. . . and similar manipulative spin and mob-ocracy games masquerading as truth, news, knowledge/education, etc now clearly needs to be confronted — if we are to think straight and act soundly in good time to avoid going over the cliff as a civilisation:
Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .
The Parable of Plato’s Cave (and the linked idea of the Overton Window):
. . . has much to teach us in a media-dominated age where manipulators keep trying to push/pull our window of acceptability through deceit, poison, accusation, polarising and more.
Especially if we ask ourselves: how does the shadow show come to be, and how is a community so manipulated that it loses contact with objective reality?
Acts 27 gives us a picture in miniature (once we realise that it was common knowledge that some seasons were dangerous for sailing in the Mediterranean basin of 2,000 years ago, but that many people can be induced to go along with those they look up to for leadership, power and expertise):
>>Ac 27:4 . . . putting out to sea from there [= Sidon] we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were against us.5 And when we had sailed across the open sea along the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra in Lycia.6 There the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy and put us on board.7 We sailed slowly for a number of days and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus, and as the wind did not allow us to go farther, we sailed under the lee of Crete off Salmone.8 Coasting along it with difficulty, we came to a place called Fair Havens, near which was the city of Lasea.
9 Since much time had passed, and the voyage was now dangerous because even the Fast[a] was already over, Paul advised them,10 saying, “Sirs, I perceive that the voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives.”11 But the centurion paid more attention to the pilot and to the owner of the ship than to what Paul said.12 And because the harbor was not suitable to spend the winter in, the majority decided to put out to sea from there, on the chance that somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, facing both southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there.
The Storm at Sea
13 Now when the south wind blew gently, supposing that they had obtained their purpose, they weighed anchor and sailed along Crete, close to the shore.14 But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.15 And when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along.16 Running under the lee of a small island called Cauda,[b] we managed with difficulty to secure the ship’s boat.17 After hoisting it up, they used supports to undergird [= frap] the ship. Then, fearing that they would run aground on the Syrtis, they lowered the gear,[c] and thus they were driven along.18 Since we were violently storm-tossed, they began the next day to jettison the cargo.19 And on the third day they threw the ship’s tackle overboard with their own hands.20 When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope of our being saved was at last abandoned.
21 Since they had been without food for a long time, Paul stood up among them and said, “Men, you should have listened to me and not have set sail from Crete and incurred this injury and loss.22 Yet now I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship.23 For this very night there stood before me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship,24 and he said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar. And behold, God has granted you all those who sail with you.’25 So take heart, men, for I have faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told.26 But we must run aground on some island.”>>
Here, Mr Moneybags and his bought- and- paid- for technico manipulated the passengers and the Centurion into going along with a foolhardy voyage. That Jeremiah over there in chains with scars from three previous shipwrecks? Just ignore that half-mad idiot rejected by his own people. We are the experts and our consensus is, we can do it . . . it will only take an afternoon’s sail on a comfortable reach to go forty miles to a safe and commodious harbour. Of course, the predictable result of turning democracy into a manipulated de-mockracy, was shipwreck.
And, on many, many dimensions, that is exactly what we face today.
(BTW, I think we would all profit from reading and viewing this Melanie Philips article and video interview here.)
Our challenge is to de-spin the dominant agenda and its seven mountains/ commanding heights citadels, to come to a critical mass of prudence towards a sounder more sustainable alternative:
Oh yes, I doubt that it is a mere accident that the Limousine torched on Trump’s Inauguration day
. . . was rented for Wallnau, and that the bought and paid for “Anarchists” — a dead political movement if ever there was one — claimed to be “We the People.”
Where, it is worth the while to pause and unpack the old Soviet/Bolshevik term, agit prop.
Namely, it strictly/narrowly . . . per current dictionary definitions . . . speaks to twisting the theatre, arts, literature and the like into propaganda. However, on both the history and the inherent dynamics as work it readily extends to the mob-ocracy game, in which the streets and news media or institutions of intellectual leadership and education — notice the appeals to “consensus” on matters of controversy or where something is patently wrong with the dominant and too often domineering schools of thought . . . — are turned into a grand theatre projecting shadow shows confused for reality.
Often, such shadow shows are sponsored by governments, sometimes by powerful factions. And of course, such theatre too often becomes bloody, creating a horrific escalating spiral of chaos, confusion, retaliation and polarisation.
U/D, Feb 2 — it looks like live events are demonstrating my point:
Here is a girl being struck and pepper-sprayed at UC Berkeley for the thought crime of objecting to the riots:
(Ask yourself, what if she has a medical condition such as grand mal epilepsy or asthma or the like that could be triggered, sometimes with severe consequences? Do these rioters think or care about what fires they could be playing with?)
Likewise, people are being chased and struck to the ground by blackshirts (pardon language that pops up):
Here is some media coverage, in this case backgrounders leading up to a telephone interview with the proposed speaker whose speech event was shut down by the riot:
(I further understand her husband was beaten unconscious [which more or less implies concussion injuries] with several of his ribs being broken.)
U/D Feb 6th: The friend “pepper” sprayed during an interview also speaks out about the attack, indicating that it was the identification as My/Trump supporters that triggered the first and second attacks:
(And in case you think pepper spraying is minor, consider the implicit threat as something much more destructive up to a poison gas could easily have been used. BTW, why didn’t someone realise, assault with a potentially deadly weapon and tackle this suspect/perpetrator to the ground? ANS: People are not trained for that and by the time you observe, orient, decide and begin to react [cf. on John Boyd’s OODA Loop, here] it is over for good or ill; that is why trained security should have been right there, preferably law enforcement. It is also why a clear entry area protected by barriers with adequate separation should have been in place . . . another point of negligence by the authorities. Likewise consider how dazzling was used to initiate the second attack, which ended in mayhem: disorientation that could easily have prepared for anything from kidnapping to stabbing or shooting. If the pepper spray woman can be caught and interrogated, this would be important as she — it is likely to have been one individual — initiated the attack sequence. Given the hostile nature of the interview, perhaps it would be useful to interrogate the interviewer as possibly being complicit given what happened and what could all too easily have happened. Then, compare this sort of coverage with how the major media have treated the events at UCB last Wednesday evening, to see how street agitation and bully-boy tactics then feed into the theatre of narrative propaganda, spin tactics, gaslighting and outright brainwashing. Something truly ugly is going on.)
U/D Feb 5th: Meanwhile, we have a picture of police in riot gear inside the student union while riot-induced chaos was going on outside:
The poster of this very tellingly asks:
>>I was at UC Berkeley last night. Here is a pic I got after the speech cancellation of nearly 100 SWAT and campus police sitting inside the student union building doing NOTHING while people were getting beaten outside. WHO told them to stand down?>>
Further U/D Feb 5, pm: Notice — HT Zero Hedge, Feb 2nd — how the street theatre then gets projected by the media houses (CNN as an example, but take note of ZH’s own perspectives, too . . . ) to suit their particular agendas and narratives:
Under certain circumstances, agit prop becomes not just rioting but rebellion and guerrilla war — these days, 4th generation war [think of how the Palestinian Arab uprisings and declaratively genocidal terrorism campaigns have come to be viewed as “liberation” struggles by many across the world . . . ] — or even radical revolution.
I again point to the de-spinning framework I developed a decade ago:
Let us wake up to what is in front of us regarding not just design debates but ever so many issues and agendas across our civilisation. Plato’s grim warning from nearly 2360 years ago, is again all too apt:
>>
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .
[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
>>
To be forewarned is — if we are wise — to be forearmed. END
Comments
AJ,
With all due respect, you clearly do not realise that evolutionary materialistic scientism (and its fellow travellers) holds a dominant position backed by many elite power centres. Thus instantly it is where we should see the opportunity for manipulation. Then, you miss the readily demonstrated points that such is both self-falsifying through self-referential incoherence and has long been known to be utterly amoral, thus a gateway to nihilism.
As we look around, there are many, many clues on the domination and manipulation coming from such circles, and a capital case in point is precisely the holocaust of posterity that is mounting up at a million victims per week and which you wish to dismiss or even suggest is nothing, really. The sanctity of life has been seriously violated under false colours of law.
Lewontin speaks inadvertent volumes on what has been going on across the past few generations:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads [==> as in, "we" have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
Your blame the targetted victims turnabout projection fails.
Moreover, despite your denials just above, you have clearly argued or implied that morality is only subjective. This entails that conscience-guided reason is pervaded by grand delusion and lands you in the infinite regress of Plato's Cave worlds.
You also know full well what you intend by dismissively referring to "your" [small-g] "god." An all to common move by atheists who do not wish to face the fact that the reality of God is the only serious candidate explanation of a world in which we find ourselves as morally governed, responsibly and rationally significantly free individuals in community -- a worldview issue not merely a matter of blind adherence to "religion" . . . usually (and foolishly) equated with blind, stupid, dangerous ignorant superstition in such a rhetorical context. Where, to dismiss that freedom and government at once ends in absurdity, even undermining the basis for serious discussion. Of course, that leaves the door open to much trollish mischief that cynically seeks to exploit, manipulate and denigrate.
And, more.
KFkairosfocus
March 18, 2017
March
03
Mar
18
18
2017
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
KF:
Unfortunately transparent by now. Your insistence on a lower-case g to refer to God tells us a lot about the gaps in your understanding of worldviews issues.
Actually it speaks very well for my knowledge of worldview issues. The god you worship is one among many that have been and continue to be worshipped The word itself is a common noun. As such, there is no need to capitalize the word, any more than we would capitalize it when we refer to the god of war, or the sea god. If I was going to refer to your flavour of god by name I would say Jehovah (or Yahweh) and capitalize it as I would with any other proper noun. Besides, I am an atheist that does't believe in the existence of gods. Why would or should I capitalize the word?
Second, you don’t seem to realise the implications of implying that any core, major facet of our conscious rationality is delusional.
Since I have never implied this, I don't see the relevance of this point. Or maybe I am just not understanding what you are trying to suggest with this statement.
In this case, conscience-guided reason, which is what impels us to truth and to duties of care relative to neighbours who are evidently of like order of being as we are.
My reason is influenced by my conscience just like yours is. Again, I don't see where you are going with this. What does this have to do with whether or not an early stage fetus has any human rights?
FYI, conscience cannot be safely or surgically removed from rationality.
Again, where have I suggested this? Are you sure that you are not responding to the wrong person?
But we need to go to a far older philosopher to see the full force of the point, Plato and his parable of the cave.
I guess the real question is who is best represented by the prisoners in the cave, you and your views or me and mine? Since my views are based on reasoning, rationality, evidence and experience, and yours are heavily influenced by one of many religions, all of which can't be true, I think that it is quite possible that I stand on the higher ground.
We do not even know that humans cease from conscious existence once brain activity ceases or even when brains are destroyed.
You keep referring to hyper-scepticism. But if you are suggesting that consciousness exists after the brain is completely destroyed, or before the brain even starts to develop, then you have left the realm of rational, logical, evidence based thought and entered the realm of hyper-speculation. Something that is every bit as dangerous as hyper-scepticism. In short, your opinion is based on your religious beliefs, not on objective reality. And I am repeatedly told that the most of the opposition to early term abortions is not a religious one. Call me skeptical if you like. But there are many times when skepticism is justified.Armand Jacks
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Venezuela poses lessons in how one cannot eat agit prop and ideological media shadow shows:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/03/16/venezuela-socialists-denounce-nationwide-bakers-conspiracy-threaten-to-seize-bakeries/
>>Venezuela’s socialist government has imposed new draconian measures on its bakeries intended to lay the blame for the intense food shortages the country is experiencing on craven small business owners. Bakers who do not adhere to these rules, the vice president announced this week, will risk having their business seized by the government.
Venezuela’s bakeries must now begin selling bread at 6AM – any later than 7AM will result in sanctions for the bakery – and use 90 percent of their wheat content to make bread. They are not allowed to be in possession of more than 300 sacks of wheat a month.
Inspections to ensure bakeries are complying with these new requirements began on Monday, and over 700 of them have received government visits so far this week. Bakers who do not comply with these programs risk having their bakeries expropriated and handed to the Committees for Supply and Production (CLAP), socialist brigades tasked with distributing the nation’s food supply.
“We have identified part of the conspiracies and deeds that have generated sabotage in order to bring bread to the people,” Vice President Tareck El Aissami said on Monday. “Bakeries which do not follow [the rules] will be occupied by the government.” El Aissami reiterated the government’s belief that the reason for the current bread shortage in the country is that bakers use too much of their wheat for expensive and needless pastries instead of using their supplies to make bread for poorer people.
President Nicolás Maduro issued a stern warning to the nation’s bakers, whom he accused of launching a bread war. “They will pay, I swear,” he told a crowd on his Sunday night television program. “Those responsible for the bread war will pay and, later, don’t go and say that it is political persecution.” . . . .
Bakers have expressed extreme frustration at the new measures. Last year, the government put the nation’s food supply under the control of the military, so bakeries are beholden to the whims of the government ration system. According to the nation’s bakers’ organization, 80 percent of the nation’s bakeries do not have inventory to make bread. The government also regulates the price of bread, so the laws of supply and demand do not apply in the Venezuelan economy, and bakers have no hope of making a profit.>>
--> this is the sort of political incitement that cost my auntie her life.
--> This is ideological farce turned real world tragedy:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-arrests-brownie-croissant-bakers-bread-war-024355524.html
>>Venezuela this week arrested four bakers making illegal brownies and other pastries as President Nicolas Maduro's socialist government threatens to take over bakeries in Caracas as part of a new "bread war".
Maduro has sent inspectors and soldiers into more than 700 bakeries around the capital this week to enforce a rule that 90 percent of wheat must be destined to loaves rather than more expensive pastries and cakes.
It was the latest move by the government to combat shortages and long lines for basic products that have characterized Venezuela's economic crisis over the last three years.
The ruling Socialist Party says pro-opposition businessmen are sabotaging the OPEC nation's economy by hoarding products and hiking prices. Critics say the government is to blame for persisting with failed polices of price and currency controls.
Breadmakers blame the government for a national shortage of wheat, saying 80 percent of establishments have none left in stock.
During this week's inspections, two men were arrested as their bakery was using too much wheat in sweet bread, ham-filled croissants and other products, the state Superintendency of Fair Prices said in a statement sent to media on Thursday.
Another two were detained for making brownies with out-of-date wheat, the statement added, saying at least one bakery had been temporarily taken over by authorities for 90 days.
"Those behind the 'bread war' are going to pay, and don't let them say later it is political persecution," Maduro had warned at the start of the week.>>
--> Hanged if you do, strung up if you don't; that is how ideological revolutions typically end up, and it is how people who have been cornered by revolutionaries eventually turn on their tormentors. (Unless the revolutionaries strike first with a reign of terror and gulags to go with it.)
--> Notice, an incident with Savage:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4317798/Pro-Trump-radio-host-Michael-Savage-claims-attacked.html
Pro-Trump radio host Michael Savage claims he was assaulted while having dinner with his toy poodle Teddy
Savage, 74, says he was having dinner in Tiburon, California, with his 12-year-old pooch when a man began taunting him by saying, 'weener, weener'
Heckler was apparently referring to Savage's legal name, Michael Alan Weiner
Man then allegedly knocked Savage to the ground and punched another diner who tried to intervene
Both men had placed each other under citizen's arrest, but police let them go
Last month, Savage had an hour-long meeting over dessert with Trump, which concluded with president declaring, ‘I wouldn’t be president without this man'
>>As Savage was heading out the door, the verbal abuse allegedly turned physical when the jeerer knocked the septuagenarian to the ground, according to the talk show host's attorney, Daniel Horowitz.
When another diner tried to step in between the brawlers, he was punched in the face, Horowitz told the Mercury News.
Savage's beloved 12-year-old pooch also got shoved after getting caught in the middle of the scuffle.>>
--> Time to think again.
KFkairosfocus
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
AJ,
Unfortunately transparent by now. Your insistence on a lower-case g to refer to God tells us a lot about the gaps in your understanding of worldviews issues.
Second, you don't seem to realise the implications of implying that any core, major facet of our conscious rationality is delusional. In this case, conscience-guided reason, which is what impels us to truth and to duties of care relative to neighbours who are evidently of like order of being as we are.
FYI, conscience cannot be safely or surgically removed from rationality. Even the most cynically manipulative and nihilistic rhetors assume that the general run of society will not be as they are. If that were to even be remotely approached, society would collapse. And though such don't really care about society, they hope to have a sufficiently viable host to leech upon. That's already a big clue as Kant's categorical imperative will inform us.
But we need to go to a far older philosopher to see the full force of the point, Plato and his parable of the cave. For the denizens thereof live in a world of grand delusion, misled by senses and environment to imagine they experience reality. Of course, one is set free and sees the cheat (conscience in action urging us to truth and against error and deceit), then is made to see more and in pity -- as in, conscience is acting again -- tries to help his fellows, only to be scorned for a fool, with threats being made against the life of his liberator.
The problem with this is, it stops at the second level and locates the delusions externally.
When today's cynics turn on conscience and imply that it is delusional in testifying that we are under government of moral law in thought, word, deed and relationships, they locate the grand delusion where we cannot escape it. This means, when we imagine the level 1 perception is delusional, the levels 2, 3 . . . n, . . . have become just as inherently tainted. An infinite regress of grand delusions stares us in the face and leads to collapse of confidence in mind.
That is why any appeal to grand delusion (save for the enlightened, red pill few to use updated language) is inherently absurd. Global hyperskepticism is self-defeating. Likewise, turning that around through logic on a swivel and being selectively hyperskeptical and sneeringly, superciliously dismissive of the despised others not only fatally inconsistent and equally absurd, but it tempts us to that pride that imagines WE are the exceptions to the rule we just made to put our imagined inferiors in their place.
(Nor, does subtly dodging by saying, we have not said that explicitly allow wriggling off the hook. There is something called reading between the lines after all, a particularly important praxis in dealing with the cynically manipulative.)
The way out lies in the path of reasonable, responsible trust in our senses and old fashioned common sense, especially through establishing first, self-evident, yardstick truths. Truths we trust as to reject them lands us in immediate, patent absurdity. One of such being that grand delusion is not to be entertained. So, when conscience tells us that we are under moral government of thought, word, deed and relationships, we take it seriously, never mind that we can and do fall into error. For, without that prior recognition, there is no basis for escaping from error through reform.
So, we see that it is reasonable and responsible to work with conscience-guided reason, and to apply first principles of right reason to discern moral truth from moral error. These, we can live by and build family and society upon, grounding a sound system of governance.
And yes, there are moral, self-evident truths.
Had you bothered to seriously ponder the already repeatedly linked, you would have seen how this can be put to good use.
Rather than going over that, let us bring the reasoning in Locke that lies under and sustains the 2nd para of the US DoI, 1776, in his 2nd treatise on civil govt, ch 2 sec 5:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For 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 . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
A place to begin from, again pivotal to the modern era.
Then, if you will understand where I point, notice this more extended cite than the usual from the US DoI, and yes, the 55 Founders understood quite well that being under moral government is best understood -- here I allude to inference to the best explanation, which is a form of warrant that is explicitly not a proof beyond all doubt or dispute (appropriate to a world of soul-making test) -- as being rooted in the reality of an adequate ultimate moral governor the author of moral law:
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.
By now it should be quite clear that democracy is inherently unstable and requires the fostering of honour, moral fibre and prudence among the people to be sustainable. Which points us right back to the pivotal importance of reform and the example set by Wilberforce.
The same, you and others would scant.
And, at the same time, this exposes the shoddy counterfeits of our time. Counterfeits exposed by how a vice president of an organisation that carries out what, 300,000 abortions per year and receives 40% of its budget as what is taken from the taxpayer, to the tune of US$ 500 millions each year, is unable and/or unwilling to publicly answer as to the humanity or otherwise of the victims of killings in the womb.
For shame!
At least, shame is a good sign: conscience in action.
KF
PS: I note, we have no good reason to confine the possibility of conscious life capable of responsible, rational freedom to biological or otherwise material computational substrates. To assume that (as you casually do above) is to beg big questions. We do not even know that humans cease from conscious existence once brain activity ceases or even when brains are destroyed. In short, you have been loading up on evolutionary materialistic assumptions and/or fellow travellers. There are major, longstanding alternative views on the subject and they should be heard, not foreclosed by flashing a lab coat clad self-referentially incoherent philosophy and/or its fellow travellers at them.kairosfocus
March 17, 2017
March
03
Mar
17
17
2017
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
I wasn’t aware that a building could be a Christian whose rights needed protecting.
And I certainly wasn't aware buildings held weddings for themselves and could be pressured to do so or that the buildings declare themselves to be churches or that they miraculously lift off the ground and run to apply for tax-exempt status or that the buildings would care about having their tax-exempt status revoked. Gotta love those sentient buildings eh?
Do you teach buildings how to pay tax? I might need that information for this pesky little building down the street that is worried about its taxes.Vy
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Vy@359, I wasn't aware that a building could be a Christian whose rights needed protecting.Armand Jacks
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
KF:
Completely off base.
Our view is that humans hold inherently valuable natures and are owed duties of care, thus by mutuality enjoy rights.
And what is responsible for these inherently valuable natures? Are you suggesting that your god is not at the root of this? That would definitely be a surprise to anyone who has read your posts and comments.
In this context, I hold that ethical theism is the best explanation for such a circumstance.
So, you agree that your beliefs inform your opinions and decisions. That is all I was saying. I don't understand why WM was so defensive about this.
If you doubt such, kindly propose another base for moral governance that does not rapidly collapse into absurdities such as those of society grants rights. FYI, sound societies recognise and respect rights.
You have answered your own question. Sound societies recognize and respect rights. More accurately, sound societies listen to their members in establishing the rights that must be respected. There are plenty of examples of societies that did not do this and they only last as long as their power to enforce their will lasts.
In this context, there is just one objectively identifiable point for the initiation of human life, conception (and not implantation).
That is certainly debatable, but I really don't have a problem with this. But we are not talking about when human life starts, we are talking about when the fetus is entitled to the rights that society has determined is afforded to all others.
As to, you are a theist so you believe in human rights that start at conception, that is actually an inadvertent commendation of ethical theism: it promotes what is sound.
No, it is an acknowledgment that it is a circular argument. Theists believe that human rights begin at conception therefore human rights must begin at conception.
And no, being a theist does not — save in the imaginations of ever so many cynically hyperskeptical atheists and fellow travellers — imply being ignorant, stupid, insane or unduly wicked.
This would be a good argument if I have ever made this claim. But since I haven't, it is nothing more than a strawman for you to knock down.
So, that side-track also fails.
Since it was a side-track that has only been fabricated by your own imagination, there is no pass or fail.
The ugly columns of smoke are going up all over our civilisation, and the ongoing abortion holocaust is one of the worst.
What happened. Was the "civilization heading over the cliff to a sudden stop on the rocks below" trope get tiring?
Wilberforce’s reformation leadership is the touchstone example of how effective, beneficial and lasting sound morally anchored reformation is.
Yet it actually took a civil war that killed more Americans than all other wars combined before slavery as an institution was effectively ended. Great example of morally anchored reformation while opposing the blandishments of violent radical revolutionism.Armand Jacks
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Apple Jack
I think you are spreading a little fake news that Trump banned Muslim immigration. Did CNN send you?Eugen
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
As I would fight to reinstate the rights of Christians if they were removed
You don't say...
Armand Jacks: I would not be unhappy if governments and the general public pressured other churches to perform same sex ceremonies. Even as far as revoking tax free status to churches that refuse to do it.
Vy
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
You Demand that I support my assertion that a person without a brain is not self aware and that a person without a brain would not be alive.
Absolutely.
Here, I will make a couple more assertions. A person without legs cannot run.
Can you run faster than Oscar Pistorius?
A person without eyes cannot see.
I'm sure if Ben Underwood was alive he would disagree.
Are you going to demand that I provide support for these assertions as well?
You ought to.Vy
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
AJ, 335:
[KF:] AJ, that you thought to dismiss Wilberforce’s historical example of the power of morally driven reformation to eradicate key evils and positively transform the world speaks volumes. Not, in your favour. KF
{AJ:] I dismissed it because it is not relevant to this discussion. The fact that you do not see this speaks volumes. And not in your favour.
Your attempted dismissive remark, including borrowing of language I have used, and given wider context above on reform vs radical revolution -- characteristic themes of the modern era since the scientific revolution -- points out that you reject that Wilberforce is relevant to why I would stand with morally anchored reformation and oppose the blandishments of violent radical revolutionism.
Your further attempts fail just as badly, and reveal a characteristic failure of the left to realise just how bloodily destructive and futile revolutionism has consistently been.
Wilberforce's reformation leadership is the touchstone example of how effective, beneficial and lasting sound morally anchored reformation is.
So much so that latterly there have been attempts to create counterfeit reformations through the tactics of cultural marxism and associated so-called critical studies and radical identity politics joined to agit-prop and media shadow shows.
One of these is mass abortion's ongoing holocaust under false colours of rights and of law.
KFkairosfocus
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
AJ:
It is probably more accurate to say that KF’s and your belief that human rights begin at conception is greatly influenced by your theistic beliefs. I think that you would agree that this is a fair statement.
Completely off base.
Our view is that humans hold inherently valuable natures and are owed duties of care, thus by mutuality enjoy rights. The issue as to rights of X pivot on, is X human (or a comparable being), where such a being existing in time will have a succession of stages of existence.
As a simple example, consider that responsible rational freedom we have, which allows us to hold a serious discussion. Such cannot be reduced to blindly mechanical computation.
In this context, there is just one objectively identifiable point for the initiation of human life, conception (and not implantation).
In this context, I hold that ethical theism is the best explanation for such a circumstance. If you doubt such, kindly propose another base for moral governance that does not rapidly collapse into absurdities such as those of society grants rights. FYI, sound societies recognise and respect rights.
Which soundness is precisely the issue at stake concerning our holocaust-enabling generation.
As to, you are a theist so you believe in human rights that start at conception, that is actually an inadvertent commendation of ethical theism: it promotes what is sound.
And no, being a theist does not -- save in the imaginations of ever so many cynically hyperskeptical atheists and fellow travellers -- imply being ignorant, stupid, insane or unduly wicked. (I hold, we all struggle with the challenge of virtue as attested to in a healthy person by the voice of conscience-guided reason.)
So, that side-track also fails.
The ugly columns of smoke are going up all over our civilisation, and the ongoing abortion holocaust is one of the worst.
KFkairosfocus
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
WM:
I can’t speak for KF, but my view of when a human’s rights start depends entirely upon three things; (1) the concept of rights being endowed upon us via a system of natural law (also written in the Declaration of Independence), (2) the scientific fact of when a human life begins, and (3) logic.
Forgive me if I think you are lying, or deceiving yourself. If your belief system doesn't inform your decisions, of what use is it?
You are confusing a right with a law,...
Since I have seen no compelling evidence for inherent human rights, your point is moot.
Since you did not support your assertion and instead decided to insult me, I’ll take that to mean that you cannot support your assertions and thus they are only a matter of your personal opinion.
This is priceless. You Demand that I support my assertion that a person without a brain is not self aware and that a person without a brain would not be alive. Here, I will make a couple more assertions. A person without legs cannot run. A person without eyes cannot see. Are you going to demand that I provide support for these assertions as well?
Well, if you consider rational arguments to be “nothing”,...
No, rational arguments are definitely something. Please let me know when you start making one.
I take you are refusing to answer the question I posed: “if society decides that atheists have no rights and can be treated as property, will that be okay with you?”
The reason it was a stupid question is because nobody has suggested that everyone must agree with what society has decided are basic rights. You build strawmen faster than Canadians build snowmen. Yes, as an atheist I would not agree with the rights I currently enjoy being removed. But the sad reality is that I may not have enough influence and support to do anything about it.
Just as you would agree that women, children and gays only have what rights each particular society grants them, and that there are no such thing as universal human rights. Correct?
Yes, That is absolutely correct. Again, I suggest that you read a history book. But just because there are no universal human rights doesn't mean that we shouldn't put in every effort to develop human rights that we all agree to. And even use force to impose them on others as the north did to the south in your civil war.
IOW, if it is okay in those countries to beat women, abuse children and kill gays, that’s just that society’s particular system of laws based on their particular system of rights, and so it’s all just fine with you, right?
You have this nasty habit of putting words in other people's mouths. Again, where have I said that anyone has to agree with the rights allowed by the society they live in or the rights allowed in other societies? I even gave examples.
if atheists were stripped of their human rights by society, would you try to get them reinstated?
Yes. As I would fight to reinstate the rights of Christians if they were removed, or the rights of Jews or Muslims. Just look towards your own country and the opposition to Trump's executive order to ban Muslim immigration.Armand Jacks
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
AJ said:
OK. I concede the fact that I should have chosen better words. It is probably more accurate to say that KF’s and your belief that human rights begin at conception is greatly influenced by your theistic beliefs. I think that you would agree that this is a fair statement.
I can't speak for KF, but my view of when a human's rights start depends entirely upon three things; (1) the concept of rights being endowed upon us via a system of natural law (also written in the Declaration of Independence), (2) the scientific fact of when a human life begins, and (3) logic.
Now it is you who should have chosen better words. We don’t give people the right to drink until they are, more or less biologically and mentally mature. Whether we pict 18, 19 or 21 is rather arbitrary, but picking an age within this fairly narrow window is not.
You are confusing a right with a law, and you're apparently confused about the difference between laws that govern what age a person can legally buy alcohol and what age they can legally drink alcohol in various circumstances, say in public or at home. On private property with parental consent, minors can legally consume alcoholic beverages in several states.
I’m sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. And I have heard plenty on UD. I even admit to having said some really stupid things. But nothing in this league. I bow to the master.
Since you did not support your assertion and instead decided to insult me, I'll take that to mean that you cannot support your assertions and thus they are only a matter of your personal opinion.
No you have nothing. That’s what I thought.
Well, if you consider rational arguments to be "nothing", I guess there's really no point in even debating the matter.
Please support this assertion.
Since you consider logical arguments to be "nothing", I don't see the point.
Maybe I have missed something. Isn’t a debate a discussion between people who disagree about something. Without the disagreement, we don’t have a debate, we just have a love-fest or an echo chamber.
I don't understand your response. You may think "we" are debating something that is "produced via social agreement", but it is not my position that rights are produced in such a manner. We are debating rights, which you believe are created via social agreement (and I supposed fixed by law), and which I (and I think some others here) believe are fixed by nature and cannot be voided by any law or government.
You know how I said that what you said earlier was the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I take it back. Your comment just above has now taken the lead.
I take you are refusing to answer the question I posed: "if society decides that atheists have no rights and can be treated as property, will that be okay with you?"
Can you not answer the question? You're the one that claims rights are generated by society; I assume that if society strips atheists of all human rights, you'd agree that atheists in that country have no rights and have no reason to object to such a situation since it was arrived at via due process of social agreement. Correct?
Just as you would agree that women, children and gays only have what rights each particular society grants them, and that there are no such thing as universal human rights. Correct? IOW, if it is okay in those countries to beat women, abuse children and kill gays, that's just that society's particular system of laws based on their particular system of rights, and so it's all just fine with you, right?
If you would also answer another question: if atheists were stripped of their human rights by society, would you try to get them reinstated?William J Murray
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
WM:
No, we’re talking about whether or not it is a “theistic” belief that human rights begin at conception (as per your comment to KF), and that is not fair. It’s an opinion about when one should have human rights based upon a very simple scientific fact – when human life begins. There’s no reason to characterize that position as “theistic” or “religious”.
OK. I concede the fact that I should have chosen better words. It is probably more accurate to say that KF's and your belief that human rights begin at conception is greatly influenced by your theistic beliefs. I think that you would agree that this is a fair statement.
Of course it does. Any other point where one assigns such a right is entirely arbitrary.
Now it is you who should have chosen better words. We don't give people the right to drink until they are, more or less biologically and mentally mature. Whether we pict 18, 19 or 21 is rather arbitrary, but picking an age within this fairly narrow window is not.
Conception is the only point with scientific basis where assignation of “human rights” can be precisely and confidently assigned.
No, it is simply the easiest approach. But easy does not mean that it is scientifically based.
AJ: Any rights we have are the result of societal agreement.
WM: Please support that assertion.
You are correct. I am caught in using sloppy language again. Let me amend my statement:
Any rights we have are the result of societal agreement or enforcement by those with the power to enforce them.
.
.
I take then it you are unconcerned with the fate of women, children and gays in countries where they are treated as property, abused, tortured and killed? Because, by your view, they only have the rights those societies assign them, correct?
They do only have the rights that their societies assign them. Have you not read the news or any history books. That doesn't mean that I have to like it or accept it. We have a long history of societies modifying the rights that their members are entitled to. A few years ago, homosexuals did not have the right to marry or adopt. Myself and thousands of others fought to extend these rights to them and were successful. You and thousands are fighting to extend the right to life to the fetus. And you may win. But that won't' stop abortions and, if history has shown, it probably won't even reduce the numbers significantly. So, what will you really have one? The criminalization of women? The unnecessary death and suffering of women? Doesn't sound like much of a win to me.
No. That may be what you are talking about, but that is not what those you are debating are talking about,...
Maybe I have missed something. Isn't a debate a discussion between people who disagree about something. Without the disagreement, we don't have a debate, we just have a love-fest or an echo chamber.
AJ: If a person does not have a brain, they can’t be self-aware. But your point is moot as someone without a brain would not be alive.
WM: Please support these assertions.
I'm sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. And I have heard plenty on UD. I even admit to having said some really stupid things. But nothing in this league. I bow to the master.
AJ: Give me examples of how allowing a woman to choose abortion in the first trimester is corrosive to society.
WM: The[y]’re not “examples”, they’re arguments.
So you have nothing. That's what I thought.
Abortionism, or the legalizing and normalizing of abortion, inherently devalues the idea of human life to something that is disposable for the sake of convenience.
Please support this assertion.
I have a further question for you; if society decides that atheists have no rights and can be treated as property, will that be okay with you?
You know how I said that what you said earlier was the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I take it back. Your comment just above has now taken the lead.Armand Jacks
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
AJ said:
We were talking about a human’s rights, not the time at which life begins.
No, we're talking about whether or not it is a "theistic" belief that human rights begin at conception (as per your comment to KF), and that is not fair. It's an opinion about when one should have human rights based upon a very simple scientific fact - when human life begins. There's no reason to characterize that position as "theistic" or "religious".
Even for adults, the right to live is not sacrosanct. We have capital punishment. We have war.
Nobody claimed it was an inviolable right. I don't know of anyone here making that argument.
The one doesn’t follow from the other.
Of course it does. Any other point where one assigns such a right is entirely arbitrary. Conception is the only point with scientific basis where assignation of "human rights" can be precisely and confidently assigned.
Any rights we have are the result of societal agreement.
Please support that assertion.
I take then it you are unconcerned with the fate of women, children and gays in countries where they are treated as property, abused, tortured and killed? Because, by your view, they only have the rights those societies assign them, correct?
Again, we are not talking about the start of life. We are talking about when the societally given right to life starts.
No. That may be what you are talking about, but that is not what those you are debating are talking about, because we don't see rights entirely as social constructs, but rather as innate rights.
If a person does not have a brain, they can’t be self-aware. But your point is moot as someone without a brain would not be alive.
Please support these assertions.
By using the word “possibly” I am erring on the side of caution.
Or, we can err on the side of scientific fact and not vague speculation rooted in materialist ideology by assigning that right at conception.
Give me examples of how allowing a woman to choose abortion in the first trimester is corrosive to society.
The're not "examples", they're arguments. Abortionism, or the legalizing and normalizing of abortion, inherently devalues the idea of human life to something that is disposable for the sake of convenience. There's just no way around that. Just as you have done, it also paves the way to rationalizations that make it easier to terminate the lives of those who do not meet certain arbitrary and often vague, unprovable criteria based on materialist assumptions - like your idea that human rights require some degree of self-awareness, when self-awareness is impossible to demonstrate.
Are you saying that a sufficiently challenged child who cannot respond in a way that indicates "self-awareness" according to some test, or really anything beyond physical reaction to sensory input, should have no rights?
I have a further question for you; if society decides that atheists have no rights and can be treated as property, will that be okay with you?William J Murray
You start off describing your position concerning when rights begin with I believe . What makes your belief superior to anyone else’s?
It may be. And maybe it is not. But using the word "believe" was probably a poor choice of words. "Opinion" is probably more accurate. But, an opinion based on the evidence that I have seen, not on what my priest or minister tells me.
WM:
That is an entirely unfair characterization. It’s a scientific fact that a human life begins at conception;
We were talking about a human's rights, not the time at which life begins. Very different things. Even for adults, the right to live is not sacrosanct. We have capital punishment. We have war.
if one is in favor of human right to life, then it follows that the right to life begins at the conception of that life.
The one doesn't follow from the other. Any rights we have are the result of societal agreement.
Note the vague language; “possibly” have “something resembling” self-awareness.
I used the word "possibly" because we do not yet know at what stage of brain development self-awareness occurs. But we can be certain that it can't occur without the brain. By using the word "possibly" I am erring on the side of caution.
Can the same standard be applied to human life outside the womb? Can people have their loved ones put to death if they do not meet the “self-awareness” criteria?
If a person does not have a brain, they can't be self-aware. But your point is moot as someone without a brain would not be alive.
It doesn’t take “extensive knowledge of fetal development” to know that human life begins at conception.
Again, we are not talking about the start of life. We are talking about when the societally given right to life starts.
Once again, what the abortion rate will or will not be is largely irrelevant to the point KF argues about the corrosive effect “abortionism” has on our culture.
Now who is talking about vague terminology. Be specific. Give me examples of how allowing a woman to choose abortion in the first trimester is corrosive to society. And don't give me the nonsense about them going to hell or regretting the decision later in life. We all make decisions that we regret later. It is not the government's role to protect us from bad decisions unless they are decisions that negatively impact others.
You can mention it all you want; it has no bearing on the main issues being addressed. It’s odd how you keep wanting to steer the discussion towards “reduction of abortions” when that is not the main issue being addressed in this thread and how it pertains to “abortionism” (the legalization/normalization of abortion and the vilifying of pro-life perspectives) as a corrosive ideology.
Again with this vague notion of "corrosive ideology". Yet nobody has provided any conclusive examples of how abortion on demand has been corrosive to society.Armand Jacks
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
AJ, has it dawned on you that brain structure inherently cannot explain consciousness, much less responsible freedom? That is what the so-called hard problem of consciousness is in effect reluctantly half-conceding. It matters not that the processor elements are in wetware and seem to operate on analogue signals, voltages, currents and pulses running through signal processing elements have no relevance in themselves to consciousness, conscience, choice and reason. Computation is not contemplation. KFkairosfocus
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
AJ said (in another thread)
Where we disagree is the time at which this right applies. You believe that it starts at conception, which is based on your theistic beliefs, not on objective evidence.
That is an entirely unfair characterization. It's a scientific fact that a human life begins at conception; if one is in favor of human right to life, then it follows that the right to life begins at the conception of that life. Every other argument - such as capacity to feel pain, capacity to think, etc. - is rife with problems when examined both logically and scientifically.
I believe that it starts at the time when the brain is sufficiently developed to possibly have something resembling self-awareness.
Note the vague language; "possibly" have "something resembling" self-awareness. How does AJ propose we scientifically measure this "self-awareness"? Can the same standard be applied to human life outside the womb? Can people have their loved ones put to death if they do not meet the "self-awareness" criteria? If not, why not?
This opinion is based on current knowledge of fetal development, which is quite extensive,
It doesn't take "extensive knowledge of fetal development" to know that human life begins at conception.
... and the knowledge that criminalizing abortion will not reduce the abortion rate, except for the short term until a network of illegal options become available, and will increase the risk to women who avail themselves of these services.
Once again, what the abortion rate will or will not be is largely irrelevant to the point KF argues about the corrosive effect "abortionism" has on our culture.
As I mentioned, I prefer the approach of minimizing the abortion rate by minimizing the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. Experience has shown that this is best done by non judgemental comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives. So far, you have given no logical reason why this comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives should not be adopted by all jurisdictions.
You can mention it all you want; it has no bearing on the main issues being addressed. It's odd how you keep wanting to steer the discussion towards "reduction of abortions" when that is not the main issue being addressed in this thread and how it pertains to "abortionism" (the legalization/normalization of abortion and the vilifying of pro-life perspectives) as a corrosive ideology.William J Murray
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
I believe that it starts at the time when the brain is sufficiently developed to possibly have something resembling self-awareness.
Armand,
You start off describing your position concerning when rights begin with I believe . What makes your belief superior to anyone else's?
Andrewasauber
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
KF:
AJ (& attn JDK), That you imagine that Wilberforce is irrelevant to modernity simply underscores a refusal to learn from history.
Nice example of a deflection. I never said that Wilberforce was irrelevant to modernity. I was responding to your comment that he was:
the pivotal, key example of a reformer in the modern world.
Which he clearly is not. And his efforts in abolishing slavery, as auditory as it was, has no relevance to the abortion issue.
You already know what my Mom spent a good slice of her career doing:
Yes, I read the part about your mother but I fail to see the point you were trying to make. I apologize, it is probably my inability to understand what you are trying to say with this.
I understand your issue with regard to the right to life. Where we disagree is the time at which this right applies. You believe that it starts at conception, which is based on your theistic beliefs, not on objective evidence. Which is fine if that is how you choose to lead your life. I believe that it starts at the time when the brain is sufficiently developed to possibly have something resembling self-awareness. That is why I support abortion on demand during the first trimester and only if the woman's health is seriously at risk for any time after that. This opinion is based on current knowledge of fetal development, which is quite extensive, and the knowledge that criminalizing abortion will not reduce the abortion rate, except for the short term until a network of illegal options become available, and will increase the risk to women who avail themselves of these services.
As I mentioned, I prefer the approach of minimizing the abortion rate by minimizing the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. Experience has shown that this is best done by non judgemental comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives. So far, you have given no logical reason why this comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives should not be adopted by all jurisdictions.Armand Jacks
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
AJ,
My reading of the last few exchanges between you and KF is that it is you are the one that seems obsessed with sexual practices while KF is arguing about something you seem intent on ignoring, much like the PP rep in the Carlson interview.
Let's assume that you are correct that sex education and availability of contraceptives helps reduce the number of abortions. Great! However, that has nothing to do with KF's main point about the corrosive nature of the ideology that champions abortion as a "right", attempts to normalize it, attempts to villainize pro-lifers (or reduce their position to cartoonish hypocrisy),and endorses agit-prop, Alinsky tactics to enforce that view via intimidation, ridicule and violence.
Let's also assume you are right for argument's sake that abortions do not decrease in number if you criminalize them. So what? One could make similar arguments about murder, burglary, assault, pedophilia, rape, child neglect - virtually any undesirable human activity; that criminalizing a behavior/activity doesn't actually reduce the frequency of the activity, it only punishes and stigmatizes those who engage in it.
Isn't that part of the social contract and cultural norms? To establish boundaries of behavior of what is acceptable and what will not be tolerated as a form of continuing self-governance for the ongoing successful, long-lasting success of that society? Shouldn't murderers and rapists be scorned and imprisoned? Shouldn't child abusers?
KF's point, which I agree with, is that accepting and normalizing abortion is a an anti-life cultural corrosive. That perspective should be pushed back against.William J Murray
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
F/N: The Wilberforce Epitaph on his statue in Westminster Abbey, where he lies next to Pitt:
To the memory of William Wilberforce (born in Hull, August 24th 1759, died in London, July 29th 1833); for nearly half a century a member of the House of Commons, and, for six parliaments during that period, one of the two representatives for Yorkshire. In an age and country fertile in great and good men, he was among the foremost of those who fixed the character of their times; because to high and various talents, to warm benevolence, and to universal candour, he added the abiding eloquence of a Christian life. Eminent as he was in every department of public labour, and a leader in every work of charity, whether to relieve the temporal or the spiritual wants of his fellow-men, his name will ever be specially identified with those exertions which, by the blessing of God, removed from England the guilt of the African slave trade, and prepared the way for the abolition of slavery in every colony of the empire: in the prosecution of these objects he relied, not in vain, on God; but in the progress he was called to endure great obloquy and great opposition: he outlived, however, all enmity; and in the evening of his days, withdrew from public life and public observation to the bosom of his family. Yet he died not unnoticed or forgotten by his country: the Peers and Commons of England, with the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker at their head, in solemn procession from their respective houses, carried him to his fitting place among the mighty dead around, here to repose: till, through the merits of Jesus Christ, his only redeemer and saviour, (whom, in his life and in his writings he had desired to glorify,) he shall rise in the resurrection of the just.
Lessons of history . . .
KFkairosfocus
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
AJ (& attn JDK), That you imagine that Wilberforce is irrelevant to modernity simply underscores a refusal to learn from history. Here, that of the very first modern human rights campaign -- and rights are inherently a moral issue -- sustained by a tiny minority at first, in the teeth of ruthless power interests as modern democratic government and public opinion were emerging. To you I say, the sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears; those who refuse to heed them doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over again. But of course, your dismissive rhetoric is most likely a sign that the lessons in question do not lead where you and ilk wish to go. (And this should make clear why I see the successive tangents and implied silly caricatures of those who object to the mass blood guilt of our civilisation -- you straight laced hypocritical prudes who don't want anyone to have fun, and try to block us from having access to our protective equipment and backup procedure if things don't quite work out, etc, and the like -- as little more than distractive, denigratory rhetoric. You already know what my Mom spent a good slice of her career doing: health education, including sexual health and family planning with an emphasis on audio-visual aids; working with a circle of informal aunties who were likewise just as sober and impressive. I simply note, that a key breakthrough in that work was when a comic book was created and made freely available; in a time when comic books were viewed with disdain by the better educated. A linked key move was the creation of a long-running radio drama that spoke to the issues of rural-urban migration, created by an informal uncle.) KF
PS: The pivotal rights question in the case of the ongoing holocaust of posterity is: LIFE, the first right, without which there are no other rights. The direct relevance to this thread is that we see here a case of the imposition of mass slaughter under false colours of choice, rights, health etc, leading to utterly warping and corrupting of consciences through mass blood guilt that devalues life, rights, morality and more, injecting the nihilistic premise that might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'morality,' 'justice,' 'rights' etc. That is, this is capital example number one of agit-prop and media shadow shows corrupting our civilisation and heading it down a march of ruinous folly.
PPS: I notice, how studiously you and ilk have side stepped any substantial challenge about the objectivity of moral governance, showing one of the core fallacies here; if morality is a mere matter of opinion and feeling, why not manipulate such through agit-prop and media shadow shows? I again point to a 101 that pivots on a case of self-evident moral truth: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_morals (And yes, self-evident first truths are absolutely critical to rationality and to responsible thinking about morality. Which, BTW, pervades all sober-minded reasoning through that conscience-driven urge to truth, right, fairness, prudence etc. It is not difficult to see why the ongoing undermining of such in popular thought, in the media and in the academy is a key factor in our civilisation's ongoing march of ruinous folly. While I am at it, here is a classical era historical case in miniature on how easily democracy can be manipulated to ruin once people fail to be sober and responsible. And if you think Divine Justice sleeps or is non-existent, even as you indulge in enabling or participating in mass blood guilt, stay tuned; the mills of God grind exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding fine.)
PPPS: Likewise, I observe how the Carlson interview in 338 just above exposes both the pivotal importance of the question of just what is being killed in the womb, and that of how the tactics of evasion, side tracking and cynical manipulation have led us to this sad pass. Notice, that's a Vice President of Planned Parenthood there. her evasiveness is a strong indicator that PP knows it has no sound answer to this issue, and it is determined to proceed on a path of blood, backed by compelled taxpayers' money to the tune of US$ 500 mn per year, what, 40% of the budget of PP. Ponder, how much of that then comes back as donations that prop up politicians who protect this march of folly?kairosfocus
March 16, 2017
March
03
Mar
16
16
2017
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT
KF:
JDK, I suggest that you take a moment to see that I critiqued by implication, casual sex and the tendency to view it as a sport or game with protective equipment, as opposed to committed creation order marriage and family.
If that is your attitude towards sex, I feel sorry for your wife.
Before I was married, both my wife and I partook of what you would call casual or recreational sex with different people. And, there were no unwanted pregnancies for either of us because we had comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives. And, when we got together, there was much recreational sex before we were married, with no unwanted pregnancies. Again, because we both had comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives.
And, since we have been married, over 34 years, we have had a very active sex life with no unwanted pregnancies (three wanted children). Did I mention that we had comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives?
And, our three children, two 29 year old twin girls and one 31 year old boy have been sexually active since they were teens. With our blessing. And, again, not a single unwanted pregnancy. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be due to comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives?
If I might suggest, it appears that your problem is less with abortion and more with a sexual lifestyle that you find morally unacceptable. Which is fine. But you have no right to dictate someone else's sexual lifestyle, any more than I have a right to dictate yours.Armand Jacks
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
KF:
AJ, you are already off on tangents. I simply point out that Wilberforce is the pivotal, key example of a reformer in the modern world.
Are you serious. Wilberforce died in 1833. Almost two centuries ago. Over six generations ago. How old are you? There is nothing modern about him. How does he reflect anything in the modern world? Although, to give you credit, he is more modern than Plato.
Thank you for inadvertently showing us by live example just how eaten out our civilisation’s moral reasoning capacity is, and just how pivotal a role the abortion holocaust has played in that. Beyond, the rhetorical stratagems you have used — the latest being Alinsky’s ridicule to dismiss — show just how destructive agit prop and media shadow show tactics are. KF
WTF? May I suggest that you are so full of bovine excrement that your eyes are brown?
I have presented a concrete strategy for moving society forward that will significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. One that has been shown to be effective in several countries. But you continue to refuse to address it. Why? Is it because it acknowledges the fact that humans are sexual animals? Is it because it only works if you lay aside the puritanical sermonizing pontifical nonsense? Is it because it gives permission for young people to have sex (which they are going to do regardless)? Is it because it encourages the use of contraceptives?
You really have to pick a side. What is more important, eliminating unwanted pregnancies and abortions, or pretending that you can control human sexuality?Armand Jacks
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Hmmm, kf. You first mentioned abortion in #7, and in various ways it has been a topic since #114, so here at #334 I'm not sure the thread has consistently stayed on the topic you wish it to.
And if you don't want to be responded to, don't write.
You wrote, "The core point remains: holocaust driven by utter devaluation of life and degradation of the act of marital love that procreates into a relationally empty, soul-tearing, conscience benumbing contact sport and questions of safety equipment backed up by getting rid of unwanted contraceptive failures. Utter, soul-wrecking moral failure, in short.)"
I'm asking if you think married couples who engage in playful sex and use contraception are part of that "holocaust", or not. Not all marital sex (very little of it, really) is for procreation.jdk
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
Carlson and a planned parenthood rep on the issue of the humanity of the unborn child. A lesson in agit prop, medsia shadow show, amoral or nihilistic evasion and refusal to address the pivotal issue:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/ultimate-dodge-tucker-carlson-asks-simple-question-7-times/
>>“Why are you giving me robotic responses? I’m asking you a human question, and I hope you’ll favor me with a human answer?”
That was Tucker Carlson on his primetime Fox News show “Tucker Carlson Tonight” interviewing Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens Monday night.
Carlson was looking for the answer to a simple question – the most basic, yet profound, question of the entire abortion debate: What exactly is the little “something” with a beating heart, residing in a mother’s womb, that is destroyed during an abortion? Is it a human being, a clump of tissue or something else?
In a remarkable series of exchanges, Carlson asked Laguens the same question seven times in a row, each time fending off his guest’s talking points about “choice,” “women’s health” and “cancer screenings.”
Carlson’s question has been the moral and legal touchstone for abortion opponents for decades, and as Laguens demonstrated, one that is virtually always sidestepped by abortion providers and proponents. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and has long received approximately half-a-billion dollars annually in taxpayer funding, something President Trump has promised to end when Obamacare is replaced.
“What is ‘being aborted’?” Carlson asked at the outset. “If you can hear the heartbeat, what is that thing?”
After Laguens’ evasion, Carlson asked again: “If you can hear the heartbeat of this ‘thing,’ this fetus, what is it? Is it a piece of tissue, or is it a separate human being?”
Bringing Planned Parenthood’s VP back to the question after more “pro-choice” talking points, Carlson tried again: “If you can hear the fetal heartbeat, and then it’s extinguished, what do you think of that? Is it a big deal or not, to you? And if not, why not?”
Finally, after multiple attempts, Carlson doubled down with Laguens even more earnestly: “I’ve let you repeat your talking points, which I’ve heard a thousand times. … But I want to take it just a level deeper, because I think it’s worth it. It’s a big deal to a lot of people. And people say, ‘Look, this is killing a life.’ A heart is beating, you can hear it at five-and-a-half weeks, and the majority of your abortions take place after five-and-a-half weeks. So I want to know if that bothers you at all. … Do you ever stop and think, ‘Wow, what is happening here, is a life being taken?’ People say a life is being taken. Do you think that?”
As the clock ran out on the interview, Carlson gave the Planned Parenthood chief still one more crack at the question: “Why are you giving me robotic responses? I’m asking you a human question, and I hope you’ll favor me with a human answer. … You can hear the heartbeat. Is that a human being or not? Is it separate from the mother or not? Different blood type, often different sex, different DNA. It doesn’t seem like a tumor. … What does that mean?”
True to form, Laguens, herself the mother of triplets, answered with yet more “abortion rights” talking points that totally avoided the question.
“With respect,” responded Carlson, “I know you’re smart, but you’re giving me a series of rehearsed and very childish answers and it’s just disappointing.”>>
--> Resemblance to what has happened above in this thread is NOT coincidental.
--> The ugly columns of smoke continue to rise.
KFkairosfocus
