Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is the USA going over the edge as we speak?

Categories
Academic Freedom
Agitprop
Control vs Anarchy
Defending our Civilization
Geo-strategic issues
Lessons of History
rhetoric
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scott Adams, American cartoonist and commenter on events with a particular view to persuasion and narrative dominance seems to agree. Transcript of key comments:

I think I’ve been telling you for some time the obvious way that these protests/riots/looting episodes were going to go. There was only one way that these would go under the assumption that the police would not get more aggressive and that the local government would not let the federal government come in and take care of the violent stuff. There was going to be no adult supervision and that was intentional. The local leadership decided to not have any adult leadership during the protests/riots/looting. So it was obvious that the locals would end up arming themselves because what else would happen? Could you think of any other outcome? It was obvious this would be the outcome. And this is just the beginning, not just a one-off. It’s pretty obvious that more militia or more citizens are going to bring heavier arms…and they’re going to start showing up…. There’s probably no way it’s going to stop.

The worst case scenario is if the protesters [–> further?] arm themselves…ultimately this is the way it had to go. I feel bad for anyone who gets hurt and I don’t encourage any violence but as a prediction this was the way it had to go. It will end, but with more of this.

Sobering, and familiar.

Regulars at UD will know that I have long been very concerned about a kinetic escalation/spiral in an ongoing 4th generation culture revolution style, Red Guards driven civil war in the USA, geostrategic centre of gravity of our civilisation. Events over the past few days in Wisconsin (U/D: additional, here also see background here with here, here & here, contrasting what is not seen here) underscore that concern, to the level of juggernaut– out- of- control. (The first just linked seems to be at least a good point of reference for thought on a very regrettable but all too predictable event; the second gives background on the metaphor.)

Let me hark back for a moment to my 2016 global geostrategic framework shared here at UD (after public presentations here in the Caribbean):

That is deep backdrop, as we ponder where our civilisation is in the case of the lynch-pin state, the USA.

What happens to the US over the next six to eighteen months is fraught with global consequences that the general populace is at best dimly aware of; but, bet your last cent that movers and shakers behind the scenes have these considerations (from whatever perspective) in mind.

Now, too, for twenty years, I have often used a representation of sustainability-oriented strategic decision-making tracing to/adapted from the Bariloche Foundation of Argentina, set in the context of Environment Scanning and SWOT analysis:

(This is of course precisely the decision theory model which has led me to point to a serious ethics-epistemology breakdown in managing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and how treatments are evaluated.)

Further to such, there is a more stringent version, in effect the challenge of the juggernaut i/l/o Machiavelli’s hectic fever model of political disorders:

Warning-signs, there have been in abundance, complete with many blood-dripping lessons of history. However, in a deeply polarised polity, building critical mass . . . “consensus” is implausible and half-measure compromises will predictably be built-to-fail . . . in good time to avert going over the cliff is hard, hard, hard. Such, is the nature of problematiques.

Perhaps, the problem can be recast instructively in terms of the dilemmas implicit in the Overton Window:

What happens when the acceptable limit imposed by dominant factions and their narratives locks out good solutions? What would shift the window?

The answer comes back, pain; pain and shattering from going over the cliff.

Or, if we are lucky, enough see the signs in time to act as a critical mass towards sound change before the cliff-edge collapses underfoot.

History, however, is not on the side of prudent foresight, and the history of radical revolutions has been particularly bloody and predictably futile. Never mind the pipe dreams sold by tenured profs and promoted by pundits and community organisers. As just a warning, let us compare a fools-cap image from the 1966 Mao-backed Red Guards:

. . . and a notorious recent incident in Washington DC:

. . . not forgetting the tragedy of the man who refused to salute in 1930’s in a Germany ruled by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (and yes, contrary to the dominant narrative, they meant the “Socialist” part and the “Worker’s” part):

We need to pause and think again, I am somehow unable to take it for granted that we cannot turn back, even at the brink. Maybe, I am being irrationally hopeful for reprieve; but, let us at least ponder a case from an often overlooked classical report:

Ac 19:23 . . . [c. AD 57] there arose no little disturbance [in Ephesus] concerning the Way.

24 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen.

25 These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said [–> behind the scenes manipulative plotting], “Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. 26 And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27 And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.”

28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

29 So the city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed together into the theater, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians who were Paul’s companions in travel. 30 But when Paul wished to go in among the crowd, the disciples would not let him. 31 And even some of the Asiarchs,5 who were friends of his [–> they had charge of the very Temple in question; obviously, Paul’s lectures in the Hall of Tyrannos and his reaching out to people had won him respect and even friendship], sent to him and were urging him not to venture into the theater.

32 Now [in the unlawful assembly] some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together. 33 Some of the crowd prompted Alexander, whom the Jews had put forward. And Alexander, motioning with his hand, wanted to make a defense to the crowd.

34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, for about two hours they all cried out with one voice, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

35 And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd ] –> doubtless, sent by the Asiarchs], he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky?6 [–> apparently a meteoritic object turned into an idol] 36 Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. 39 But if you seek anything further,7 it shall be settled in the regular assembly. 40 For we really are in danger of being charged with rioting today, since there is no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” [–> in effect he hinted of the regiment doubtless camped not too far away; cf. the Nika riots under Justinian]

41 And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly. [ESV]

How easily, the democratic impulse deteriorates into the raging, out of control, manipulated, riotous, destructive mob!

And if there was no excuse for rioting under a lawful oligarchy (what the C1 Roman Empire had become, after failure of the Republic through envy, selfish ambition, assassination and civil wars leading to the rise of Octavian as Augustus), how much more so, is it inexcusable in any reasonably functional modern constitutional democracy?

I give a bit of context:

U/D: context:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

Further U/D, Sep 5, context of the seven mountains model for mapping society/culture/ civilisation and its main pillars of influence:

Governance is visibly failing, some think the mob will be appeased (it cannot), we are at cliff’s edge, with alarming cracks.

Can’t we stop before we go over the cliff?

Please . . . ? END

F/N, Sept 4: FTR, here is a clip of the actual transcript in the context of an incident where Mr Trump is routinely and falsely said to have endorsed Neo-Nazis etc as fine people:

It is obvious that this is precisely the sort of condemnation of neo-nazis that it is suggested Mr Trump has failed to give. That such tainting misrepresentation continues to be routinely promoted speaks volumes on disregard for truth and fairness. Notice, too, how he anticipated the progression from attacking statues of confederate leaders to American founders, with the obvious extension that cancel culture has no limits.

F/N2: Anatomy of a Red Guards Brigadista hit team/swarm in action, Portland USA:

(I add, Sep 6, while the above photo is already demonstrative of a coordinated murderous ambush, there is a video analysis here, UD can only embed YT. This event likely shows that both major front groups involved in the Red Guards brigadista insurgency are joined at the hip. For instance, the shooter had a BLM fist tattoo on his neck and declared himself 100% Antifa. His later suicide by shootout likely shows commitment to not be taken alive, i.e. he had knowledge of key information he judged worth guarding at the cost of his life. Modern interrogation techniques will credibly eventually “break” anyone.)

Let’s clip:

Portland Police are seeking help to identify a possible accomplice pictured here in the Portland Patriot Prayer member shooting. Here is a picture of the moments before the shooting. Notice the shooter is beginning to move as he draws his weapon, even though he does not have a sightline to the targets yet, and his position behind that cover would seem to be far enough back he could not otherwise have known his targets were hitting that position at exactly that moment. How did he know his targets were about to enter the killzone right then, and he needed to draw and begin moving? Even more interesting, in the criminal complaint on page 17, it points out he was initially walking with a woman in a white T-shirt, coming from one direction to that corner, and both were staring down the street at the targets who were a ways away, coming from a completely different place, as if the shooter and his partner had been told over the air to go there, and the targets they were about to shoot were coming from that direction, and they were identifying them. Once they got a bead on the targets, the woman stopped at the corner and loitered as he continued on and took cover in that alcove. Taking a corner gave her sightlines up and down all streets there, which would be second nature to the trained surveillance operative. And yet not having a sightline to the shooter, how would she communicate with him?  They were linked by radio. Look up behind the targets in the picture above, and you will see a lone guy who looks like the guy they are looking for. Notice his hand is covering his mouth just as the shooter begins to move, and the shooter is not holding a walkie talkie to receive any broadcast. It looks an awful like the guy behind the targets had taken surveillance command of the targets, he was trained enough that casually covering his lower face as he whispered into his chest was second nature, and he was radioing to the shooter who had an earpiece to receive, and probably a chest mic to transmit, triggering his movement at that moment, coordinating it to the targets. Also interesting, this new character may be surveillance aware enough he turned away from the surveillance camera as he came into view of it.

It takes a lot of time, recruitment effort, ideological motivation/desensitisation to morality, tactical training by experienced experts and rehearsal to run a complex hit like this. (For sure, this is no hothead running up to someone they hate and shooting in a rage, the surveillance cam shot demonstrates an orchestrated hit of the type used by Intel agency wet work teams or sophisticated terrorists. “mostly peaceful” and “protest” are off the table.)

That has to have a significant, years-long logistics trail, with face to face and communications networking, yielding traffic patterns.

So, this one case may be a break into what is now clearly a terrorist network.

Take it as a yardstick indicating the extent and depth of what is going on, a full-orbed 4th generation war insurgency backed by years of organisation and serious logistics, with carefully laid plans and organisation.

F/N3: And yes, “NAZI” lives don’t matter:

Clear intent to slander, brand and rob of right to life. Instead, we must recognise that life is the first right, without which there are no other rights. Therefore, we start with mutual respect and go on from there.

F/N4: U-Haul a Riot, Sept 2020

Comments
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? KFkairosfocus
September 16, 2020
September
09
Sep
16
16
2020
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
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
September 16, 2020
September
09
Sep
16
16
2020
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
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
September 16, 2020
September
09
Sep
16
16
2020
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 16, 2020
September
09
Sep
16
16
2020
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
What fearmongering? The lefty media is queen of that play card.ET
September 16, 2020
September
09
Sep
16
16
2020
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
KF,
Toxic side discussion over.
And now back to our regularly scheduled fearmongering. :-)daveS
September 16, 2020
September
09
Sep
16
16
2020
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
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
September 16, 2020
September
09
Sep
16
16
2020
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
634 Mac McTavish
Gay people marry,
Gay people engage in civil unions, not marriage. Marriage involves a man and a woman.Truthfreedom
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
UB, Re: 3: I don't recall us having any unpleasant interactions; I appreciate the thought in any case.daveS
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
. 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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
. 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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
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
September 15, 2020
September
09
Sep
15
15
2020
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11 12 32

Leave a Reply