. . . 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, you are already off on tangents. I simply point out that Wilberforce is the pivotal, key example of a reformer in the modern world. As for reducing abortions and disparaging the holocaust nature of the mass slaughter of 800+ million unborn children in 40+ years, mounting up at a million more per week, reducing the rate of a holocaust is simply not the same as facing it for what it is. 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. KFkairosfocus
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
JDK, it is now hard for me to avoid the conclusion that you are playing the troll and seeking to sidetrack by repeated tangents. I simply remind you that the main focus is agit prop and media manipulations. Playing the troll is a known agit prop tactic. Shape up, or please ship out. KFkairosfocus
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
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
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.
But again, your avoidance of actually addressing the real issue is patently obvious to all onlookers. Let me clip from above.
I don’t know why you keep bringing up Wilberforce. It is a false equivalency. Please stay on topic.
Your argument boils down to the fact that you will not accept anything other than an absolute ban on legal abortion. Even though it has been shown that this will do very little in changing the actual abortion rate other than making it far more risky for the women having them. Can you tell me where the benefit is in this? The only thing I can see is that it would assuage your false guilt at the fact that the government allows abortions under certain restrictions.
Setting goals that are not achievable is just plain stupid. It just sets us up for failure. We would all like a world in which women never had unwanted pregnancies. But that will never happen. The combination of raging hormones and the fact that sex is very enjoyable (and it is) dooms it to failure. However, providing young people with objective knowledge, devoid of puritanical moralizing, and unrestricted access to contraceptives has been shown to go a long way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, the number of abortions.
I have presented an approach that has been shown to significantly reduce the abortion rate. You have presented an approach that will not affect the abortion rate and will result in the unnecessary deaths of countless women. It concerns me that you are more interested in the false appearance of doing something to reduce the abortion rate rather than doing something that will actually reduce the abortion rate.
Are you going to continue to deny that the approach I suggested is not a good first step towards significantly reducing abortion rates? Is it because you find the idea of teaching kids about sex without the puritanical judgement morally reprehensible? Or that the idea of unrestricted access to contraceptives is morally reprehensible? This in spite of the clearly demonstrated fact that this significantly reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions?
If you are serious about your rediculous holocaust analogy, you should embrace any strategy that will significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies. But that, obviously, is not your motivation. You, for a reason I can't fathom, would prefer to force women with unwanted pregnancies to complete their pregnancy rather than give them the knowledge and tools to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.Armand Jacks
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Can married couples have casual, playful sex, in your view?
Can married couples use contraception, in your view, in order to limit the number of children they have and still enjoy the benefits of a regular sexual relationship?jdk
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
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. I gather, there is actually a whole horrid subculture of sex as a game out there, with emphasis on seduction as a sort of shady art form leading to racking up a score of numbers and types of attractive young women manipulated and bedded (I guess, extra points for virgins, I was too disgusted to look that far in web sites on that ugly, ugly, ugly topic -- for sure I saw posted betting lists for women targetted on campuses decades ago). That is an extreme but the tendency behind it is clear. Second, you need to ponder the corrosive impacts of evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller ideologies and agendas on our civilisation. And BTW, the second time around -- Plato pointed out much the same 2350+ years ago in The Laws Bk X. KFkairosfocus
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
kf - my thoughts about the value of good sex education, contraceptives, etc have absolutely nothing to do with "evolutionary materialism."
And since you weren't specific, I don'y know what words of yours you think I'm twisting. I got a laugh out of your referring to sex as "playing at a contact sport."jdk
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
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
PS: On objectivity of morality, you have of course adroitly side stepped links above. I again point: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_morals (Also, beware what you wish for, responsible rationality itself pivots on the binding force of oughtness towards truth and right. Logical nihilism is just as ruinous as any other form.)kairosfocus
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
JDK, you show the moral breakdown I pointed to, by your twisting of my words. I suggest you think again, more soberly, on what you are telling us about the menace of evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers. KFkairosfocus
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
I have said that there is no evidence of objective morality.
Well then, carry on with the claim and hedging but don't feel it carries any more weight than "Health at every size".
How do you prove the non-existence of something?
Are you a strand of spaghetti?Vy
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
AJ @324
Turnabout? Did you not make the claim @293:
History has shown this over and over again. It probably has something to do with the subjective nature of morality. Wishing that it was objective doesn’t make it so.
You even double downed @309 while admitting it’s problematic. Surely you can back up your claim that morality is subjective…Heartlander
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Vy:
Nice hedging. You are the one who has repeatedly claimed here that there is no evidence to support objective morality in response to WJM so the onus is on you to back up that claim. Deflecting by offering tu quoque excuses about other threads does not absolve you of that burden here and now.
What burden? I have said that there is no evidence of objective morality. Maybe that is just because I am unaware of the mountains of evidence supporting it. It should be a simple task to correct me in this respect. Yet nobody has done so.
Funny how this fallacious myth continues to thrive in the Atheist hivemind. Much like the 10% brain myth.
How do you prove the non-existence of something? Maybe I am just woefully ignorant. Feel free to prove to me that something doesn't exist.Armand Jacks
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Nice turnabout. You repeatedly assert that objective morality and moral truth exist (even writing a couple OPs about it) and when someone says that there is no compelling evidence to support it, rather than provide examples of that evidence, you demand that they prove that the evidence doesn’t exist.
Nice hedging. You are the one who has repeatedly claimed here that there is no evidence to support objective morality in response to WJM so the onus is on you to back up that claim. Deflecting by offering tu quoque excuses about other threads does not absolve you of that burden here and now.
Although I am curious, how is it possible to prove that something doesn’t exist? Can you prove that Santa Clause, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, unicorns and god don’t exist? Of course not.
Funny how this fallacious myth continues to thrive in the Atheist hivemind. Much like the 10% brain myth.Vy
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
I also am curious about the evidence.jdk
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
WM:
Since that’s the second time you’ve made that assertion, I challenge you to support it.
Nice turnabout. You repeatedly assert that objective morality and moral truth exist (even writing a couple OPs about it) and when someone says that there is no compelling evidence to support it, rather than provide examples of that evidence, you demand that they prove that the evidence doesn't exist.
Although I am curious, how is it possible to prove that something doesn't exist? Can you prove that Santa Clause, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, unicorns and god don't exist? Of course not. You can either prove that they do exist or not be able to find any evidence of their existance.Armand Jacks
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
AJ said:
I just know that there is nothing to support the concept of objective morality.
Since that's the second time you've made that assertion, I challenge you to support it.William J Murray
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Nice - to kf, sex is playing at a contact sport. :-)jdk
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
KF:
AJ, the side-tracking and refusal to face consciences benumbed in the context of the ongoing worst holocaust in history continue; where amelioration of holocaust is another word for continuation of holocaust under false colours of moderation.....
I don't know why you keep bringing up Wilberforce. It is a false equivalency. Please stay on topic.
Your argument boils down to the fact that you will not accept anything other than an absolute ban on legal abortion. Even though it has been shown that this will do very little in changing the actual abortion rate other than making it far more risky for the women having them. Can you tell me where the benefit is in this? The only thing I can see is that it would assuage your false guilt at the fact that the government allows abortions under certain restrictions.
Setting goals that are not achievable is just plain stupid. It just sets us up for failure. We would all like a world in which women never had unwanted pregnancies. But that will never happen. The combination of raging hormones and the fact that sex is very enjoyable (and it is) dooms it to failure. However, providing young people with objective knowledge, devoid of puritanical moralizing, and unrestricted access to contraceptives has been shown to go a long way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, the number of abortions.
I have presented an approach that has been shown to significantly reduce the abortion rate. You have presented an approach that will not affect the abortion rate and will result in the unnecessary deaths of countless women. It concerns me that you are more interested in the false appearance of doing something to reduce the abortion rate rather than doing something that will actually reduce the abortion rate.
WM:
I’m sure you consider that to be true, but to be fair billions disagree, including me.
I don't know if it is true. I just know that there is nothing to support the concept of objective morality. This doesn't make me happy. But I am a realist.
O:
Thus spoke the sociopath with a complete lack of conscience, lack of empathy, remorse, guilt and shame.
Nice ad-hominem. Do you actually have a logical argument?Armand Jacks
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
PS: A thought-provoker on the objectivity of morality:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Is_Morality_Objective
>>Morality is objective. That is, moral claims are true or false about aspects of human interaction that involve the ideas of rights and obligations. Further, the fundamental moral maxims apply universally, and reasonable people can agree on their truth.
There are really just two alternatives to moral objectivism: moral relativism, and all the rest. But all the rest lead to absurdity: if I truly believe that I cannot know right from wrong (moral skepticism), or that all moral claims are false (moral error theory), or that there is no right or wrong (moral nihilism and non-cognitivism), then I must conclude I don’t know what I should do. However, as a social animal I must interact with others. Thus, I find myself in the dilemma of having to act but not knowing how to act. Any theory that leads to this absurd state of mind must be rejected.
Moral relativism then is the only credible challenge to moral objectivism. The case for moral relativism is that different societies have different moral judgments. However, most more complex moral judgments are derived from a few basic ones, with components that vary with the material conditions of different societies. But the fact that different societies make different moral judgments does not prove relativism. To prove their position, relativists must dig down to the fundamental moral judgments in every society, and then show that these judgments are not shared by societies. This they have not done.
This is the indirect case for moral objectivism. The direct case includes the following ideas: (1) All societies share certain values necessary for any society to function (for example, no lying, promise-keeping, nurturing children) (2) Objectivism appeals to reason over feeling and offers a better chance for humanity to solve its many problems; (3) The purpose of ethics is to provide guidance, and humanity needs guidance for world affairs and not just within any particular society, and (4) Nations and societies must cooperate, and this requires agreement on core values.
Ethics first; meta-ethics [that is, thinking about the foundations of ethics] second. Meta-ethics should not be an obstacle to the pragmatic project of seeking guidance for human social interaction grounded on something we can all agree on, which I believe is a common human nature.
John Talley, Rutherfordton, NC>>kairosfocus
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
AJ,
asserting that nothing points to objectivity of moral government that we find ourselves under is effective rhetoric for some, but that begs a very big question or two, for starters cf:
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_morals
. . . begs 'em to the point of being a fallacy of confident manner.
BTW, thanks for underscoring the amoral implications of evolutionary materialistic scientism on this and other points.
KFkairosfocus
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
"sex education and easily available contraception"
These are irrelevant to a person's right to be born.
Andrewasauber
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Armand Jacks: There is nothing in life, in history, in society, that lends credence to the existence of a system of objective morals.
Thus spoke the sociopath with a complete lack of conscience, lack of empathy, remorse, guilt and shame.Origenes
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
AJ said:
There is nothing in life, in history, in society, that lends credence to the existence of a system of objective morals.
I'm sure you consider that to be true, but to be fair billions disagree, including me.William J Murray
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
AJ, the side-tracking and refusal to face consciences benumbed in the context of the ongoing worst holocaust in history continue; where amelioration of holocaust is another word for continuation of holocaust under false colours of moderation. As for history/facts, you appear to be utterly unaware of and unwilling to face the tellingly parallel case of Wilberforce and the contrasting track records of radical revolution and reformation rooted in prophetic, visionary intellectual and cultural leadership -- exactly what that case is all about. G'day. KF
PS: I can hardly recognise either myself or my mother in the caricature you have made on health education. That should tell you something about the strawman projections you are making. (FYI, I am not a Roman Catholic, nor am I bound by teachings of or alliances with that church, you and your ilk have raised a distractive irrelevancy, exactly a known agit-prop and media shadow show tactic. 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.)
PPS: The White Rose Martyrs have somewhat to say:
WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!
WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.
kairosfocus
March 15, 2017
March
03
Mar
15
15
2017
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
KF:
JDK & AJ, again, side-tracking, setting up strawman targets and knocking them over.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
I have presented a sound proposal, supported by actual statistics, many from the same sources that you have cited. And you dismiss it without addressing any of it. Let me simplify it, using small words to make it easily understood.
==>1 when abortions were illegal the abortion rate was similar or higher than what it is now.
==>2 when abortions were illegal botched abortions accounted for approximately 18% of pregnancy related deaths.
==> 3 comprehensive sex education starting at an early age and non-restricted access to contraceptives are partially responsible for the dramatic reduction in both unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
==> 4 countries like Switzerland that have adopted the approach mentioned above, even though they have abortion on demand, have one of the lowest unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates in the world.
You are not willing to take direct physical action against this pseudo-holocaust. And we know that criminalizing abortion doesn't actually reduce the rate of abortion (remember the 27 per 1000 estimate I provided earlier, from the same source you have repeatedly cited). And you are not willing to support comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives, the two things proven to actually reduce the abortion rate (again, from the same source you cite). I can only conclude that your actual goal (obsession) is to prevent people having sex for any reason other than procreation rather than to actually reduce abortion rates.Armand Jacks
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
JDK, why are you still on a side-track, strawman chase? You have had a more than clear enough answer, starting with my mother's work. And BTW, family planning is family planning, not a means to "reduce" abortions while playing at in effect a contact sport . . . again, the moral consideration surfaces. The issue that we are looking at holocaust driven by devaluation of human life in our thoughts and multiplied by benumbed consciences must not be lost sight of. Nor, the focus of the thread, cynical agit prop and manipulative media shadow shows. We need profound reformation, if we are to avert ruin as a civilisation. KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
So you would be for sex education and easily available contraception as a way of reducing the number of abortions if they were guided by sound moral principles - true?jdk
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
JDK & AJ, again, side-tracking, setting up strawman targets and knocking them over. The pivotal issue being again ducked is that regarding the war on our posterity. Namely, we are looking at the worst holocaust in history, reflective of a dangerous and potentially utterly ruinous undermining of respect for the value of human life. Where also we too often see a clear pattern -- the main focus of this thread -- of agit prop and cynical manipulative media shadow shows. In such a context anything presenting itself as sex education or HIV prevention or contraceptive promotion or health education or the like (and my Mom used to work in this field, there is nothing wrong with such education in principle, if it is guided by soundness and also by sound moral considerations . . . ) will likely become tainted also, as some recent cases in my homeland underscore to me. Until we are healthy enough in our souls to get recognising and facing holocaust right, there is no reason whatsoever to trust any other claim or argument or proposal, as blood guilt on this scale is one of the most corrupting influences of all. KF
PS: AJ, across time the US position has driven and has funded what is going on across the world, so I am a lot less than impressed by claims that numbers have fallen there in recent years, especially when the value of human life -- and so also the horror of what we are doing -- is not being seriously reckoned with. We need reformation, and nothing less will do.kairosfocus
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
Good post at 308 and elsewhere, Armand Jack's. It baffles me that people who are strongly against abortions are not therefore for the things you mention: among other things, good sex education, easily available contraceptions, and support for young women having full-fledged social opportunities rather than feeling limited to the role of bearing babies.jdk
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
WM:
Well, at least you’re capable of admitting the historical, problematic nature of moral subjectivism.
Damn right it is problematic. As is cancer, herpes and generous. But that doesn't make them any less real. There is nothing in life, in history, in society, that lends credence to the existence of a system of objective morals.Armand Jacks
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Andrew:
I don’t like the use of analogies. They’re just poetry."
I agree. But you might want to mention that to KF.
I’m afraid you’re being a little obtuse here.
How is this obtuse? I have proposed concrete actions that have been shown to be a significant factor in the reduction of unwanted pregnancies and , therefore, abortions. Actions that many states fight against tooth and nail. And I have provided my reasons for preferring this approach over simply criminalizing abortion. If that is being obtuse, your definition of that word must be different than mine.
Abortion’s only purpose is to end an unwanted pregnancy. That’s all it does. That you deny this fact kind of leads me to believe you aren’t interested in a serious discussion.
Actually it is also used to terminate wanted pregnancies when the mother's life is at serious risk. But that is really beside the point. Abortion's purpose is to end a pregnancy. Where have I denied this?
What is it about my proposal to provide comprehensive sex education to all children, have unrestricted access to contraceptives, provide significant levels of support for women who want to carry their pregnancy to the end, whether for adoption or to keep it, that you have a problem with? Switzerland has abortion on demand yet it has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world (6.8 per 1000 as compared to 16 per 1000 in the US) Don't you think that we can learn something from their approach. An approach, I might add, which mirrors my suggestions.
Is your real goal to significantly reduce the abortion rates, or to simply criminalize it to make your conscience feel better"? Have you even thought about the consequences of driving abortion back underground where it was before abortion on demand became avaliable. Maybe these numbers will give you cause for thought:
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.[Guttmacher Institute]
Assuming that these numbers are correct, a little math gets us to approximately 27 abortions per 1000 women of child bearing years. (Math: 200,000,000 population. 50% female. 30% of child bearing year). Please check my math, I have been known to make mistakes.
For further reflection:
In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year....By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.[Guttmacher Institute]
Illegal abortions have a greater impact on the poor and disadvantaged. Read the following for more of what you are inviting back to our society:
These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.[Guttmacher Institute]
We were woefully incapable of preventing illegal abortion in the past, with all of its consequences. What makes you think that we would be any more successful in the future?Armand Jacks
