. . . 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
No, abortion is not the solution to unwanted pregnancies. That is like saying that amputating your arms is a solution to armpit odour.
Armand,
I don't like the use of analogies. They're just poetry.
I'm afraid you're being a little obtuse here. 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.
Andrewasauber
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Andrew:
Abortion is the solution to unwanted pregnancies, which are the things you seem to be trying to eliminate. Why would a decrease in abortions be desirable if that’s the case?
No, abortion is not the solution to unwanted pregnancies. That is like saying that amputating your arms is a solution to armpit odour.
There are two ways to reduce abortion, but neither of them will completely eliminate them.
1) Criminalize it, which history has shown does not stop the demand for abortion or eliminate access to it. What it does, however, is make the abortion far more risky for any women getting one.
2) Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through a combination of many things including early and comprehensive sex education, unrestricted access to contraceptives, the provision of support for any woman who would like to bring the pregnancy to term, etc.
I prefer the latter. Sadly, many of the people who oppose abortion in all instances, also oppose sex education and availability of contraceptives. As such, their myopic solution is to criminalize abortion.Armand Jacks
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Andrew,
I have respond a couple times but they appear to be disappearing. I will try again shortlyArmand Jacks
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Armand,
You didn't answer my question. You asked me two questions instead.
Let's be polite and answer before we start firing back questions.
Abortion is the solution to unwanted pregnancies, which are the things you seem to be trying to eliminate. Why would a decrease in abortions be desirable if that's the case?
Andrewasauber
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Andrew:
Why would abortion numbers plummeting in the US be considered good news?
Why not? Are you in favour of abortions? I'm not. But I would prefer to see them drop because women do not have unwanted pregnancies rather than because the government forces other peoples' religious values on them through lawfare.Armand Jacks
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Armand Jacks,
Why would abortion numbers plummeting in the US be considered good news?
Andrewasauber
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
KF:
Of course, the issue is the global total, where per Guttmacher and UN, abortions are about 50 millions per year, about a million per week. A simple growth model across 40 years [known to be conservative] yields 800+ millions and 1 million more per week. That is the reality we face.
Yet, the numbers in the US have plummeted. And comprehensive sex education at an early age and unrestricted access to birth control are clearly important contributors to this. Why not encourage similar approaches in areas of the world where unwanted pregnancies and abortions remain very high. After all, the ultimate goal is to have a world where there are no unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, no demand for abortions.Armand Jacks
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Fortunately the mainstream media is no longer a trusted source of news information by the majority of US citizens. Counter-narrative information and opinion has become available virtually universally, even though many social media networks are attempting to filter in favor of the mainstream narrative.
I'm not sure it's even appropriate to call that narrative or the media that promotes it "mainstream" anymore, because the majority rejects it, which is greatly encouraging. Groups on VOAT, Reddit and 4chan call this process "red-pilling" as people wake up to the extensive, pervasive lie that is being billed as truth and fact by media and various figures of authority and popularity.
You never know what effect you can have on others. Recently my brother had been posting some Bernie Sanders stuff about corporations not paying any income tax, the memes implying that they doing something unethical or immoral to avoid paying taxes. It was typical anti-corporate & class warfare polemic. I directed him to information that explained that most corporations pay no corporate income tax because profits are diverted to shares (S corps), partners or owners and and they pay those taxes as personal income tax.
This made him realize that Bernie was using deceptive wording, I think causing him to question Bernie's motives and creating ideological space for him to question his understanding of the political landscape.
Disruptive snippets such as that can bring a whole worldview crashing down. People are waking up to the actual existence of the Globalist agenda and the Deep State as they see leak after leak after leak without any real substance used in a concerted way to delegitimize Trump and see the shocking, anti-democratic, violent words and actions of the progressive mob.
This agit-prop works on highly conditioned people, but the worse it gets, the more they lose to common sense and decency as disruptive media grows more and more available. More people get their information from so-called "alternative" sources than so-called "mainstream" sources.
Look at the press conferences; Trump and Spicer are disrupting the entrenched system by bringing in press from alternative sources, fielding questions from Skype participants, and ignoring the old press pecking order. Trump takes his message directly to the people without the interpretive filter of any media.
However, as KF notes in other words, an injured, cornered animal is much more desperate and dangerous. The anti-globalist wave is crashing the old, established system. Fortunately, we now have a very vigilant and active counter-culture and its size is increasing every day.William J Murray
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
Under what conditions would you support capital punishment.
In situations where incarceration would prove as dangerous as non-incarceration - for example, the incarceration of individuals that can run criminal organizations from the inside of prisons, which can put guards and staff under threat and generate systemic corruption, or for persons too dangerous to be handled without extreme measures.
IOW, in situations where the continued life of the criminal poses a unique, ongoing, real threat to the outside world, other prisoners, guards or prison staff.
No. demand never changed.
I think you're confusing demand with desire. From Wikipedia:
In economics, demand is the quantity of a commodity or a service that people are willing or able to buy at a certain price.[1]
A consumer can desire a product but not be willing to try to buy it, especially if that product is illegal. Desire for X is not the same thing as economic demand, which depends on several social factors including legality. If you make X illegal, most law-abiding people are not willing to pay for X regardless of its price.
That they would be willing to pay for it if legal doesn't change the fact that they are unwilling to pay for it if illegal.
My comment used numbers for abortions.
The comment I quoted and referred to was the first comment in this paragraph of yours:
Let’s examine the US numbers. Teen pregnancy rates have dropped 51% since 1990 and teen abortion rates have dropped 66%. But from state to state, Maine, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont have the lowest teen pregnancy rates. The highest teen pregnancy rates are found in the southern states. I will leave it to you to guess which of these two groupings have the more comprehensive sex education programs and access to contraceptives. [Emphasis mine- WJM]
... where, for some reason, you go on and on about teen pregnancy rates as if they have some weight on the matter being discussed - abortions.
The link between smoking and cancer also isn’t based on fact. But very few doubt that it exists.
Actually, both sets of correlations are based on fact. The problem is that correlation is not causation, no matter how many times you repeat the correlation, it doesn't make the case for causation. That's the nature of science and logic.
If your goal is really to reduce abortion rates, why the opposition to the approach that appears to be effective?
Where have I opposed birth control and sex education? Did you miss where I said: "Perhaps it is a combination – I’m not against the availability of most contraceptives nor am I against proper sex education. It would be great if abortion became so rare that the legality of it no longer was an issue."
Answer my question about whether you oppose capital punishment in all circumstances, and we can talk about this.
Please keep in mind, just because I consider all human life sacred doesn't mean I think there is no valid reason for killing another human - it just has to be an extremely good reason and carried out with regret and a realization of the gravity of the act. Terminating humans for one's personal convenience doesn't come close to meeting that standard; terminating a pregnancy because it poses a substantive risk to the mother's life, IMO, does. As does executing those who cannot be safely incarcerated. I would suspect that at some point we will have other means of "incarcerating" these dangerous individuals that will be safe - at that point there probably will be no morally valid reason to have a death penalty.
Nothing. 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.
Well, at least you're capable of admitting the historical, problematic nature of moral subjectivism.William J Murray
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
If Obama's administration was responsible for "wiretapping" (let's not forget Trump used the scare quotes), it is entirely appropriate to lay the responsibility on Obama. The buck stops there.William J Murray
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
Wiretaps? Sunnunu suggests, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/donald-trump-john-sununu-wiretap-department-of-justice/2017/03/13/id/778464/
Notice:
>>"Up until the Trump tweet on being tapped, the theme in the liberal press was Trump and his people were doing horrible things, and we know it because their phone calls were tapped," Sununu said. "Now that Trump says he was tapped, they reverse their claim.
"This again is another case of the liberal media trying to have their cake and eat it too, or trying to have our cake and eat it too. They were all gloating before his tweet that there was information from wiretaps available to embarrass the Trump administration.
"The mistake Trump made was saying Obama did it instead of the Obama administration ordered it . . . It probably was the Obama administration through the Loretta Lynch Justice Department that did it."
Sununu said he believes Attorney General Jeff Sessions is "trying to find all the information there and eventually will put whatever they have in public, but it is amazing to me how quickly . . . the liberal press, can reverse course and not be called on it.">>
--> There is a clear case of NYT on Jan 20 having a headline on wiretapping, which was subsequently changed (wiretapping is still referenced in teh articles), but of course printed papers cannot be un-printed [never mind Mr Winston Smith's job in 1984].
--> Which is it, the media were lying when they confidently appealed to wiretapping, or they are lying now when they pretend there is no evidence of such wiretapping.
KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
More on media shadow shows:
https://www.newsmax.com/JamesHirsen/administration-attorney-attorneys-general/2017/03/13/id/778372/
>>The Trump administration, through its attorney general, recently asked for the resignation of all remaining Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys. This is, in fact, a change of personnel in which new administrations routinely engage.
However, the media reporting by the mainstream press and broadcast media has been anything but routine; rather, the coverage has been somewhat hysterical in nature. "Trump Abruptly Orders 46 Obama-Era Prosecutors to Resign," The New York Times stated in an overly dramatic headline.
CNN focused on the emotional reaction of Obama appointees with a story entitled, "Anger mounts over handling of US attorney firings."
Another, "Sessions Ousts Nearly Half Of The US Attorneys Across The Country In Friday Order," was a BuzzFeed posted headline.
Media outlets and social media posts floated the dubious idea that radio and television personality Sean Hannity had somehow influenced the president to facilitate the attorneys' exits.
The New York Times said that the request for U.S. attorney resignations "came less than 24 hours after Sean Hannity, the Fox News commentator who often speaks with Mr. Trump, called for a 'purge' of Obama appointees at the Justice Department on his show."
The following Democratic politicians sounded a familiar anti-Trump chord.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., remarked that she was "surprised" and “concerned” by the Justice Department changes.
Senator and Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., issued a statement indicating that the he was "troubled to learn of reports of requests for resignations from the remaining U.S. Attorneys." Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., tweeted that the president cannot fire the "rule of law."
Congressman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., suggested that the termination of the U.S. attorneys is some kind of cover up.
The Trump administration did indeed ask for the resignation of all remaining Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys; however, such a request in the modern political era is an anticipated and customary action.>>
--> As in, it is normally a part of peaceful transfer of power in the USA that political appointees are routinely replaced.
--> Do we really want to go down this road, what happens next time, then the next then the next? (As in, which box is coming if the ballot box is undermined?)
KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Of course, the issue is the global total, where per Guttmacher and UN, abortions are about 50 millions per year, about a million per week. A simple growth model across 40 years [known to be conservative] yields 800+ millions and 1 million more per week. That is the reality we face.kairosfocus
March 14, 2017
March
03
Mar
14
14
2017
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
WM:
I’m sure what also contributes to the decrease in abortions is that the government helps to care of mothers who are otherwise unable to support, or have difficulty supporting, children. Also, there are programs that pay all the expenses of the expectant mother if she wants to give the child up for adoption – including bills, housing, etc. These (IMO) are probably the greatest reasons that abortions have decreased as much as they have over the years.
These have undoubtedly had an impact. That is why I said that sex ed and contraceptives partially attributed to it. Do you have evidence that the same states that use the abstinence only approach and require parental approval for access to contraceptives also have less government and program support for pregnant women than the other states?Armand Jacks
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
WM:
If by “believe in” you mean “support”, it depends on the circumstances in each case.
OK. Under what conditions would you support capital punishment. Just so you don't think that it is a "gotcha" question, I will tell you that I oppose capital punishment regardless of the crime. Before you accuse me of being inconsistent with my stance on being willing to kill the German soldier to save a train full of children, they are different in that one involves what I am personally willing to do and the other is what I am willing to empower a government to do.
Yes, it did. Criminalizing reduced demand, and decriminalizing increased demand.
No. demand never changed. Availability did. But the point I was making was that even the access increase significantly during prohibition. There was the initial reduction to 30% of pre-prohibition levels, followed by an increase to 70% before the government realized that prohibition was not working.
We are talking about abortions, not teen pregnancies. Is there some part of that you find confusing?
My comment used numbers for abortions. Teens and early twenties. 66% reduction. Partially attributed to more comprehensive sex education and available contraceptives. YWhat about "an education is for life" don't you understand? These teens, who are getting pregnant at increasingly reduced rates are likely to carry this through adulthood.
In other words, no causal linkage has been shown to exist, so your claim that the reduction of abortions is “largely attributed to comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives” isn’t founded on fact,...
The link between smoking and cancer also isn't based on fact. But very few doubt that it exists. In states where comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives by teens is the norm, teenage pregancy rates and abortions are significantly lower than states where abstinence only approaches and parental approval for access to contraceptives is the norm.
If your goal is really to reduce abortion rates, why the opposition to the approach that appears to be effective?
Perhaps it is a combination – I’m not against the availability of most contraceptives nor am I against proper sex education. It would be great if abortion became so rare that the legality of it no longer was an issue.
In this we agree.
Whether or not you call a belief “religious” in nature, someone is going to have their beliefs ensconced into law, whether that it is that a human has those rights and protections from conception, or that they have them after birth.
Again, we agree. But one path does not force their view on how others must live their lives, and the other does.
What’s to keep other moral subjectivists from drawing the “less valuable” line in a different place, or according to entirely different parameters?
Nothing. 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.
This is why all human life should be considered sacred.
Answer my question about whether you oppose capital punishment in all circumstances, and we can talk about this.Armand Jacks
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
I'm sure what also contributes to the decrease in abortions is that the government helps to care of mothers who are otherwise unable to support, or have difficulty supporting, children. Also, there are programs that pay all the expenses of the expectant mother if she wants to give the child up for adoption - including bills, housing, etc. These (IMO) are probably the greatest reasons that abortions have decreased as much as they have over the years.William J Murray
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
BTW, AJ, don't forget - this isn't an argument about abortion per se; what I'm showing you is that your characterization of Pro-Lifers wrt how you would expect them to act in certain situations you think are comparable (thus revealing some sort of hypocrisy) is woefully inaccurate and based on a lack of understanding, on your part, of the real depth and issues that complicate a pro-lifers behavior in various different situations - not because they are just "pro-lifers", but because of the spiritual worldview that informs that position and their choices.
It's revealed by your "if you are pro life, how can you support the death penalty" line of questioning; you're taking the "pro-life" out of a much deeper, more complicated context and using a superficial comparison as if that reveals hypocrisy.
It might prove useful to you to, instead of trying for some cheap-shot gotcha moment where you think you've revealed hypocrisy or inconsistency, you actually try to understand these issues.William J Murray
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
AJ said:
I’m afraid that we disagree here. The lives of soldiers who are forcibly taking children against their wills for execution are of less value than those of the children.
And that's part of the problem. You don't understand the gravity and complex nature of moral choice from the perspective of those you are talking to which leads you to make false equivalences, bad comparisons and erroneous conclusions - such as the one where you insist that anti-abortionists "don't really" consider abortion murder and a holocaust. Of course you and a pro-lifer are not going to behave the same because you don't hold all human life as sacred.
But I am curious. Do you believe in the death penalty?Torture?
If by "believe in" you mean "support", it depends on the circumstances in each case.
Criminalizing the sale of alcohol initially resulted in a reduction to 30% of pre-prohibition levels, followed by an increase to 70%, and quickly rose to pre-prohibition levels following the repeal of prohibition. Apparently, making it illegal did not affect demand.
Yes, it did. Criminalizing reduced demand, and decriminalizing increased demand. Which is what anyone with common sense would expect as law-abiding citizens avoid doing things that are against the law.
I thought we were talking about ways to reduce abortions. 11% of abortions are for teens, and 34% are for women just out of their teens. Surely anything that reduces these numbers would be a good thing.
We are talking about abortions, not teen pregnancies. Is there some part of that you find confusing?
We both know that direct causal linkages are very difficult to prove. However, there are several studies and articles that show a strong correlation:
In other words, no causal linkage has been shown to exist, so your claim that the reduction of abortions is "largely attributed to comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives" isn't founded on fact, only on an ideologically friendly interpretation of data that could equally be interpreted by Pro-Lifers as evidence that their tactics are working.
IOW, interpreted to mean that instead of killing doctors, blowing stuff up, sabotaging equipment or kidnapping pregnant women, that their work in changing the cultural perception of abortion via education, philosophical discussion and enlightenment, legal reform, lawful activism and providing alternatives is paying off as society turns away from abortion as an acceptable answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancies.
Perhaps it is a combination - I'm not against the availability of most contraceptives nor am I against proper sex education. It would be great if abortion became so rare that the legality of it no longer was an issue.
I’m sorry, but I find it very difficult to conclude that a single celled fertilized ova should have all the rights and protections of a living breathing human being without importing religious belief on the subject. And for those with these religious beliefs, nobody is forcing you to avail yourself of abortion or contraception. I would strongly fight any proposal to do so.
Whether or not you call a belief "religious" in nature, someone is going to have their beliefs ensconced into law, whether that it is that a human has those rights and protections from conception, or that they have them after birth.
However, that you find it hard to believe is not the point; that is what pro-lifers believe, and if you don't take it into account you cannot correctly address their position.
And, if that early stage fetus has such value, why do so many end up in miscarriages? The designer obviously does not afford the fetus the same worth and value that you do.
That's one of the most baffling lines of reasoning I've ever read. I don't see at all how a miscarriage indicates a lack of value for all human life on the part of god (what I assume you mean by "designer"). What it appears to indicate is that producing human life through to a successful birth is difficult - how would this reduce the value of the fetus?
This being said, I am in favour of imposing restrictions on abortion. It is my opinion (and it is just opinion) that there should not be any abortions after the first trimester except under very specific conditions (e.g., the life of the woman is at risk). The dividing line should be when the point at which there is significant brain activity and where there is the clear ability to feel pain. Not reaction to stimulus, but real pain. This will obviously not be a clear cut date, so a generous buffer would also have to be applied.
Since pain is a subjectively discerned phenomena, I'm not sure how you expect to differentiate between a fetus "feeling real pain" and "reacting to stimulus". However, the problem here is the arbitrary nature of where you decide to devalue human life - you pick the arbitrary line of "being able to feel real pain" and whatever degree of brain activity you would decree as "significant".
Once you start making arbitrary decisions on where to begin devaluing human life (like, you know, shooting less-valuable soldiers without a second thought, or aborting the unborn), you have begun the walk down the path of moral subjectivism and treating humans like commodities.
What's to keep other moral subjectivists from drawing the "less valuable" line in a different place, or according to entirely different parameters?
This is why all human life should be considered sacred.William J Murray
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
WM:
Sorry, I can’t think of any other than providing discussion, counseling and support services that might convince her to change her mind...
Mandatory or voluntary?
Innocent children do not have a greater right to life than the german soldier, nor are the german soldiers less valuable than the children.
I'm afraid that we disagree here. The lives of soldiers who are forcibly taking children against their wills for execution are of less value than those of the children. But I am curious. Do you believe in the death penalty?Torture?
Do you really think that taking life without a second thought is a morally superior position to doing all one can without murdering anyone in pursuit of a just cause?
No. But if it is necessary to kill someone complicit in the act of killing a train full of innocent children in order to save them, I could do it with a relatively clear conscience. Do you really think that it is a morally superior position to allow a train full of children die when the death of someone complicit in the act would save them?
My logic is good – criminalizing a thing will certainly reduce demand and availability, thus reducing abortions.
Criminalizing the sale of alcohol initially resulted in a reduction to 30% of pre-prohibition levels, followed by an increase to 70%, and quickly rose to pre-prohibition levels following the repeal of prohibition. Apparently, making it illegal did not affect demand. Yes, it reduced availability, but even that was only short-live. So your logic isn't as sound as you claim that it is.
I live in the united states. Planned Parenthood clinics only provide 1/3 of abortion procedures and women certainly do not have to leave the country to find another.
True, but are you suggesting that making it immediately more difficult (financially) for some women to obtain an abortion will not result in a reduction in abortions? Given that 50% of women receiving abortions live below the poverty level, I think that this is a reasonable extrapolation.
Non-sequitur. I didn’t ask you about, nor did I say anything about, teen pregnancy rates.
I thought we were talking about ways to reduce abortions. 11% of abortions are for teens, and 34% are for women just out of their teens. Surely anything that reduces these numbers would be a good thing.
Yes, abortion rates have come down, and I see I worded my challenge poorly. Please direct me to where a causal linkage has been established between the (1)contraceptive availability and sex education and (2) declining abortion rates.
We both know that direct causal linkages are very difficult to prove. However, there are several studies and articles that show a strong correlation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4852976/
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2016/us-teen-pregnancy-birth-and-abortion-rates-reach-lowest-levels-almost-four-decades
https://mic.com/articles/98886/the-states-with-the-highest-teenage-birth-rates-have-one-thing-in-common#.MiJCobiOk
Obviously, none of these can conclusively prove that comprehensive sex education and availability of contraceptives is responsible for the reduction in abortion rates, especially among teens. But there are enough breadcrumbs to draw a very strong inference.
The only question is why you don’t consider the unborn a “human being” worthy of the same protections we afford other human beings
I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to conclude that a single celled fertilized ova should have all the rights and protections of a living breathing human being without importing religious belief on the subject. And for those with these religious beliefs, nobody is forcing you to avail yourself of abortion or contraception. I would strongly fight any proposal to do so.
And, if that early stage fetus has such value, why do so many end up in miscarriages? The designer obviously does not afford the fetus the same worth and value that you do.
This being said, I am in favour of imposing restrictions on abortion. It is my opinion (and it is just opinion) that there should not be any abortions after the first trimester except under very specific conditions (e.g., the life of the woman is at risk). The dividing line should be when the point at which there is significant brain activity and where there is the clear ability to feel pain. Not reaction to stimulus, but real pain. This will obviously not be a clear cut date, so a generous buffer would also have to be applied.Armand Jacks
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
AJ asks:
Surely you do not lack so much in imagination that you could not come up with one or two courses of action that would result in abortions not being conducted on some women. I can think of several, even without resorting to physical violence against a person.
Sorry, I can't think of any other than providing discussion, counseling and support services that might convince her to change her mind and contribute politically to those who would change the law.
Since the trains were guarded by armed soldiers, using some level of lethal force would be necessary. Are you saying that you would not kill a German soldier or two to save a train load of children? Thank god that I am an atheist because I wouldn’t think twice about it.
Innocent children do not have a greater right to life than the german soldier, nor are the german soldiers less valuable than the children. When humans become fungible commodities that are expendable without a second thought even in pursuit of a moral goal, you have just demonstrated the problem with atheism.
Do you really think that taking life without a second thought is a morally superior position to doing all one can without murdering anyone in pursuit of a just cause?
Because of that soul nonsense that is inserted in the fetus at conception? A small question. Do identical twins share a single soul?
Whether or not you consider the existence of a soul to be nonsense is irrelevant to the fact that the existence of the soul and the existence of spiritual laws and consequences is what one must take into account when addressing the pro-life side of the abortion debate and when posing hypotheticals or making comparisons. This is why you have utterly missed the most important aspects of the Pro-Life position and continue to make an ineffectual argument.
If you effectively shut down these clinics (eg. Sabotage) you would effectively prevent some women from getting an abortion. Many women with unwanted pregnancies are not financially able to travel to another country to obtain one. She would have to carry it to term.
I live in the united states. Planned Parenthood clinics only provide 1/3 of abortion procedures and women certainly do not have to leave the country to find another. I disagree with your assessment of my capacities to do anything of the sort.
Just like prohibition reduced the demand for alcohol. Now who’s logic is ridiculous. Unwanted pregnancies and abortions occurred before it was legal. Making it illegal again will simply drag it underground again.
My logic is good - criminalizing a thing will certainly reduce demand and availability, thus reducing abortions. I didn't say it would eliminate demand and I didn't say it wouldn't drive those wanting one underground. It's your logic that is bad thinking that because abortions will still occur or go underground there won't be a reduction in abortions. Of course there will be.
By your logic there's no reason to make anything illegal because it won't affect the rate of occurrence. Facing criminal charges and punishment is indeed a deterrent for most law-abiding citizens.
Let’s examine the US numbers.
Non-sequitur. I didn't ask you about, nor did I say anything about, teen pregnancy rates.
The short answer is, yes. Over 50% reduction in both teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the US, largely attributed to comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives.
Yes, abortion rates have come down, and I see I worded my challenge poorly. Please direct me to where a causal linkage has been established between the (1)contraceptive availability and sex education and (2) declining abortion rates.
Now the true agenda is revealed. It is about enforcing your religious beliefs on those through force of law. A wise man once called this type of tactic “lawfare”. There are many things that are legal that are not endorsed by government. Smoking, drinking, marijuana, skydiving, divorce, etc. It is all about responsible free choice. The right of all of us to make poor choices.
Where that line is drawn even by the most libertine of political thinkers (and, BTW, I am just such a libertine) is when your choices directly harm another human being. I think you'd probably agree with that and not consider it an aspect of any desired theocracy.
The only question is why you don't consider the unborn a "human being" worthy of the same protections we afford other human beingsWilliam J Murray
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
WM:
but I would certainly not break the law in an attempt that is both doomed to failure and would result in my own incarceration and put me and my family at financial risk due to it’s illegal nature.
Surely you do not lack so much in imagination that you could not come up with one or two courses of action that would result in abortions not being conducted on some women. I can think of several, even without resorting to physical violence against a person.
What I would do is find non-lethal means of saving as many Jewish children as I could since I had no legal option open to me.
Since the trains were guarded by armed soldiers, using some level of lethal force would be necessary. Are you saying that you would not kill a German soldier or two to save a train load of children? Thank god that I am an atheist because I wouldn't think twice about it.
It seems you need something explained to you. First, the primary reason one would be against abortion is not the welfare of the child – the child is going to be just fine wrt their spiritual well-being.
Because of that soul nonsense that is inserted in the fetus at conception? A small question. Do identical twins share a single soul?
What I, KF and others here are primarily concerned with is the spiritual health of those who (1) get abortions, (2) provide abortions, and (3) the nation/society/civilization that endorses the activity.
Our efforts are not so much to save that child, but rather to “save” those going down that path. This is where you atheism has blinded you to the motivations of those who wish to put an end to abortion.
Now the true agenda is revealed. It is about enforcing your religious beliefs on those through force of law. A wise man once called this type of tactic "lawfare". There are many things that are legal that are not endorsed by government. Smoking, drinking, marijuana, skydiving, divorce, etc. It is all about responsible free choice. The right of all of us to make poor choices.
If you kill a doctor or bomb an abortion clinic, you haven’t accomplished anything. Expectant mothers can go elsewhere and find other doctors.
Your imagination really is very limiting if you can't think of a way to prevent access to abortions without killing doctors or bombing clinics. There are many places where access to abortion is very limited due to number of clinics and location. If you effectively shut down these clinics (eg. Sabotage) you would effectively prevent some women from getting an abortion. Many women with unwanted pregnancies are not financially able to travel to another country to obtain one. She would have to carry it to term.
The truth is that you and others like you have incorporated a false equivalence into your position that is entirely based on vague terminology and faulty comparisons.
You mean like equating abortion to the holocaust?
That’s just about the worst “logic” I’ve ever heard. If abortion is illegal, it affects demand because many people will have a far greater concern about the consequences of their sexual behavior.
Just like prohibition reduced the demand for alcohol. Now who's logic is ridiculous. Unwanted pregnancies and abortions occurred before it was legal. Making it illegal again will simply drag it underground again.
Where on Earth do you live that there is a “stigma” with having an “unwanted” pregnancy? Where do you live where contraceptives are difficult to obtain? Where do you live where there is a lack of comprehensive sex education?
Let's examine the US numbers. Teen pregnancy rates have dropped 51% since 1990 and teen abortion rates have dropped 66%. But from state to state, Maine, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont have the lowest teen pregnancy rates. The highest teen pregnancy rates are found in the southern states. I will leave it to you to guess which of these two groupings have the more comprehensive sex education programs and access to contraceptives.
Has the proliferation of these things in western society decreased the number of abortions?
The short answer is, yes. Over 50% reduction in both teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the US, largely attributed to comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives.Armand Jacks
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
WJM, sobering words. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
AJ said
WM, you talk about false equivalence but it is not. You are saying that you would use violence to save a child, because it is legal to do so. But would not do so if it was against the law. It is sad when the atheist is the only one here who would knowingly break the law to save that same child.
That's not what I said. I used the example to point out the folly in attempting to prevent an abortion. I didn't say I wouldn't break the law in order to do what is right; but I would certainly not break the law in an attempt that is both doomed to failure and would result in my own incarceration and put me and my family at financial risk due to it's illegal nature. If I'm going to break the law I'm going to do everything I can to make sure it achieves the goal and minimizes the risk. There's no reason to be stupid about it.
Knowing what you know now, if you were transported to Nazi occupied Poland, would you use violence, if necessary, to stop a trainload of Jewish children from being taken to Auschwitz? Using KF’s logic, exterminating Jewish children in Nazi occupied lands and conducting abortions in 2016 are analogous. In fact, he said that the abortions are a far worse holocaust, but I will ignore that for the moment. They were both conducted under the full protection of the law and they are both the amoral murder of innocent human beings.
So, a couple of points; the only avenue for resistance in Nazi Germany was to pursue illegal actions because of the fascist, extreme nature of their situation. What do you mean by "using violence to stop the train?" What exactly are you saying? Do I have to kill soldiers to stop the train? How would that be that a "more moral" action on my part?
What I would do is find non-lethal means of saving as many Jewish children as I could since I had no legal option open to me. Did Miep Gies run around blowing up buildings or killing soldiers? No, she just hid a family from the Nazis at great personal risk.
So, I will ask the same question. If you would be willing to break the law, including the use of sabotage and violence, to save a trainload of children being legally taken for extermination, why would you not be willing to break the law, including the use of sabotage and violence, to save other children from being legally aborted?
It seems you need something explained to you. First, the primary reason one would be against abortion is not the welfare of the child - the child is going to be just fine wrt their spiritual well-being. What I, KF and others here are primarily concerned with is the spiritual health of those who (1) get abortions, (2) provide abortions, and (3) the nation/society/civilization that endorses the activity.
Our efforts are not so much to save that child, but rather to "save" those going down that path. This is where you atheism has blinded you to the motivations of those who wish to put an end to abortion.
And before you start screaming “false equivalence” do you have such low imagination that you could not perceive of any direct actions that would prevent doctors from being able to perform abortions? I can think of many.
No, I can't. Abortions are legal across the nation. If you kill a doctor or bomb an abortion clinic, you haven't accomplished anything. Expectant mothers can go elsewhere and find other doctors. The only thing you will have done is harm your own spiritual health by murdering someone or by putting others at risk.
There is no "safe" way to bomb or use arson; you will always be risking the lives of the innocent. You would have also harmed your cause of pursuing legal and social change by becoming a murderer or a terrorist. In Germany, there was no avenue of pursuing social change via legal means.
You are presenting an entirely false equivalence by (1) being vague about what you mean by "violence"; (2) drawing a comparison between two entirely different legal and cultural scenarios, and (3) entirely misunderstanding or ignoring what "pro-life" is ultimately about in spiritual and cultural terms for those who pursue it.
But let’s be honest here. Most people do not take that kind of action because they do not perceive an early stage abortion as the equivalent of killing a young child.
The truth is that you and others like you have incorporated a false equivalence into your position that is entirely based on vague terminology and faulty comparisons. You have also reduced the motivations of those in the pro-life movement to a false, oversimplified single point.
I understand that as an atheist with little or no spiritual comprehension or framework you might think the phrase "Pro-Life" is entirely about saving the lives of the children and that this is what drives your false equivalence and profound misunderstanding about what "pro-life" is really all about. It's not even mostly about "saving the children" (because their souls will be just fine), it's about saving the soul of civilization and preventing it from anti-life, nihilistic moral subjectivism and cultural self-annihilation.
And they shouldn’t. Claiming that they are equivalent and calling it a holocaust just makes your position less tenable, not stronger.
Perhaps you can explain to us how legally killing Jews in mass numbers and legally aborting the unborn in mass numbers are not equivalent?
Don’t get me wrong. I would much prefer that there were no abortions. But I am a realist. Even if you made it illegal and jailed doctors who performed them, they would still occur, simply because you have done nothing to affect demand.
That's just about the worst "logic" I've ever heard. If abortion is illegal, it affects demand because many people will have a far greater concern about the consequences of their sexual behavior.
If you are serious about reducing the abortion rate, expand sex education, make contraceptives more available, remove the stigma around unwanted pregnancy and increase the support for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. But many of the people who vehemently oppose abortion under all circumstances also oppose contraceptives, comprehensive sex education and removing the stigma around unwanted pregnancies.
Where on Earth do you live that there is a "stigma" with having an "unwanted" pregnancy? Where do you live where contraceptives are difficult to obtain? Where do you live where there is a lack of comprehensive sex education? Has the proliferation of these things in western society decreased the number of abortions?
Look, I'm not a Christian nor am I near as moral as others here. IMO, if that was all it was about, I'd say let the atheists and progressives weed themselves out and have all the abortions they want. If they want to go down the path of spiritual ruin, that's their free will decision. From my spiritual perspective, the aborted suffer no spiritual harm and I - as a somewhat lesser moral being than others here - don't really care if you want to continue down your path of personal spiritual self-destruction.
But, that's not what it's all about; the atheistic, morally relativistic nihilists are taking the whole of civilization down with them via their materialistic nonsense and abortion is a huge part of that path. Human life needs to be seen as sacred in our culture, not as a disposable inconvenience. Otherwise, we're doomed to the horror that inevitably ensues when human life is seen as a fungible commodity.William J Murray
March 13, 2017
March
03
Mar
13
13
2017
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
CIA and the Meme Warfare Center -- as if further evidence was needed that something has gone very wrong:
https://townhall.com/columnists/pauljacob/2017/03/12/deep-state-shallow-media-and-meme-warfare-n2297680
>>Sometimes it seems everybody wants to mess with what goes in and out of our brains. For all sorts of reasons, not least being to jigger with elections. And no, I am not talking about the Russians. The CIA has plans for a new department — the “Meme Warfare Center.”
We know about it courtesy of WikiLeaks and its big “Year Zero”/Vault7 release, made just last week. The idea is to “aim for a full spectrum meme generation, analysis, quality control/assurance and organic transmission apparatus.”
Cumbersome language is typical of bureaucratic memoranda, sure. Maybe once the Internal Memes Center (one of the two proposed divisions) is up and running, professional memesters will clean up such gobbledygook. A “meme,” after all, is the term Richard Dawkins invented for any notion or habit that is replicable in human brains. Obviously, the clearer — better constructed — an idea or icon or image or recipe is, the easier it will be to spread.
And this “warfare” won't be limited to just inside the agency. They want an External Memes Center, too.
The CIA does not merely want to know everything we do. It wants to influence how we think. Planting stories and ideas in the great conversation on the Internet and in the old Gutenberg dimension might do the trick, and the trick is control.
Freaked out? Well, the Deep State’s “intelligence agents” are not alone. Almost everyone in politics wants to influence others. And that means meme generation, analysis, and transmission. Are you tired of the word “meme” yet? Well, I am afraid we are not quite done with it. Why? Because a few old-fashioned words no longer cut the proverbial mustard— words like FACT.
CARTOONS | Henry Payne
View Cartoon
Which brings us to Snopes(.com) and Politifact, two well known websites devoted, like Sergeant Joe Friday, to “just the facts, ma’am.” Well, that’s the official meme. The trouble is, the current batch of fact checkers have more in common with the CIA’s infowars (not to be confused with Alex Jones’s) than with a straight-laced, probity-bound interrogator of “is” and “isn’t.” . . . .
It is obvious that much of the major media leans left. And it is just as obvious that Fox News leans rightward. Everyone spins sometimes. It would be great if the fact-checkers concentrated on the facts, letting the hermeneuticians of a more sophisticated sort manage contexts.
Or they could simply offer a double analysis, with a double rating — True/False and then Clear/Caution, the latter category to cover interpretations and implications. Then, we would have much less reason to complain. Instead, they seek to mold opinion, and we are stuck with just more propaganda and heavy partisanship.
Meanwhile, Twitter and Facebook have both plunged deep into the cult of partisan memework, pretending that “fact checking” is some kind of panacea, and not just vomit-inducing Meme Warfare in disguise, a mercenary memetic emetic. This I noticed some time back, when I couldn't help asking the immortal question, “who will fact check the fact checkers?”>>
--> This is now past parody: Agit Prop fed into media shadow shows is the new norm. Where, no, this is not a fantasy created in interests of satire, cf this book from the US Marine Corps: https://www.amazon.com/Memetics-Growth-Industry-Military-Operations/dp/1522931740
--> Blurb:
Tomorrow’s US military must approach warfighting with an alternate mindset that is prepared to leverage all elements of national power to influence the ideological spheres of future enemies by engaging them with alternate means—memes—to gain advantage. - DISCUSSION: - Defining memes. Memes are "units of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation," and as ideas become means to attack ideologies. Meme-warfare enters into the hotly contested battlefields inside the minds of our enemies and particularly inside the minds of the undecided. - Formations charged with Information Operations (IO) Psychological Operations (PsyOps), and Strategic Communications (SC) provide an existing construct for memes and the study of memes, memetics, to grow and mature into an accepted doctrinal discipline. - Epidemiology of insurgency ideology. Using the analogy that ideologies possess the same theoretical characteristics as a disease (particularly as complex adaptive systems), then a similar method and routine can/should be applied to combating them. Memes can and should be used like medicine to inoculate the enemy and generate popular support. - Private sector meme application. 3M Corporation employed an innovation meme designed to cultivate an employee culture, which accepts and embraces innovation in product development. As a practical matter, 3M executives endorsed and employed the lead user process in new product development, which translated into a thirty percent profit increase. The innovation meme was key to 3M’s profit increase. -The proposed Meme Warfare Center (MWC). The MWC as a staff organization has the primary mission to advise the Commander on meme generation, transmission, coupled with a detailed analysis on enemy, friendly and noncombatant populations. The MWC aims for a full spectrum capability of meme generation, analysis, quality control/assurance and organic transmission apparatus. The proposed MWC structure lays in stark contrast to the ad hoc nature of current IO and JPOTF formations. CONCLUSION: Cognitive scientists, cultural anthropologists, behavior scientists, and game theory experts must be included as professional meme-wielding-gunfighters on future battlefields. The US must recognize the growing need for emerging disciplines in ideological warfare by ‘weaponeering’ memes. The Meme Warfare Center offers sophisticated and intellectually rich capability absent in current IO, PsyOps and SC formations and is specifically designed to conduct combat inside the mind of the enemy. Memes are key emerging tools to win the ideological metaphysical fight .
--> And, the march of ruinous folly goes on and on and on.
KF
PS: The primary focus of this thread is too important to be side tracked.kairosfocus
March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
AJ, you continue the red herring side tracks led away to strawman caricatures, while ignoring a highly specific, rich historical example laid out in outline with key lessons, and backed up by pointing to the generally futile, bloody and tyrannical course of violent, radical revolutionism over the past 200+ years. I have explicitly stated that I (along with many others) have chosen the path of reformation based on highlighting truth in generally democratic polities in which there is significant respect for rights, freedoms and responsibilities rooted historically in the Judaeo-Christian, scripturally informed worldview and former cultural consensus; precisely what Heine warned about regarding consequences of undermining it, c 1830, in an astonishingly predictive passage that Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany all too accurately fulfilled. The solution to the huge ugly column of smoke in the abortion sector is reformation, not attempted bloody revolution that will be predictably futile and self defeating; even as a supposed privateer Wilberforce hiring say John Newton as sailing master and chief cannonier would have failed; by contrast with the 50 years it took for reformation to triumph and begin to positively transform society. Just on the pragmatic level. Which, you obviously have failed to seriously listen to. On the principled level, there is a vast difference between force and illegitimate use of force, i.e. violence. That is, we see the significance and prudence implied by just war theory. And no, I decline to chase down the rabbit-trail of Hitler's cruel cat and Polish Christian or Jewish mice; if you had read my linked, you would know just what in Mein Kampf I just alluded to and what its implications are. Your failure to acknowledge the real views and approaches of real people in favour of trying to repeatedly set up loaded strawman caricatures, speaks volumes. And, precisely at a point when a nominee has had to grudgingly be given a highly qualified rating for the US Supreme Court, a key front in the now generation long kulturkampf battle on the abortion holocaust front. Where, to try some silly terroristic campaign -- that is how it would be reported -- would simply play the role the holocaust enabling agenda wishes. KF
PS: The proper time to have acted in respect of Poland etc is in the mid-late 1930's, at which time there was every prospect of overthrowing Hitler's already manifestly malevolent regime. I point you to the future Pope John Paul II and how he rescued a Jewish woman as a counter-example tot he latest side track you would set up. The second significant point was to support the code-breaker stuff from the 1920's in Poland, and the Bomba, which were key to breaking the Enigma, and thus to the Ultra project. Polish underground work did its best in contributing intelligence to the Allied cause, not in trying to rise up. When the Russian armies were close enough to contribute, perhaps something could have been done, but we must recall Stalin in part wished for the Western-influenced Polish forces to burn themselves up the better for his own malevolent takeover. The other significant contribution was Poles in the allied and Russian armies. Persuasion on the holocaust to back up the White Rose movement would have made better sense too. in short, reasonable responses are not locked up to the loaded strawman you set up.kairosfocus
March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
WM, you talk about false equivalence but it is not. You are saying that you would use violence to save a child, because it is legal to do so. But would not do so if it was against the law. It is sad when the atheist is the only one here who would knowingly break the law to save that same child.
Since KF is so fond of calling abortion a holocaust, let's use his favourite analogy. Knowing what you know now, if you were transported to Nazi occupied Poland, would you use violence, if necessary, to stop a trainload of Jewish children from being taken to Auschwitz? Using KF's logic, exterminating Jewish children in Nazi occupied lands and conducting abortions in 2016 are analogous. In fact, he said that the abortions are a far worse holocaust, but I will ignore that for the moment. They were both conducted under the full protection of the law and they are both the amoral murder of innocent human beings.
So, I will ask the same question. If you would be willing to break the law, including the use of sabotage and violence, to save a trainload of children being legally taken for extermination, why would you not be willing to break the law, including the use of sabotage and violence, to save other children from being legally aborted?
And before you start screaming "false equivalence" do you have such low imagination that you could not perceive of any direct actions that would prevent doctors from being able to perform abortions? I can think of many.
But let's be honest here. Most people do not take that kind of action because they do not perceive an early stage abortion as the equivalent of killing a young child. And they shouldn't. Claiming that they are equivalent and calling it a holocaust just makes your position less tenable, not stronger.
Don't get me wrong. I would much prefer that there were no abortions. But I am a realist. Even if you made it illegal and jailed doctors who performed them, they would still occur, simply because you have done nothing to affect demand. If you are serious about reducing the abortion rate, expand sex education, make contraceptives more available, remove the stigma around unwanted pregnancy and increase the support for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. But many of the people who vehemently oppose abortion under all circumstances also oppose contraceptives, comprehensive sex education and removing the stigma around unwanted pregnancies.Armand Jacks
March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
AJ and Pindi, you studiously ignored the answer I gave, the better to set up and knock over a strawman. Does the name William Wilberforce mean anything to you? It should. Further, I spoke to the lessons that are rooted in history: revolutionary tactics are predictably bloody and useless, leading as a rule to increased tyranny. indeed the sort of notions you put up would only feed straight into the media shadow show narratives and further lock in the holocaust. the first thing, then is to point out that there is in fact a holocaust ongoing, and how it corrupts far and wide. On this, the sidestepping of facing holocaust for what it is above speaks volumes. So, the only sound approach is the one being taken, to expose the suppressed truth in a way that does not simply feed the deceitful narrative that has put holocaust under false colours of law, rights and the like, and to highlight the evil that must be changed, as a framework for genuine and lasting reformation backed by a critical mass of convinced support. Precisely as Wilberforce et al pioneered 200+ years ago. Do you think Wilberforce should have bought some ships and launched out as a privateer attacking slave trade ships off Africa? That would have betrayed his principles and would only have got him hunted down as a pirate. We would still be facing entrenched slavery and its kidnapping based trade -- which also had clearly genocidal impact and was associated with mass murder. So, your strawman false dilemma fails and further exposes the lack of seriousness and responsibility in how you have argued. Please, do better. A lot better. KF
PS: WJM, good points. We may add that on all sorts of excuses and scenarios even protests or side walk counselling near to abortion clinics in the US were hammered by activist judges, what 20 years and more ago now. The only reasonable approach there is reform. On the wider stage, I doubt that there is even a sufficient awareness of the sobering issue, to start with, So, the first step is to discuss and help foster awareness.
PPS: We see again, refusal to acknowledge the impact, direct and indirect, of shining a light here. One illustration of this is how stridently and even obsessively we have been opposed here and in the penumbra of hate and attack sites.kairosfocus
March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Armand Jacks & Pindi,
What utterly absurd and childish equivalences. If we in the course of our day see a child in serious danger and have the capacity at the time to physically intervene - say, tackling an abductor - we all would do so, confident that our actions would be held as lawful and necessary. The child will be safe and the perpetrator taken away by the law.
What violent action would you have KF or anyone else here do in order to stop an abortion? Enter an abortion clinic and do what? Stand between the doctor and the patient? Physically stop them from performing an abortion ... until the police arrive to take us away, and the child is aborted anyway in our absence?
What "violent act" in the abortion process are you comparing to, say, an intervention in a child abduction? You don't get to make such a vague equivalence as if there are equitable and valid comparisons to be had when on one hand you have something very simple and on the other something very complex; provide a specific hypothetical comparison that you think offers comparable violence and outcome.
As it stands your question is grounded in a false equivalence because different forms and extents of "violence" would be required in the two scenarios resulting in entirely different kinds of outcomes.William J Murray
March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
AJ:
He won't give you a straight answer.
But the fact is, they all say they witnessing mass murder, yet they stand by doing nothing about it apart from commenting on blogs and the odd protest march. As you note, if KF really believed that you would expect him to behave differently. The fact that he doesn't "speaks volumes".Pindi
March 12, 2017
March
03
Mar
12
12
2017
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Pindi:
Despite what they say, they clearly don’t see abortion as murder. Of if they do they are all absolute hypocrites. At best.
I think that KF honestly believes that abortion is murder, equivalent to killing a young child. I just can't reconcile why he would not take the same action to prevent abortion that he would to prevent a young child being killed. Maybe, subconsciously, he does see the difference between abortion and killing a child. Or maybe he sees the difference as one of differing values. A young child has more worth than s fetus. But, unless he is willing to answer the question, all we have is speculation.Armand Jacks
