit media would try to exploit the rioting for some kind of political advantage. But it appears that is starting to back fire on them. Obviously they thought that maybe the unrest could hurt Trump’s re-election chances. So those minority owned business? Cannon fodder in the on-going culture war which they know they can’t win by direct honest democratic means. john_a_designer

M62, someone was "hit" in Portland last night. Shortly thereafter, a crowd was heard rejoicing on how a "nazi" was killed. The juggernaut is rolling. KF kairosfocus

kairosfocus @29, though I think you're wildly overstating the situation, and I agree with Dave @57, I don't entirely disagree with your concerns esp in areas where law enforcement is controlled by commucrat city governments and police unions. What you describe is a problem limited by and large to commucrat controlled cities. I am a proponent of getting out of the cities for a lot of reasons including social disorder. mike1962

DS, we don't have names just yet, just patterns. Apart from those undergoing investigation [up to and including, obviously a prince on one of several fronts], one who has pled guilty on another [with huge implications], the peek under the rug just linked on a third front etc. Once, chance, twice -- coincidence, thrice -- enemy action. KF kairosfocus

Hmmm, I suspect OJ will find the "real killers" before you or WJM actually name names. :-) daveS

DS, operations as you know pivot on logistics. In addition, consistent operational patterns point to training and coordination, not of the general mass but of a hard core. The obvious extension of stand down orders and the media sing off the same hymn sheet cover that has portrayed a narrative also don't come from nowhere. On history, the original relevant Red Guards (bolshevik units from 1917 on don't count) were used by Mao to claw back power after his great leap forward failed, costing many lives and leading to his restriction among the leadership. Similarly, there was backing in North Africa, the Levant and Eastern Europe recently. So, we can comfortably infer that common design signatures point to common designers from the same school of thought. The recent revelations on a government takedown in Austria may give a peek into the shadows, too. We can comfortably wait on the investigations to show specifics, but we know enough to know that things don't happen by the magic of pulling rabbits out of non existent hats. So, John, Richard, Jane and Sue Doe warrants may be confidently issued. Wanted, trainers, field organisers and technical operatives. Wanted, sttaff, logistics, training and ideology organisers. Wanted, political fixers and bag men. Wanted, financiers who knew what they were funding. Wanted, power brokers using insurgency to create chaos and gain power. The next 6 - 18 months should help us draw connexions. KF PS: Try here (german) and here for a peek under the rug. kairosfocus

KF, Can you name these "backers" and support your position with hard evidence connecting them to the current unrest in Portland, say? I'd love to see some documentation of their "wargame tested plans" to subvert the military and police forces, along with the considerable number of armed civilians. daveS

DS, I could make observations on others in federal office. That is irrelevant. The issue is, we can see a clear signature of a red guards insurgency, implying backers. There is a track record of "success" of such, and there is a wider pattern of spiral to chaos -- e.g. another man shot dead in Portland. The juggernaut's pace is accelerating. KF kairosfocus

KF, These "fringe folk" are being elected to federal office, you know. Even the highly-regarded lawyer Lin Wood, who is helping with Kyle Rittenhouse's defense, appears to be a follower. daveS

WJM, Could you tell us who, _specifically_, you think will be indicted? Why are you being so coy? daveS

DS, the first Civil Was was a war in a peripheral country, now the ramping up 4GW is in the geostrategic centre of our civilisation. If things really explode, it could get horrific. The trigger is not going to be some fringe folk following an anonymous poster, Q, but the ongoing red guard insurgency and their backers. Red guard tactics have worked several times, starting with China in 1966. The parallels I already drew should give pause. As should what seems to be coming out of HR at Sandia labs. KF kairosfocus

For legal definitions in the USA, one can go here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 I don't have to divulge any "explosive," secret or new information. All one needs to do is read the laws, have a basic knowledge of facts not in dispute, and see how these laws have been explicitly violated by many people by their own words and actions. These laws have been publicly, brazenly flouted for years, and every day more evidence is exposed in addition to that which is freely accessible. The only question is if Trump is willing to prosecute anyone for those things. I don't know how Trump can more explicitly telegraph his position and intentions than by stating that Treason was committed and that those involved will be brought to justice. He says many times, "This can never be allowed to happen again." There's only one way to even remotely deter anyone from that course: prosecute and punish them to the full extent of the law. If that doesn't happen, if they are convicted of or allowed to plead to lesser crimes, all you are doing is delaying for a very short time the inevitable. William J Murray

KF, The US Civil War will seem like nothing compared to what's coming. #thegreatawakening #trusttheplan #WWG1WGA daveS

DS, I note that after the 1861 - 65 civil war, treason trials were not held. KF kairosfocus

KF,

DS, I doubt treason would actually be tried ...

Well, it seems that WJM is in possession of some very explosive information, which for some reason, he is reluctant to divulge. :-) daveS

Yes, Ford was the incumbent. But we, the people, didn't put him there. We didn't even out him in the position to be there. And, to be technical, LBJ was only a one term President. ET

DS, I doubt treason would actually be tried, but there are many other crimes that will likely be on the table. Clinesmith is on evidence falsification material to lawfare against a candidate then duly elected president, contributory to intelligence service abuse, policing abuse, misleading courts and several years of needless chaos. The connexions are where the issues will come out. The human trafficking lolita side will probably take out some pretty serious names, likely in several countries. The prince is already looking set for serious consequences, even if it never comes to trial. How did his security detail ever allow him to be in such a situation? And a former US president never should have had a neck massage like that too, do these people listen to their security? KF kairosfocus

KF, Are there any _specific_ individuals you expect to be indicted for treason and sedition? ET, True, however he was the incumbent in 1976. daveS

ET, that's a good point too. KF kairosfocus

Gerald Ford was never elected to the Presidency nor the Vice Presidency. ET

JaD, I keep pointing to cultural buttresses, so freedom does not become suicide. Those buttresses in material part come from Christendom. KF kairosfocus

Winston Churchill once said,

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…

Any kind of democratic society is intrinsically unstable and it’s only as good as its constituents. U.S, founding father John Adams understood this very well when he wrote, “Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either… [it] never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/off-topic/democracies-fail-without-adult-supervision/#comment-668515 Why is it that throughout history so many democracies have flamed out so quickly? Think of the French republic which replaced what was at the time one of the world’s oldest monarchies. What happened to it. Or, the Weimar republic in post WWI Germany… or, Yugoslavia… or, Czechoslovakia… How long has the U.S. existed? Is it culturally and ethnically diverse? How has it been able to survive different kinds of crises like the civil war? The great depression? The social unrest of the 1960’s? I wouldn’t say the prospects for U.S. survival are as dim as some here are suggesting but it is true that any form of democratic government requires constant vigilance. And indeed, it doesn’t take much to send it over the edge. john_a_designer

DS, okay, Hoover. KF PS: Start from Mr Clinesmith's recent guilty plea and follow the threads from there. Consider what had to be going on to make that stick. On another line (likely at much higher level) ponder what the Epstein-Maxwell saga points to (and no way will I believe in a convenient suicide with even more convenient circumstances), given that infamous photo with Prince Andrew. Unravel the two and we may just be able to begin a clean-up. kairosfocus

WJM,

That’s when I expect to see the big name indictments for treason and sedition ...

Would you care to name names? And could you tell us what your sources of information are? daveS

KF, The four I count in the last 100 years: Hoover, Ford, Carter, George H. W. Bush daveS

WJM, the issue is not so much Mr Trump as personality but the turning point of the current conflict in the geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation. My 6 - 18 months estimate is independent of who wins, it is the playout of kinetics now; and yes the lawfare counter offensive on the 2016 election is part of the picture, the recent guilty plea is telling. (BTW, to see what is happening in small towns and will provoke the coming backlash, see here.) KF kairosfocus

William J Murray

So, the question is: is 4 more years of Trump enough to save civilization?

"Civilization" (if we are speaking of the West) = Christian values. No Christian values = no West. That is why marxist parasites are so intent on destroying Christianity. Once you destroy the foundations, the whole building crumbles to dust. Marxists want power and they know that Christianity is an impediment. Truthfreedom

So, the question is: is 4 more years of Trump enough to save civilization? To which I'll say that in the coming 4 years, to use Obama's hot mic words, he'll have more leeway. That's when I expect to see the big name indictments for treason and sedition and the breakup of the tech oligarchies. Right now he has to play a delicate social game to get the vote of relatively low-information voters who don't fully understand the propaganda warfare that is going on. William J Murray

Very true, William. "Anyone but Trump" is not a policy I want running the country. ET

As far as predicting the election, I think that's an easy call. Trump won in 2016 against all odds without a record. Nobody knew what he would do. Relatively few people thought he would actually deliver on his campaign promises and policies. He was basically elected due to severe anti-establishment sentiment. This year, now that people know he meant what he said and will actually deliver, how many more will vote for him because their skepticism has been demonstrated unwarranted? How many doubters who didn't vote in 2016 saw their taxes cut, their jobs come back, their pay and work options increase? How many more now see him as the only person standing between them and chaos? The only question in my mind whether or not the radical marxists can defraud the election results. Biden is an even worse candidate than Hillary, and Trump not only didn't lose a single vote since 2016, he has gained millions, especially in the black and hispanic communities, the efforts of divisive propaganda notwithstanding. It should be an overwhelming landslide. William J Murray

MMT demonstrates the very problem we are facing: votes based on words and media presentation, not on policy actions and results. To try to sift through which politician told the most lies or used the worst rhetoric in order to cast your vote is like buying a car because the least offensive car salesman tells you to - whether it fits your actual needs or not and regardless of the track record of that model. The reason I originally voted for Trump, even though I couldn't stand the guy, was because he was the only candidate that offered what I thought were reasonable, good policies. Did I expect him to actually deliver on his policies? No. I didn't even think he could get elected. I didn't think he had a chance. But, I had to cast my vote based on at least the possibility of those policies being somewhat enacted. I don't care if Trump is a xenophobic, racist misogynist in his heart; that's between him and God. What I care about is (1) what are his policy goals and do I agree with him, (2) does he do what he says he's going to do to any significant degree? William J Murray

DS, in the fourth case, Johnson, he withdrew. Johnson did not face an obvious coup by establishment deep state from before entering office multiplied by red guards and their backers pushing for year zero reset, mob rule culture form marxist revolution using anti civilisational critical theory and deconstructionism; thus, implying Maoist Cultural Revolution style reigns of terror like those that cost China a lost decade. The pivot is, defund/abolish the police, the law enforcement system, the nuclear family -- all on the BLM platform. Things like that count and have turned the NY contractor in chief into a champion of our civilisation.* If you draw the 1940-45 Churchill parallel, the UK electorate removed Churchill after he won the war, in effect putting in a highly controversial figure by parliamentary maneuver . . . loss of confidence in the Norway debate on the adjournment (even though the formal vote was won!) and leaving him there until he did his job, then nope we want Attlee and Labour. The war for civilisation is not won, and on balance the electorate will accept a flawed but stalwart Launcelot, father of the pure knight Sir Galahad (who was born on the wrong side of the blanket) as C S Lewis pointed out. Yes, that points onward. KF PS: In my neck of the woods, to stand up for Western Civilisation, warts and all, and to acknowledge Christendom, are enough to put you beyond the pale. The polarising lens of slavery has made the climate among the certificated classes even more toxic in some ways. Things being said by the current VC of my alma mater, who is an historian, leave me shaking my head. Let's just say that the reparations debate is utterly bitter and loaded with culture form marxist critical theory, deconstructionism agendas and tactics. Where, the claims for compensation being advanced cannot reasonably be met, and in the teeth of a feasible option on the table through UN and OECD, the 0.7% GNI initiative. BTW, your reparations debate needs to reckon with the significance of the Homestead act and the creation of Liberia, even as ours needs to reckon with the decision of Courts of Chancery regarding the Mico trust, the need to spend 3.8% of 1834 GDP to stabilise the UK financial system against likely impact of collapsing WI property value, averting famine, 100 years of anti slavery patrol actions (yes, IIRC it was 1915 when the W Africa antislavery patrols by the RN were ended), and much more. kairosfocus

BR, points to ponder indeed, you are arguing that lawlessness is rife. KF kairosfocus

We've already gone over the edge and find most states committing acts of rebellion against the United States. 18 U.S. Code §?2383. Rebellion or insurrection: Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Most states are in violation of the Supremacy Clause, which has no exceptions. No state, no governor, no person can violate any part of the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment reaffirms the Supremacy Clause when it makes it clear that anything not in the Constitution is left to the states and people of the states. They are violating the Commerce Clause by putting an undue burden on interstate commerce, which only the US Congress has the power to do. In essence, the states have usurped the power of Congress. There are violations of the 1st and 4th Amendments on a daily basis. Governors are actively encouraging violent actions by groups like BLM, which have targeted federal property through the use of violent and open rebellion. Much of the media has openly encouraged the rebellion to escalate. BobRyan

M62, if you think the backers of the red guards don't have a wargame tested plan for that (I add, with experience in the Middle East and Eastern Europe over the past decade plus to back it . . . evidence of patterns points to the same strategic signature), think again. See, already the case of a gated community in St Louis -- I add, the officers who confiscated weapons obviously needed for self defence in the face of not only implicit but explicit threats of a second attempt (seen the following week) and the DA staff who grossly over-charged them speak volumes on where law enforcement is, never mind patriots. The obvious stand down in the face of riots orders and compliance definitely speaks for itself. Also, attempts to organise on the Internet now routinely lead to censorship; in emergency, that would move up sharply to charges of attempted terrorism, backed by a narrative on nazis attempting overthrow of lawful government. The 4 am high kinetic bust with suitable cable tv crews on site live, we have already seen with Mr Roger Stone in FL. Never underestimate agit prop, street theatre and media trumpeting of narratives in a crisis, leading to hysteria and ever deeper polarisation. The locked in narratives against HCQ, the turn on a dime about masks and the ever escalating, ever changing narrative on why lockdowns, social distancing and "protest" exceptions are all needed speak volumes to an old hand live observer of in-progress 4G civil war like me. Use of a cell phone pretty much locates you realtime. Attempts to organise would more or less identify those involved as "nationalist" [= nazi] terrorists, as say would easily come from the Wisconsin case. Attempted self defence will become attempted murder, etc. And more. That said, your factors are part of why I expect in the end the outcomes I suggest. KF kairosfocus

Kairofocus @6, Well, this ain't or 1789 or 1815. Half the citizens in the USA are armed and very individualistic, nationalistic and Constitutionalistic, with a will to fight mobs, chaos and disorder, esp if their lives or property is threatened. People can organize at the drop of a hat with the Internet. In order for a real revolution to occur, the govt would have to attack the law-abiders instead of the agitators. Doubtful given that the National Guard, U.S. military, and local police agencies are loaded with patriots. So, meh, not too worried at this point. But diligence is always in order. Be alert and keep your powder dry. mike1962

KF, Perhaps four incumbents, even? It is unusual, but I sense that in this case, enough people have had it to make the change. daveS

Sev, the Russians -- with their ever so tragic history -- have a saying. Dwell on the past, you lose an eye; forget the past, you lose both of your eyes. KF kairosfocus

JaD & GCS, the cannon fodder of radical revolution are inherently expendable to those who use them as just that, food for the hungry cannon. Our refusal to learn from history dooms us to repeat its worst mistakes. KF kairosfocus

MMT, that would be an error, but does not change the material facts or critical failure. In just a lawful state much less a functional democratic one, riot cannot be justified, period. The pushing of red guards (thus the implied backers) has been utterly unjustified simply as offence against order when there are ready means to make any case. Worse, massive theft by destruction, arson, looting and just a climate of chaos are ruinous. The demands being made such as to "defund" police and wholesale overturn the justice system are outright anticivilisational. The rationales put on the table willfully ignore the proper verdict of history once the Iron Curtain fell. Such and more mark an attempt to overthrow civilisation to institute yet another year zero utopia. Predictably, such are bloodily ruinous, tyrannical and those who advocate such are at minimum are utterly irresponsible; some, are outright misanthropes. But then, we are clearly seeing 4th gen war insurgency. That is a sign, a bad one. KF kairosfocus

DS, in two months or so we shall see. In 100 years, three incumbents have been defeated. But that is not my base, it is that the progressives have gone full critical theory (with what that implies) and have managed to become outright anti-civilisational. A genie that is not going back in the bottle easily. KF kairosfocus

Biden is a joke… He doesn’t know anything about business.

It’s worse than that. He doesn’t know where he is. Here is a view about Biden from “down under.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGb92EJe_f0 Imagine that. They agree with me that Biden doesn’t know where he is. john_a_designer

It looks like Mac is going to vote for Howie Hawkins or Jo Jorgensen. I am pretty sure that I will. Living in MA my vote for Trump won't count, anyway. Biden is a joke. He is a career politician who has sold out to China. He doesn't know anything about business. So he isn't the answer. Better the devil you know... ET

KF @13 You point out the problem of turning points. You can't always recognize them at the time. Often the hardest work is still ahead, but there has been a change in momentum. The Kent State shootings were an example. Plenty of protests still to come but the attitude was different. When protestors discovered they could die opposing a war they didn't want themselves (and others to die in) the reality sank in. General comment: I am sorry for the ones who died, but they would be the first to be purged if the radicals "won". Hitler purging the Brown Shirts and Stalin's purges are perfect examples. Progressive efforts did not help these marginalized, angry people and would give them no future. Again, knowing history is important. GCS

The Republican National Convention aired a video meant to paint the George Floyd protests and Black Lives Matter demonstrations as inherently violent, chaotic events, but included a scene from protests in Barcelona, Spain.

https://news.yahoo.com/rnc-video-showing-violence-bidens-163937551.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=fb To decide who to vote for I just look to who has told fewer easily confirmed lies, who uses the least divisive rhetoric and who has a better record of not blaming others for their own mistakes. I would much prefer to make my decision based on an actual constructive platform but I don’t see one from either side. Mac McTavish

I think, like WJM, that we are living in interesting times. I also think we are not going to avoid an apocalypse just by looking back. Although there are unquestionably lessons to be learned from the past, you can argue that our current problems have arisen because what we have done in the past did not work as well we hoped. Plus, we are facing problems now that we have never faced before that require inventive new approaches. That means we need leaders who are imaginative who offer a more hopeful and inclusive vision and see their role as doing whatever they can to benefit those they govern rather than themselves personally. Whether that can actually be achieved is another matter, Seversky

The main stream media is made up of overpaid self-righteous prima donnas who believe it is their life’s calling to lecture everyone else what to think and believe. I would be sort okay with that if they were being completely honest about it-- that is, they would be up front and tell us, “That is just my opinion.” But you don’t hear that. What you get is their opinion under the pretense that it is objective journalism and news. Again, news is not opinion it is the objective unfiltered reporting of facts without an overarching narrative or agenda. The so called 24/7 cable news networks have completely blurred the distinction between accurate news reporting and opinion and analysis-- something which traditional big city newspapers at least tried to avoid by relegating opinion to the editorial pages. Why should I trust some prima donnas opinion when their only claim to fame is the way they sound and look? john_a_designer

Screencapped :-) I predict a narrow Biden win, and no net Republican pickup in the House or Senate. Plenty of shenanigans designed to undermine the election results, unfortunately. My confidence level is not that high, however, in view of the 2016 results. daveS

DS, 6 - 18 months. I predict, high likelihood Mr Trump will be returned as president leading to ramped up chaos. Lower likelihood but odds on his party will retain, perhaps increase Senate majority. Lower yet but still in favour, regain representatives. All of this because the other party has managed to turn him into a defender of civilisation and has effectively enabled red guardism and anti-civilisational agendas. The heightened chaos, highly likely, will include increased kinetics in the ongoing 4th gen civil war. Where, disproportionate impact of urban centres will be pivotal as has been true for every radical revolution since 1789. So, that most of the geography of the US is not seeing riots is expected but does not overturn the import of the chaos.(BTW, 1980 in Jamaica, had most of the chaos in very local areas, especially the shooting, but that permanently changed things for the much worse.) I do not think the US will disintegrate but will suffer serious damage and demoralisation with heightened permanent polarisation. 4GW by nature, often does not look like a war, a TV show or parliament debate may be important fields of conflict. Geostrategic consequences are likely, too, given adventurers on the global stage. KF kairosfocus

KF,

The turning point of recovery while having to deal with lingering damage, 6 – 18 months.

Is this something approaching a falsifiable prediction? 🤔 Anyway, Mike1962 is (largely) correct. Y'all need to ease up on the apocalyptic fantasies and observe what is happening in the real world. daveS

GCS, the turning point of tumbling into higher and higher kinetic conflict. The turning point of recovery while having to deal with lingering damage, 6 - 18 months. KF kairosfocus

Eugene & WJM, or is it the FBI is infiltrated by Antifa etc? In short, one can make up many scenarios, but it is material evidence and prudence that guide conclusions. The targetting of a wide array of symbols of our civilisation (Yes, even Russia is Western) including abolitionists, American Founders, churches, statues of saints, statues of writers, a realistic statue of an elk and one of a dinosaur, backed up by culture form marxist, critical theories, deconstructionism etc points to the pattern of the red guards and recent 4th gen war insurgencies in North Africa and Europe. Red guards have backers, most easily traced through the money trail to fund logistics, above and beyond the recent wave of corporate donations. The way videos have been put up instantly with accusations of all sorts, points to the pervasive notion of media traps manipulating through whose report do you believe; as of now, I have good reason to doubt a significant list of headlined narratives. I no longer have doubts about major media, they are utterly corrupt and deceitful agit prop operators. Yes, social permission for lawlessness and rampaging mobs has clearly been extended, though an incident in Wisconsin seems to be giving pause. So extreme is this destructive pattern that Police in Minneapolis, in desperation to contain rioting, showed a video of a man shooting himself while being chased by Police. All of this is part of the tumble. KF kairosfocus

Could be the turning point, but we will not know for a while. Example of why we need to know real history. Organizations often used marginal, violent people to front their activity. Kenosha showed this. The gentlemen shot were marginal, violent people who had been encouraged to let go their violent side by the media. They were thriving, acting out violently - whereas in the past that behavior was, we might say, discouraged (that is why they had convictions). Their actions, egged on by months of an encouraging media, led to their deaths and injury. This will have a very sobering impact on other very smart/street wise, but often violent persons, who have been likewise participating. I pray for those who died and for all affected, but ignorance of reality will always lead to tragedy. GCS

Eugene, Here's one: riots deployed in an attempt to get Trump to respond with Federal troops in order to make portrayal of him as a totalitarian racist stick before election. Trump didn't take the bait and it is now backfiring on them, as even CNN and others have recently opined. I guess this does fit in one of your options, though. William J Murray

As these protests are obviously not just happening, but are allowed and encouraged to happen (while ANTIFA is obviously well infiltrated by FBI), one is then left to choose from a few plausible "conspiracy theories": - The protests are there to create bipartisan consent for installing marshal law if/when the pandemic does not get better while we can't keep printing money forever. Basically to guard against the real riots later. - The protests are there to create bipartisan consent for cracking down on DNC / Globalist NGOs by declaring ANTIFA a terrorist organization and then going for its donors. Yes, I know, a man can dream. - The protests are there to somehow hurt Trump re-election odds. This almost gives too much credit to Trump, and is rather unlikely, given that DNC earlier more or less agreed to give this election to Trump (possibly because Epstein?) - The protests are there to show that the Globalists have already took all the power and are just giving everyone a free preview of what is to come ("Red Guards") when Trump loses in November. Yes, because they just can't help it to keep it secret for a couple more months. - Any other options? Eugene

WJM, good to see you about. We are back to hinterland, peasant uprising but it looks like enough tocicity is present that the ballot box will not settle the issues. Sad, but the juggernaut has been set rolling. KF kairosfocus

JaD, historically, the invention of the press, growing literacy, publication of the vernacular Bible, use of bills, rise of newspapers and meeting houses for chocolate or later coffee etc and discussion were pivotal to democratisation then civil rights movements. The rise of post literacy, amplification of slander through viral media, ideological censorship and corruption of dominant media all point to undermining key buttresses of constitutional democracy. Those who are undermining buttresses need to think again. KF kairosfocus

M62, I think we beg to differ. In 1789, seemingly isolated events set off a stream of chaos to 1815, with echoes down to today. You are right that the events are for the moment concentrated in urban centres and have faced enabling behaviour with agit prop trumpeting and twisting. However, the mere fact that related riots etc rapidly spread to Europe should give a clue that something is going on subsurface, and certainly I see deepening polarisation here in the Caribbean echoing the events. The fact is, Red Guard insurgencies happen because of sponsorship and organisation, if you think the 1966 events in China were not part of a power grab, or that the Arab Spring as it was called just happened, or that other things have no roots, think again. You are right that people are backing away on polling trends and are trying to rewrite what calling for defunding or abolishing police, reversing the courts and more mean . . . anticivilisational . . . but the genie will resist being stuffed back into the lamp. KF PS: At minimum on broken window theory please watch language. The palpable, widespread coarsening (not helped by a NY Contractor in chief) is not helpful. kairosfocus

Is the USA going over the edge as we speak? Naaaaa. It's a click-bait [SNIP-language] show. The Commucrats have tried to exploit the "unrest", then realized it's helping Trump's re-election. Yeah, have guns and plenty of ammo just in case. This is good advice in any case. 99.999999999 of the country is utterly unaffected. And will continue to be. It will be interesting to see how long the Commucrats hold on to their positions as mayors and council-members of the affected cities. Turn the "news" off and enjoy your life. P.S. are Joe and Kammy ever going to answer any non-scripted questions from the press? mike1962

One of the big problems in the U.S. is the lack of an objective and journalistically ehtical news media. A couple of months ago (for many reasons) I cancelled my cable T.V. subscription. One of the big reasons was so-called 24/7 news channels. There is not enough relevant news to warrant 24/7 coverage. 98%+ of what we get is opinion-- OPINION IS NOT news! And even most of that is not from actual political operatives but from panels of “talking heads” who are paid by the networks to do “analysis.” I don’t need people like that-- on either the right or left-- to tell me what to believe and think. Whatever it is that’s happening to American culture, it’s getting more and more Orwellian. john_a_designer

First, it's a very exciting and interesting time to be alive. I'm fortunate to be alive at this juncture of history. At this point, some kind of civil war is without doubt going to happen. In fact, it's going on right now, but most of the people on one side have - to this point - been keeping themselves sidelined because the other side has been attacking their own base camps (Democrat-run cities). As you say, the question is whether or not enough of the public is informed and willing to stand against the anarchists/marxists this time around instead of falling for their routine. I think it's pretty clear this is the case here in the USA. Every day this continues, more and more of the public is seeing what is going on and what is at stake. William J Murray

Well, Mr. Dawkins has offered us a perfect explanation of why life is as it is:

"In a Universe (or multiverse*) 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, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference". Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Enjoy the Darwinian Gospel. *(robotically added) Truthfreedom

Is the USA going over the edge as we speak? --> a plea for sanity at the brink of chaos kairosfocus