academic freedom agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Defending our Civilization Education Governance & control vs anarchy Moving civilization forward

How do we move civilisation (and especially science, tech and math) forward?

Spread the love

We are clearly in an age of reversion to oligarchic domination and lockout of dissent, so the issue is that of formation of a counter-culture, starting with the life of the mind.

H’mm, as a preliminary, let us look briefly at a refresher on a more useful ideological/political spectrum than the usual LEFT/RIGHT (which has no coherent definition of centre and right, where also Nazism/Fascism is actually of the left . . . contrary to popular notions):

This is necessary because, regrettably, power dominates over essentially anything, especially in a time of deep polarisation. We can map that through the seven mountains/pillars of influence model:

This naturally points to the cliff metaphor and warning:

Let me add, that with our bounded rationality, we need to ponder the limitations on how we think:

For there to be a choice, there has to be sober-minded thinking through of issues in fora that are not unduly censored, by people who rise above small-p party-spiritedness. Or else we turn Mencken’s cynicism into prophecy:

Accordingly, the first substantial issue is inescapable first duties of reason; which also happen to be pivotal to sound framing of law and government as well as opening the door to understanding roots of reality in a world with significantly free, rational, responsible, morally governed creatures — arguably, including us:

FIRST DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE REASON

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties,

1 – to truth, 

2 – to right reason

3 – to prudence, 

4 – to sound conscience, 

5 – to neighbour; so also, 

6 – to fairness and

 7 – justice 

x – etc.

Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, “natural law,” coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of “self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator” in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law.

The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly acquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right.

Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate’s cynical “what is truth?”: truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence — in key part — the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Where, prudence can also be seen via Aristotle’s summary:  “. . . [who aptly] defined prudence as recta ratio agibilium, ‘right reason applied to practice.’ The emphasis on ‘right’ is important . . .  Prudence requires us to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong . . . If we mistake the evil for the good, we are not exercising prudence—in fact, we are showing our lack of it.”  [NB: This implies that through sound reason and balanced, insightful judgement applied to the material evidence, factors, claims and circumstances in a situation (which may often be clouded, contentious and confusing or even willfully distorted by deceivers),  we soundly discern and warrant truth and risks or uncertainties . . . yes, we need to ponder and warrant degrees of risk and uncertainty . . . so we can confidently, soberly act as we are rightly guided. This requires that we act through trained, experienced wisdom that delights in “solid food” which is “for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” [Heb 5:14.]

And yes, we find here no comfort for those inclined to remain over-long at the milk stage: “everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child” [v. 13]. Indeed, in the Proverbs, the simple youth are counselled to study the proverbs, precisely “to give prudence to the simple” [Prov 1:4.]  

There is no wrong in being young, simple and naive, but this is a mark of baby-hood,  and a healthy child grows beyond that stage in good time. Long delay in immaturity and in struggling to learn and master the simple is not a good sign: “though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food.” [Heb 5:12. It is of course just after this that the author points to the famous six foundational, ABC principles in 6:1 – 2, repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, eternal judgement. This is what the “milk” is. Note, it is led by meta + noia, a profound change in attitude, thought patterns and inclination of life leading to a right-about turn from the wrong, false and foolish to the ways of truth and right in love to God and man.]

This, too, is how prudence becomes “auriga virtutum — the charioteer of the virtues” (as Aquinas put it); the skilled steersman who guides and controls the chariot. Or even, the ship of state (what is implicitly in view in the Proverbs: “[t]he proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel”, Prov 1:1).

From this, we may also see how the first duties naturally fall into a logical chain in light of the key factors, loving God who is Truth Himself, and loving Neighbour made in God’s image just as we are; with sound conscience as pivot:

[i] truth –> right reason –> prudence, so sound conscience clears for action. Then, through the voice of sound conscience,
[ii] love for neighbour who is as we are requires fairness and justice etc.]

Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.

The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.

This is where we must begin. Without this, there is no basis for that comity required to have sound academic disciplines, much less general public policy or even current events discussion. The ever-eager Red Guard censors are at our heels.

The case of Mathematics is central.

Mathematics, being best understood as [The study of] the logic of structure and quantity, where certain core intelligible mathematical facts are framework to any possible world (= a sufficiently complete chain of propositions describing a possible state of affairs), and lead to a programme of analysis and elaboration of logic-model worlds that may then apply to relevant situations of interest. For example, per von Neumann:

{} –> 0
{0} –> 1
{0,1} –> 2
. . . .
{0,1,2 . . .) –> w, omega

From reflecting on the principle of distinct identity, we see that for a world W to be distinct from some arbitrarily close neighbour W’, we have some A in W that is not in W’, so

W = {A|~A} and also W = {A|W’}, thence,

we see the partition | is empty, manifesting nullity.

A is a simple and ~A = W’ is a complex, unity.

With distinct unities, we find duality, and already we see that von Neumann’s framework applies to any distinct world.

It is truly universal, i.e. we find the natural counting numbers, N as an abstract structure necessarily present in and framework to any possible world.

From N, we can define additive inverses so for n in N, -n is such that n + (-n) = 0, i.e. we have that vector set where elements have both size and direction in an abstract space, the integers Z. Taking ratios, we have the rationals, Q. Reals bring in transfinite converging sums of rationals without repeating cycles when displayed in place value form, R. From that we go in a second orthogonal spatial direction, to C, using the j* rotating operator: j*x for all x in R defines the imaginary axis by anticlockwise rotation through one right angle and j*j* x is – x so we see j is sqrt – 1.

Beyond we define the hyperreals R* on the reals R being mileposted by N. H = 1/h, where h is smaller than 1/n for any finite n in N, where for any k in N the von Neumann succession continues k+1, k+2 etc, i.e. we cannot exhaust N stepwise. From this h is an infinitesimal hyperreal near 0; H is a transfinite integer hyperreal and we see a connected domain from zero and N,Z,Q,R to the hyper-domain R* such that any r in R may be surrounded by an infinitesimally altered cloud of form r + h, *r*, in effect vector shifting and adding the cloud *0* to r. (This allows us to use Robinson’s tamed infinitesimals and Model Theory etc to view Calculus as an extension of algebra.)

Notice, we have nowhere specified a particular individual world, this holds for any distinct world, for all possible worlds. It is reality-universal and possibility-universal. That is, a core domain of numbers, associated relationships and operations is a body of abstracta framework for any possible world, physical or imaginary. Hence, immediately, some of the universal power of both mathematics and logic. Hence too, we can recognise a category of beings, necessary, world framework entities; abstracta that constrain what is possible, by laying out constraints on possible being.

We can pause to summarise key first principles of right reason:

If we want a bit more on the first triad:

Laws of logic in action as glorified common-sense first principles of right reason

Where, we may ponder Science and linked technology (Computing being in key part a technology of Mathematics, which obviously is not an empirical science but a logic-constrained and guided field of study), as a domain of inductive reason pivoting on inference to best current — hopefully progressive — explanation:

Abductive, inductive reasoning and the inherent provisionality of scientific theorising

These, we must not lose sight of, or all will be lost.

Going forward, that we are morally governed creatures has profound worldview import. For, at least one possible world, which is actualised, has in it such creatures. The root of all reality must be such that such a world is adequately accounted for.

That opens the door to serious consideration of ethical theism, which posits that the explanation for such a world is the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary [worlds-framework and so too eternal] and maximally great being.

These, we must not lose sight of. END

PS: Eugenics Congress:

Logo, 2nd Int’l Congress, Eugenics Movement, 1921 [HT: Wiki]

U/D1 Jan 12: An adapted Overton Window analysis, applied to the peril of the new Jacobins:

U/D2, Jan 13, the issue of the crooked yardstick:

In that light, consider Plato’s parable of the cave:

Not, as a fallacious cosmology but as a study on how a manipulated public reacts to truth. Ask yourselves, who is running the puppet shadow-show confused for reality and who is running the prison that locks up denizens from discovering the truth for themselves. (Then, ponder the course of current events.)

U/D3, Jan 18: Impact of cumulative evidence, as a part of first principles of reason in an inductive context:

Of chains, ropes and cumulative cases

U/D4 Jan 18, to point to the documentation of the McFaul Colour Revolution programme and the SOCOM Insurgency Escalator:

Where, note from the earlier U-Haul a Riot thread on red guard street theatre operations tied to radical Jacobin networks . . . there is much more behind that:

That is, it seems there is little matter of who is rioting to be addressed.

Where, this summary of points of concern by Navarro is a good place to begin pondering the “baseless” talking point that was used below to personally attack me as poster of the OP and host of the live event tracking threads:

U/D5, Jan 19: It is becoming apparent that as part of reforming thinking we need to re-orient our understanding of war, strategy and associated operations in light of the unlimited scope, full spectrum of force options, social- space- is- the- battlespace evolution of warfare under 4th generation war principles. First, while we may not be interested in war — in a world of ruthless geostrategic operators who lack power to simply steamroller those blocking imposition of their will — the vultures not the eagles — war may well be interested in us.

So, if near-perpetual war is in every sphere and across the spectrum of force options (most often non kinetic) we need to map the social space, so let me repeat the seven mountains/pillars of influence model:

Where, we can map the evolution of war:

In that context, let us note on Unrestricted Warfare, using a summary of the 1999 work by PLA Air Force Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui:

In 1999, two Chinese colonels wrote a book called Unrestricted Warfare, about warfare in the age of globalization. Their main argument: Warfare in the modern world will no longer be primarily a struggle defined by military means — or even involve the military at all.

They were about a decade and a half before their time.

Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui argued that war was no longer about “using armed forces to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will” in the classic Clausewitzian sense. Rather, they asserted that war had evolved to “using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military and non-military, and lethal and non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.” The barrier between soldiers and civilians would fundamentally be erased, because the battle would be everywhere. The number of new battlefields would be “virtually infinite,” and could include environmental warfare, financial warfare, trade warfare, cultural warfare, and legal warfare, to name just a few. They wrote of assassinating financial speculators to safeguard a nation’s financial security, setting up slush funds to influence opponents’ legislatures and governments, and buying controlling shares of stocks to convert an adversary’s major television and newspapers outlets into tools of media warfare. According to the editor’s note, Qiao argued in a subsequent interview that “the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden.” That vision clearly transcends any traditional notions of war.

Unrestricted Warfare was an explicit response to the reigning Western military orthodoxy of the time. The preface is dated January 17, 1999, which the authors note was the eighth anniversary of the outbreak of the 1991 Gulf War. In many ways, their argument refuted many of the Western lessons drawn from that conflict: that wars could be short, sharp, and dominated by high-technology weaponry used with stunning precision to shatter an enemy’s armed forces in hours or days. By 1999, U.S. military thinking was dominated by the revolution in military affairs and network centric-warfare, which relied on advanced technologies to give the United States total battlefield dominance.

But Qiao and Wang argued that the battlefield had fundamentally changed. It was no longer a place where militaries met and fought; instead, society itself was now the battlefield. Future wars would inevitably encompass attacks on all elements of society without limits. Military battles resembling those of 1991 might become secondary elements of conflict — if they even occurred at all.

In short, war that by and large does not SEEM to be war due to lack of naked high kinetic weaponry in action. War that is only visible as war once one recognises the involvement of ruthless domination and subjugation by use of force and deception. Force, that is often masked as legitimate actions (often, by turnabout projections of blame . . . maskirovka); force calibrated to seem legitimate to the superficial onlooker.

Force, that needs not involve state actors or states. Which, gives it its 4th generational character.

War waged by vultures in the shadows, not just obvious ones in the sky.

War, that is only over, when the vultures themselves are checkmated and irrecoverably defeated. With history signposted so they cannot regroup to rebrand and come again, as obviously has happened with Marxism’s shiny new brand, critical theories.

U/D6, Jan 19: Ms Clinton and Ms Pelosi, unsubstantiated accusation of treason, screenshot:

476 Replies to “How do we move civilisation (and especially science, tech and math) forward?

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    How do we move civilisation (and especially science, tech and math) forward?

  2. 2
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: How do we move civilisation (and especially science, tech and math) forward?

    Let the scientists, engineers and mathematicians do their jobs. They’ve been advancing things pretty well in since the industrial revolution.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, that depends on so much else that it is incredible. Start with, that energy is a pivot of economies and that freedom is a pivot of credible creation of knowledge by warrant. I add, ponder the implications of “Let . . .” as in who controls the “let-ery,” on what principles or want thereof? KF

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    How Do We Move Civilisation (And Especially Science, Tech And Math) Forward?

    I have to admit I hadn’t thought of you as a progressivist until now. Although citing Lance Wallnau and the Seven Mountains theory sounds like you see progress as movement towards Christian theocracy.

    That aside, are you suggesting that scientific progress can be directed by following the most promising lines of research? But wasn’t one of the points of Carl Sagan’s little parable of the “Westminster Project” that it’s very difficult to cherry-pick which are the most promising lines of research because we have no way of knowing in advance which they are? Isn’t the best approach to give science its head, within the obvious limits of available resources, and see where it takes us?

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: JVL, that depends on so much else that it is incredible. Start with, that energy is a pivot of economies and that freedom is a pivot of credible creation of knowledge by warrant.

    In my experience, most academics are pretty free in choosing what particular topic or subtopic they wish to research, as long as it’s a) somewhat in their field and b) gets funded. Obviously, the funding can be a big area of disagreement. But generally the system works. Dr Behe manages to find a balance between his ‘accepted’, funded research and his ‘questionable’ work on ID without having lost his tenure so it’s clearly possible for academics, even those on the fringes, to have a decent, tenured position and still pursue something less accepted.

    I add, ponder the implications of “Let . . .” as in who controls the “let-ery,” on what principles or want thereof?

    You phrase things strangely but I’m guessing you’re referring to the part of who gets to decide what’s accepted and what isn’t. I think my example of Dr Behe is important; he’s found a good, tenure-safe, middle ground. Funding choices are always made by committees; that’s the nature of the beast. And, as it stands right now in virtually all academic funding environments, most of the topics you might feel are ostracised do not have anything close to sufficient support to fund via the normal means.

    Of course that doesn’t mean researchers interested in things like ID are completely bereft. The Discovery Institute has its own research organisation. The Biologic Institute? I think that’s right. With Dr Douglas Axe and Dr Anne Gauger. And there’s the Templeton Prize which kind of straddles the gap between theology and materialistic science. A bit anyway.

    There is no reason that there cannot be an independently funded ID research institute. I would recommend that Dr Meyer, et al ask for research funding instead of publishing more books. The revenue generated by the books could be spent on labs and facilities!

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    energy is a pivot of economies and that freedom is a pivot of credible creation of knowledge

    No. Freedom is the driver of everything. Why did the modern world start is a small place? What changed to let this happen?

    The answer is freedom. The ingenuity and energy were always there but they were not allowed to manifest itself till the religious wars in England led to freedom for the average person and not just the nobility. This is what drove the modern world first in England and a little bit in Holland but then mainly in the British colonies and then the United States.

    The exemplar was Pennsylvania which was called the poor man’s country and allowed hundreds of thousand of immigrants to settle and Philadelphia became the most vibrant city in the Western Hemisphere. Penn invited about 100.000 poor German farmers to his colony and they prospered.

    It was freedom

    Aside: it was not just Protestant vs Catholic. In England the religious wars were between different versions of Protestantism. Protestant countries in Europe that were mainly one religion like the Catholic ones remained sluggish till they saw what was happening in England. It was a monarchy that kept countries backwards but in England the king lost power to parliament and eventually to the common person. In the British colonies the common person was king.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, FYI, for seven years, I have noted here at UD and elsewhere that a mapping of society’s key institutions as a range of mountains or pillars in a temple — notice, this is not a simplistic copy of what Mr Wallnau used — is a useful map of how societies work. There is a dominant worldview and linked cultural agenda, tied to forms of the Overton window too [I guess I had better add . . . ], which work with key institutions and power centres to shape the business as usual agenda of a community. That has precisely nothing to do with your attempted smear with “theocracy.” It has a lot more to do with seeking a simplification of talking on stratagems and factions among decision making classes and issues of sustainability across biophysical, sociocultural and economic-policy domains. There is an issue of credible alternative and counter-culture in the context of a civilisation going amiss, as is patent, but then that has more to do with a modified version of Gro Harlem Bruntland on sustainability, with admixtures from Kant’s Categorical Imperative than anything else; where I have repeatedly credited the Bariloche foundation of Argentina, from the days in which I helped write a primer on sustainability for SIDS. Unfortunately, your ideology and its projections to the despised other are warping your ability to see straight. KF

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky,

    who controls the “let-ery”? That is, who are the WE.

    I remind you of Mr Lewontin’s let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag moment:

    . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

    In short, Big-S Science can all too easily become a totalitarian ideology.

    The issue is to go back to first principles and duties, which allow us to think straight in a day when that seems to be at severe discount; ironically, especially among those who consider themselves to be the intellectual betters.

    KF

  9. 9
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL
    “Let the scientists, engineers and mathematicians do their jobs. They’ve been advancing things pretty well in since the industrial revolution.”

    Yes, the scientists were doing pretty well when they were employing their eugenics programs to slaughter people in the cause of purifying “human stock” (a phrase they used a lot). And they were doing pretty well when they decided the best way to deal with some people is drive big nails up into their brains through their eye sockets. And they were doing pretty well when they developed poison gases to slaughter by the tens of thousands. And they were doing pretty well . . .

    A gun is a tool. Gunsmiths are people who use that tool. No one would say that we should blindly trust gunsmiths and allow them to shoot anyone they want. Science is a tool. Scientists are people who use that tool. It is stupid to suggest we should blindly trust scientists and just let them do their jobs. Josef Mengele was a scientist.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry,

    I am speaking in the first instance to a going concern world. Energy beyond muscle, wind and flowing water is the currency of physical work, from steam engines to cell phone networks. Work, physically, being forced ordered motion. Economically, work is such motion dedicated to the goods and services that produce value. Where, regrettably, there is always going to be waste, pointing to the need for sound, restrained policy. Not least, energy policy.

    On freedom, note what I commented: >>freedom is a pivot of credible creation of knowledge by warrant>>

    This speaks to several levels. First, to be rational, we must have significant morally governed freedom as part of our nature; where to provide warrant for knowledge claims, we must be rational. Note, discussion in the OP. But, that is potential, without respect for and recognition of freedom in society, creativity including of knowledge, is hampered. Hence, my note on the opening up of political space in the OP, tracing to impacts of the printing revolution. Observe the alternative political spectrum and its context.

    Freedom, social sense, is not a given, historically the natural state of society is lawless oligarchy, and such is not easily overthrown once it has control. The breakthrough to the degree of social freedom we take for granted and apparently cannot perceive as fragile, did not just happen, poof.

    We need to go back to core principles to understand it. Hence the focus above. Freedom is an aspect of justice, due balance of rights, freedoms, responsibilities. Thus, we see law and government and begin to realise that law is not merely what whoever controls legal presses publishes . . . in effect, so called legal positivism. Without primacy of justice rooted in our morally governed nature, law becomes an excuse for domineering and government is brigandage or warlordism writ large.

    KF

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, yes, specifically a medical doctor, so bound under ethical oath. Which, he treacherously betrayed. KF

  12. 12
    JVL says:

    Barry Arrington: Yes, the scientists were doing pretty well when they were employing their eugenics programs to slaughter people in the cause of purifying “human stock” (a phrase they used a lot).

    A hideous and mistaken application of some scientific theories by politicians and power mongers. And probably a few scientists who let their personal morals dictate their behaviour.

    And they were doing pretty well when they decided the best way to deal with some people is drive big nails up into their brains through their eye sockets.

    Not sure what this refers to. But, again, science is impartial, science applications can be extremely moral or immoral. That’s down to the individuals involved not the science.

    And they were doing pretty well when they developed poison gases to slaughter by the tens of thousands. And they were doing pretty well . . .

    When they developed nuclear weapons. And high powered rifles. And machine guns. But they also put men on the moon, developed vaccines, radios, semi-conductors, CAT machines, antibiotics, contact lenses, etc, etc, etc.

    It’s easy to make a list of good and bad things developed by human beings. It’s up to us as groups to sanction how those discoveries are applied and used.

    Science is a tool. Scientists are people who use that tool. It is stupid to suggest we should blindly trust scientists and just let them do their jobs. Josef Mengele was a scientist.

    Letting them discover things is one thing, blindly giving them the money and power to apply them as they see fit is something else completely different. I am not conflating those two things as you seem to be implying. Very few people do that. So why create that straw man?

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, maybe you don’t realise it but eugenics was the overwhelming, enthusiastic consensus of the educated classes including the establishment and the second generation of the Darwin family. Indeed, the 2nd congress on it defined eugenics as self-direction of human evolution. It was the shock of the exposed holocaust that broke momentum. Start there and work your way back to the focal issue of inescapable first duties of reason and moral government of rationality. KF

    PS: Since it is needed, I add as a PS to OP, a key focal image for that congress.

  14. 14
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: JVL, maybe you don’t realise it but eugenics was the overwhelming, enthusiastic consensus of the educated classes including the establishment and the second generation of the Darwin family.

    It was still a horrible and misguided application of science; I don’t care who was in favour of it. And society as a whole could have stomped on that application but they didn’t. Almost no scientist in the world has such great power, the application of their work depends on the consent of the populace as a whole. Too bad such much of society agreed with the eugenics programmes.

    Indeed, the 2nd congress on it defined eugenics as self-direction of human evolution. It was the shock of the exposed holocaust that broke momentum. Start there.

    It was horrible. But it’s not happening now and we still hold unguided evolution to be true. You don’t have to jettison the science when all that’s called for is the ceasing of certain ‘applications’ which are abhorrent.

    You should never put your faith in one person or one strict interpretation. That almost always fails.

    yes, specifically a medical doctor, so bound under ethical oath. Which, he treacherously betrayed.

    Which no one would dispute. So why make it sound like it’s a point of contention?

    Almost all scientific discoveries and ideas can be used to help the human race or hinder it, even destroy it. It’s up to us, the public as a whole, to oversee what applications are supported. We are not obligated to implement every new idea that comes along.

    I am surprised when ID proponents who feel they have to fight for their ideas to be given time and consideration suggest suppressing and sensoring areas of science. I would think that would be their last argument since they feel they suffer under that same burden.

  15. 15
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Science is neither moral nor immoral. For example, science postulates that we can direct human evolution through selective breeding as we have done with animals for centuries. And there is no reason to believe that this is not possible. However, deciding whether something should be done with this knowledge is a societal decision, not a science one.

    Governments and society have a responsibility to make decisions on the direction of scientific research, and after discoveries are made they are responsible for deciding how or if to apply the new knowledge. This is always a balancing act. If our policy makers are too risk-averse, we will miss out on discoveries and their applications that could greatly benefit individuals as well as the country. Conversely, if they are too risk-tolerant, we can end up with things like eugenics and thalidomide.

    In spite of the numerous mistakes we have made over the last century or so, I think that the benefits we have obtained as the result of science greatly outweigh the negatives.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, eugenics is a major lesson on how science went astray, losing sight of moral government. BTW so extreme was the domination that in the hey-day there were like two significant public intellectual voices challenging it, G K Chesterton being one. A lesson. And btw it keeps on creeping back in. KF

  17. 17
    Steve Alten2 says:

    SNIP – irrelevant

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: eugenics is a major lesson on how science went astray, losing sight of moral government. BTW so extreme was the domination that in the hey-day there were like two significant public intellectual voices challenging it, G K Chesterton being one. A lesson. And btw it keeps on creeping back in.

    Like I said: it’s up to society as a whole to determine what applications of science are implemented and supported. Society failed during the eugenics period. The state should not have allowed it to happen. Sadly, enough people thought it was a good idea so it happened. The science is the same as any selective breeding programme. And we still do that with animals and plants all the time. You don’t get poodles and collies and cauliflower without using selective breeding. But doing that will people is a violation of their lawful rights. It’s wrong, morally and legally.

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    AS2, part of the point of the OP is that, inescapably, we are under first duties of reason; indeed your own comment pivots on such. This means that every product of reason, including Science, is morally governed. Science is a part of reason and it can and should be towards the good; but it can be horrifically abused, eugenics being a key example. Such is part of why it is so important to get back to first duties. KF

  20. 20

    IMO, the main problem with moving civilization “forward” from here is the fact that the fundamental premise of what life and existence is, is entirely wrong. You cannot move “forward” beginning with entirely erroneous premises and expect to build anything other than a weak, poorly-founded structure doomed to eventual collapse.

  21. 21
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ This means that every product of reason, including Science, is morally governed.

    I don’t think there is any argument here. But everyone, including scientists, have different views on what is morally acceptable. That is why funding for science is generally handled through committees that weigh many factors including government restrictions. It is far from perfect but it does minimize the number and risk of “rogue” scientists.

    Science is a part of reason and it can and should be towards the good;

    I agree but very few scientific discoveries are purely for the good or for the bad. For example nuclear physics have resulted in the generation of power and the development of nuclear medicine, both beneficial to humans, but it has also resulted in nuclear waste and nuclear bombs, both detrimental to humans.

    In addition, many advances in science have been the result of accidents (serendipity). That is why funding “pure” science is important.

    but it can be horrifically abused, eugenics being a key example.

    Eugenics was simply the application of selective breeding to humans. It should also be noted that selective breeding has been used for animals, plants and humans long before Darwin proposed his theory.

    Yes, scientific discoveries can be abused. But that is no reason to prevent the research. If we took that attitude we would have banned research in physics and chemistry. What we need is oversight of how the science and its discoveries are applied. And this can, in some circumstances, mean the temporary halt of further research until the potential consequences can be assessed.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, first, no-one is talking of blocking scientific research, absent serious moral or legal issues, or because of economic constraints/priorities. The supercollider for TX was refused, the follow on to Mars never got going in the 70’s, embryonic stem cells have serious issues and pluripotent cells have done fairly well. Mengele and co were war criminals; the Tuskegee case was dubious even criminal. But, science does not equal civilisation, it is civilisation that is on the table and things that are far prior to the sciences are at stake. KF

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, eugenics is a capital example of why social consensus or consensus of elites is not a sound guide to justice. That, BTW, was debated in Plato’s dialogues, long since. KF

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: eugenics is a capital example of why social consensus or consensus of elites is not a sound guide to justice. That, BTW, was debated in Plato’s dialogues, long since.

    But who gets to decide then? If you don’t have a consensus of the many then it will always be some kind of ‘elite’ or ‘chosen’ group that gets to decide. The whole process has to be accessible by everyone with a wide variety of input otherwise there will be a lot of dissension and objection.

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, it’s not a who; that’s the point. That’s why it is so crucial to understand inescapable, self evident first duties that frame how responsible freedom is morally governed. It goes as far as governing how we go about math, much less opening a way to restore law to soundness, thus government. That is why we need to return to understanding that we are free, responsible, thus morally governed, coeval with our humanity. That way we are not locked up to manipulated mobs or self-seeking power elites hell-bent on marches of folly. If we fail here, our civilisation reverts to lawless oligarchy. I need not say more than that Plato warned that in a day of a march of folly on the ship of state, soundness would be marginalised as the mutineers set out on looting the stores. KF

  26. 26
    Steve Alten2 says:

    [SNIP — irrelevant and distractive; the threads for such ran for two months and nearly five thousand comments, yielding a clear — and damning — verdict. This is about restoration of sound civilisation from ground up, as a direct consequence.]

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL and SA2, BTW, eugenics is not merely selective breeding of people; by and large, we select our spouses fairly carefully. Eugenics as policy is about IMPOSED limitations on breeding contrary to or subverting the choices of alleged inferior varieties relative to some claimed standard of superiority; or it is about manipulation to the same end. That is, it is about oligarchic domination — fundamentally, lawless oligarchic domination, a misanthropic and anti civilisational stance, but disguised as a scientific breakthrough and imposed under colour of law. KF

    PS: First, an introduction on the point:

    Lecture 36: Eugenics and Other Evils

    by Dale Ahlquist

    The Case Against a Scientifically-Designed Society

    Eugenics is a nice-sounding word, combining as it does the Greek words for “good” and “birth.” And Francis Galton, who made up the word and the idea, proposed Eugenics “for the betterment of mankind.” But that’s as far as the nice-sounding stuff goes. The actual definition is rather horrible: the controlled and selective breeding of the human race. Galton based his ideas on the theories of his cousin: Charles Darwin. By the beginning of the 20th century, when Darwin’s theory was safely embraced by the scientific establishment, Eugenics was getting good press. The New York Times gave it constant and positive coverage. Luther Burbank and other scientists promoted Eugenics. George Bernard Shaw said that nothing but a Eugenic religion could save civilization.

    Only one writer wrote a book against Eugenics. G.K. Chesterton. Eugenics and Other Evils may be his most prophetic book.

    One of very few intellectual objectors, G K Chesterton, on the subject when it was live and exceedingly popular, enforced by consensus of the powerful in the name of science. Remember, this is a lone voice speaking contra mundum, and being right when it counted:

    I publish these essays at the present time for a particular reason connected with the present situation; a reason which I should like briefly to emphasise and make clear.

    Though most of the conclusions, especially towards the end, are conceived with reference to recent events, the actual bulk of preliminary notes about the science of Eugenics were written before the [First World] war. It was a time when this theme was the topic of the hour; when eugenic babies (not visibly very distinguishable from other babies) sprawled all over the illustrated papers; when the evolutionary fancy of Nietzsche was the new cry among the intellectuals; and when Mr. Bernard Shaw and others were considering the idea that to breed a man like a cart-horse was the true way to attain that higher civilisation, of intellectual magnanimity and sympathetic insight, which may be found in cart-horses. It may therefore appear that I took the opinion too controversially, and it seems to me that I sometimes took it too seriously. But the criticism of Eugenics soon expanded of itself into a more general criticism of a modern craze for scientific officialism and strict social organisation . . . .

    The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.

    There exists to-day a scheme of action, a school of thought, as collective and unmistakable as any of those by whose grouping alone we can make any outline of history . . . It is called for convenience “Eugenics”; and that it ought to be destroyed I propose to prove in [4]the pages that follow. I know that it means very different things to different people; but that is only because evil always takes advantage of ambiguity. I know it is praised with high professions of idealism and benevolence; with silver-tongued rhetoric about purer motherhood and a happier posterity. But that is only because evil is always flattered, as the Furies were called “The Gracious Ones.” I know that it numbers many disciples whose intentions are entirely innocent and humane; and who would be sincerely astonished at my describing it as I do. But that is only because evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes; and there has in all ages been a disastrous alliance between abnormal innocence and abnormal sin. Of these who are deceived I shall speak of course as we all do of such instruments; judging them by the good they think they are doing, and not by the evil which they really do. But Eugenics itself does exist for those who have sense enough to see that ideas exist; and Eugenics itself, in large quantities or small, coming quickly or coming slowly, urged from good motives or bad, applied to a thousand people or applied to three, Eugenics itself is a thing no more to be bargained about than poisoning.

    It is not really difficult to sum up the essence of Eugenics: though some of the Eugenists seem to be rather vague about it. The movement consists of two parts: a moral basis, which is common to all, and a scheme of social application which varies a good [5]deal. For the moral basis, it is obvious that man’s ethical responsibility varies with his knowledge of consequences . . . Now the Eugenic moral basis is this; that the baby for whom we are primarily and directly responsible is the babe unborn. That is, that we know (or may come to know) enough of certain inevitable tendencies in biology to consider the fruit of some contemplated union in that direct and clear light of conscience which we can now only fix on the other partner in that union . . . .

    Far into the unfathomable past of our race we find [10]the assumption that the founding of a family is the personal adventure of a free man. Before slavery sank slowly out of sight under the new climate of Christianity, it may or may not be true that slaves were in some sense bred like cattle, valued as a promising stock for labour. [–> Barbuda, two islands over, was a slave breeding plantation, and today, we can still see characteristics in our population] If it was so it was so in a much looser and vaguer sense than the breeding of the Eugenists; and such modern philosophers read into the old paganism a fantastic pride and cruelty which are wholly modern. It may be, however, that pagan slaves had some shadow of the blessings of the Eugenist’s care. It is quite certain that the pagan freemen would have killed the first man that suggested it . . . The shortest general definition of Eugenics on its practical side is that it does, in a more or less degree, propose to control some families at least as if they were families of pagan slaves. I [11]shall discuss later the question of the people to whom this pressure may be applied; and the much more puzzling question of what people will apply it. But it is to be applied at the very least by somebody to somebody, and that on certain calculations about breeding which are affirmed to be demonstrable . . .

    He of course continues at book length, but this should be enough for a first stimulus for reflection.

    For, it turns out that eugenics is a telling case study on attempted imposition of oligarchic domination, under colours of science, science-guided policy, media manipulation and equally false colour of law. Underneath, lies the subtext of contempt for perceived inferiors and threats to the interests of the power classes making the imposition for the alleged common good on a claim to scientific knowledge.

    That’s someone walking over your grave that you feel.

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, 21:

    Kairosfocus “ This means that every product of reason, including Science, is morally governed.”

    [SA2:] I don’t think there is any argument here. But everyone, including scientists, have different views on what is morally acceptable. That is why funding for science is generally handled through committees that weigh many factors including government restrictions. It is far from perfect but it does minimize the number and risk of “rogue” scientists.

    On the contrary, the idea that morality is a mere matter of perceptions and values, which vary across the population uncontrollably is a reflection of a major modern malaise of thought and disagreement on the subject of moral truths.

    Where, as Government is inherently about coercive force, the issue of sound and general, valid principles of justice is crucial. The pickpocket, the serial rapist, the killer for hire [sometimes with a law enforcement badge] has a differing opinion, but the question is, how do we distinguish the sound from the unsound. To which, the OP answers by identifying pivotal and inescapable first duties of reason which then are self-evident moral truths.

    Here is the key core point — a point that is manifestly central if sound civilisation is to be restored:

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties,

    1 – to truth,

    2 – to right reason,

    3 – to prudence,

    4 – to sound conscience,

    5 – to neighbour; so also,

    6 – to fairness and

    7 – justice

    x – etc.

    Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, “natural law,” coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of “self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator” in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law.

    The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly acquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right.

    Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate’s cynical “what is truth?”: truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence — in key part — the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Where, prudence can also be seen via Aristotle’s summary: “. . . [who aptly] defined prudence as recta ratio agibilium, ‘right reason applied to practice.’ The emphasis on ‘right’ is important . . . Prudence requires us to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong . . . If we mistake the evil for the good, we are not exercising prudence—in fact, we are showing our lack of it.”

    Such built-in law of our nature, coeval with our humanity, is universal and cannot be abolished. As it governs our rationality, it governs, too, the rationality of science, engineering, education, media, mathematics [especially in that notorious application to state-purposes, statistics]. Accordingly, we have a basis of truthful principles of duty that can be used to work out on a responsible, objective basis, what is morally sound, just and prudent in particular circumstances including those of sci-tech. Where, again:

    prudence can also be seen via Aristotle’s summary: “. . . [who aptly] defined prudence as recta ratio agibilium, ‘right reason applied to practice.’ The emphasis on ‘right’ is important . . . Prudence requires us to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong . . . If we mistake the evil for the good, we are not exercising prudence—in fact, we are showing our lack of it.”

    It is the breakdown of prudence (and of incorporated sound discernment) that has been at the pivot of the breakdown of civilisation that is now in all too manifest progress. Accordingly, if we are to return to safe ground, we must set this right.

    KF

  29. 29
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: it’s not a who; that’s the point. That’s why it is so crucial to understand inescapable, self evident first duties that frame how responsible freedom is morally governed.

    Yes, you’ve been saying that for a long time. But, when it comes to disagreements about certain ethical decisions you and I frequently disagree and that’s when you insist your view must take precedence. Which means it’s all coming down to a particular view winning the day.

    It goes as far as governing how we go about math, much less opening a way to restore law to soundness, thus government. That is why we need to return to understanding that we are free, responsible, thus morally governed, coeval with our humanity. That way we are not locked up to manipulated mobs or self-seeking power elites hell-bent on marches of folly. If we fail here, our civilisation reverts to lawless oligarchy. I need not say more than that Plato warned that in a day of a march of folly on the ship of state, soundness would be marginalised as the mutineers set out on looting the stores.

    Again, who makes the call when reasonable, intelligent, empathetic and concerned people disagree? You are dead set against abortion and letting same sex couples marry. Many, many people disagree with you. I suspect, in fact, that a majority of people disagree with you. If you just insist your view trumps all others then how are you not an elite imposing your views on others? It is a fact that many, many countries that allow some abortions and same-sex marriages have not devolved into lawless anarchy. You think they will but there is no evidence of that. Europe is doing quite well; it’s stable, the various economies are doing pretty well, there are no major wars between sovereign governments, there’s little rioting or desires to overthrow the status quo.

    Why should your moral view take precedence based on how things are and are working for a large number of people on the planet?

  30. 30
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Eugenics as policy is about IMPOSED limitations on breeding contrary to or subverting the choices of alleged inferior varieties relative to some claimed standard of superiority; or it is about manipulation to the same end. That is, it is about oligarchic domination — fundamentally, lawless oligarchic domination, a misanthropic and anti civilisational stance, but disguised as a scientific breakthrough and imposed under colour of law.

    I have already stated that I thought imposed human breeding programs are wrong so you don’t need to go on and on and on about it. I have already said that society needs to take the blame for allowing such an abomination to take place. People, especially large groups of people, sometimes make mistakes. And, as I’ve already said, the science of unguided evolution has not been jettisoned but eugenics has. Societies can learn and move on. It doesn’t mean there is rot deep down. It means people were afraid or stupid and made the wrong call. We know better now.

  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL:

    I will clip:

    Kairosfocus: it’s not a who; that’s the point. That’s why it is so crucial to understand inescapable, self evident first duties that frame how responsible freedom is morally governed.

    [JVL:] Yes, you’ve been saying that for a long time. But, when it comes to disagreements about certain ethical decisions you and I frequently disagree and that’s when you insist your view must take precedence. Which means it’s all coming down to a particular view winning the day.

    Don’t you see the gap in your reasoning i/l/o the issue of reasoning on intelligible first principles, which you keep skipping over?

    >>when it comes to disagreements about certain ethical decisions you and I frequently disagree>>

    – people have sharply disagreed on policy, economics, science, mathematics, philosophy.

    – disagreement/”consensus” — or for that matter, opinion — is immaterial, the issue is duties of reason and sound reasoning pivoting on first principles and well founded facts, e.g. the case of Eugenics that I intend to draw out further in coming days.

    – lessons of sound history are also pivotal.

    – underlying is the unstated premise of relativism, to which I respond with the following instructive clip:

    Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping:

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

    Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts.

    Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values.

    Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible.

    Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.

    – in short, there is ground clearing work, framing and sound foundation laying to be done as a first vital step to reformation.

    >> and that’s when you insist your view must take precedence.>>

    – strawman. Gross misrepresentation in the teeth of abundant evidence otherwise. Nowhere have I ever argued that my view, per my view, must prevail.

    – I have always . . . ever since recognising it for myself nigh on 40 years ago and having a professor point me to Aristotle on the point . . . argued that arguments have three levers of persuasion. Pathos, ethos, logos.

    – I have consistently argued that emotions by themselves carry no probative force, though the underlying judgements may rest on accurate observation/perception and reasonable inference. As for credibility of claimed authorities, presenters or witnesses etc, they are no better than underlying facts and logic. That is why I have always pointed to the balance on the merits of fact and logic.

    – indeed, further to this, such is why I have emphasised going to first principles, self-evident truths and first duties, precisely as this is how objective, sound bodies of knowledge can be built up.

    – the issue is not who, but what. That you keep trying to get back to the Arthur Leff, sez who fallacy indicates that you do not have the better case on relevant facts and logic. Hence, dismissive appeal to relativistic disagreement. Fallacy, kindly stop.

    – when it comes to first duties of reason, it is also obvious that your own arguments implicitly appeal to same. No wonder, they are inescapable. So, true and self-evident.

    >> Which means it’s all coming down to a particular view winning the day. >>

    – error carried forward

    – if you disagree with the first duties, kindly justify your claim without using them: ______ Predictably, you cannot.

    – Let us set aside the fallacies of relativism and reducing issues of moral government, justice, law and policy to implicitly amoral, subtly nihilistic imposition of power games. Where, eugenics is an excellent case in point.

    KF

  32. 32
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Don’t you see the gap in your reasoning i/l/o the issue of reasoning on intelligible first principles, which you keep skipping over?

    What I see, perhaps, is you and I disagreeing over first principles.

    Look, it’s a complicated world now; there are lots of different faiths and ethics and beliefs. You don’t agree with them all, I don’t agree with them all. But if we are to avoid a societal meltdown (hints of which happened on January 6th in Washington) then we’re going to have to talk to each other, consider each others’ points of view, and compromise.

    disagreement/”consensus” — or for that matter, opinion — is immaterial, the issue is duties of reason and sound reasoning pivoting on first principles and well founded facts, e.g. the case of Eugenics that I intend to draw out further in coming days

    I agreed that Eugenics was wrong, clearly wrong. Why do you keep bringing it up?

    strawman. Gross misrepresentation in the teeth of abundant evidence otherwise. Nowhere have I ever argued that my view, per my view, must prevail.

    I am under the impression that you are not willing to consider any compromise which allows some abortions or same-sex marriage. Is that correct?

    I have consistently argued that emotions by themselves carry no probative force, though the underlying judgements may rest on accurate observation/perception and reasonable inference. As for credibility of claimed authorities, presenters or witnesses etc, they are no better than underlying facts and logic. That is why I have always pointed to the balance on the merits of fact and logic.

    That’s fine, but we still disagree on particular points. We’re both reasonable people, we both want peace and justice and such. So how do we find a middle ground? Are you willing to find a middle ground?

    indeed, further to this, such is why I have emphasised going to first principles, self-evident truths and first duties, precisely as this is how objective, sound bodies of knowledge can be built up.

    But your self-evident truths are not universally agreed on. So, again, unless you insist on your point of view prevailing, how do you propose we find acceptable middle ground?

    if you disagree with the first duties, kindly justify your claim without using them: ______ Predictably, you cannot.

    If agreeing with you first duties means disallowing same-sex marriage then I do disagree. And I say allowing same-sex marriage is not a harbinger of the end of civilisation. Your slippery slope argument is fallacious. I live in a country where homosexuality is now considered very normal. You and lots of others disagree. The fact is that the UK is NOT teetering on the brink of disaster and you have no facts or data to say it is. It’s relatively peaceful, prosperous and dealing with its internal disagreements as well as any nation. Brexit and COVID-19 are much more critical crises than letting two consenting adults get married.

    Let us set aside the fallacies of relativism and reducing issues of moral government, justice, law and policy to implicitly amoral, subtly nihilistic imposition of power games. Where, eugenics is an excellent case in point.

    Setting aside relativism means a particular point of view wins. If you consistently tell some members of your society that they are limited in their participation in legal matters they are going to get angry and say something. You have to learn to listen and compromise. It’s the only way forward.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, I note from you above:

    [JVL, 18:] it’s up to society as a whole to determine what applications of science are implemented and supported. Society failed during the eugenics period. The state should not have allowed it to happen. Sadly, enough people thought it was a good idea so it happened. The science is the same as any selective breeding programme. And we still do that with animals and plants all the time. You don’t get poodles and collies and cauliflower without using selective breeding. But doing that will people is a violation of their lawful rights. It’s wrong, morally and legally.

    Similarly, SA2, 21:

    Eugenics was simply the application of selective breeding to humans. It should also be noted that selective breeding has been used for animals, plants and humans long before Darwin proposed his theory.

    Notice, you both failed to bring out the point I emphasised in 27:

    eugenics is not merely selective breeding of people; by and large, we select our spouses fairly carefully. Eugenics as policy is about IMPOSED limitations on breeding contrary to or subverting the choices of alleged inferior varieties relative to some claimed standard of superiority; or it is about manipulation to the same end. That is, it is about oligarchic domination — fundamentally, lawless oligarchic domination, a misanthropic and anti civilisational stance, but disguised as a scientific breakthrough and imposed under colour of law.

    This issue of oligarchic imposition is pivotal.

    Next, given the pattern of cultural relativism you have shown above and elsewhere, that society and its overlords may rule one way or another is irrelevant. For, that does not actually make eugenics right or wrong. That lies in the underlying facts, principles, axioms and argument. That is why it is important to draw out how an overwhelming consensus was created and imposed under colours of science, progress, law and more. A consensus that, had it been properly analysed, would have failed at outset but that is the point the analysis was marginalised and an elite gained oligarchic power over others, whose voices were marginalised and dismissed.

    Notice, in the heyday, Chesterton was a lone voice, contra mundum, likely dismissed. And yet, he was manifestly right.

    Fundamentally, we are not dogs to be bred into retrievers, nor cabbages. To make a comparison to selective breeding hides an enormous and destructive premise: imposition of power by dominant, oligarchic elites suppressing rights.

    An all too familiar pattern in history.

    Which is why this case is highly relevant.

    KF

  34. 34
    JVL says:

    Why don’t we narrow the discussion down to a particular topic . . . how about same-sex marriage. Why don’t you lay out your arguments as to why allowing same-sex marriage violates your first principles of reasoning and then we can discuss it.

  35. 35
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Next, given the pattern of cultural relativism you have shown above and elsewhere, that society and its overlords may rule one way or another is irrelevant. For, that does not actually make eugenics right or wrong. That lies in the underlying facts, principles, axioms and argument. That is why it is important to draw out how an overwhelming consensus was created and imposed under colours of science, progress, law and more. A consensus that, had it been properly analysed, would have failed at outset but that is the point the analysis was marginalised and an elite gained oligarchic power over others, whose voices were marginalised and dismissed.

    I have agreed that society failed on that point. A lot of people didn’t step up and state the obvious which was it was wrong. They let others make the decision for them.

    You just keep saying the same thing over and over and over again when we basically agree that something hideous went wrong. An elite can only gain power if the majority of people don’t want to get involved. And they didn’t. It may have even been the case that a lot of people tacitly agreed with eugenics. Thank goodness that is not the case anymore. And that is true because, eventually, those opposed made their case more loudly and they got things changed. If there was an elite they lost that case.

  36. 36
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL,

    further fallacies:

    >>Setting aside relativism means a particular point of view wins.>>

    – the issue is not opinion or power but warrant, warrant on merits of fact, logic and start-points of reasoning.

    – it is manifest that I have put on the table some first principles which are inescapable . . . even this objection on your part is an appeal to fairness and duty to neighbour.

    – the point is, reasonableness, to acknowledge that reason has core, governing duties that are inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident. Not by my say-so but by the evidence we can discuss objectively.

    >> If you consistently tell some members of your society that they are limited in their participation in legal matters >>

    – first, I have not argued such, I have pointed to objective first principles that you are here forced to appeal to even as you try to blunt their force

    – and of course, this happens to be a week in which a corrupt state acting with oligopolistic media interests is rushing to censor, lock out, slander and even prosecute those who do not toe Big Brother’s partyline. The irony should be manifest.

    >>they are going to get angry and say something. >>

    – and so . . . we csee the telling inconsistencies and double standards.

    – That noted, I point out again, that laying on the table first duties, with a discussion as to why they are inescapable and so inescapably true and self-evident is not, cannot be censorship, suppression or marginalisation. Instead, it is a pointing out of pivotal first principles that lead us to sound discernment and prudence on often needlessly contentious matters.

    – Underneath, the pattern of invidious associations and false projections is duly noted. And by being noted it is exposed as an ad hominem fallacy. You set up and knocked over a strawman rather than dealing with the substantial issue.

    >>You have to learn to listen and compromise. It’s the only way forward.>>

    – first, strawman projections again.

    – next, compromise is an issue of negotiated settlement, which raises the matter of balances of power and accommodation of the evil with whatever amelioration is possible because there are not favourable circumstances for reformation. Does that sound familiar?

    – Next, what was the compromise regarding slavery in the American Founding, again? What was the compromise on settlement again? Why did it break down? Why do so many today now take it as a basis for painting the founders, framers and their work as evil oppression to be disqualified and repudiated?

    – what about those who across the 1930’s sought to compromise with Hitler? To appease him? To find him a man they could do business with? Even, as eugenics was imposed and genocide by holocaust was brewing.

    – in short, there is no disagreement in principle on need to compromise in an imperfect world where balances of power and BAU are often tainted. Nor, the need to see the various sides of an argument. So, kindly set aside the strawmen.

    – what is on the table and needs to be addressed is self-evident first principles on duties of reason. If you disagree with such then — without appealing to them — provide refutation: _______ I predict, hard to do.

    KF

  37. 37
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: the issue is not opinion or power but warrant, warrant on merits of fact, logic and start-points of reasoning.

    So, how do you deal with disagreements? Just insist they are not using good logic or considering the facts? No compromise?

    the point is, reasonableness, to acknowledge that reason has core, governing duties that are inescapable, inescapably true, self-evident. Not by my say-so but by the evidence we can discuss objectively.

    Great, let’s do so on the issue of same-sex marriage.

    first, I have not argued such, I have pointed to objective first principles that you are here forced to appeal to even as you try to blunt their force

    But the upshot is that, say with same-sex marriage, you will not condone that happening. You would deny same-sex couples that legal right.

    That noted, I point out again, that laying on the table first duties, with a discussion as to why they are inescapable and so inescapably true and self-evident is not, cannot be censorship, suppression or marginalisation. Instead, it is a pointing out of pivotal first principles that lead us to sound discernment and prudence on often needlessly contentious matters.

    And what if someone disagrees with you about those first principles? Let’s talk about same-sex marriage.

    Underneath, the pattern of invidious associations and false projections is duly noted. And by being noted it is exposed as an ad hominem fallacy. You set up and knocked over a strawman rather than dealing with the substantial issue.

    Because I might disagree with you about first principles that’s false projection?

    next, compromise is an issue of negotiated settlement, which raises the matter of balances of power and accommodation of the evil with whatever amelioration is possible because there are not favourable circumstances for reformation. Does that sound familiar?

    Let’s talk about same-sex marriage, then we can address a particular topic.

    Next, what was the compromise regarding slavery in the American Founding, again? What was the compromise on settlement again? Why did it break down? Why do so many today now take it as a basis for painting the founders, framers and their work as evil oppression to be disqualified and repudiated?

    It broke down because, slowly, a majority of US citizens came to believe that slavery was wrong. And when they had the political power they got it removed. The issue of revisionist history is a different topic, one I am willing to discuss if you wish.

    what about those who across the 1930’s sought to compromise with Hitler? To appease him? To find him a man they could do business with?

    The example of Neville Chamberlain is a sad example, which we should learn from, of who NOT to compromise with. It only took a short while to realise that was a bad move. And the compromises were shown to be wrong. A lot of people in Europe remembered the First World War which devastated whole countries and destroyed many families. Their first reaction was to try and avoid another such conflict. And, please note, the US tried to stay out of it and did so until blatantly attacked. Some people in the US did want to support the allies before December 7th, 1941 but the consensus was to stay out of it. In fact, trading with Germany went on for some time.

    in short, there is no disagreement in principle on need to compromise in an imperfect world where balances of power and BAU are often tainted. Nor, the need to see the various sides of an argument. So, kindly set aside the strawmen.

    Look, you know a lot of people disagree with you on certain issues. Aside from just saying they are wrong, are not using good reason based on first principles (a non-compromising approach) how do you propose to resolves such conflicts? Like same-sex marriage?

    what is on the table and needs to be addressed is self-evident first principles on duties of reason. If you disagree with such then — without appealing to them — provide refutation: _______ I predict, hard to do.

    Let’s talk about same-sex marriage. You lay out the first principles you think apply and we can talk.

  38. 38
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, the issue is the roots of civilisation. Thus, the first principles and duties of responsible reason. This is also why I led with core mathematics as here we see a product of pure abstract reason that is reality- and possibility-universal as world-framework truth that constrains logic of being. Truth beyond opinions, debates and rhetorical gambits. Therefore, we can and do know pivotal truths to certainty, here not only of this world but any possible world. Further to such, in so reasoning we find ourselves inescapably resting on and appealing to first principles and duties of reason, which are therefore inescapably and self-evidently true. The issue is then what is intelligible about reality, thus about moral government coeval with our humanity, the law of our morally governed nature. Then, are we willing to acknowledge and start our thinking from such? If not, why not. This is literally civilisation-foundational, that is why I start here. KF

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, no, I will not allow or follow a toxic, distractive diversion. There is a focal issue, literally at the level of first principles and duties. That is what must come first. KF

  40. 40
    AndyClue says:

    @JVL:

    Let’s talk about same-sex marriage. You lay out the first principles you think apply and we can talk.

    How about, as an exercise, YOU lay out which first principles apply to same-sex marriage and see where it gets you.

  41. 41
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: the issue is the roots of civilisation. Thus, the first principles and duties of responsible reason. This is also why I led with core mathematics as here we see a product of pure abstract reason that is reality- and possibility-universal as world-framework truth that constrains logic of being. Truth beyond opinions, debates and rhetorical gambits. Therefore, we can and do know pivotal truths to certainty, here not only of this world but any possible world. Further to such, in so reasoning we find ourselves inescapably resting on and appealing to first principles and duties of reason, which are therefore inescapably and self-evidently true. The issue is then what is intelligible about reality, thus about moral government coeval with our humanity, the law of our morally governed nature. Then, are we willing to acknowledge and start our thinking from such? If not, why not. This is literally civilisation-foundational, that is why I start here.

    Fine, if you could spell out those principles and the reasoning for a particular issue then maybe we can find where we disagree.

    no, I will not allow or follow a toxic, distractive diversion. There is a focal issue, literally at the level of first principles and duties. That is what must come first.

    How is it toxic to ask for an example of how your reasoning and first principles are applied? If you don’t like my example then why don’t you pick another. Why is the question of same-sex marriage toxic? It’s an issue that is frequently discussed and dealt with these days.

    The point is that it would be much easier for me and others to understand what you are standing on if you show how it works with a particular example. Any good mathematics teacher knows it helps to work out a few examples.

    How about divorce? What do your first principles and your reasoning say about that?

  42. 42
    JVL says:

    AndyClue: How about, as an exercise, YOU lay out which first principles apply to same-sex marriage and see where it gets you.

    One of my basic principles is that, unless they give good cause to do otherwise, all consenting adults should be treated equally under the law. I can think of no legal reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry according to the laws of their country.

    If Kairosfocus has different first principles which lead him to a different conclusion then I’d appreciate if he elucidated them so that I can discuss our differences more better.

  43. 43
    Viola Lee says:

    KF writes, “The issue is then what is intelligible about reality, thus about moral government coeval with our humanity, the law of our morally governed nature.”

    I don’t see how you jump from math, which is logically certain, to “moral government”. JVL is right: examples would be useful. I can show you clearly why e^(i*pi) = -1 is true, and show clearly the axioms, definitions, and logical steps to establish that. I don’t see a similar framework for moral government issues.

  44. 44
    Seversky says:

    AndyClue/40

    How about, as an exercise, YOU lay out which first principles apply to same-sex marriage and see where it gets you.

    How about if it harms no one else then what right do we have to interfere with it?

    The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign

    – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    VL,

    kindly observe that even in evasions and attempted dismissals objectors are forced to pivot on appeals to duty to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so too to fairness and justice etc.

    These are inescapable, are antecedent to demonstrative deductive or inductive arguments, are thus inescapably true and are self-evidently true. The demonstrations or inductions you point to hinge on these. Then, too, they are the pivot of that law which is coeval with our humanity and which therefore frames any discussion on government, policy, law, and the like. We are at the very beginning.

    These principles and duties are foundational to civilisation.

    That there is not a straightforward and ready general acknowledgement of something so patent as this is diagnostic of what has gone wrong with our civilisation. We need to ask, why are we so hesitant at the outset, the pivot of all else.

    Is it, that the direct import is that we are accountable before a built in law coeval with our nature, that then points onward to how we could have such a nature? Could it be that we are seeing the reflection of cognitive dissonance about that accountability and the issue it raises, bridging is and ought? For, post Hume, we know that that can only be done in the root of reality.

    Until this issue of priors of responsible rational freedom is faced, there is literally no context for reasonably, responsibly addressing any further questions. We are then reduced to the nihilism of might and/or manipulation make “truth”/ “right”/ “warrant”/ “logic”/ “rights”/ “duties”/ “freedoms”/ “justice” etc, an outright absurdity that undermines rationality.

    And no, for cause I will never yield to, appease, compromise with or submit to such folly.

    I will, however, elaborate on one of the seven by citing Epictetus, on logic,

    DISCOURSES
    CHAPTER XXV

    How is logic necessary?

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

    See the force of the point?

    That which is first must be freely acknowledged as first, or civilisation of reasonable, responsible people is finished.

    That is why I start there.

    KF

    PS: How do you know that mathematics is certain, or that deductions obtain? Do you not see that I am speaking to what things like Mathematics come from? Things that we cannot escape appealing to implicitly or explicitly and which are therefore at least as certain as what we hinge on them?

  46. 46
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: kindly observe that even in evasions and attempted dismissals objectors are forced to pivot on appeals to duty to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour; so too to fairness and justice etc.

    Fine, we’re just asking you to spell those things out for a particular example. It should be easy.

    These are inescapable, are antecedent to demonstrative deductive or inductive arguments, are thus inescapably true and are self-evidently true. The demonstrations or inductions you point to hinge on these. Then, too, they are the pivot of that law which is coeval with our humanity and which therefore frames any discussion on government, policy, law, and the like. We are at the very beginning.

    Yes, but we’d like you to be very clear and spell things out for a particular example.

    These principles and duties are foundational to civilisation.

    Can you explain how these apply to a particular situation?

    Sigh. Can you PLEASE just pick an example and show how your first principles and duties and reasoning is brought to bear on the issue? Why is this so hard? Why are you so determined to avoid doing it? Are you afraid?

    The question of ‘how will you know if I impose on you’ is a good one. But I cannot believe that most people would not have an answer for that, unlike in the text you quoted.

    Why don’t you answer that question: how would YOU know when you were imposed on?

  47. 47
    Viola Lee says:

    Can you give a clear example, KF. Pick an example of a moral issue and show what principles lead to a logically certain position about that issue. That is what we do in math, and you claim “moral government” has the same properties. I accept that in part human beings are rational, moral, free, and responsible creatures. (I certainly believe I am.) Now what? By what steps do we now reach necessary moral conclusions?

  48. 48
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: How do you know that mathematics is certain, or that deductions obtain? Do you not see that I am speaking to what things like Mathematics come from? Things that we cannot escape appealing to implicitly or explicitly and which are therefore at least as certain as what we hinge on them?

    Why don’t you spell it out more clearly. Where do you think mathematics comes from? I think mathematics is invariant, always true everywhere. I don’t think that tells us anything about where it comes from though.

  49. 49
    Viola Lee says:

    I accept that our rational minds can apprehend the fundamentals of math: the fact that individual units exist separate from other units is the foundation of the number system and all else that follows, and that the fundamentals of logic are part of our rationality. I think KF has often explained his thoughts on math. I want to see how he extends that to morals.

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, JVL, your “clear example” hinges on these antecedents. Besides, there is precisely such right there in the OP, the core of Mathematics itself. What I notice is that your own arguments (insofar as they make appeals) also pivot implicitly on said duties. Mathematics seeks truth through logic tied to quantity and structure, as just one case. Truth, accurately describing reality. As we are prone to error, we justify on chains of logic, pivoting on prudence. In trying to suggest that objecting to or questioning various fashionable assertions under colour of law is unfair or bigoted, you appeal to duty to conscience and to neighbour, thus fairness and justice. Not so obvious is the implication of justice as due balance of rights, freedoms and duties such that to claim a right or freedom one must first show oneself in the right and in claiming such, compatible with the freedoms and sound conscience of others. For example, there is no just power to compel me or another to lie or enable a lie under colour of law about basic facts such as that we come in two compatible, complementary, genetically stamped sexes. And, much more. The point is, it is the very hesitation and projection that such straightforward duties are strange, cloudy and unclear that tells us something has gone wrong. Sure there are details to be elaborated and cases to be drawn out but that does not cast these into doubt as inescapable. KF

  51. 51
    JVL says:

    Viola Lee: I think KF has often explained his thoughts on math. I want to see how he extends that to morals.

    Fair enough!! I think he wants to extend morals back to pure logic therefore mathematics and then, somehow, divinity. That’s the part I’d like to hear about.

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: As we are prone to error, we justify on chains of logic, pivoting on prudence. In trying to suggest that objecting to or questioning various fashionable assertions under colour of law is unfair or bigoted, you appeal to duty to conscience and to neighbour, thus fairness and justice.

    Yup, more or less. We agree.

    Not so obvious is the implication of justice as due balance of rights, freedoms and duties such that to claim a right or freedom one must first show oneself in the right and in claiming such, compatible with the freedoms and sound conscience of others.

    Hang on. I think people should have rights without having to ‘show oneself in the right’.

    For example, there is no just power to compel me or another to lie or enable a lie under colour of law about basic facts such as that we come in two compatible, complementary, genetically stamped sexes.

    That’s not really the point is it though. The question is: are you loving and forgiving and accepting enough to allow same-sex couples the right to marry? Remember too that there are many intra-sex individuals who do not easy fall into a binary category.

    And, much more. The point is, it is the very hesitation and projection that such straightforward duties are strange, cloudy and unclear that tells us something has gone wrong. Sure there are details to be elaborated and cases to be drawn out but that does not cast these into doubt as inescapable.

    Party we just want you to spell out what you are saying and thinking. Then we can discuss the issue of things being ‘first principles’. Male and Female are just biological classifications. You are aware, I would think, that some animals change sex during their lives? And it gets even messier than that.

    I personally cannot see the connection between biology and first principles or morals. Can you explain that? Are we a slave to our biology? What if the biology is much weirder than you think?

    And what does any of this have to do with same-sex couplings? If we have free will then we can transcend our biology surely?

  53. 53

    JVL & VL:

    I think what you’re looking for is a moral statement (or equation) that is self-evidently, universally, objectively and certainly true as “1+1=2.”

    Try this one on for size:

    “Torturing children for one’s own pleasure is immoral.”

  54. 54
    Viola Lee says:

    Yes, I appeal to fairness and justice. However, those are abstract principles with no obvious route to what is exactly fair and just in any particular situation. That is how morals are different then math.

    For instance, the “basic fact” that we “come in two compatible, complementary, genetically stamped sexes” is, first, subject to exceptions, and second doesn’t necessarily lead to conclusions about same-sex relationships in the same way that a conclusion in math does.

    And then KF, you write,

    The point is, it is the very hesitation and projection that such straightforward duties are strange, cloudy and unclear that tells us something has gone wrong.

    My “hesitancy” about such “straightforward” duties is because you are in fact “cloudy and unclear”: you aren’t able to bring your rhetoric down to specifics when asked. You say, “Sure there are details to be elaborated and cases to be drawn out but that does not cast these into doubt as inescapable.” If so, show us the details and the elaboration so that a conclusion is “inescapable.” This can be done in math. I don’t think it can be done in morals.

    So rather than abstract claims, show us an example.

  55. 55
    JVL says:

    William J Murray: “Torturing children for one’s own pleasure is immoral.”

    Not the question on the table. Try again.

    AND, answering that question does not get us to the point we’re raising which is: how do you make a societal decision when there are major ideological differences between groups of people?

    Perhaps you’d like to actually try and contribute to that question instead of falling back on some old trope about how ‘materialists’ don’t have an objective basis for morality.

  56. 56
    JVL says:

    Viola Lee: For instance, the “basic fact” that we “come in two compatible, complementary, genetically stamped sexes” is, first, subject to exceptions, and second doesn’t necessarily lead to conclusions about same-sex relationships in the same way that a conclusion in math does.

    Especially if we are granted free will. What’s the point of being able to do what we please if we are going to be punished for stepping across some line which no one can actually justify?

    That’s one of the points, can you justify your moral, reasoning, first principle lines? How?

    But first, lets see how you apply your first principles to a particular example. It should be dead easy.

  57. 57
    Steve Alten2 says:

    AndyClue: “How about, as an exercise, YOU lay out which first principles apply to same-sex marriage and see where it gets you.

    The rule I follow, and it’s not limited to SSM, is that humans should not be denied the possibility of doing something that other humans are permitted to do unless it causes harm to others. It’s not a perfect rule, but none are.

    SSM does no harm to others.

  58. 58
    Viola Lee says:

    Sev’s quote from John Stuart Mill at 44 says what Steve says. I think it’s a pretty good moral principle myself, but I want to emphasize that it is not the same as a foundational axiom in math that can lead to inevitable conclusions. Math and morals are not foundationally the same: that’s my main point, and I’m asking KF to show me otherwise.

  59. 59
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ Not so obvious is the implication of justice as due balance of rights, freedoms and duties such that to claim a right or freedom one must first show oneself in the right and in claiming such, compatible with the freedoms and sound conscience of others.

    No. The burden of proof is not on those demanding a right, it is on those trying to deny that right. That is the foundation of our justice system.

  60. 60
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Let us proceed on Chesterton contra mundum on Eugenics, a case where 100 years later we know the outcome. For, sound lessons of history have much to teach us about our own short-sighted folly and its likely consequences for civilisation. Folly, I hardly need to emphasise, that runs right against first duties of reason. Let us see how evils prevail, prevail to the point where it is a dismissed lone voice is just about the only one who is right among the elites:

    there is a cloud of skirmishers, of harmless and confused modern sceptics, who ought to be cleared off or calmed down before we come to debate with the real doctors of the heresy. If I sum up my statement thus: “Eugenics, as discussed, evidently means the control of some men over the marriage and unmarriage of others; and probably means the control of the few over the marriage and unmarriage of the many,” I shall first of all receive the sort of answers that float like skim on the surface of teacups and talk. I may very roughly and rapidly divide these preliminary objectors into five sects; whom I will call the Euphemists, the Casuists, the Autocrats, the Precedenters, and the Endeavourers. When we have answered the immediate protestation of all these good, shouting, short-sighted people, we can begin to do justice to those intelligences that are really behind the idea.

    Most Eugenists are Euphemists. I mean merely that short words startle them, while long words soothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviously they mean the same thing . . . .

    The next sect of superficial objectors is even more irritating. I have called them, for immediate purposes, the Casuists. Suppose I say “I dislike this spread of Cannibalism in the West End restaurants.” Somebody is sure to say “Well, after all, Queen Eleanor when she sucked blood from her husband’s [15]arm was a cannibal.” What is one to say to such people? One can only say “Confine yourself to sucking poisoned blood from people’s arms, and I permit you to call yourself by the glorious title of Cannibal.” . . . .

    I had thought of calling the next sort of superficial people the Idealists; but I think this implies a humility towards impersonal good they hardly show; so I call them the Autocrats. They are those who give us generally to understand that every modern [16]reform will “work” all right, because they will be there to see . . . If you ask them how this or that will work, they will answer, “Oh, I would certainly insist on this”; or “I would never go so far as that”; as if they could return to this earth and do what no ghost has ever done quite successfully—force men to forsake their sins. Of these it is enough to say that they do not understand the nature of a law any more than the nature of a dog. If you let loose a law, it will do as a dog does. It will obey its own nature, not yours. Such sense as you have put into the law (or the dog) will be fulfilled. But you will not be able to fulfil a fragment of anything you have forgotten to put into it.

    Along with such idealists should go the strange people who seem to think that you can consecrate and purify any campaign for ever by repeating the names of the abstract virtues that its better advocates had in mind. These people will say “So far from aiming at slavery, the Eugenists are seeking true liberty; liberty from disease and degeneracy, etc.” Or they will say “We can assure Mr. Chesterton [17]that the Eugenists have no intention of segregating the harmless; justice and mercy are the very motto of——” etc. To this kind of thing perhaps the shortest answer is this. Many of those who speak thus are agnostic or generally unsympathetic to official religion. Suppose one of them said “The Church of England is full of hypocrisy.” What would he think of me if I answered, “I assure you that hypocrisy is condemned by every form of Christianity; and is particularly repudiated in the Prayer Book”? . . . [.]

    hen there are others whom I may call the Precedenters; who flourish particularly in Parliament. They are best represented by the solemn official who said the other day that he could not understand the clamour against the Feeble-Minded Bill, as it only extended the principles of the old Lunacy Laws. To which again one can only answer “Quite so. It only extends the principles of the Lunacy Laws to persons without a trace of lunacy.” This lucid politician finds an old law, let us say, about keeping lepers in quarantine. He simply alters the word “lepers” to “long-nosed people,” and says blandly that the principle is the same.

    Perhaps the weakest of all are those helpless persons whom I have called the Endeavourers. The prize [18]specimen of them was another M.P. who defended the same Bill as “an honest attempt” to deal with a great evil: as if one had a right to dragoon and enslave one’s fellow citizens as a kind of chemical experiment; in a state of reverent agnosticism about what would come of it. But with this fatuous notion that one can deliberately establish the Inquisition or the Terror, and then faintly trust the larger hope, I shall have to deal more seriously in a subsequent chapter. It is enough to say here that the best thing the honest Endeavourer could do would be to make an honest attempt to know what he is doing. And not to do anything else until he has found out. Lastly, there is a class of controversialists so hopeless and futile that I have really failed to find a name for them. But whenever anyone attempts to argue rationally for or against any existent and recognisable thing, such as the Eugenic class of legislation, there are always people who begin to chop hay about Socialism and Individualism; and say “You object to all State interference; I am in favour of State interference. You are an Individualist; I, on the other hand,” etc. To which I can only answer, with heart-broken patience, that I am not an Individualist, but a poor fallen but baptised journalist who is trying to write a book about Eugenists, several of whom he has met; whereas he never met an Individualist, and is by no means certain he would recognise him if he did. In short, I do not deny, but strongly affirm, the right of the State to interfere to cure a great evil. [19]I say that in this case it would interfere to create a great evil; and I am not going to be turned from the discussion of that direct issue to bottomless botherations about Socialism and Individualism, or the relative advantages of always turning to the right and always turning to the left.

    And for the rest, there is undoubtedly an enormous mass of sensible, rather thoughtless people, whose rooted sentiment it is that any deep change in our society must be in some way infinitely distant. They cannot believe that men in hats and coats like themselves can be preparing a revolution; all their Victorian philosophy has taught them that such transformations are always slow. Therefore, when I speak of Eugenic legislation, or the coming of the Eugenic State, they think of it as something like The Time Machine or Looking Backward: a thing that, good or bad, will have to fit itself to their great-great-great-grandchild, who may be very different and may like it; and who in any case is rather a distant relative. To all this I have, to begin with, a very short and simple answer. The Eugenic State has begun. The first of the Eugenic Laws has already been adopted by the Government of this country; and passed with the applause of both parties through the dominant House of Parliament. This first Eugenic Law clears the ground and may be said to proclaim negative Eugenics; but it cannot be defended, and nobody has attempted to defend it, except on the Eugenic theory.

    If you, gentle reader, hear from this an echo in similar fashionable follies of our time, it is manifestly there.

    Remember, this was the lone, derided voice crying out in warning.

    KF

  61. 61
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, fallacy. No one can have a just right to compel others into servitude or into enabling evils. Therefore to justly claim that in regards to X, others have a duty to uphold or protect or enable one then one had better have shown that to support one in X is not subjugation or compulsion into evil. Otherwise, a right becomes simply yet another device to subjugate and taint the souls of others under false colour of law. KF

  62. 62
    Viola Lee says:

    re 59: Good point, Steve.

  63. 63
    Viola Lee says:

    KF, I have no idea why you think a long quote like that adds clarity to the general question of how morals can provide a foundation that leads to inescapable conclusions, as math does.

    Is there any way you can distill the long quote to a basic principle?

    I do see a line at the start that is relevant: ““Eugenics, as discussed, evidently means the control of some men over the marriage and unmarriage of others; and probably means the control of the few over the marriage and unmarriage of the many,”

    The principle that Sev and Steve have offered is that we don’t have the right to deprive others to do as they please as long as they are not harming others. I think that’s a good principle, although it is not part of a system like math, because there are no certain set of rules that allow one to start with that principle and draw an inevitable conclusion about particular moral issues.

  64. 64
    Steve Alten2 says:

    WJM “ “Torturing children for one’s own pleasure is immoral.”
    Sure, I don’t think anyone would disagree with this. But isn’t that just the logical conclusion from the more fundamental right that nobody should be denied the possibility of doing something others can do as long as it does no harm?

  65. 65
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Let us proceed on Chesterton contra mundum on Eugenics, a case where 100 years later we know the outcome.

    You’re not even going to try and address our queries are you? Why is that?

    SA2, fallacy. No one can have a just right to compel others into servitude or into enabling evils. Therefore to justly claim that in regards to X, others have a duty to uphold or protect or enable one then one had better have shown that to support one in X is not subjugation or compulsion into evil. Otherwise, a right becomes simply yet another device to subjugate and taint the souls of others under false colour of law.

    Can you explain how allowing same-sex couples the right to marry subjugates and taints the souls of others? Or, my other example: divorce.

    I do not understand how extending certain legal rights to others harms or taints or hinders you in any way. Please address.

  66. 66
    Viola Lee says:

    re 61: Steve said “No. The burden of proof is not on those demanding a right, it is on those trying to deny that right. That is the foundation of our justice system.” KF’s correct in that if one were claiming the right to hold others in servitude, other would rightfully argue to deny him that right on the grounds that servitude harms other.

    It’s a two-pronged principle: Not to harm others, and yet to be allowed to do that which does not harm others.

  67. 67
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ SA2, fallacy. No one can have a just right to compel others into servitude or into enabling evils.

    They can certainly demand that right but I am confident that most high school kids could use first principles and logic to show why this right should not be granted.

    Therefore to justly claim that in regards to X, others have a duty to uphold or protect or enable one then one had better have shown that to support one in X is not subjugation or compulsion into evil.”

    No. The burden of proof is on others to prove that X does harm. If they can’t demonstrate harm then they have no rational grounds to deny X.

    Otherwise, a right becomes simply yet another device to subjugate and taint the souls of others under false colour of law.”

    If something does no harm how does allowing it subjugate and taint your soul?

    From what I have read above I think it is safe to conclude that you oppose SSM. If this is so you should be able to use your first principles to demonstrate how allowing it causes harm. Failing this, given that SSM has been legal in many countries for almost two decades you should be able to demonstrate how it has caused harm.

  68. 68
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Viola Lee “ It’s a two-pronged principle: Not to harm others, and yet to be allowed to do that which does not harm others.

    That is very true. And, in some cases, we may not identify the harm until after we have extended a right to others. For example, in the US the drinking age used to be 18. But this was raised to 21 after evidence piled in showing the damage to the brain, which is still developing at 18.

  69. 69
    Querius says:

    Jerry @6,

    Great points and nicely summarized!

    Here are some rough thoughts expanding on yours.

    Freedom: More challenging with higher population densities. Frontier and rural societies generally feature dilution of control, coercion, and conflict.

    Control: Bullying (ridicule, exclusion, isolation, hostility), bribery, blackmail, betrayal, crushing bureaucracy, and capricious tyranny as we’re now beginning to realize.

    Truth perishes: Lies, pretexts, rationalization, utopian propaganda, payoffs become the norm.

    Polarization: Progresses from self-interest to group-interest, factionalism, conspiracy, and suppression.

    Self-glorification of the few: lust, greed, fame, control . . . eventually consolidates to one person.

    Opportunities and resources: Concentration and control, hording leads to restraint of trade and suppression of initiative.

    These factors apply to all human institutions: government, business, education, science, religion, mass media, the arts, social norms, and so on.

    If 3-5% of population are consumed by these moral failures, then multiple factions will work tirelessly and conspiratorially to take over, eventually leading to institutional or general civil wars, suppression and impoverishment of the people, unrestrained criminal victimization of the people, genocide, totalitarianism, and then collapse and fragmentation into smaller states.

    However, collapse can be averted by keeping people at the edge of abject poverty and starvation. The people are completely dependent on government handouts. All human institutions are then subject to the State. Under total control, human initiative, ingenuity, and industriousness evaporate, so, the State resorts to de facto slavery, and society stabilizes under deep but equal misery for all.

    These are the characteristics and conclusions of all empires in history as Toynbee noted.

    If collapse is not averted, socialist ideologues will once again claim that the circumstances were “complex,” there was a lot of interference and Bad Luck, and that it wasn’t TRUE socialism. Rinse and repeat endlessly. Oh, and to avoid embarrassment, it’s important to erase the history and monuments of the past in each iteration.

    -Q

  70. 70

    SA2:

    Well, you take it one step at a time, right? You begin with an incontrovertibly true moral statement. It can lead you to other moral formula to consider, such as, “is all cruelty immoral? ”

    The problem with a vague moral statement like “not causing others harm” is … who gets to define what “harm” means? It’s easy to just say stuff that kind of sounds generally good, but unless you’re working from some kind of moral “math” basis, built from simple, true moral statements, meanings and values, you can end up making all kinds of “moral” statements and claims that simply don’t have any significant value because they are so relative and subjective.

    I mean, if I say being offended is “harm,” and that seeing a couple kissing in public offends me and is thus “harming” me, everything goes sideways very quickly.

  71. 71
    Viola Lee says:

    WJM, speaking for myself, I offered a couple of principles about morality, but I did not claim they were “incontrovertibly true.” In the real world of morals, unlike the world of math, there is ambiguity. As you say, the question of what constitutes “harm”, for instance, is not clearcut and can be seen in highly different ways by different people.

    KF claims (I think: it’s hard to tell) that morals are analogous to math, and I’m arguing they are not, in the important sense that some kind of necessary structure, and thus necessary conclusions, does not apply to morals in the way they apply to math. JVL and I are asking for him to provide a simple clearcut example within this moral structure that is as unambiguous as that which is found in math.

  72. 72
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, the clip is of course a summary of real experience on how eugenics was promoted and defended from challenge. In at least one case (later), I think I make out a sketch of a certain Mr Winston Churchill. The sketches show us that fallacies work, all too well, in promoting evil; once they come from an establishment. There are pretty direct lessons for our time, exposing all too familiar argument forms justifying impositions of power. For those of us who understand that sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears and that those who forget, neglect or dismiss such invite having to pay in the same coin, over and over again, they are highly significant. In this case, the price in blood was quite stiff. KF

  73. 73
    Steve Alten2 says:

    WJM “ I mean, if I say being offended is “harm,” and that seeing a couple kissing in public offends me and is thus “harming” me, everything goes sideways very quickly.“

    I guess that depends on whether you define offence as harm. But, again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how being offended causes harm. You will have a hard time proving that kissing in public causes any harm. However, you might be able to demonstrate that having sex in public, especially when children are present, might be causing harm. But even this will depend on the nature of the society.

    And when measuring harm, it is often a balancing of competing factors. For example, physically restraining a violent person may cause harm to the person, but this harm may prevent even more harm.

  74. 74
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, to assert a rights claim and/or to claim one has not been doing harm is one thing, facing the need to justly claim a right or freedom consistent with the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities is quite another. Especially where — as in the case of eugenics — one compels others to be part of evils or to uphold in evils. In this context, the first two forms of the Kantian Categorical imperative, among other tests, can be useful; universalisability and using the other as a mere means to one’s end. KF

  75. 75
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, there is no assertion that one can chain an infallibly mathematical apparatus of ethical theorems, though some forms of modal logic can do some things. Instead, we have here a good framework of self evidently true first moral duties, which are in fact an excellent checklist for behaviours, thoughts and policies. Indeed, the framework articulates pretty directly to framing law on a foundation of justice, recognising the prudence issue that there will be places where reform not being possible on balance of power and community views, for now one must have rules of order and amelioration. The framework of the US DoI and Constitution is a good case in point, as I noted earlier. You may observe3 from the OP, the pivotal role of prudence and the clip from Heb 5:14 on how one matures in moral discernment through exercise, and the implication is there that warped or benumbed conscience cripples moral reasoning. This extends through balance of power to society and power. Our civilisation, currently, is in a bad way and looks to be lining up for pretty harsh consequences. The global abortion toll tells a story here, blood guilt being one of the most corrupting of all influences. KF

    PS: I am not sure it is you or JVL or another, but I have to be selective and get back to points in good enough time.

    PPS: The issue of justice as due balance of rights, freedoms and duties allows a fairly robust understanding of harm. E.g. life is the first right, without which there are no other rights. Liberty follows, framed by coherence with others, i.e. due balance. Property that is honestly acqured follows. This extends to innocent reputation. And far more.

  76. 76
    Viola Lee says:

    KF writes, “SA2, to assert a rights claim and/or to claim one has not been doing harm is one thing, facing the need to justly claim a right or freedom consistent with the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities is quite another.”

    This is true. This is why I’m arguing that morals are not like math. In morals there are all sort of ambiguities and uncertainties about what is in fact a “due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities”. There is not a set of logical tools that always can be depended on to lead to the correct answer.

    Also, you seem to be using Eugenics as a test case, although I doubt if anyone here would argue for Eugenics. Here are some other candidates: divorce, birth control, IVF, SSM, the death penalty, self-assisted euthanasia, , inter-racial marriage, wearing a mask these days in a crowded indoor space, sex outside of marriage between unmarried, consenting adults, inciting to riot at the Capitol, etc. Is there one single moral system that unequivocably and necessarily, in the logical sense, determines the correct moral stance on all those? Can you pick one of those and show us how this moral calculus works?

  77. 77
    Viola Lee says:

    KF, I just saw 75, where you explain that there is no such moral analog to math. Good. Back at 38 you went from math to morals, so I thought you were claiming they were established in the same way.

    I agree with you that there are principles of justice, prudence, etc. That however leaves us with the problem that rational, well-informed, well-meaning people who would say they embrace the same principles have different views on lots of things: I just offered a list. What are we to make of that?

  78. 78
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, the case ofv math shows that radical relativist claims on knowledge and certainty fail, we can frame certain knowledge and indeed on abstracta which we can show to be universal. This also establishes that there are necessary entities, a key concept in logic of being. You have also reversed the order, I laid out the framework of governing first duties and used a facet of same , principle of distinct identity, to pull out aspects of key mathematical structures, showing universality of the von Neumann construction. All of this is important and clears the ground for reframing how we think towards building civilisation. It is interesting to see how the point of inescapability of first duties has been consistently side stepped. That speaks. KF

    PS: it is pretty clear that right to innocent reputation, freedom of expression and association are being massively and calculatedly violated in service of a McFaul colour revolution push on excuse of “incitement” when accessible evidence has credibly been opposite, unwisdom in where one has a protest is different from incitement to riot or insurrection. The direct contrast of how riots for a half year were treated, is diagnostic. The imprudence of further using this to initiate massive censorship, slander and suppression of addressing serious reason to question integrity of election will show itself in coming months. But this is not a thread for that discussion, near on 5,000 comments over two months show that the issue is not evidence but . . . unresponsiveness to first duties of responsible reason. Hence, this thread. For which, the eugenics case is a key historical study that helps us understand where irresponsible policy can end in blood and tears. Similarly, our own guilt of innocent blood by far exceeds that of the Nazis.

  79. 79
    Viola Lee says:

    I don’t know what you are claiming. I understand your points about math. I also accept the rational, free, responsible nature of human beings: I don’t think I am “sidestepping” that. What I am emphasizing is that one can (I do) accept moral duties and responsibilities concerning justice, fairness, prudence, etc., and yet with people who likewise accept all that nevertheless find they disagree with me on many issues. How do we proceed at that point? That seems to be the point that you aren’t addressing.

  80. 80
    JVL says:

    What about this:

    A US interracial couple was turned away by a wedding venue because the owner said their union went against her Christian beliefs, video shows.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49571207

  81. 81
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Niemoller’s statement is relevant to the import of the issues:

    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    KF

  82. 82
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Cicero a Roman statesman and stoic thinker, c 50 BC, brings out how the seven first duties articulate into a frame for law and government:

    —Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.

    [–> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- “right,”- “truth,”- “knowledge,”- “law”- and- “justice”- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]

    We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws.

    Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation.

    Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions.

    They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [–> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil.

    The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.

    KF

  83. 83
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries — a key textbook for law that directly influenced the US founding and American jurisprudence long beyond that point, brings this into a Bible-influenced, theistic context. We should note that the NT explicitly endorses core natural law reasoning, viewing it as reflecting our constitution as creatures, though that is opposite to the idea that such premises are derived from scripture and are somehow theocratic imposition. No, the above first duties are inescapable and self evident:

    Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
    Sir William Blackstone

    INTRODUCTION, SECTION 2
    Of the Nature of Laws in General

    . . . [L]aws, in their more confined sense, and in which it is our present business to consider them, denote the rules, not of action in general, but of human action or conduct: that is, [LAW, AT ROOT, IS:] the precepts [of justice, due balance of rights, freedoms and duties] by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a creature endowed with both reason and freewill, is commanded to make use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behavior.

    Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being [–> we are contingent creatures under a Creator who as Maximally Great, necessary being, has aseity . . . utter independence of being, self-existence]. A being, independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself [–> notice, aseity (implication, pivoting on and shaped by the inherent goodness and utter wisdom of the root of reality), and the implied folly of a contingent creature presuming that responsible rational freedom gives him utter, arbitrary autonomy of action]; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the [inherently good and utterly wise] will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct: not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle therefore has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will.

    [–> hence, the significance of seeing from our inescapably being under moral government, that we operate on both sides of the IS-OUGHT gap. So, it must be bridged, which is only feasible in the root of reality, on pain of Hume’s ungrounded ought: reasoning is-is then poof, ought from nowhere. Coherence demands fusion, only feasible in the world-root source. This requires a necessary being root of reality adequate to support ought. After centuries of vexed debate, there remains just one serious candidate: the inherently good (and so, utterly wise and soundly acting) creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. Thus, one who is framework to any world existing, indeed, its source. Further, one who is worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature.

    This will of his maker is called [DEF’N:] the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.

    Considering the creator only as a being of infinite power, he was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws he pleased to his creature, man, however unjust or severe. [–> Blackstone, here, errs somewhat in this suggestion, as he does not adequately consider God’s goodness and the moral coherence of his character: God as inherently good will do no evil]

    But as be is also a being of infinite wisdom [–> notice, utterly wise so also inherently good], he has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due; to which three general precepts Justinian1 has reduced the whole doctrine of law. [–> In introductory remarks in the built-in textbook, Institutes, for Corpus Juris Civilis, which in turn echoes Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, and of course Paul, Jesus and Moses on the law of neighbour love.]

    But if the discovery of these first principles of the law of nature depended only upon the due exertion of right reason [–> notice, the implicit duty to reason aright starting with its first principles], and could not otherwise be obtained than by a chain of metaphysical disquisitions, mankind would have wanted some inducement to have quickened their inquiries, and the greater part of the world would have rested content in mental indolence, and ignorance its inseparable companion. As therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness [–> he now draws this out], he has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action.[–> which is the implicit premise in love neighbour as self] For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, “that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness.”

    [–> which by definition cannot but be in a community of like creatures, leading to mutual obligations of neighbour-love; note the direct echo in the US DOI, July 4, 1776. However, the lack of balance is a key weak point. By way of rebalancing, for instance, justice is best understood as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities in the community of the morally governed. Which, in turn, is credibly rooted in the inherently good, utterly wise Creator..]

    This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that this or that action tends to man’s real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of man’s real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.

    This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

    But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life: by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness.

    In short, our ignorance on this reflects the gross defects of our education, formal and informal.

    KF

  84. 84
    Viola Lee says:

    Those are not relevant to the question that JVL and I are asking you. I am reaching the conclusion that you are not willing to engage with it.

  85. 85
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, I note, first that per Ac 17, the purported Christian beliefs are wrong. That said, a wedding venue is not a monopoly on something vital to life or liberty etc, that is a subject for moral suasion. By contrast, the behaviour of tech companies given privileged protection from defamation on grounds of being platforms not publishers and who attain monopoly power on the public square because the public took them at that word, who then turn around and abuse power of dominance impose ideological censorship, enabling of slander, one sided enforcement and tortuous interference with contracts etc is a different matter. In the case of the triple hit on Parler this weekend, the matter is especially grave. There is a legitimate state power in the latter case to address monopolies and abuses of regulatory and legal exemptions. But at this point, there is good reason to have little confidence in the legislature and judiciary on the matter. I suspect some people running the strategic board at present would do well to ponder what would happen were there a reversal of that trend, putting the shoe on the other foot. But again, the issue is not evidence, nigh on 5000 comments over two months show that. The issue is acknowledging and responding to first duties. KF

  86. 86
    jerry says:

    Querius,

    nicely summarized

    About two years ago, I read Jonah Goldberg’s book, “The Suicide of the West.” In he said the rise of the modern world was not inevitable and if lost there is no guarantee it will come back or progress. We take the modern world as a given and don’t understand it is an anomaly.

    At the same time I was watching/listening to a Great Course’s course on the Tudors through the Stuart’s. In it the professor described the gradual lost of power by the monarchs after Henry VIII. Then the religious wars between The Church of England and various other Protestant sects. The result was the rise of Parliament and then the common man due to settlements with the different religions.

    The first momentous achievement was that the price of cotton went from 11 shillings a pound in the 1720’s to 2 shillings a pound by the late 1700’s through individual innovations. The weekly wage was 11 shillings. This meant the poor could have decent clothing. Others things were being made better through innovation. First time in the history of the world things got better for the common person in so short a time.

    Pennsylvania happened in the 1680’s and its growth took place over the next 60 years.

    All due to freedom to innovate and build and keep the profits for whoever did so.

    Now I believe that is only part of the story. The other part that is necessary is a framework of law and morality to ensure this freedom doesn’t get lost. Your post is getting at this by pointing out what interferes with freedom. Freedom is a rarity in history. It is under assault today everywhere.

  87. 87
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/85

    By contrast, the behaviour of tech companies given privileged protection from defamation on grounds of being platforms not publishers and who attain monopoly power on the public square because the public took them at that word, who then turn around and abuse power of dominance impose ideological censorship, enabling of slander, one sided enforcement and tortuous interference with contracts etc is a different matter.

    I agree that freedom of thought and expression should be given the widest possible latitude But no right is untrammeled. If someone is using a megaphone to incite a crown to violence against some of their fellow-citizens then there is at least a case for taking that megaphone away.

  88. 88
    Querius says:

    Seversky,

    Trammeling freedom of speech is exactly why universities today have the greatest restriction on free speech on the grounds that it might offend or trigger a protected minority. It’s exactly the opposite of the Free Speech movement on campuses in the 1960s. Imagine that.

    -Q

  89. 89
    vividbleau says:

    SEV
    .”If someone is using a megaphone to incite a crown to violence against some of their fellow-citizens then there is at least a case for taking that megaphone away.”

    Censorship you do like leads to censorship you don’t like.

    Vivid

  90. 90
    vividbleau says:

    Jerry
    “Freedom is a rarity in history. It is under assault today everywhere.”

    It’s only just beginning, it’s going to get very ugly for non leftist.

    Vivid

  91. 91
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, kindly note the responses above; slander is a destructive, demonic rhetorical and propaganda device. Censorship, similarly. There is indeed going to be a backlash due to now effectively loss of confidence in the establishment, pretty much across the board. When people in numbers are slandered, blamed and accused without good warrant (which THEY know to be without warrant), then are silenced and further smeared then opened up for persecution . . . no man could buy or sell save he takes the Mark, that is an existential threat. It is unwise to pose existential threats. KF

    PS: Kindly, explain to me what in this clip from Mr Trump Jan 6 constitutes inciting a crowd to insurrection or coup or even riot — as opposed to failing to anticipate that a margin of the crowd were open to inducement to riot:

    The Speech They Claim Caused an Insurrection

    The President, before a group described as mostly law-abiding people from all over the country with no plan or desire to cause damage, reiterated his belief that the election was tampered with [for which there is a considerable body of evidence being pushed aside], and said:

    >>We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our Constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.

    We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period. We’ve set it on a much straighter course…>>

    Frankly, what I have seen in recent days from those now suddenly crying insurrection etc reeks of turnabout projection; especially by contrast with what went on across the past months. By the mirror principle, that is tantamount to admission to 4th gen war of treachery by McFaul colour revolution.

  92. 92
    kairosfocus says:

    Q,

    actually, no, the game of radicals has been summed up: when we are weak, we demand freedom per your values; once we hold power we suppress your freedom per our vision of utopia. This is where reigns of terror so consistently come from.

    Such is of course directly relevant to prudence, fairness and justice in dealing with neighbour in the first duties, and the propaganda of scapegoating antecedent to censorship [to block effective reply to demonisation] persecution and existential threat by terror pivots on lying, slander (a specific form of lying) and fallacious reasoning. These speak to truth and first principles of right reason. Such suppresses sound conscience also, often by defence mechanisms against cognitive dissonance as has become a term of art. The evasions of the seven duties we have been seeing are signs.

    I have found an interesting summary and extension of Marcuse’s repressive [pseudo-]tolerance in a commentary by Macris:

    let’s just summarize the doctrine of repressive tolerance in plain English:

    Tolerance is only to be extended to truth.

    Leftism is objectively true, and anything other than leftism is not.

    Therefore tolerance is only to be extended to leftism.

    Anyone who disagrees with this has been indoctrinated. To the extent that the majority of people disagree, that means the majority of people are indoctrinated.

    Since most people are indoctrinated, leftists must break the indoctrination so that they can grasp the truth of leftism.

    To break the indoctrination, leftists must promote left-wing thought and suppress right-wing thought.

    Promoting left-wing thought is accomplished by changing “established universes of meaning” and actively presenting “information slanted in the opposite direction,” e.g. by political correctness and propaganda.

    Suppressing right-wing thought is accomplished by withdrawing the freedom of speech, press, and assembly for anyone who disagrees with leftists on race, gender, religion, armament, public services, social security, or healthcare, e.g. deplatforming us entirely.

    If necessary to withdraw these freedoms, leftists must operate at such scale that the actions cease to be non-violent and become revolutionary violence.

    Leftists who use revolutionary violence are not to be condemned by any leftists.

    In brief, the doctrine holds that left-wing speech, assembly and even violence must be praised and promoted; while right-wing speech, assembly, and especially violence must be condemned, suppressed, and punished.

    And that doctrine is being implemented 24/7/365 . . . [ See Marcuse here, yes well over 50 years ago]

    A money clip from Marcuse is right there in the opening words:

    This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our ad-vanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opin-ions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes,
    and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modem period — a parti-san 1 goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Con-versely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance to-
    day, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression. The author is fully aware that, at present, no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate lib-
    erating tolerance into practice, but he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve his-torical possibilities which seem to have become utopian possibilities — that it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which this society can be recognized as what it is and does.

    The underlying cynical slanders and failure of soundness and balance opening the door to misanthropy and the Jacobin terror are obvious.

    The sheer incompetence of the American elites through want of sound discernment, is striking.

    A failure of sound understanding of history is clearly part of this, starting with Plato’s Ship of State, the Peloponnesian war and failure of Athenian democracy. For the churches, I point yet again to Ac 27 as critique of marches of folly.

    And more.

    In both cases, failure at the bar of the seven first duties of reason should be manifest. As a direct result, we are seeing a McFaul colour revolution Pearl Harbor operation of 4th gen war of treachery, and it will take a desperate scramble to set up a Midway. With terrible losses and retreats along the way.

    But those who are busily running riot on the strategic field at the moment are already far into overstretch; having posed an existential threat. They will be defeated but will wreak havoc and have opened the door to geostrategic disasters.

    KF

  93. 93
    vividbleau says:

    KF re 92
    Awesome!!

    Regarding Trump re impeachment, 25th Amendment, criminal prosecution , etc. Think Romanovs, Mary Queen of Scott’s and other persons that were threats to the various thrones and ruling parties throughout history.

    Vivid

  94. 94
    JVL says:

    Seversky: I agree that freedom of thought and expression should be given the widest possible latitude But no right is untrammeled. If someone is using a megaphone to incite a crown to violence against some of their fellow-citizens then there is at least a case for taking that megaphone away.

    And you can be punished for shouting fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire. And you can be sued for slander and libel. In all countries in the world free speech has limits; we would find some limits unreasonable but others make good sense.. As usual, your freedoms end at my nose.

  95. 95
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: JVL, I note, first that per Ac 17, the purported Christian beliefs are wrong. That said, a wedding venue is not a monopoly on something vital to life or liberty etc, that is a subject for moral suasion.

    So, how would you moderate that dispute based on your first principles and good reasoning?

    Please note: I don’t expect you to actually address my questions or Viola Lee‘s questions (with a name like that you just gotta think they’re from the Southern US) as you have studiously avoided doing so for quite a while now.

    You see, part of our questions come about because you will not or cannot elucidate what your first principles are. I suspect many of them are quite sensible and things we can all agree on. It’s bad to murder people? It’s bad to torture people? It’s bad to exploit other people? It’s bad to manipulate other people? It’s bad to lie (except about surprises, good surprises that is)? It’s bad to impose your viewpoint on others? It’s bad to infringe on others’ legal rights without due process and for good legal reasons? We should treat others the way we want to be treated? We should leave others alone if they are consenting adults and they are not demonstrably harming anyone else?

    Let’s say we all agree on those principles. We can still come to different conclusions for certain instances. Which is why we keep asking you over and over and over again will you please pick a topic and explain how you would apply your first principles and good reasoning to draw a conclusion?

    I won’t hold by breath.

  96. 96
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Truth . . . right reason . . . prudence:

    This first triad of duties is pivotal, having to do with fidelity to and ability to discern and warrant reality in a world of error and worse. Here, the start is, Aristotle Metaphysics, 1011b: truth says of what is, that it is and of what is not that it is not.

    Here, Wikipedia makes an admission against interest:

    Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.[1] In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences.[2]

    Truth is usually held to be the opposite of falsehood. The concept of truth is discussed and debated in various contexts, including philosophy, art, theology, and science. Most human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of discussion; these include most of the sciences, law, journalism, and everyday life. Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself.[2] Most commonly, truth is viewed as the correspondence of language or thought to a mind-independent world . . . . [The English language term] ‘truth’ involves both the quality of “faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity”,[7] and that of “agreement with fact or reality”

    The accident — or perhaps, providential course — of history behind our language preserves a key insight. Truth is an act of a volitional being, also implying a virtue involving faithfulness or loyalty to and sincerity concerning reality. reality, being the what is as opposed to what may appear to be the case. Thus, the proverbial oath of the witness to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. From which we also see that truthfulness is a habit.

    A civilisation that fails the fidelity to reality test fails.

    Hence, our troubles as a civilisation.

    Opposed to truth are error, falsity, deception, even ignorance [which can be induced through dominance of error in our thought].

    Accordingly, we come to the conscience-guided practice of duty to right reason and to prudence. Right reason, of course being a practice, hopefully habitual, that pivots on self-evident first duties that start with the principle of distinct identity. A is A, given its core characteristics that mark it apart from what is not A, ~A. The Apostle Paul, cites a didactic example likely to have been commonplace in his time:

    1 Cor 14:7 Yet even lifeless things, whether flute or harp, when producing a sound, if they do not produce distinct [musical] tones, how will anyone [listening] know what is piped or played? 8 And if the [war] bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? [AMP]

    With distinct identity in hand, we immediately find as close corollaries, non-contradiction and excluded middle. In reality R, no x is such that x = A AND ~A. Similarly, any y in R = {A|~A} is such that it is A or else ~A, not both and not neither. This is applied in the OP above to draw out how the core of mathematics is framework to any possible world. Which, gives it universality across reality and possibility.

    Beyond, lie many other principles, which guide reasoning and show its limitations, calling for restraint and discernment.

    Hence, we come to prudence, aptly marked out by Aristotle, again:

    ” . . . recta ratio agibilium, ‘right reason applied to practice.’ The emphasis on ‘right’ is important . . . Prudence requires us to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong . . . If we mistake the evil for the good, we are not exercising prudence—in fact, we are showing our lack of it.”

    Prudence includes the duty of warrant converting belief into knowledge: knowledge . . . here, in a weak form, common sense . . . is warranted, credibly true (and so, reliable) belief.

    Here, prudence restrains itself through right reason, to what is warranted, rather than simply taking what one wishes to be so. Of course, warrant exists in a civilisational frame, where most of us cannot warrant technical matters, and so we have to rely on sound effort building a sound body of knowledge. In turn, that tempts too many to corrupt such, substituting manipulative ideology for knowledge. This also becomes a justice issue as responsible warrant is required to indict and convict, or should be required to conclude that someone has failed the character test. Slander does not provide warrant.

    Further to such, lying is the act of speaking with disregard to truth, in hope of profiting from what is said or suggested being taken as true. Here, this can include strategic omission of clarifying or exculpatory material fact, misleading through half truth.

    That brings up fact, something reliably known — or, particularly, observed — to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

    The relevance of these to the sort of going over the cliff state of our civilisation, should readily be apparent.

    Of course, there is a challenge, can we warrant truth claims? that is in part why in the OP mathematics is given as a decisive case in point. Some truths can be warranted to incorrigible certainty. Others, to lesser degrees, down to moral certainty on which it is irresponsible to act as though it were not the case. Other things, such as scientific theories cannot be warranted to even moral certainty, given the pessimistic induction on the history of theories overthrown after long runs of seeming success. These are legitimately knowledge, but in a weaker, quite provisional sense. Where, a false theory can be empirically reliable enough that we can see to moral certainty that it is so-far reliable, reliable enough to trust life and limb to it.

    We come therefore to concepts of degrees of truth. Absolute truth fulfills the old form of the witnesses’ oath, the whole, undiluted truth, in some cases warranted to utter certainty. Subjective truths are truth as perceived and believed, often without working out an explicit apparatus of warrant. They can be fully valid, but we can err. Thus we see objective truth, truth that has been adequately warranted so that it is independent of the perception of any particular mind.

    So far gone is our civilisation, so far gone are key institutions of influence across the span of the seven mountains or pillars, that these things are actually quite controversial in key circles, especially when they cut across the agendas of dominant factions. In which context, we find the growth of subjectivism, emotivism, relativism. Similarly, we find dismissive terms such as “baseless,” “[by inference, empty] allegations,” “conspiracy theories,” and the like.

    It stands written, thou shalt not lie.

    Also, truthing it in love.

    KF

  97. 97
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, I will not entertain a distraction of successive tangents, I already pointed out enough on what is the case on balance of first duties on your attempted case, scroll up and simply look, please. I even brought out the issue of how prudence leads to the necessary degree of compromise to good order with amelioration of evils until reform becomes possible. There is a world of difference between going to another supplier for wedding services and dealing with abusive censorship power acquired through false promises and political exemptions from tort action being abused, for just one example. KF

    PS: As to answering lists of questions, I have had to be selective and speak to core things and those that have caught my eye as strategic; I have repeatedly noted on such and you will find that that has happened several times. I will not be distracted through successive tangents, and also, there is a real world and for instance I now have to put away breakfast stuff and go to meet a client on a parliamentary issue. You would be well advised to note the answer to Seversky, including the transcript of the key statements that should be allowed to counter the accusation of incitement being obviously used to advance a McFaul colour revolution push by election manipulation and now lawfare. Likewise, see the just above on the first triad of duties. Much of what is going on so destructively is due to refusal to follow such duties, even as we cannot but appeal to them to persuade others.

  98. 98
    jerry says:

    Tolerance is only to be extended to truth.

    Leftism is objectively true, and anything other than leftism is not.

    The problem is leftism is objectively false. Otherwise it would have been adopted by conservatives a long time ago.

    When that becomes obvious through dysfunctional policies, oppression becomes necessary to maintain power. Leftism is about power which is why it always turns on its own.

    Remember

    The Montagnards always turn on the Girondists.

    Robespierre went to the guillotine

  99. 99
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: I will not entertain a distraction of successive tangents, I already pointed out enough on what is the case on balance of first duties on your attempted case, scroll up and simply look, please.

    You pointed to a Bible quote for the interracial couple denied a service at a particular venue. You have not said what first principles are involved.

    Here’s another case that would be interesting to address: gender reassignment surgery. It harms no one, it makes at least one person very happy (most of the time). I don’t see the problem. Guessing you will disagree please lay out your first principle reasons clearly and cogently.

    I even brought out the issue of how prudence leads to the necessary degree of compromise to good order with amelioration of evils until reform becomes possible.

    But on some questions you do NOT agree to compromises. How do you decide which things you will compromise on?

    I will not be distracted through successive tangents, and also, there is a real world and for instance I now have to put away breakfast stuff and go to meet a client on a parliamentary issue.

    Alright, I hope it goes well.

    Much of what is going on so destructively is due to refusal to follow such duties, even as we cannot but appeal to them to persuade others.

    I would really like to dig a bit deeper on some of the issues I have brought up. I don’t know why you refuse to discus same-sex marriage in terms of what your first principles are? I don’t understand your reasons for NOT discussing it.

  100. 100
    JVL says:

    Jerry: The problem is leftism is objectively false. Otherwise it would have been adopted by conservatives a long time ago.

    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘leftism’ but it’s pretty clear that a lot of countries have adopted policies that would have been considered quite liberal in the past. Many European countries have national health services which, for most things, require no extra payment by the patient. Many countries have state-sponsored retirement plans. Many nations have laws designed to protect workers and consumers. Many countries have laws which prevent someone being repeatedly tried (the number of times varies) for the same crime. Many countries now allow women and BLACKS the right to vote. Many nations now allow couples to get legally divorced (even if they’re Catholic). Many nations now allow women the right to drive a car and run in a marathon (illegal in the US until the 70s).

    Such laws would have been considered hideously radical and left at certain times. Perhaps ‘leftism’ is winning after all?

  101. 101
    ET says:

    Same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is for having a family- having children. When same sex marriages can result in children do to a successful mating of the two same-sex partners, those marriages will be OK. Until then it is just a mental illness that should not be enabled.

    Same sex marriages and couples are unnatural.

    Let the scientists, engineers and mathematicians do their jobs. They’ve been advancing things pretty well in since the industrial revolution.

    Scientists can’t even formulate a scientific theory of evolution. Because of their dogma they don’t have any idea what determines biological form and they never will until they change.

  102. 102
    Viola Lee says:

    KF writes, “I will not entertain a distraction of successive tangents.”

    Translation: “I will not discuss how all my philosophy and rhetoric can actually be applied to real-word moral issues.”

  103. 103
    JVL says:

    ET: When same sex marriages can result in children do to a successful mating of the two same-sex partners, those marriages will be OK. Until then it is just a mental illness that should not be enabled.

    They can adopt just like many heterosexual couples do; some have to. Same-sex couples can also use a surrogate. I think there are even procedures that can combine genetic material from both members of the couple.

    Same sex marriages and couples are unnatural.

    So are eye glasses, cauliflowers, automobiles, vaccines, cell phones, breast implants, fillings (in teeth), guns, atomic weapons, writing . . .

    Why are you so opposed to same-sex marriages? How does it affect you if two men or two women want to marry?

  104. 104
    ET says:

    LoL! JVL ignores what I say and prattles on. No one wants to marry their eyeglasses, cauliflower, etc. Obviously you are just an insipid troll.

    I told you why I am opposed to same sex marriages. You are too stupid to understand what I say and instead just want to say anything.

  105. 105
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL,

    I note what I said:

    I note, first that per Ac 17, the purported Christian beliefs are wrong. [–> truth, right reason, prudence to soundly warrant, with import for neighbour] That said, a wedding venue is not a monopoly on something vital to life or liberty etc [–> an issue of due proportion to response, prudence], that is a subject for moral suasion. [–> Neighbour principle, per Lev 19:15 – 18, in context, but more broadly, right reason and prudence . . . I will comment on such later as time permits] By contrast, [–> contrasting, clarifying case, right reason] the behaviour of tech companies given privileged protection from defamation on grounds of being platforms not publishers and who attain monopoly power on the public square because the public took them at that word [–> truth, fairness, neighbour], who then turn around and abuse power of dominance impose ideological censorship, enabling of slander, one sided enforcement and tortuous interference with contracts etc is a different matter. [–> justice, on community scale on a crucial issue] In the case of the triple hit on Parler this weekend, the matter is especially grave. There is a legitimate state power in the latter case to address monopolies and abuses of regulatory and legal exemptions. [ –> justice, prudence] But at this point, there is good reason to have little confidence in the legislature and judiciary on the matter. [–> truth, prudence, right reason] I suspect some people running the strategic board at present would do well to ponder what would happen were there a reversal of that trend, putting the shoe on the other foot. [–> appeal to strategic principles and to prudence] But again, the issue is not evidence, [–> right reason, prudence] nigh on 5000 comments over two months show that. [–> right reason, truth] The issue is acknowledging and responding to first duties. [–> all seven plus]

    I trust this will help you to see the matter more clearly. In my view, it should have been evident that these duties are at work in essentially any act of rationality.

    KF

  106. 106
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, kindly see the just above, per fair comment you just showed your inability to recognise the principles and duties at work. KF

  107. 107
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL: Leftism, here is the Jacobins and their heirs, which should be obvious from the reference to history of the French Revolution. Kindly, see the OP. KF

  108. 108
    Viola Lee says:

    KF writes, ” In my view, it should have been evident that these duties are at work in essentially any act of rationality.”

    I agree. What do we do when people who believe strongly in the principles you mention nevertheless disagree strongly about a particular issue?

    This is the issue you avoid discussing. You make it sound like any two people who adopt the principles you mention will reach the same conclusion, and that doesn’t happen.

  109. 109

    VL asks:

    I agree. What do we do when people who believe strongly in the principles you mention nevertheless disagree strongly about a particular issue?

    Well, what you don’t do is reiterate what some judge or court decided on a subject as if that is the same as meeting your duty to personally examine and rationally judge the evidence on its merits. See how that works?

    Perhaps the beginning point here is: where do you think morality comes from? What gives it any weight to authorize action? Can just anyone claim their perspective is “moral” and act under the imprimatur of moral authority?

    Several people here say things, like “violence is always wrong,” when clearly it is not always wrong. Or “cause no harm” without defining what harm means and by what moral authority.

    If you can’t provide, then morality is really just nothing more than dressing up subjective preference and calling ir by another name to give it more weight.

  110. 110

    Whether Christians are correct or not in drawing their moral authority from the Bible … at least they’re drawing it from something that objectively exists and have a good argument for accepting and believing in. The only thing I see non-religious people offering is their own personal preferences.

    BTW, I’m neither Christian or religious.

  111. 111
    JVL says:

    ET: LoL! JVL ignores what I say and prattles on. No one wants to marry their eyeglasses, cauliflower, etc. Obviously you are just an insipid troll.

    That wasn’t really the point though was it?

    I told you why I am opposed to same sex marriages. You are too stupid to understand what I say and instead just want to say anything.

    You didn’t answer one of my questions though: How does allowing same-sex marriage affect you in any way? Why should you care so much?

  112. 112
    jerry says:

    Perhaps ‘leftism’ is winning after all?

    Maybe you should remove yourself from the conversation except to ask questions. The example you provide are not ‘leftism.”

  113. 113
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: I trust this will help you to see the matter more clearly. In my view, it should have been evident that these duties are at work in essentially any act of rationality.

    It doesn’t help at all because you haven’t stated your first principles or standards of rationality and how they relate to the issue. You’ve only drawn the line part way; connect all the dots and make it clear.

    Leftism, here is the Jacobins and their heirs, which should be obvious from the reference to history of the French Revolution. Kindly, see the OP.

    And who are their heirs then? The Democrats? The Labour Party? The Lib-Dems? Or anyone who espouses certain views?

  114. 114
    jerry says:

    From Scott Adams.

    I guess we are adding “questioning an election” to “yelling fire in a crowded theater” as exceptions to free speech. I don’t see how that could go wrong.

    Emma Kinery

    Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino’s employer, Cumulus Media, has told its on-air personalities to stop suggesting that the election was stolen from President Trump — or face termination “immediately”

    What’s next that can’t be said?

  115. 115
    JVL says:

    Jerry: Maybe you should remove yourself from the conversation except to ask questions. The example you provide are not ‘leftism.”

    Well give me a better idea of what is ‘leftism’ then.

    Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino’s employer, Cumulus Media, has told its on-air personalities to stop suggesting that the election was stolen from President Trump — or face termination “immediately”

    People have been banned from Uncommon Descent for not agreeing to the party line voraciously enough.

    Here’s a question: if your pastor/minister starting supporting same-sex marriage or gender reassignment surgery what would you do? Would you try and get them replaced? Would you leave that church and look for another which more closely upheld your views? How tolerant are you of dissenting views? If you ran a Christian broadcast station and one of your hosts kept saying that Jesus was not a real person, just a myth, what would you do?

    (I don’t know what the actual reason was for terminating those three employees. If it was for on-air statements then that is completely different than personal statements made off-air. )

  116. 116
    Viola Lee says:

    re 109 and 110

    WJM writes at 109, “Well, what you don’t do is reiterate what some judge or court decided on a subject as if that is the same as meeting your duty to personally examine and rationally judge the evidence on its merits.”

    Well, I’m not talking about the elections situation at all. But in general trying to gather facts to assess one’s position is necessary, even though moral judgments involve more than just assessing facts. Consulting experts who have more access to detailed data and more expertise is a reasonable part of gathering facts. We all rely on information others have gathered for most of our information.

    At 110, you write, “The only thing I see non-religious people offering is their own personal preferences.” Christians prefer the Christian worldview. Hindu’s prefer the Hindu perspective. I don’t think believing that one’s perspective has an objective basis makes it so, nor does a religious perspective provide any special weight to a moral judgment. As I have said before, I believe there are “many paths up the mountain”, and so I don’t believe that I have to associate myself with a particular religious tradition in order to validly exercise my human ability to make moral judgments.

  117. 117
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, 113:

    First, there is an outline in the OP on first duties and principles of right reason, where also there is actually a near 40-member series I did on those principles, also above in 96 I addressed the first triad. Just as an example duties to truth include to be accountable to accurate description of reality, addressing warrant involving use of the first principles of reason starting with the principle of distinct identity and its close corollaries, non contradiction and excluded middle.

    Now, I turn to particular remarks:

    >>It doesn’t help at all because you haven’t stated your first principles or standards of rationality and how they relate to the issue. You’ve only drawn the line part way; connect all the dots and make it clear.>>

    Au contraire, it is obvious that duties to truth mean to be accurate to reality, to right reason, to follow the canons of logic, to prudence includes right reason applied to habitual practice, here including duty to warrant claims.

    the first duties, as already pointed out are inescapable, indeed they lurk in the very objection you make. That is why they are inescapably true and self-evident. In fact, they are antecedent to proofs or warrants.

    >>And who are their heirs then? [the Jacobins] The Democrats? The Labour Party? The Lib-Dems? Or anyone who espouses certain views?>>

    The course of history since 1789 makes that plain, actually.

    A capital , relevant example are the Marxists, especially the critical theory marxists who are currently running the strategic board and failing to understand that after pearl Harbor comes Midway.

    KF

    PS: generally people who are banned from UD are banned for disruptive behaviour, for cause.

    PPS: We are not going to turn this thread into a debate on sexual perversities, linked psychological disorders and fashionable notions.

  118. 118
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Linking the first several OP’s on right reason:

    1 Logic & first principles, 1: Analogy, Induction and the power of the principle of identity (with application to the genetic code) https://uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/logic-first-principles-analogy-induction-and-the-power-of-the-principle-of-identity-with-application-to-the-genetic-code/

    2 Logic and First Principles, 2: How could Induction ever work? (Identity and universality in action . . . ) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/logic-and-first-principles-how-could-induction-ever-work-identity-and-universality-in-action/

    3 Logic & First Principles, 3: The roots of right reason and the power/limits of entailment https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/logic-first-principles-3-the-roots-of-right-reason-and-the-power-limits-of-entailment/

    4 Logic & First Principles, 4: The logic of being, causality and science https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/logic-first-principles-4-the-logic-of-being-causality-and-science/

    5 Logic and first principles, 5: The mathemat-ICAL ordering of reality https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/logic-and-first-principles-5-the-mathemat-ical-ordering-of-reality/

    6 Logic and First Principles, 6: Reason/Rationality and Responsibility (i.e. moral government) are inextricably entangled https://uncommondescent.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/logic-and-first-principles-6-reason-rationality-and-responsibility-i-e-moral-government-are-inextricably-entangled/

    7 Logic and First Principles, 7: The problem of fallacies vs credible warrant https://uncommondescent.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/logic-and-first-principles-7-the-problem-of-fallacies-vs-credible-warrant/

    More . . .

  119. 119
    kairosfocus says:

    Cont’d:

    7a SM: Is the slippery slope argument ALWAYS fallacious? https://uncommondescent.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/sm-is-the-slippery-slope-argument-always-fallacious/

    8 Logic & First Principles 8: Bridging the Wigner MATH-PHYSICS GAP (with help from phase/ configuration/ state space) https://uncommondescent.com/physics/logic-first-principles-8-bridging-the-wigner-math-physics-gap-with-help-from-phase-configuration-state-space/

    9 Logic and First Principles, 9: Can we be “certain” of any of our views or conclusions? https://uncommondescent.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/logic-and-first-principles-9-can-we-be-certain-of-any-of-our-views-or-conclusions/

    10 Logic and First Principles, 10: Knowable Moral Truth and Moral Government vs. Nihilistic Manipulation https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/logic-and-first-principles-10-knowable-moral-truth-and-moral-government-vs-nihilistic-manipulation/

    11 Logic and First Principles, 11: The logic of Ultimate Mind as Source of Reality https://uncommondescent.com/mind/logic-and-first-principles-11-the-logic-of-ultimate-mind-as-source-of-reality/

    12 Logic and First Principles, 12: The crooked yardstick vs plumb-line self-evident truths https://uncommondescent.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/logic-and-first-principles-12-the-crooked-yardstick-vs-plumb-line-self-evident-truths/

    13 Logic and First Principles, 13: The challenge of creeping scientism (and of linked nominalism) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/logic-and-first-principles-13-the-challenge-of-creeping-scientism-and-of-linked-nominalism/

    Do we need more?

    KF

  120. 120
    kairosfocus says:

    VL,

    I will take your exchange to be over where do serious disagreements come from.

    A good question, one I was asking myself as a young uni student.

    A first issue is, oftentimes, issues are rhetorical or emotive or appeals to authorities in contest or due to want of basic clarity or fallacies. These, we set aside. Apart from noting that emotional intensity and authorities themselves have weak probative value. However, emotions may rest on accurate perceptions and sound expectations. Authorities may build credibility but in the end are no stronger than facts and logic. Hence, warrant comes from facts [so warrantedly true claims] and logic, with varying strength depending on type of logic and associated assumptions or axioms.

    More serious disagreements generally come from worldviews and cultural agendas leading to issues of the main power centres in a society. Worldviews generally bristle with difficulties so comparative difficulties analysis becomes a main philosophical method. Factual adequacy, coherence, explanatory power — neither ad hoc nor simplistic. When power games come into play or such move up to war, force not reason decides in the short term. Longer term, sustainability.

    Here I mark a distinction, violence is illegitimate use of force.

    On moral issues, there are persistent, pernicious fallacies tied to relativism, subjectivism, emotivism etc. These incoherent systems need to be surrendered; however that is now a settlement by force issue in our civilisation that has lost its way.

    KF

  121. 121
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Just as an example duties to truth include to be accountable to accurate description of reality, addressing warrant involving use of the first principles of reason starting with the principle of distinct identity and its close corollaries, non contradiction and excluded middle.

    Okay, those sound good. How do they apply in the question of gender-reassignment surgery? One of my questions is: how does it affect you if someone chooses to go through gender-reassignment surgery? Lots and lots of women have cosmetic surgery to change the way they look, what’s the difference? Why does it bother you so much?

    Au contraire, it is obvious that duties to truth mean to be accurate to reality, to right reason, to follow the canons of logic, to prudence includes right reason applied to habitual practice, here including duty to warrant claims.

    But are those applicable when talking about personal preferences or desires? It seems to me that then the issues are more along the lines of: does it harm anyone? And that is what you have not addressed. Along with not being very specific about how your above criteria apply to a case like gender-reassignment surgery? If we went back 200 years and you were a slave and you wanted to stop being a slave someone could say to you: hey, look at reality, you’re better off being under my care than not, it’s our habitual practice, we’ve been doing it for decades maybe even hundreds of years, etc. This is why I want you to be specific, spell out how you apply your criteria to the case of gender-reassignment surgery. Or divorce. Or same-sex marriage. Or women being allowed to vote. Or banning slavery. What about allowing people to worship Mohammed? Or believing in the Mormon precepts?

    the first duties, as already pointed out are inescapable, indeed they lurk in the very objection you make. That is why they are inescapably true and self-evident. In fact, they are antecedent to proofs or warrants.

    Again, general statements without showing how they apply in a particular, topical situation.

    A capital , relevant example are the Marxists, especially the critical theory marxists who are currently running the strategic board and failing to understand that after pearl Harbor comes Midway.

    Really? I think you’d best spell that out otherwise I’d say that was a bridge too far.

    generally people who are banned from UD are banned for disruptive behaviour, for cause.

    How about Dave Scot? Why was he banned?

    We are not going to turn this thread into a debate on sexual perversities, linked psychological disorders and fashionable notions.

    Homosexuality is no longer consider a perversity in case you hadn’t noticed. But, since you feel that way, why not spell out how your precepts and principles and axioms apply to that case.

    1: Analogy, Induction and the power of the principle of identity (with application to the genetic code)

    That’s just your opinion though isn’t it? Isn’t real identity what goes on in your head? How you choose to define yourself? What is true to yourself? Don’t we all think you should be true to yourself? Do you want to dictate to people what they should consider true to themselves?

    I think you don’t understand that I have actually read a lot of what you have posted over the last several years. I agree with you about a lot of things. I disagree with you about a lot of things. I’m interested in finding some middle ground where we can live peacefully together. So, I’m interested in how your precepts and principles and axioms apply to particular cases so that I can enter into a more meaningful dialogue with you. I do not want to put words in your mouth, I want to hear your case first, as clearly and as cogently as you can present it. But you continually talk in generalities and high-above the fray comments.

    Why not pick a topic, like gender-reassignment surgery, and be very specific and clear about why you feel the way you do about that topic? You’re insistence that such areas are sliding into ‘sexual perversities’ is blinkered and way behind the times. This is exactly the sort of thing lots and lots of people have to deal with every day. You don’t help anyone by refusing to address such things in a straightforward and clear manner. Why does gender-reassignment surgery violate your principle of credible warrant? Be specific.

    On moral issues, there are persistent, pernicious fallacies tied to relativism, subjectivism, emotivism etc. These incoherent systems need to be surrendered; however that is now a settlement by force issue in our civilisation that has lost its way.

    Then what is your proposal for dealing with gender-reassignment surgery or same-sex marriages? An out-and-out ban? On what grounds? What explanation would you give? What legal grounds would you cite?

  122. 122
    AndyClue says:

    @JVL:

    Homosexuality is no longer consider a perversity in case you hadn’t noticed.

    That’s not true. There are 2 billion muslims out there. Most of them would like to see homosexuals hang. And Christians who accept homosexuality as normal are in a minority.

  123. 123
    Viola Lee says:

    I don’t think that most Muslims would like to see homosexuals hang. Just as with Christianity there is a spectrum of Muslims, from fundamentalists to liberals. Here’s a more balanced view, I think.

    https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-islam

    LGBTQ EQUALITY
    ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION & GENDER IDENTITY
    It is rare that an openly LGBTQ Muslim feels fully welcome at a mainstream mosque in the United States. Cultural norms and traditional readings of sacred texts often uphold a heteronormative binary of gender identification and sexual orientation that don’t allow for the range of identities present in today’s society. However, according to a recent survey by Public Religion Research Center, more than half (52%) of American Muslims ageed that “society should approve of homosexuality.”

    A growing number of Islamic scholars, mainly in the West, have started re-examining Islamic teachings on same-sex relationships and whether a blanket condemnation of LGBTQ people is a misinterpretation. There are also growing opportunities for alternative and meaningful worship and community. Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV) has founded Unity Mosques in Atlanta, GA; Columbus, OH; and Los Angeles, CA. The Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity hosts a retreat for LGBTQ Muslims in Pennsylvania each year. MECCA Institute was recently established as an online school for the study of an inclusive theology of Islam for those seeking more expansive and inclusive interpretations of Islamic texts.

    Transgender men and women are recognized and accepted in many Islamic cultures around the world. In fact, the idea of a man or woman identifying as a member of the opposite gender is more likely to be accepted than that of a man or woman expressing sexual desire for someone of their own gender.

    As early as 1988, gender reassignment surgery was declared acceptable under Islamic law by scholars at Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the world’s oldest Islamic university. In Iran, in 1987, Ayatollah Khomeini declared transgender surgical operations allowable. The basis for this attitude of acceptance is the belief that a person is born transgender but chooses to be homosexual, making homosexuality a sin. Nevertheless, many transgender Muslims after reassignment surgery suffer rejection, socially and culturally, in their own communities due to their remaining in their place of origin. If one is unable to relocate to another region where they are not known, they often suffer verbal and physical violence.

  124. 124
    Viola Lee says:

    This is from the Pew Research group, in 2015. I’d guess the acceptance rate has gone up:

    Most U.S. Christian groups grow more accepting of homosexuality
    BY CARYLE MURPHY
    Almost all Christian groups now more accepting of homosexuality
    Acceptance of homosexuality is rising across the broad spectrum of American Christianity, including among members of churches that strongly oppose homosexual relationships as sinful, according to an extensive Pew Research Center survey of U.S. religious beliefs and practices.

    Amid a changing religious landscape that has seen a declining percentage of Americans who identify as Christian, a majority of U.S. Christians (54%) now say that homosexuality should be accepted, rather than discouraged, by society. While this is still considerably lower than the shares of religiously unaffiliated people (83%) and members of non-Christian faiths (76%) who say the same, the Christian figure has increased by 10 percentage points since we conducted a similar study in 2007. It reflects a growing acceptance of homosexuality among all Americans – from 50% to 62% – during the same period.

    Among Christians, this trend is driven partly by younger church members, who are generally more accepting of homosexuality than their elder counterparts. For example, roughly half (51%) of evangelical Protestants in the Millennial generation (born between 1981 and 1996) say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with a third of evangelical Baby Boomers and a fifth of evangelicals in the Silent generation. Generational differences with similar patterns also are evident among Catholics, mainline Protestants and members of the historically black Protestant tradition.

  125. 125
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, I spoke to general circumstances, a live case appears in L&FP no 3. As for Mr Scot perhaps my memory is bad but I think he left. In any case, this, too is tangential, and no I will not go into various forms of pathological behaviour; there are plenty of places that give good discussions, for those willing to accept. This thread has a proper focus on something absolutely pivotal to sorting out what we will need to do to rebuild. If these are not fixed the sort of onward things you want to get into opinion contests over cannot be soundly resolved. KF

  126. 126
    kairosfocus says:

    NOTICE: I am gavelling a side discussion on various sexual disorders, habits, behaviours and fashionable trends. I had requested that we avoid such but obviously, some seem to be obsessed. Those who want genuine answers can go elsewhere where such are on offer to those willing to acknowledge. KF, thread owner.

  127. 127
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, I like prunes vs I detest the things is worlds apart from say the ongoing holocaust of the unborn or abuse of monopoly media power to censor and slander etc. KF

  128. 128
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: As for Mr Scot perhaps my memory is bad but I think he left.

    That’s not what I remember. I think it was a power struggle behind the scenes at this site.

    n any case, this, too is tangential, and no I will not go into various forms of pathological behaviour; there are plenty of places that give good discussions, for those willing to accept.

    Homosexuality is NOT pathological behaviour! Talk about poisoning the well and straw man tactics!! We are talking to you, to find out how you evaluate such issues. Why are you so afraid to discuss them? Why?

    This thread has a proper focus on something absolutely pivotal to sorting out what we will need to do to rebuild.

    And tolerance of people who’s lifestyle choice you disagree with has nothing to do with that? Really?

    If these are not fixed the sort of onward things you want to get into opinion contests over cannot be soundly resolved.

    LGBTQ issues are part of the discussion. Racial discrimination is part of the discussion. Equal representation under the law is part of the discussion.

    What is it you want? Why don’t you spell that out then. Tell us how you would move the US (in particular) forward given the very deep divisions now clear. Remembering that some of those occupying the US capitol last week bore Confederate flags. Some of them were admitted neo-Nazis. So, tell us, how to move forward?

  129. 129
    Viola Lee says:

    re 127. KF, liking prunes is not a moral issue, so I don’t see your point. And JVL, your last paragraphs of 128 are good.

  130. 130
    jerry says:

    Remembering that some of those occupying the US capitol last week bore Confederate flags. Some of them were admitted neo-Nazis. So, tell us, how to move forward?

    An emphasis on “some.” So an admitted few are used to characterize everyone. Logical fallacy of small numbers. Essentially such statements are refuting claims against Trump and conservatives. Implying such lies is what leads to polarization.

    And by the way some were Antifa. But I make no claim they were the problem.

    Also were those at the Capitol listening to Trump? Apparently not.

    https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/ex-capitol-police-chief-says-pelosi-mcconnells-sergeants-at-arms-refused-security-measures-while-new-timeline-proves-trump-incitement-claims-bogus/

    Want to move forward then tell

    The
    Truth

    I suggest everyone read Sharyl Attiksson’s book, “Slanted” to see the lies people are told and then believe.

    LGBTQ issues are part of the discussion. Racial discrimination is part of the discussion. Equal representation under the law is part of the discussion.

    These are bogus issues essentially because they are non issues. If someone disagrees I suggest they show why/how they are meaningful.

  131. 131
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, yes prunes is a matter of tastes, moral issues are about is vs ought. Where ought governs reason itself, that is that pivotal. Thus, the importance of first duties. KF

  132. 132
    jerry says:

    Brit Hume

    Racial discrimination, plain and simple.

    “Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and finally having equal access to resources needed to reopen and rebuild.” — President-elect Biden

    If you lost Angela Merkel, that most famous Trump lover of all

    Angela Merkel Slams Twitter’s Decision To Ban Trump: ‘Problematic’ Violation Of ‘Fundamental Right’

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/angela-merkel-slams-twitters-decision-to-ban-trump-problematic-violation-of-fundamental-right

  133. 133
    jerry says:

    Will Elon Musk double his fortune?

    A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech as the de facto arbiter of free speech

    Probably commenting on @signalapp will do more

    Gab.com @getongab
    Replying to @elonmusk
    Let’s chat.

    Will Donald Trump set up a media network dedicated to fair, accurate and balanced news coverage.?

  134. 134
    JVL says:

    Jerry: These are bogus issues essentially because they are non issues. If someone disagrees I suggest they show why/how they are meaningful.

    Members of the LGBTQ community think they are being discriminated against, they are being marginalised and ostracised. They think people want to deprive them of the same legal rights as heterosexuals: the right to marry, to be open about their preferences, the right to not have to hide for fear of persecution.

    That is meaningful because all people should be treated equally by law. Correct?

  135. 135
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Where ought governs reason itself, that is that pivotal. Thus, the importance of first duties.

    How does ‘ought’ affect or influence decisions about things like gender-reassignment surgery or same-sex marriage?

  136. 136
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: I am gavelling a side discussion on various sexual disorders, habits, behaviours and fashionable trends. I had requested that we avoid such but obviously, some seem to be obsessed. Those who want genuine answers can go elsewhere where such are on offer to those willing to acknowledge. KF, thread owner.

    Why are you afraid to discuss those issues? They have to do with application of first principles, good reasoning, etc. But you run away from them. Why?

    Are you saying you don’t accept those issues as being real? And why is that? Because you’re not interested in a discussion about them? Because you’ve made up your mind and you’re never, ever going to consider changing it? Because you’d have to admit you’re in favour of imposing your viewpoint on others?

  137. 137
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL, to me the entire SSM debate revolves around the issue that marriage is a human made institution. A formal promise made by one person to another, in front of the public. Governments have adopted marriage as a legal contract that entail certain obligations and benefits. I think we all agree that, for the most part, society as a whole benefits by these marriage contracts.

    To ban SSM all that those who oppose it have to do is to demonstrate that granting marriage to same sex couples causes undue harm to society or to others. Something they have failed to do.

  138. 138
    JVL says:

    Steve Alten2: To ban SSM all that those who oppose it have to do is to demonstrate that granting marriage to same sex couples causes undue harm to society or to others. Something they have failed to do.

    +1

  139. 139
    jerry says:

    Basically every attack on free speech in history revolves around some alleged need for safety.

    Is this true? Whose safety? Could it be changed to read.

    Basically every attack on freedom in history revolves around some alleged need for safety.

    Probably not since slavery was mainly about other things.

  140. 140
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N, it is obvious that for many objectors, inescapable, self evident first duties and principles of reason are inconvenient obstacles, rather than guiding stars. Such, even as in their attempts at argument they are forced to depend on these self-same principles.

    Accordingly, they wish to engage on controversial, often toxic side issues while refusing to acknowledge relevance, applicability or presence even of such. That is itself a highly important result; the issue is not in reality first principles and duties, but instead worldview and cultural agenda, with power balances and narrative dominance.

    So, we will have to turn to issues of the seven mountains/pillars of influence, how business as usual forms, how the overton window warps ability to respond appropriately and how resulting marches of folly lead to needless ruin. Indeed, we may even have to touch on how the ideal of democracy can too often become the ugly and fatal reality de-mock-racy.

    And BTW, they wish to suggest fear and even hint at cowardice.

    They forget that the issues they obsess over were discussed at length here already, showing the want of justification for warping the recognition of the natural reality and complementarity of the sexes. There is no need to further descend into matters of perversities and pathologies that provoke natural and justified disgust; which is relevant though not politically correct. The underlying issue is that the frame which has led to the dominant narrative is in the end ruinous. Though those who promote it will of course refuse to acknowledge it. In prudence, we must.

    There is no need to go back into such matters and further forays to drag the thread off course into such will be removed for cause.

    We have already won the first key result, that the first duties and principles are as described, now we progress to the real problem, how our civilisation’s cultural agenda has been led off course into irrationality (and too often nihilism, too), often dressed up in a lab coat.

    As was, of course, eugenics.

    KF

  141. 141
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: It is convenient to start with the Overton Window.

    As can be seen, it is keyed to the conventional L/R political spectrum and I have modified it to show that the window is bordered by walkaway points, the BATNAs. This assumes first a reasonable political balance so the two sides have to live with one another, making politics an affair of the centre and compromise.

    This is the first key, what happens when Jacobin radicals are able to so seize power that there is no L-ward BATNA, as those deemed R have been marginalised and dominated, often by some sort of revolution? The answer is, of course a ruthless contest for the left, leading to reigns of terror pivoting on demonising, scapegoating and persecuting whoever is on the R or what is now the truncated R after the last slice of the salami was cut off. (Notice, this is Niemoller’s complaint, ironically prominently displayed at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.)

    Of course, the second key is, there is no coherent definition of the “Right.” There are many demonising labels, such as Nazi, of course. This should already sound very familiar as we watch the McFaul colour-culture revolution push in progress, now nearing show trial, kangaroo court and tribunal lawfare.

    There is a more relevant spectrum, based on history, as is in the OP. The extreme, repeller pole is the state of nature or anarchy, which is so hostile that society on almost any terms, is preferred. Autocracy is strictly infeasible as no one person can rule a nation, Exodus 18 is an interesting note on how Moses learned that lesson. Democracies of old tended to fatal factions, demagoguery and manipulation by the powerful. So, historically, the more or less sustainable answer has always been, oligarchy. Up to 1650 – 1789, the contest was between lawless and lawful oligarchy. The latter, too often, being more hope than realisation.

    For the US, we need not trouble ourselves for now with the now clearly dying constitutional democracy with strong checks and balances on limited government. De-mock-racy is leading to oligarchy, under lawless ideologues of misanthropic jacobin character, as is the usual result of successful radical power pushes.

    Here, the point is that obviously an overton window between lawless jacobin oligarchy and constitutional democracy would be absurd. So, the jacobins have to hide the left from view and taint democracy as oppressive, applying salami slice methods to progressively weaken any BATNA that blocks them from where they want to go.

    1984 or Animal Farm, take your pick.

    Hence, the Marcuse repressive [pseudo-] tolerance:

    let’s just summarize the doctrine of repressive tolerance in plain English:

    Tolerance is only to be extended to truth.

    Leftism is objectively true, and anything other than leftism is not.

    Therefore tolerance is only to be extended to leftism.

    Anyone who disagrees with this has been indoctrinated. To the extent that the majority of people disagree, that means the majority of people are indoctrinated.

    Since most people are indoctrinated, leftists must break the indoctrination so that they can grasp the truth of leftism.

    To break the indoctrination, leftists must promote left-wing thought and suppress right-wing thought.

    Promoting left-wing thought is accomplished by changing “established universes of meaning” and actively presenting “information slanted in the opposite direction,” e.g. by political correctness and propaganda.

    Suppressing right-wing thought is accomplished by withdrawing the freedom of speech, press, and assembly for anyone who disagrees with leftists on race, gender, religion, armament, public services, social security, or healthcare, e.g. deplatforming us entirely.

    If necessary to withdraw these freedoms, leftists must operate at such scale that the actions cease to be non-violent and become revolutionary violence.

    Leftists who use revolutionary violence are not to be condemned by any leftists.

    In brief, the doctrine holds that left-wing speech, assembly and even violence must be praised and promoted; while right-wing speech, assembly, and especially violence must be condemned, suppressed, and punished.

    And that doctrine is being implemented 24/7/365 . . .

    In that context, we need to ask, how do we see such emerging?

    The pillars/mountains of influence society map shows the pattern. Societies are under the aegis of a dominant worldview and cultural/policy agenda that is supported by dominant institutions like the roof of a temple, so there is mutual stabilisation. The key is worldview and policy shaping institutions. Education, media, law and government. Arts, artistic culture and entertainment here being informal education. Through the lab coat nof evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers including radical secularist rationalism and hyperskepticism, the natural law anchored in first duties was undermined and government became a matter of power not due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. Down that road, the warping of individual identity, family and marriage were accomplished. And more.

    That is how we have come to this off the cliff moment.

    I can only say that a Pearl Harbor type operation is always strategic overstretch and a Midway is coming. There is a real BATNA, and the walkaway options are in the hands of an undefeated western people facing an existential threat. They were not ready for a Kido Butai attack, but once they recover enough, they will come relentlessly with grim resolve.

    KF

  142. 142
    ET says:

    This new sock puppet “Steve Alten2”, not only has the same family history of a recently banned insipid troll, it also “argues” just like that troll. {I request that rhetorical voltage be turned down. This stands as an example of where we should not further go.}

    [SNIP — as warned, do not feed distractions and trollery. Yes, once natural law and prudence are violated there are no limits but what the lawless oligarchs can get away with, that is a FEATURE not a bug for the warped]

  143. 143
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: U/D1 is added to the OP. An infographic with an adaptation of Overton Window analysis to the push of the new Jacobins. KF

  144. 144
    JVL says:

    {SNIP — toxic distractor. It is noted on logic that once there is a reasonable ratchet triggering a slide downslope, a slippery slope concern is a serious matter of prudence. On matters of law and government, the rise of legal positivism is such a ratchet. Once law is severed from due balance of justice, it becomes whatever those who control legal presses issue. The open door to nihilism and lawless domination is patent. If you wish to discuss this matter of slippery slopes, without toxic distractors, it is a reasonable facet.}

  145. 145
    AndyClue says:

    [SNIP, sidetrack, with personalities, showing the issue of toxic distraction]

  146. 146
    JVL says:

    {SNIP — toxic distractor. It is noted on logic that once there is a reasonable ratchet triggering a slide downslope, a slippery slope concern is a serious matter of prudence. On matters of law and government, the rise of legal positivism is such a ratchet. Once law is severed from due balance of justice, it becomes whatever those who control legal presses issue. The open door to nihilism and lawless domination is patent. If you wish to discuss this matter of slippery slopes, without toxic distractors, it is a reasonable facet.}

    Once you start dictating the conversation, telling us what we can and cannot discuss, how are you different from all the people you rail against? Those ‘leftist’ who you feel are forcing you to acknowledge certain things?

    I’m happy to discuss the matter of slippery slopes . . . but don’t you need a topic? What topic?

  147. 147
    JVL says:

    [SNIP, part of a toxic, personalities driven side track]

  148. 148
    AndyClue says:

    [SNIP, further toxic side track]

  149. 149
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: On selective comments:

    JVL, 113: >>you haven’t stated your first principles or standards of rationality and how they relate to the issue. You’ve only drawn the line part way; connect all the dots and make it clear.>>

    – the core seven inescapable first DUTIES are specifically listed in the OP and key ones are expanded. For instance, duty to truth is duty to accurately represent material reality.

    – Similarly, duty to first principles of right reason is duty to reason informed by its self-evident first principles, starting with distinct identity and close corollaries, non-contradiction and excluded middle, thence others and the need to avoid fallacies and similar errors.

    – Likewise, prudence is the virtue in which right reason is habitually cultivated and applied to practice.

    – Justice, is due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, reflecting duty to neighbour.

    – no reasonably educated person is ignorant on these matters.

    – Let us apply:

    you haven’t stated [–> duty to truth includes stating it as needed] your first principles or standards of rationality [–> an implied accusation of begging the question through vagueness, though in fact first principles were stated and key ones explained to first level] and how they relate to the issue. [–> again, but in fact the point is, such appeals are pervasive, inescapable as we see from JVL’s own comment] You’ve only drawn the line part way [–> of course, one can always demand more detail, the material truth was stated in context] ; connect all the dots and make it clear [–> appeal to right reason, showing inescapability thus truth again].

    >>who are their heirs then?>>

    – the line of succession from the Jacobins is historically well established. Current expressions include for instance Marxist critical theories that are now being imposed.

    JVM, 115 >>give me a better idea of what is ‘leftism’ then.>>

    – the ideas and ideologies and influences descending in succession from the French Revolution and linked radical enlightenment. Marxism and linked ideas and movements down to the critical theory advocates are cases in point.

    – also note my discussion in the OP. JVL often gives the impression that he is only reacting to out of context snippets from comments, uninformed by the OP. That is not reasonable.

    VL, 116 >>I don’t think believing that one’s perspective has an objective basis makes it so,>>

    – subjectivism, relativism and emotivism have been exposed as fallacious above in a point by point response in 31 above; this sets up and knocks over a strawman

    – What is dodged, is that from OP on, the first duties of reason are identified, are highlighted as inescapably bound up in acts of reason and are thus inescapably, self-evidently true. That is the actual core case.

    – It is explicitly highlighted in the OP that,

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties,

    1 – to truth,

    2 – to right reason,

    3 – to prudence,

    4 – to sound conscience,

    5 – to neighbour; so also,

    6 – to fairness and

    7 – justice

    x – etc.

    Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, “natural law,” coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of “self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator” in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.)

    – In short, the objection turns on a strawman fallacy.

    >> nor does a religious perspective provide any special weight to a moral judgment.>>

    – no one has argued such. The strawman fallacy is further compounded.

    – the argument is about intelligible first duties and principles that are of moral character that per observation are inextricably entangled in any significant act of reason. That is, self-evident.

    – further they imply that moral government is core to rationality, i.e. we cannot leave the is-ought gap unbridged.

    – as rationality is a defining characteristic of humanness, moral government is coeval with humanness. Therefore we live in a world where such creatures are actual, which constrains the balance on merits of worldview level alternatives on roots of reality.

    – that is philosophy not religion, and appeal to anti-religious sentiment to sideline it . . . by subtle hint or otherwise . . . is a strawman fallacy.

    >>As I have said before, I believe there are “many paths up the mountain”,>>

    – there are many alternative worldviews but all face comparative difficulties

    >>and so I don’t believe that I have to associate myself with a particular religious tradition>>

    – no one argued that.

    >> in order to validly exercise my human ability to make moral judgments.>>

    – evolutionary materialistic scientism is inherently amoral and anti rational, it undermines reason and moral government, dragging fellow travellers down with it

    – such matters are all worldviews level and face comparative difficulties; it is hard to escape the inference that it is precisely because of the incoherence of evo mat scientism that it often resorts to distractive prejudices and wants to borrow the very thing it undermines.

    – on merits, first duties are self-evident and universal, what frame for the world from roots up bridges the is-ought gap?

    JVL 121 >> It seems to me that then the issues are more along the lines of: does it harm anyone? And that is what you have not addressed. >>

    – the pivot is justice informed by prudence so also truth and right reason from its first principles applied to the sphere of responsible decision and action

    – justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. As rights exert moral demands to be upheld in certain ways, they cannot be justly claimed unless one is in the right. There is no just right to compel another to do or enable evil.

    – for harm, read injustice and the detailed elaboration is a matter of just that, drawing out.

    >> general statements without showing how they apply in a particular, topical situation.>>

    – in context, a strawman again, cases were given, which are as topical as this weekend past. A full legal brief is not feasible in a blog comment but enough details are there.

    >>you’d best spell that out>>

    – there are nearly 5,000 comments in just past threads. The suggestion Pearl Harbor-Midway is an allusion to history. Attack on an unprepared opponent not expecting such intended to stun and cripple while an ideological power grab is made in hope of an advantageous settlement, quickly. Only to face grim determination to remove an existential threat from the root, taking whatever casualties and costs are required along the way. The difference is, this is 4th gen war.

    – A Pearl Harbor knockout strategy is already strategic overstretch.

    >>That’s just your opinion though isn’t it? Isn’t real identity what goes on in your head?>>

    – confusion of psychological sense of the self with the principle of distinct identity, at the root of logic. Your head may be deluded, the difference between a mind and a rock is clear.

    VL, 129: >>liking prunes is not a moral issue, so I don’t see your point.>>

    – liking prunes is a personal preference, first duties are inescapable and so self evident truths.

    Jerry, 130: >>an admitted few are used to characterize everyone. Logical fallacy of small numbers. Essentially such statements are refuting claims against Trump and conservatives. Implying such lies is what leads to polarization. >>

    – the contrast with the past months is stunning, and taking excuse to trigger coordinated expulsion, demonisation, marginalisation etc is a clear mark of McFaul colour revolution push, something objectors by and large refused to substantially engage.

    >>I suggest everyone read Sharyl Attiksson’s book, “Slanted” to see the lies people are told and then believe.>>

    – yes, referred to already. Ignored of course, a familiar pattern.

    JVL, 136: >>Why are you afraid to discuss those issues?>>

    – projection of fear etc, ad hom. In fact there was extensive discussion hosted by this thread owner already. Toxic, pointless, failing to address the fundamental natural law issues, not realising the nihilism invited by legal positivism, relativism etc.

    – no sense side tracking and embroiling in a toxic repulsive dispute. Unless the first principles and duties are set right attempts to discuss toxic, fallacy riddled, nihilistic agenda driven pushes will be futile. We can see that from how holocaust has been enabled for decades.

    SA2, 137 >>Governments have adopted marriage as a legal contract that entail certain obligations and benefits>>

    – Marriage is a covenant stamped into our nature and the complementarity of the two sexes; antecedent to the state, it is not a mere contract. Fundamental fallacy of suppressing distinct identity by refusal to attend to core characteristics.

    – underlying, law at core is not reducible to whatever those who control legal presses issue. Hence, start from first duties.

    >>>>…

    KF

  150. 150
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, there is a proper focus, and there is what is a toxic side track. If you can escape the new censors you can go set up your own forum, soap box and point to by hyper link. Refusal to go with derailing is not oppressive it is reasonable protection of order. Note, I have resorted to snipping only after pleas to stay on topic were repeatedly flouted. KF

  151. 151
    kairosfocus says:

    I have had to snip a personality laced toxic side track, which underscores my point.

  152. 152
    AndyClue says:

    @JVL and others who want to test kairosfocus’ ideas:

    I advise you to not post in this thread anymore. We see a clear refusal from kairosfocus to deal with the experimental part of his ideas. Indeed we see an Orwellian relabeling of experiments as “toxic distractions”. Very sad and something very foreign to any scientist or engineer.

  153. 153
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, slanderous strawman. I have in fact given cases from both sides, it is just that you seem insistent on a toxic side track. That in itself speaks volumes. KF

  154. 154
    jerry says:

    seem insistent on a toxic side track. That in itself speaks volumes

    A better way to describe what generally happens on this site is that distraction or diversion affirms the point being presented. Otherwise they would offer well reasoned responses.

    As such nearly all anti ID commenters actually affirm your position. They are by a lack of coherent responses “the dog barking in the night.”

    The tactic is then to demand one answer their inane comments.

  155. 155
  156. 156
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, I have already noted on the balance on actual merits. However it is now further along than that. We are dealing with driving forces and power plays, not reason. Otherwise, we would not be here. KF

  157. 157
    Viola Lee says:

    All KF, all the time. If he doesn’t like what people want to discuss, you’re cancelled.

    We’ve offered a variety of specific issues for KF to apply all his philosophical rhetoric, some of which, such as divorce, are relatively tame, but he won’t do it, because he can’t. We all think we are using right reason, are dedicated to truth, and all the other principles he exhorts us to accept as first principles, but we still disagree on specific situations. To KF there is no gap between those principles and what he himself believes to be the proper stance. He is the authority, and everyone else is deficient.

    Go ahead and [snip], KF. Your true character is on display.

  158. 158
    jerry says:

    Your true character is on display

    Revealing comment.

  159. 159
    Bob O'H says:

    Hm. We are clearly in an age of reversion to oligarchic domination and lockout of dissent.

  160. 160
    jerry says:

    We are clearly in an age of reversion to oligarchic domination and lockout of disse

    That describes what is currently happening in the US. What Google, Apple and Amazon did was chilling. Also, three prominent conservative opinion leaders were told to shut up about the elections or face cancellation from their broadcasts.

    Whether successful or not is not determined at this time.

    My guess is the left are trying to provoke a reaction so they can justify their oppressive actions. That seems to be the strategy of the left.

    Hypocrisy is not something that bothers the left.

    While Democratic politicians and the corporate media blamed President Donald Trump for the mob riot at the Capitol on Wednesday, saying his rhetoric incited violence, many of these same lawmakers and bureaucrats have for years called for violence and physical action against those who believe differently than they do.

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/08/10-times-democrats-urged-violence-against-trump-and-his-supporters/#.X_yH-NxCTt0.twitter

  161. 161
    jerry says:

    Here is how one commentator who expects to be censured is reacting

    When I get cancelled from other social media, which seems likely, I’ll be at http://scottadams.locals.com where I will be protected by a subscription business model.

    Reacting to this tweet

    Scotty its obviously your turn in due time, where is another medium we can keep up woth your thoughts ideas and streams?

    My guess is that the left will go after this alternative too. And we will have people cheering approval as they denounce reactions to their disingenuous comments as attempts to censure.

    Here’s an assessment of how the left will frame it.

    Everything will be now categorized as a domestic terrorism

    Assessment. True.

    2019: Courts ruled Trump was not allowed to block critics on Twitter because it was “unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.”

    2021: Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Snapchat & Discord are given carte blanche to discriminate away

  162. 162
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, I have shown the baseline principle. In trying a personal attack you managed only to cry quarrelsomely and on a strawman caricature, unfair. That shows yet again pervasiveness which you wish to deny by trying to drag discussion down into the sewer. As you know, we had a whole discussion on the topic you seem obsessed over already. The upshot is simple, the radical relativism required to push such fails. There is enough long since to see that you cannot substantially overthrow the main point as every time you try you appeal to what you would overthrow. And no, I am not going to surrender every thread to toxic, repulsive distractions — that would be to grant an open season to trollery. It’s not hard to figure that out; it is certainly not that I cannot point to first references for the genuinely perplexed (e.g. 1, 2, 3), it is that there are other, more wholesome subjects and cases and that the point has long since been made; save, to those clinging to hyperskeptical dismissals. KF

  163. 163
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H, I am sure you would not tolerate repeated tangential distractions in a Statistics seminar, particularly on toxic subjects. KF

  164. 164
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus,

    I couldn’t help but notice that the same people who feel that free speech should not be untrammeled have been objecting when they are snipped due to toxic digressions or attacks. Personally, I’m generally in favor of the right to ignore vacuous and inflammatory off-topic comments. But I can also see a problem with this conversation being flooded by trolls, so I understand limiting comments that are clearly off topic. You might consider simply adding an Off Topic label to those comments so we can blow past them. Responses to Off Topic comments (taking the bait) are also Off Topic. Just a thought.

    Your reply to my much earlier comment is applicable here:

    . . . when we are weak, we demand freedom per your values; once we hold power we suppress your freedom per our vision of utopia. This is where reigns of terror so consistently come from.

    I think the ratchet principle was noted by Jesus when he accused the religious oligarchy of his time as constantly “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.”

    The OP was on the camel level while many of the objections are, by comparison, gnats in our faces.

    -Q

  165. 165
    jerry says:

    I am sure you would not tolerate repeated tangential distractions in a Statistics seminar, particularly on toxic subjects

    Kf,

    Take this as a badge of honor. They are coming after you personally when you are trying to do the right thing. They are uniformly disingenuous. You should not try to answer each of their specious and supercilious objections. You will not change one of their minds. They are not here to learn or have an honest conversation.

    But I do have one suggestion. Try to be more succinct.

    I mostly do not read what you post because they are too long and too dense and too cryptic. So it’s hard to know exactly what you are referring to a lot of the time. When I do read them they are full of interesting ideas but it takes awhile to understand what is being said or advocated.

    Responses to Off Topic comments (taking the bait) are also Off Topic.

    I have advocated that an off Topic thread be created periodically as a place to move these comments. If one wants to cut out offensive material such as calling people names or advocating harm, I would agree to that as the only form of censorship.

  166. 166
    Viola Lee says:

    So what is “on-topic” in this thread? The OP addresses three topics. First it discusses some political ideas. Then it discusses “right reason”. Then it discusses the nature of math. The right reason part includes this, which ideas are repeated continually throughout the thread:

    Accordingly, the first substantial issue is inescapable first duties of reason; which also happen to be pivotal to sound framing of law and government as well as opening the door to understanding roots of reality in a world with significantly free, rational, responsible, morally governed creatures — arguably, including us:

    FIRST DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE REASON

    We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. “Inescapable,” as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Namely, duties,

    1 – to truth,

    2 – to right reason,

    3 – to prudence,

    4 – to sound conscience,

    5 – to neighbour; so also,

    6 – to fairness and

    7 – justice

    I accept those. I, however, claim that there is no effective method, as there is in math, for starting with those principles and reaching consensus about specific moral and other issues. People who accept those seven duties nevertheless do not agree about various specific issues.

    I am asking KF to move from the abstract to the specific: to, using a specific issue, explain his understanding of why people following the seven duties reach different conclusions, and what to do about that.

    How is that off-topic?

  167. 167
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, that’s funny, I just was on the line to someone in another Caribbean territory articulating just those principles to matters of policy and legislation, political power moves and the like — towards sorely needed national renewal, reformation and transformation that takes a leaf out of the Foxfire initiative since the 1960’s. The point is, the inescapable first duties of reason are pervasive in and govern reason. Truth, accuracy to reality, is foundational to soundness in policy. Respecting distinct identity and corollaries such as LNC and LEM etc and canons of inductive reasoning [esp. abductive] are key too. Then, prudence is the studied, habitual application of right reason to right action, steering one’s life and one’s state alike. This includes, need to warrant claimed facts and knowledge. Justice, is on due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, which addresses the prime duty of the state; start with the right to life, the first right, without which there are no other rights. Of course, specific facts, circumstances, alternatives, historical cases, ethical considerations, etc all come in, there is no short cut out of doing homework, but on years of policy analysis, I know these principles and duties are indeed pivotal. What it took me some time to see is that as they are inescapable, they are inescapably true and self evident, antecedent to deductive proofs. So, no, for cause I don’t buy your attempted dismissal. And, there were cases above, just there is no need to obsessively drag through the drearily disgusting and distractive. KF

    PS: How many times do I have to point out that the Math core is there as showing on distinct identity how we establish universality and certainty of a core of math, a body of knowledge on world framing abstracta? That these are necessary, eternal beings, raising logic of being? And more? Clearly, you are unwilling to acknowledge what this does to relativism and subjectivism about knowledge etc.

  168. 168
    Viola Lee says:

    KF, I didn’t dismiss anything. I accept the “right reason” principles. I understand your arguments about math and it’s relation to core principles that must underlie the world.

    What I am pointing out is that two people can accept all that and still disagree about specific issues. Is that what you are referring to as “relativism and subjectivism”? If so, do you mean that in any situation there is one right way to look at things, by the person who is properly using right reason, and everyone else is wrong?

    Please explain.

    And if I am dismissing something, please explain what I am dismissing?

  169. 169
    JVL says:

    Viola Lee:

    Well done on posts 157 and 166. Hopefully this won’t also get snipped.

  170. 170
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Viola Lee and JVL, I think the problem is that Kairosfocus honestly believes that anyone who has a different opinion than him, whether it be SSM, divorce, abortion, premarital sex or dogs and cats living together, must have derived their conclusions from faulty principles of right reason. The problem is not that he may think that those who disagree with him might suffer from faulty reasoning, but that he is incapable of admitting that he might suffer from faulty reasoning.

  171. 171
    Viola Lee says:

    Those are good points, Steve. However, I think I would argue that right reason is a necessary but not sufficient means of reaching conclusions about the types of issues we are discussing. Therefore, different people, reasoning well, come to different conclusions. KF calls this relativism and subjectivism., and considers it anathema. But the only alternative is to claim that right reason, properly used, will always lead to the one correct perspective. That is the claim I’m asking him to defend by applying it to a test case.

    JVL has suggested divorce as a good issue. To make it clear, I’m not suggesting that deciding whether divorce is or isn’t morally right is the issue. I want to talk about the meta-issue of how the principles of right reason can be used to determine an objective position on divorce: one that all people, if they used right reason properly, would agree on.

  172. 172
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Viola Lee “ Therefore, different people, reasoning well, come to different conclusions

    I agree. The differences arise from differences in foundational underpinnings of what we see as the ideal society. I suspect that you and I see the ideal society as being one that is accepting of differences as long as these differences do not cause harm to others. However, I think that Kairosfocus’ ideal society is one that conforms to a very limited assemblage of possible life styles, all others being “toxic”.

    Given the different perspectives of what we perceive as the ideal society, it is possible for two people to use “right reason” and arrive at two very different conclusions such as 1) SSM being morally acceptable and 2) SSM being a perversion.

  173. 173
    Viola Lee says:

    Just for the record, “right reason” doesn’t just include reasoning correctly. It includes the duty to consider [I condense KF’s list] “truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour; so also, fairness, and justice.” I just wanted to make it clear that I understand that there is a constellation of qualities that together constitute this umbrella idea of “right reason.”

  174. 174
    vividbleau says:

    Doesn’t right reason depend on your reasoning being right?

    Vivid

  175. 175
    Viola Lee says:

    Yes.

  176. 176
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Violet Lee@173, very good points. But I think you will agree that many differences start with disagreements about truth. From there, right reason, prudence etc will tend to fall into line. For example, the issue of SSM balances on whether or not homosexuality is a “choice” or not. If it is a choice then right reason, prudence, etc will probably lead to the conclusion that it is better for all if this choice is not made. However, if it is not a choice then right reason, prudence etc will likely lead to a different conclusion.

    But to avoid the toxic distraction accusation, we could say the same thing about divorce, abortion and any number moral decisions for which there is significant disagreement. For example, the abortion issue revolves around whether or not you think the rights of a fertilized egg are equal to those of the pregnant woman. The foundation of our views on abortion are based on what we think the truth of this is.

  177. 177
    Viola Lee says:

    Yes, truth is critical. However, there is a difference between purely factual truth, such as perhaps x% of couples who marry get divorced, and other kinds of truth about less concrete things involved in values, principles, moral standards, opinions, interpretations of data, etc.

  178. 178
    mike1962 says:

    Steve Alten2: For example, the abortion issue revolves around whether or not you think the rights of a fertilized egg are equal to those of the pregnant woman.

    Well, no, that particular example is more complicated than that. A five month old fetus that has a heartbeat, brainwaves and can suck its thumb is not merely a fertilized egg.

  179. 179
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2 {& VL], there you go with relativism and personalisation as a fallacious habit again. The issue is warrant thus objectivity, not personality, not faction power struggles, not feelings, not some corrupt power structure or other. Apparently, it has never occurred, to relativists, that views or even conclusions . . . inevitably, morally tinged as first duties obtain inescapably . . . can be held on grounds of warrant per due diligence; no need to actually sort out from first principles and correct crooked yardsticks then. The issue is, how is reason governed, the answer is, inescapably — so, universally and self-evidently [to try to deny is instantly absurdly self-refuting] — by first duties. Failure to fulfill first duties is not a personalities clash on opinions. Nor, is fulfilling such duties in a real world situation simplistic, e.g. prudence is a virtue built up through sustained effort and experience. Skill in right reasoning on principles requires diligence. Understanding the significance of duty to neighbour thus fairness and justice, requires the same. Understanding the span from individual to institution, community, state and world is a civilisational project of centuries of effort, currently being widely disregarded in pursuit of dubious novelties that cannot pass even distinct identity. Similarly, the historic natural law view does not commit the fallacy of imagining that law is whatever those controlling legal presses issue, but articulates law to the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Bearing in mind that there can be no right to compel another to do or uphold one in a wrong . . . cf., why intimidation and censorship are now being resorted to to try to shore up a broken, bankrupt election process of low to no credibility. And much more. KF

  180. 180
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Thomas Sowell on duty to truth in an age of indoctrination, thus crooked yardsticks:

    https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/irrelevance-truth-age-indoctrination/

    The irrelevance of truth in an age of indoctrination
    Thomas Sowell: For many people, what is true or false depends on who it helps or hurts politically
    Thomas Sowell By Thomas Sowell
    Published January 12, 2021 at 7:14pm

    It is amazing how many people seem to have discovered last Wednesday that riots are wrong – when many of those same people apparently had not noticed that when riots went on, for weeks or even months, in various cities across the country last year. [–> incoherence, violation of LNC, inevitably false, also a double standard, unjust and unfair, also, projection from fringe to any connected in remotest degree so slanderous accusation, censorship, persecution . . . cf. here]

    For too many people, especially in the media, what is right and wrong, true or false, depends on who it helps or hurts politically. [–> moral incoherence, fairness and justice] Too many media people who are supposed to be reporters act as if they are combatants in political wars. [–> a 4g war is in progress]

    Someone once said that, in a war, truth is the first casualty. That has certainly been so in the media – and in much of academia as well. [–> truth]

    One of the most grotesque distortions growing out of this carelessness with the facts [–> truth, he is euphemistic to be charitable, neighbour] has been a removal of Abraham Lincoln’s name and statues from various places, on grounds that he saw black people only as property. [–> points to falsity and anti-civilisation consequences]

    Such criticisms betray an incredible ignorance of history – or else a complete disregard of truth. [–> to lie . . . ]

    As a lawyer, Abraham Lincoln knew that there was nothing in the Constitution which authorized him or any other president to free slaves. [–> diligence to facts] But he also knew that a military commander in wartime can legally seize the property of an enemy nation. Defining slaves as property gave President Lincoln the only legal authority he had to seize them during the Civil War. And once they were seized as property, he could then free them as human beings.

    But, if the Emancipation Proclamation had based its action on defining the slaves as human beings, with a right to be free, the Supreme Court of that era would undoubtedly have declared it unconstitutional. [–> fair comment on say Dred Scott]

    Millions of human beings would have remained slaves. Would ringing rhetoric be worth that price?

    As for the claim that Lincoln did not regard black people as human, he invited Frederick Douglass to the White House!

    Gross distortions of history in order to get Abraham Lincoln’s name removed from schools tell us a lot about what is wrong with American education today . . .

    Yet another concrete example.

  181. 181
    kairosfocus says:

    VL (attn SA2): principles of right reason are in themselves a study, indeed an academic sub-discipline, logic; one of the core aspects of philosophy. However, they are inert, they are abstract, it is duty to follow such principles which activates. Similarly, there are other first duties of responsible reason, of similar weight and antecedence to reasoning, deciding, discussing, acting. Duty, to truth, accurate description of reality. Duty to prudence, right reason diligently and habitually applied to sound, right action . . . including, warranting claims. Duty to justice, duly balancing rights, freedoms, responsibilities . . . including recognising that no one has a right to compel another to do or to support evil (i.e. rights and freedoms claims must be limited by mutual consistency). And much more, I am actually astonished to have to specifically point this out and to have to repeat it. KF

    PS: Someone suggested that it was unjust to not permit women to run in marathon races, until the ’70’s. The obvious issue is, it would have been in doubt that it was sufficiently safe and organisers would have been liable per negligence were something to go wrong for even a few women admitted to run. I suspect, that view was modified at the time, the issue would have been why and what happened to the legal liabilities as opposed to politics and slanted reporting.

  182. 182
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 179 –

    The issue is warrant thus objectivity, not personality, not faction power struggles, not feelings, not some corrupt power structure or other.

    But VL & SA2 are discussing this – if people are (as they think they are) being objective how can they reach different conclusions? Is it because they are not being objective in how they apply abstract principles of right reason? Or are they being objective but using secondary principles and opinions? Or are they mistaken about facts?

  183. 183
    kairosfocus says:

    VL (attn, JVL):

    >>We’ve offered a variety of specific issues for KF to apply all his philosophical rhetoric, some of which, such as divorce, are relatively tame, but he won’t do it, because he can’t. >>

    – irresponsible mischaracterisation and accusatory inference

    – there is no obligation on my part to engage any and all tangents on yours [particularly toxic ones], I have warranted that first principles and duties of reason are inescapable and so inescapably true and self-evident.

    – this means, universally present and applicable, per undeniable warrant. The suggestion that I cannot apply is then a personality, in effect a demand to follow tangents on pain of being belittled. Such is rude and dishonest.

    – Weeks ago, divorce actually came up in another discussion, one where the distortion of the sexes and marriage was discussed. Christians were accused, as usual. I took time to point to Christian endorsement of core natural law and to apply a case of Dominical natural law reasoning, which applies to both divorce and to recognition of the naturally evident creation order for marriage, coeval with our humanity.

    – Fair comment, those who are busily trying to pretend to power to change things inextricably entangled with our core creation order will only succeed in creating chaos, directly and indirectly. But, as Plato warned in the Ship of State parable, factions are factions.

    – Of course, that was “narrow[-minded]” etc as it did not fit with fashionable agendas. The fashionable agendas and linked notions are wrong and chaotic. For cause, but I have no need to go haring off on yet another tangent.

    – There are sufficient examples in thread that any reasonably informed person willing to see relevance can apply.

    >>To KF there is no gap between those principles and what he himself believes to be the proper stance. He is the authority, and everyone else is deficient.>>

    – utterly needless, deliberately polarising slanderous projection, in obvious cause of evading the significance and applicability of first duties through throwing up a toxic cloud of distractions. Sad.

    – disagreements are real, and often trace to accepting as facts or truths things that are not.

    – In my observation, that literally starts with first duties of reason and first principles of reason as topics for first duties. It seems to extend now to rejecting or distorting or evading the means by which first duties and principles should shape our reflection, analysis and policy-making.

    – further to such, I have often spoken to how crooked yardsticks, key fallacious claims, notions, misconceptions and false principles, can and do so warp judgement that what is sound will be dismissed for failure to conform with crookedness. To address such requires naturally straight and upright plumb lines, self-evident first truths. Which is part of why the OP was put up and it is why a main example is core mathematics. There is a plumb line in the house.

    – I observed that in key cases, not even a plumb line will be accepted. It seems, we have such a case.

    – Further, as someone who has worked with sustainability, I have seen that many errors in policy are tied to poor assessment of risks and uncertainties. Sometimes, we can warrant knowledge on ignorance enough to have a probability distribution estimate. In others, we don’t know enough to quantify.

    – Heaven help us, in some cases we face Mr Rumfeld’s unknown unknowns; we don’t even know that or where gaps are. So, in those cases a scenario based exploration of possibilities and alternatives can at least equip us with flexibility to face radical uncertainty. And that might not be enough.

    – Notice, refusal to recognise that I just might have relevant background and knowledge, as in warranted, credibly true and tested, reliable belief in a body accessible to decision-makers, so I am not merely exerting a demand to power and blind trust in personal say so. This, is belittling and unwarranted ad hominem, to dismiss a case that obviousl;y is resented but cannot be answered cogently by objectors.

    – Notice, again, I went all the way back to self-evident first principles and gave as a first case something decisive against relativism, subjectivism, emotivism, etc. Core Mathematics and why it is UNIVERSALLY applicable across actuality and possibility . . . answering Wigner’s challenge. A significant result.

    – Further, notice, several further cases have been given, giving the lie to claims or insinuations that such cannot be articulated to concrete, relevant situations. Just, having already entertained certain toxic and disgusting distractors, I will not go there again.

    – nor, do I concede that trollish disruptive side tracking is a right. Fair warning having been given, rudely ignored, I took disciplinary measures to keep on track. Only to be slandered.

    – the upshot is clear, the main point of the OP is established and we see some of why Plato’s Socrates described ruinous factions as he did.

    KF

  184. 184
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Plato’s Ship of State:

    It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.)

    Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:

    >>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures.

    Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it]

    The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27].

    Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.

    Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?

    [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus.

    [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ –> here we see Plato’s philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already.

    [Ad.] Certainly.

    [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.

    [Ad.] I will.

    [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [–> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ –> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.

    [Ad.] Precisely so, he said.

    [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [–> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [–> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical].

    [Ad.] Yes.

    [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained?

    [Ad.] True.

    [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [–> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other?

    [Ad.] By all means.

    [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ — > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ –> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [–> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>

    (There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)

  185. 185
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: different conclusions are often shaped by different worldviews and cultural agendas, secondary level values and fact claims in conflict, conflicting claims to power or resources, gaps in understanding, failure to do due diligence to first duties (including refusal to acknowledge them and/or how they articulate to cases), wrong facts, fallacies, polarised emotions and any number of other reasons. A study of history provides all too abundant demonstration that we are finite, fallible, too often ignorant and ignorant of ignorance, morally struggling, stubborn, ill-willed, sometimes outright incompetent and worse. As you know and as we all know. None of this undermines the inescapability of first duties of reason, thus inescapable self-evident truth and pervasive presence in all cases of argument etc. Even the problem of lying acknowledges just how important and valuable truth is. KF

  186. 186
    Bob O'H says:

    kf – OK, so we all agree that, in practice, there are lots of reasons people don’t adhere to the “inescapable first duties of reason”. But is it also possible that different people can adhere to these duties and come to different conclsions?

  187. 187
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Fair comment, those who are busily trying to pretend to power to change things inextricably entangled with our core creation order will only succeed in creating chaos, directly and indirectly. But, as Plato warned in the Ship of State parable, factions are factions.

    I take this to mean, even though you don’t state it as such, that men are men, women are women and they have been divinely designed to stay in their positions, no fiddling about with changing your gender or your non-reproductive coupling. Personal happiness and well-being is not the point.

    Of course, that was “narrow[-minded]” etc as it did not fit with fashionable agendas. The fashionable agendas and linked notions are wrong and chaotic. For cause, but I have no need to go haring off on yet another tangent.

    Same-sex marriage is wrong. Period. Gender-reassignment surgery is wrong. Period. No compromise, no discussion.

    disagreements are real, and often trace to accepting as facts or truths things that are not.

    So, it’s not really about reasoning is it? It’s about what you think are facts. And if you’re wrong about any of those facts . . . then you might be wrong about your conclusions.

    nor, do I concede that trollish disruptive side tracking is a right. Fair warning having been given, rudely ignored, I took disciplinary measures to keep on track. Only to be slandered.

    Our questions are reasonable and current topics that a lot of people are dealing/struggling with. Advice or suggestions on how to proceed on those topics might be quite helpful in reducing conflict and coming to a compromise. That’s why we’re interested in your views. But some things you just won’t talk about and your only response is: first principles and good reasoning. But you won’t say specifically how your first principles apply; i.e. which first principle(s) are pertinent and being violated.

  188. 188

    Okay, since JVL and VL are so bad it this, I’ll take their side.

    KF argues on “natural law” grounds. You cannot argue on such grounds until you make the “natural law” case. IOW, just because human biology, short of cloning science, requires a man and a woman to procreate, so what? What difference does that make? Humans have imagined themselves past all sorts of natural limitations and have succeeded in doing so by using their imagination to develop all sorts of technologies and capacities that have moved them far beyond prior, natural restrictions of opportunity.

    Just because some things have been social norms doesn’t make those social norms “right,” even if those social norms are based on natural law. We live in a world where predation is a natural law; does that make the predation of the strong over the weak a “natural law” we should adhere to?

    One may argue that our duty to first principles, reason and moral duty supersede a natural law, such as predation. I assume this is from the moral obligation perspective, but this requires the elevation of the mental above the physical. Once you do that, “same sex marriage” is regulated to a mental/moral exercise, not a physical-limitation “natural law” argument. What then is the moral objection to same-sex marriage?

    You cannot have it both ways. If predation (will to power, the strong over the weak, slavery,) is wrong on moral grounds, explain why. Explain why same-sex marriage is wrong on moral grounds. You can’t use the physical world to explain why something is immoral.

    The only answer is to refer to objective morality; which is a purely mental arena. IOW, might makes right can only be wrong if there is an objective morality that says so. Same sex marriage can only be wrong if there is an objective morality that says so. They cannot be argued to be wrong on a biological, socio-historical or natural-world basis.

    As far as I can tell, there is no rational, moral argument against same-sex marriage that doesn’t require referral to some revelatory religious information, or picking and choosing which “natural laws” we’re going to endorse and which ones we are going to condemn.

    Also, I repeat: you cannot get “civilization” right if it is built on an entirely erroneous concept of reality and the nature of our existence. You can’t even know what a “right” or “morality” or “free will” or “responsibility” is until you get reality and existence right.

  189. 189
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H:

    >>OK, so we all agree that, in practice, there are lots of reasons people don’t adhere to the “inescapable first duties of reason”.>>

    – this is vital, consistent right reason soundly, habitually applied to right — including morally sound — practice is hard.

    – agreement is crucial, and requires recognition that the self-evident first duties properly frame and can and do guide and correct thought, reasoning, argument, decision and action, all tied to warrant and discernment.

    >> But is it also possible that different people can adhere to these duties and come to different conclsions?>>

    – there are many things that are clear enough that we can trace disagreement to errors, gaps etc.

    – I have already highlighted issues of risk and uncertainty, which requires the prudence of managing same, knowledge of specific risks and uncertainties and of general possibilities such as unknown unknowns are themselves relevant knowledge of warranted truths. Where, one of the fallacies as you know is refusal to acknowledge objective warrant and resulting reliable albeit open ended weak sense knowledge.

    – beyond lies utter universal absolute reality and the issue of One who knows beyond all limitations we face. We might be well advised to seek his inherently good, utterly wise counsel. But that is just a reminder on the inherent humility in theism: we know in part, we see through a glass darkly . . . words that seem to be forgotten by too many objectors.

    – that said, I do not believe this is the material problem in this thread. In that sense it is a tilting after a strawman. For, we are dealing with first duties of reason that are inescapable, so inescapably true, that are thus self evidently true. Further, that as inescapable are inherent in every significant rational act from perception and thought to debate, decision and action; where acknowledgement of duty, relevance and abundant means of articulation is an obvious further duty.

    – there is no warrant on this matter to speak or suggest as though I were some would be autocratic tyrant imposing his will so that to disagree with me is to be wrong by virtue of mere disagreement. That is in fact rude and slanderous, it should not have been done, it should be retracted but on track record that is unlikely.

    – the point of tangent towards distraction has been repeated insistence on injecting toxic distractors and linked loaded insinuations which then build up into outright accusations. That is wrong.

    – I find it almost amusing but then sad to note that a day ago, I laid on the table a graphically structured model of how jacobins descend into reigns of terror so consistently, tied to the theme of the OP and using a modified Overton Window analysis with an alternative political spectrum, which is immediately relevant. I know this to be significant and widely relevant, not just to current events — it is application of the first duties framework. Was that acknowledged as a case showing utility, no, too busy trying to belittle. That speaks.

    KF

  190. 190

    Let’s move on to a more fundamental problem that exists with KF’s (and others) argument: they assume a premise for all of it that is inescapably, provably wrong: that we all live in an objective, exterior reality, where our actions can interfere with, intervene on, and willfully affect the experience of others, giving us the moral obligation to think and behave in a manner that is observant of this existential situation. And, that there are not only universal moral rules, but those moral rules are enforced by an existential arrangement that naturally delivers outcomes based on ones moral behaviors and free will choices whether they agree to those outcomes or not.

    If that premise is flawed (and it unmistakably is,) then all that issues forth is flawed, the fruit of a rotten tree.

  191. 191

    The first duty of reason is, necessarily, to understand and accept the nature of reality and existence. Until you get that right, you’re running around blindly and saying things that have zero foundational merit.

  192. 192
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you continue a campaign of toxic tangents and unfounded accusations. That speaks. That you seem to find it hard to acknowledge the obvious genetically stamped nature of men and women, linked biology of reproduction and import for family, child nurture and sustainable society also speaks. All I will say is that no assertion of rights and freedoms that then tries to impose on others that they deny such basic truths of distinct identity reflecting core characteristics as that men and women are both human and are the two complementary sexes is an attempt to impose deceit and subjugation under falsehood using false colours of rights and law. The implications for rise of tyranny are blatant i/l/o the adapted Overton Window model I put up yesterday,in the OP. Specifically, the breakdown of the BATNA that blocks a slippery slope slide into lawless ideological oligarchy . . . lawless oligarchy being the “natural” state of corrupt society, requiring conscious reforms to lift then keep out of such . . . is a menace to civilisation. Do I need to say again that Jacobinism is misanthropic, anticivilisational and ruinous? KF

    PS: Similarly, poverty at subsistence level with famines and plagues dominated by robber barons or outright brigands is the natural economic state. To create and sustain growing, widely distributed relative prosperity requires considerable effort tied directly to sound, lawful government that guards the civil peace of justice. That is also in the stakes.

  193. 193
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, yes that is why the first duty in the list is truth. KF

  194. 194

    KF,

    There are many truths, KF. The FIRST duty is understanding accepting the truth about the nature of reality and existence. Absent that, you’re starting in the middle. That’s probably enough for people like JVL and VL who aren’t equipped to understand that you’re starting in the middle with these arguments.

    But I see what you’re doing. Until you start at the beginning, you’re just taking advantage of their inability to understanding you’re sitting on a branch, the tree of which is being assumed and not addressed.

  195. 195
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, no, there is good reason to accept that we live in the world our senses tell us it there. The same reason that leads us to reject Plato’s Cave type cosmologies. let me add, though that Plato’s Cave allows us to discuss the way a society can be manipulated — who is running that puppet show and who is running the prison — into accepting crooked ideological yardsticks as though they were sound, then denizens will be induced to attack what is sound, of course the end result is disaster. KF

  196. 196

    KF said:

    WJM, no, there is good reason to accept that we live in the world our senses tell us it there.

    There are good reasons for believing all sorts of things that are not true. You’ll have to do better than that.

    The idea that we are experiencing an external, objective physical world is, as I have demonstrated via inescapable logic, a hypothesis that cannot even gather evidence to support it. It’s literally impossible to gather evidence to support that hypothesis.

    The branch you are sitting on for all your “right reason” and “moral” arguments is pure, unsupported faith, attached to an imagined tree that cannot ever be evidenced, even in principle.

  197. 197
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Mike1962 “Well, no, that particular example is more complicated than that. A five month old fetus that has a heartbeat, brainwaves and can suck its thumb is not merely a fertilized egg.

    No argument there. But it still comes down to when the right to life begins, and whether it is absolute at every stage of development or incremental. That is where the disagreements begin, and both sides believe that they are using all of Karirosfocus’ fundamentals to draw their conclusions. Obviously both sides can’t be right, but Kairosfocus’ procedure for determining this doesn’t work in this respect, or in most respects as it is possible for two people to draw very different conclusions from the exact same data.

  198. 198
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I have added to the OP the issue of the crooked yardstick and an animated narration of the parable of the cave. resemblance to current events i/l/o the adapted overton window model is NOT a coincidence. KF

  199. 199

    There is no “right” to life, because life is not what most think it is. Life is inextinguishable and eternal. Nobody can stop or interfere in that regardless of what they do. A physical body is not “life.”

  200. 200
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, consider the freshly fertilised ovum in the Fallopian Tubes. Already, 1/2 the time it is not even the same sex as his mother. The life is unmistakeably human, and it only requires naturally provided context to implant, grow and be born then nurtured. Why is it even remotely considered that such is in effect a parasite [as some rhetoric has suggested] or is not worthy of protection as a member of the human race? Mainly, yes, MAINLY, because it may be inconvenient, it is as yet immature and unable to speak for itself, it is vulnerable and it is so easily killed. The erosion of the BATNA of lawfulness in our civilisation started just there, leading to erosion of so much more then to the holocaust of the unborn and now we can see the leading country in our civilisation sliding into the vortex of tyranny — just as Schaeffer and Koop warned. A lesson. KF

  201. 201
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, if your view leads you to deny the right to life, it is fatally flawed. KF

  202. 202

    KF @201,

    Saying it isn’t showing it.

  203. 203
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, the good reasons, as long as they are good, define a responsible view. If there emerges a flaw then the reasons lose warrant. In the case of taking the general sense of a common world independent of our minds, there is a world of reasons to accept and there is every good reason to reject what leads to the inference of grand delusion as we cannot even accept that verdict for our own rationality is bound up in the collapse. More can be said. KF

  204. 204

    Here’s what I have done that you have not, KF: I have followed right reason to accept inescapable facts about the nature of reality and existence. You have not. My reason flows from a solid, inescapable, provable, necessarily-true, SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUE foundation. Yours does not.

    You can either argue the most fundamental thing all else must begin with, or continue to avoid it.

  205. 205
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, you just denied it. Life as first, gateway right is mirror image of the premise, that we must not shed innocent blood, one of the gravest of crimes. KF

    PS: Yes, I have cause to accept that the world is rooted in and sustained by eternal necessary ultimate mind but that does not lead to reducing it to a figment. Neither the minds of others.

  206. 206

    KF said:

    WJM, the good reasons, as long as they are good, define a responsible view. If there emerges a flaw then the reasons lose warrant. In the case of taking the general sense of a common world independent of our minds, there is a world of reasons to accept and there is every good reason to reject what leads to the inference of grand delusion as we cannot even accept that verdict for our own rationality is bound up in the collapse. More can be said. KF

    I’ve addressed that and shown your objections to be unfounded. You refused to debate it in that thread, saying you would address it at a later date. It’s been months.

    Continue to avoid it if you want, but until you do, your position is inescapably, self-evidently false, and all your talk about moral duty and right reason flows from a nonexistent root.

  207. 207

    KF said:

    lWJM, you just denied it. Life as first, gateway right is mirror image of the premise, that we must not shed innocent blood, one of the gravest of crimes. KF

    As I said, until you address the foundation, nothing you say matters. You’re just extending from an unsupported foundation.

  208. 208

    The “right to life” is based on the idea that “life” is a physical body participating in an external, physical world. This is an erroneous perspective.

  209. 209
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, you can see what has been going on across those months. Right now, a coup is in progress as we speak, cheered on by the establishment. A Jacobin coup, they don’t realise who first get themselves that 4 am visit and trip to Kangaroo court then gulag. The matters you raise are on worldview alternatives with need to go to comparative difficulties, that, again, I must defer. And I repeat, there is reason to see that we do not live in a Plato’s Cave world, which I am here just outlining for those who may be puzzled. KF

    PS: Life does not reduce to biochemistry and embodiment, as independence and freedom required to be rational point to. However, the same evidence strongly points to embodiment also.

  210. 210
    Viola Lee says:

    Well, my attempt to gain some clarity, as nicely summarized by Bob at 186, just got drowned out both by KF being unable to accurately focus on an issue and WJM wanting to bring his reality theory into the discussion. This appears to be hopeless. I’ll try to find other things to do with my spare internet time today.

  211. 211
    jerry says:

    which I am here just outlining for those who may be puzzled.

    Kf

    As I said above, I am sure I agree with most of what you are saying. Given that, your ways of expression are confusing. You use code and cryptic expressions that I and I assume others have difficulty understanding.

    As an example you quote Thomas Sowell who I consider one of the best writers if not the best writer/thinker of our times. When you comment on his comments it is less clear what you mean but crystal clear what he is saying.

    Keep up the good fight against relativism that we have here and most definitely in our society. But a lot of the problems here flow from just how you are saying something.

  212. 212

    I thought this thread was about how civilization moves forward. How civilization moves forward is entirely dependent on worldview because it defines the parameters and options going forward. You want to start in the middle without having to defend your premise.

    I mean, it’s your thread. You get to make the decisions here, but let’s not fool ourselves. You’re assuming your worldview is the best one to move forward under. In fact, you’re assuming it’s the only one we can move forward under. IMO, your worldview is inherently self-defeating. All you’re going to do even if you succeed is start the cyclic pattern over.

    Which isn’t a problem for me; that’s probably the design of this “world.” I just refuse to participate in an endless cycle of right vs wrong and good vs evil. I have other options that are far less limiting and far more enjoyable.

    But I admit, watching others play out the roles of heroes and villains is pretty darn entertaining while I’m here. This is a fantastic storyline, one I’m very glad I’m still here to enjoy.

  213. 213
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Now that YouTube has joined the pile on, it is time to ponder the SJW attack/ high tech lynch mob tactics and survival.

    First, scroll up and ponder the U/D’s on the slide to tyranny and the action of crooked yardsticks. These of course are subject to correction through the first duties of responsible reason but that is the point, we are precisely dealing with a widespread breakdown of responsibility, backed by ruthless nihilistic will to power.

    Okay, clip:

    http://www.milobookclub.com/ma....._Guide.pdf

    >>SJW ATTACK SURVIVAL GUIDE

    This survival guide is intended for the use of the individual who finds himself under attack by Social Justice Warriors for standing up against them and their ever-mutating Narrative. It may be freely distributed so long as it is correctly credited to SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day.

    The eight stages of the SJW attack sequence are as follows:

    1. Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative.
    2. Point and Shriek.
    3. Isolate and Swarm.
    4. Reject and Transform.
    5. Press for Surrender.
    6. Appeal to Amenable Authority.
    7. Show Trial.
    8. Victory Parade.

    The rest of this guide consists of the correct way to respond to an SJW attack once it has been identified, ideally at the earliest stage possible. Please note that the eight stages of response do not correspond directly to the eight stages of the SJW attack sequence.

    1. Rely on the Three Rs:

    RECOGNIZE it is happening. REMAIN calm. REALIZE no one cares.

    The first thing to do when attacked by SJWs is to recognize that you are under SJW attack, remain calm, and realize that no one else cares. You need to understand that the attack is happening, accept that is happening, and refrain from the temptation to try to make it not be happening. Do not panic! Don’t go running to others for help or sympathy, don’t try to convince everyone around you how outrageous or unfair the accusation is, and don’t explain to anyone how little you deserve the way you are being treated.

    They don’t care. They really don’t. Think about how little you cared when someone else was previously being attacked by SJWs and how little you did to support them, let alone take action to stop the attack. That’s exactly how much your colleagues and acquaintances care about you being attacked, and exactly how much they are going to do to stop it. The truth is that it doesn’t matter why SJWs are attacking you. The only thing that matters is understanding that you are under attack right now and no one else is going to do anything about it.>>

    The name of the game is to slice off the salami bit by bit until the BATNA of lawfulness is too eroded to stop the slide into lawless oligarchy. This is an existential threat to liberty, thus to life, life at holocaust scale in the end. Actually, the worst holocaust in history is already in effect. Just the onward phases may begin to roll in.

    The assault is existential and already the seven mountain institutions have revealed what aegis they want, the Jacobins. (What sort of historical ignorance and folly could lead educated people to such a choice is a serious question but for another day. We are at Pearl Harbor and immediate easy victory disease aftermath. The grim determination must be taken now, that this is for keeps, we are dealing with misanthropes and enemies of civilisation who will only stop when they are too shattered and defeated to regroup. Midway is coming.)

    Vox Day and Milo et al suggest further responses, read the pamphlet, but let us clip at least snippets. Notice, the seven first duties of reason correct the evils, but that’s the point. We are dealing with the ruthlessly unreasonable, deceitful, manipulative, bullying and unjust — for details ponder what just happened with an election, how per the McFaul colour revolution recipe and SOCOM insurgency escalator. Yes, the dismissive objectors did not want such attended to. No prizes for guessing why.

    Let’s clip again:

    >>2. Don’t try to reason with them.

    The second thing is to recognize that there is no way you are going to be able to reason your way out of the situation. Most people who come under SJW attack have the causality backwards. They think the attack is taking place due to whatever it is that they did or said. That’s not the case. The attack is taking place because of who you are and what you represent to the SJWs: a threat to their Narrative. In most cases, the SJWs attempting to discredit and disemploy you already wanted you out long ago, and they are simply using the nominal reason given as an excuse to get rid of you . . . . They will also try to isolate you and cut you off from access to any relevant authority, to the media, and to neutral parties, the better to spin the Narrative without your interference. This is why it is vital that you do not agree to any confidentiality agreements or consent to keep your mouth shut while the SJW-driven “investigation” is proceeding . . . .

    3. Do not apologize.

    The third thing to remember when undergoing an SJW-attack is to never apologize for anything you have done. I repeat: do not apologize. Do not say you are sorry if anyone’s feelings were hurt, do not express regret, remorse, or contrition, do not say anything that can be taken as an apology in any way. Just in case I am not being sufficiently clear, do not apologize!

    Normal people seek apologies because they want to know that you feel bad about what you have done and that you will at least attempt to avoid doing it again in the future. When SJWs push you for an apology after pointing-and-shrieking at you, what they are seeking is a confession to bolster their indictment. They are like the police down at the station with a suspect in the interrogation room, badgering him to confess to the crime. [The Red Guards swarm tactic] . . . .

    4. Accept your fate.

    It is psychologically much easier to survive an SJW attack if you accept early on in the process that you are probably going to lose your job or be purged from your church, your social group, or your professional organization. Remember, if the SJWs were not confident they could take you out, they would not have launched the attack in the first place. They prey upon those they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be vulnerable. Even if you survive the attack, it’s highly unlikely that your reputation will survive unscathed as there are simply too many people who are inclined to split the difference in any conflict between two parties, no matter how crazy or dishonest they know one of the parties to be. Be prepared to be disappointed by the behavior of some of the people you believe to be your friends . . . .

    5. Document their every word and action

    Most of the time, SJW purges are committed at least partially outside the organization’s established rules and forms. You may not be an expert, but some of the people following along will be. Make sure every step in the process, and every piece of communication you receive from them, is documented, critiqued, and publicized. They will pull out all the stops to hide their actions in order to avoid public criticism, and in some of the more egregious cases, ridicule. By forcing them to show their hand in public, you allow others to see and understand what they are really up to. This may not be sufficient to save yourself from the ongoing attack, but it will almost certainly strengthen your negotiating position and will also help prevent the SJWs from blithely repeating the process against you or someone else in the future.

    Whatever you do, do not agree to any gag orders or sign any confidentiality agreements that will handicap your ability to use the documentation you have acquired to prevent them from spinning a Narrative about what happened . . . .

    6. Do not resign!

    Do not resign! You must always keep in mind that their real goal is not to formally purge you, but to encourage you to quit on your own. That allows them to publicly wash their hands of the affair and claim that your decision to leave was not their fault. They will often enlist more reasonable allies to approach you and tell you that it’s not possible for you to continue any more, they will appeal to your desire to avoid conflict as well as to the good of the organization, and they will go on endlessly about the supreme importance of an amicable departure. Don’t fall for it. Don’t do their dirty work for them. Make them take the full responsibility for throwing you out, thereby ensuring they have to suffer the unpredictable long-term consequences of their actions . . . .

    7. Make the rubble bounce.

    Whether you survive the attempted purge or whether you don’t, it’s very important to observe who has defined himself as an ally, an enemy, or a neutral party during the process. The choices people make will pleasantly surprise you about as often as they disappoint you. Once everyone’s choices have been made clear, your task is simple. Target the enemy at every opportunity. Hit them wherever they show themselves vulnerable [wield the sword of justice in unyielding defence of the civil peace of justice] . . . .

    8. Start nothing, finish everything.

    Even when the initial conflict is over, the SJWs are not going to leave you alone so long as they believe you to be a potentially vulnerable threat to them. This is why you have to be prepared to continue to up the ante until they finally reach the conclusion that they cannot possibly beat you and they are better off keeping their distance . . . >>

    What we now face at civilisation scale.

    Resemblance to too tactics of too many trollish objectors here and in the penumbra of attack sites is NOT coincidental.

    Stand and fight!

    KF

  214. 214
    jerry says:

    But is it also possible that different people can adhere to these duties and come to different conclsions

    Is this true? My experience is that people reach different conclusions mainly because 1) over false information or what is true and 2) personal attitudes that must thwart what is true in order for the person to not have cognitive dissonance. In the latter attitudes prevent one from admitting the truth even if all the evidence and logic contradicts them.

    That is so clear on this web site

    Aside: Kf,

    As an example to my observations about not understanding what you write. You just posted an over 1700 word comment. No one will read it. We used to write thousand word essays in college. Going over would deduct from your grade.

  215. 215
    kairosfocus says:

    And yes, yet another case study also.

  216. 216
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, BTW, the first, self-evident duties of reason [see OP], are where natural law reasoning and jurisprudence begin from. The natural law framework uses all seven but pivots on justice, prudence, truth informed by sound reasoning on credible facts. KF

    PS: I hope we don’y have to revisit what self-evidence is, in detail. In a nutshell, self evident truths are seen as so by one who understands them i/l/o experience and enough intellectual maturity; seen as necessarily so on pain of IMMEDIATE absurdity on rejection. In this case, the objector is reduced to appealing to what he would deny, dismiss, marginalise or evade, just to have any force of persuasion. Such are not proved, they are where proving must begin.

  217. 217
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: you continue a campaign of toxic tangents and unfounded accusations. That speaks.

    You DO think same-sex marriage is wrong. Always. You DO think gender-reassignment surgery is wrong. Always. Don’t you?

    That you seem to find it hard to acknowledge the obvious genetically stamped nature of men and women, linked biology of reproduction and import for family, child nurture and sustainable society also speaks

    Many societies are getting along just fine openly allowing and discussing same-sex marriage and gender-reassignment surgery. Your premise is false.

    All I will say is that no assertion of rights and freedoms that then tries to impose on others that they deny such basic truths of distinct identity reflecting core characteristics as that men and women are both human and are the two complementary sexes is an attempt to impose deceit and subjugation under falsehood using false colours of rights and law.

    No one is imposing anything on you personally. You don’t own society; lots of people are involved and no one view can ever work for everyone. There’s no deceit, there’s no falsehood. Just people wanting to do things you don’t approve of. And why is it you don’t approve of such things?

    The implications for rise of tyranny are blatant i/l/o the adapted Overton Window model I put up yesterday,in the OP. Specifically, the breakdown of the BATNA that blocks a slippery slope slide into lawless ideological oligarchy . . . lawless oligarchy being the “natural” state of corrupt society, requiring conscious reforms to lift then keep out of such . . . is a menace to civilisation. Do I need to say again that Jacobinism is misanthropic, anticivilisational and ruinous?

    But that’s not actually happening is it? Europe is not on the verge of collapse because men are marrying men or women marrying women. Again, your premise is incorrect.

    Similarly, poverty at subsistence level with famines and plagues dominated by robber barons or outright brigands is the natural economic state. To create and sustain growing, widely distributed relative prosperity requires considerable effort tied directly to sound, lawful government that guards the civil peace of justice. That is also in the stakes.

    Likewise, the bad things you warn about are not happening, certainly not everywhere and especially the first world countries whose reforms include staying out of peoples’ own personal moral choices. We’re not at the end times. They have been predicted many, many times and they never actually arrive. They’re not going to arrive. It’s a myth. You can try and find indications it is coming as many, many people have done in the past. And they were all wrong, just like you’re going to be wrong.

    Try and live in the real world. It’s not so bad. In fact, with the exception of global climate change, it’s probably the best time to be alive. We have better medical knowledge, we have most of the world’s information at our beck and call, blacks and women have the right to vote, own property, start and run businesses, marry who they want to, get divorced, control the number of children they have.

    If you just stop fretting and let some people make some of their own moral choices which harm you not at all, you’d be happier and less stressed. Stop worrying about what other consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own homes. You expect to be treated the same way so extend that courtesy to others.

  218. 218
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:
    ]

    We are clearly in an age of reversion to oligarchic domination and lockout of dissent.

    Yes, thanks to the democrats and their minions we are on the road to totalitarian rule- or an attempt at it.

  219. 219
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, I clipped a six page pamphlet that gives crucial advice at this time. Those who TL;DR such simply make themselves more vulnerable to the Jacobins. Which, I am afraid, is exactly what they are counting on, winning the war of impressionistic headlines and slogans. KF

  220. 220
    ET says:

    JVL knows nothing of the real world. JVL lives in a fantasy, oblivious to reality. Any society which enables mental illnesses is doomed. Same-sex marriage and gender reassignment involve mental illnesses.

    Europe? If the USA was like Europe I would want a revolution.

  221. 221
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, yesterday, I gave three links, 1,2.3. That is all I will give on your obsessive, toxic distractors; for the genuinely perplexed. This thread is about a growing menace to civilisation that requires going back to first duties and principles that seem to have been neglected and undermined. The better to overturn a hated civilisation from within. Meanwhile, you fiddle rhetorically as a pivotal state in our civilisation begins to burn up. Fire deh ‘pon mus mus tail but ‘im think a cool breeze . . . the Jacobins are here, are running riot literally for half a year (but it’s the others running an insurrection, over there! [perplexed, watch here for a first level]) and are now doing far more than riot and you imagine that your lawfulness undermining obsessions are an advancement of freedom. That tells us all we need to understand. KF

  222. 222
    kairosfocus says:

    I repeat, this is not a thread on toxic distractors. Please do not force me to act.

  223. 223
    JVL says:

    ET: Any society which enables mental illnesses is doomed. Same-sex marriage and gender reassignment involve mental illnesses.

    Based on what exactly? Medical opinions? Legal opinions? Theological opinions?

    Europe? If the USA was like Europe I would want a revolution.

    When was the last time you were in Europe? It’s peaceful, prosperous, dealing with moral questions and opinions that 50 years ago were never mentioned in public. Technically it’s doing well. Educationally its doing well. The health care is excellent and free at the point of use. Mostly. Some bits are complicated. The political systems are running pretty well, no one has stormed a legislative building in an attempt to disrupt legal proceedings. Well, it doesn’t happen very often at least.

  224. 224
    JVL says:

    I promise that this will be my last post on this thread if you let it stand.

    Kairosfocus: This thread is about a growing menace to civilisation that requires going back to first duties and principles that seem to have been neglected and undermined. The better to overturn a hated civilisation from within.

    Sedition is a dangerous game to play. One that can bite you back. As in the French and Russian revolutions.

    Meanwhile, you fiddle rhetorically as a pivotal state in our civilisation begins to burn up.

    Asking you questions about moral issues that many, many first world countries have already successfully dealt with is not fiddling rhetorically. It’s seeing if you’re able to move forward with society.

    Fire deh ‘pon mus mus tail but ‘im think a cool breeze . . . the Jacobins are here, are running riot literally for half a year (but it’s the others running an insurrection, over there! [perplexed, watch here for a first level]) and are now doing far more than riot and you imagine that your lawfulness undermining obsessions are an advancement of freedom. That tells us all we need to understand.

    You know, 200 years ago it was common knowledge, self-evident knowledge that black people were incapable of advanced thought. Give them the right to vote? How absurd, they can’t even think. They’re like animals. Sure, some people objected but generally it was accepted as natural law. Let them own property? Are you kidding? They can barely talk properly.

    200 years ago it was very rare for women to own properties or businesses. If they inherited one and then got married their husbands got to take it over. Why? Because most everyone KNEW women were incapable of higher reasoning. Let them make and raise babies, that’s where their strengths lie. Few argued about such things because, again, it was self-evidently true. Just look for yourself and see!

    And so it goes, on and on and on. The last 200 years has seen many self-evident truths and much common knowledge changed because they were built on false premises and false assumptions. One of the most absurd prohibitions was not letting women run in marathons. That was rescinded until the 1970s. Most of us probably remember mixed-race marriages being very, very unusual and sometimes even persecuted. It was in my life time that black men were still being lynched in the southern United State.

    Do not let your fear govern your thoughts and reactions. As you expect to be treated with dignity and respect and being mostly left alone then extend those courtesies to others; even if you strongly suspect they are going to do something you find distasteful or against your own personal views. First think: are they really harming me or stopping me from doing the things I need to do? I shall refrain from bringing up issues you find toxic or divisive but I trust my inference is clear.

    Again, if you let this post stand it will be my last one on this thread. I promise.

  225. 225

    KF said:

    PS: I hope we don’y have to revisit what self-evidence is, in detail. In a nutshell, self evident truths are seen as so by one who understands them i/l/o experience and enough intellectual maturity; seen as necessarily so on pain of IMMEDIATE absurdity on rejection. In this case, the objector is reduced to appealing to what he would deny, dismiss, marginalise or evade, just to have any force of persuasion. Such are not proved, they are where proving must begin.

    Mental reality is self-evidently true upon pain of absurdity to deny it. The fact that your argument (in fact every argument) depends on it shows how denying it is an absurdity. Since mind is necessarily and self-evidently the home of all experience, it is absurd to deny mental reality. The fact that mental reality can also be supported by evidence, and has in fact been proved time and time again over the past 100 years by scientific evidence, is just more weight that must be denied to cling to the external-physical-reality model. In that respect, you’re like a materialist.

    You are experiencing cognitive dissonance. You cannot escape mind, period, not to gather evidence and certainly not to make arguments about evidence. Your complaint about solipsism/delusion has been fully countered previously. It is not a valid objection.

    But, either commit to the argument or don’t. I’m not going to let your hand-waving dismissals stand on grounds that they take away from the argument here, because “worldview” is absolutely essential to the theme of this post. Your worldview, from which all your reasoning flows, is self-evidently absurd and, unfortunately, ultimately self-defeating. You cannot on the one hand accept mental reality in part where it is convenient, and deny the rest of it because it is inconvenient.

    If what goes on in mind is not real, reason is irrelevant. If what goes on in mind is real, you don’t get to pick and choose based on convenience.

  226. 226
    mike1962 says:

    Steve Alten2: and both sides [of the abortion issue] believe that they are using all of Karirosfocus’ fundamentals to draw their conclusions.

    While I’m not a mind-reader, I would guess that most anti-abortion types – the ones I know at least – start from a revealed-religion angle without going any deeper than that. (I don’t. But I’m not strictly anti-abortion.)

  227. 227
    mike1962 says:

    WJM, some very excellent posts

  228. 228
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Based on what exactly?

    Based on reality and the unnatural acts.

    When was the last time you were in Europe?

    What does that matter? I can see the news. Without the USA Europe would be speaking different languages then they do now.

  229. 229
    jerry says:

    I clipped a six page pamphlet that gives crucial advice at this time.

    At 300 words for page that is 1800 words.

    Those who TL;DR such simply make themselves more vulnerable to the Jacobins. Which, I am afraid, is exactly what they are counting on, winning the war of impressionistic headlines and slogans.

    There is a long way between 1700+ words and a slogan and headline. But headlines and slogans that are based on truth will have more of an impact than several paragraphs.

    For example,

    “Who are the 12:40’s?”

    That is the time the Capitol Police chief asked for help and a half hour before Trump was finished speaking?

    I am sure it will take more than 1700 words to eventually answer that completely but the answer will be summed up in less than 100. You are constantly posting TLDR comments.

    Aside: I have no idea what people are debating on this thread. It all sounds like gobbledygook.

    For example, is anyone actually arguing that mental experiences are not real. You have them, I have them. But there is also a world outside of our minds which by the way includes our bodies and all its machinations as well as other persons and their minds and all of the material world.

    Is anyone denying this?

  230. 230
    Querius says:

    A little satire . . .

    Kairosfocus wrote:

    In my observation, that literally starts with first duties of reason and first principles of reason as topics for first duties. It seems to extend now to rejecting or distorting or evading the means by which first duties and principles should shape our reflection, analysis and policy-making.

    Objection:

    But what about BABY DUCKS??? Your tirade completely ignores protecting baby ducks!

    Kairosfocus summarized:

    I’m just trying to get to a system of values based on reason and first principles . . .

    Objections summarized:

    Yabbut, those are YOUR first principles and self-evident truths to YOU. Other people have different first principles such as baby ducks. You are deliberately ignoring baby ducks and how they’re treated. You are censoring our comments about the heinous, fascist nature of anyone who would suppress baby ducks.

    Kairosfocus summarized:

    No, we’re not talking about baby ducks but rather trying to establish a reasonable way to move forward using reason . . .

    Objection:

    See, there you go again! You just cannot accept anyone who disagrees on your views regarding fairness for baby ducks!

    William J Murray wrote:

    I thought this thread was about how civilization moves forward. How civilization moves forward is entirely dependent on worldview because it defines the parameters and options going forward.

    Comment:

    And baby ducks. As long as that worldview includes baby ducks.

    This is a hopeless exercise. We are swept along in a massive tide of emotion about baby ducks that will once again end in a horrible disaster of Good Intentions that somehow was complex, wasn’t what we expected because of Bad Luck, and wasn’t TRUE socialism, which is the only conceivable option to save baby ducks from unfairness.

    As for me, I will live my remaining years in the peacefulness in my heart in my faith regardless of censorship and persecution by a self-righteous mob in the name of fairness for baby ducks . . . and while their beloved leaders get insanely wealthy and powerful.

    -Q

  231. 231
    Querius says:

    William J Murray wrote:

    There is no “right” to life, because life is not what most think it is. Life is inextinguishable and eternal. Nobody can stop or interfere in that regardless of what they do. A physical body is not “life.”

    Writers of the Declaration of Independence wrote:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Does anyone find these statements contradictory? Or do good intentions pave over everything, logic included?

    -Q

  232. 232
    jerry says:

    Querius

    A little satire

    No, Truth!

    A lot of truth in your satire.

  233. 233
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Dan Bongino is a former Presidential Security detail Secret Service Officer, is a new media personality and a Parler investor, currently fighting Lymphoma, hence some opening remarks. He rebalances the discussion: https://rumble.com/vcrepj-ep.-1434-the-purge-continues.-the-inside-story-the-dan-bongino-show.html Notice, appeals to the seven key first duties, truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness and Justice, etc. Rumble, so no embeds. KF

  234. 234
    Viola Lee says:

    Yep, lots of people accept those. Me, for instance. But you don’t want to discuss the question of whether the exercise of right reason, properly applied, will always lead to the one right objectively true viewpoint, or whether it’s possible for people to exercise all those duties and still disagree, do you?

  235. 235
    jerry says:

    Dan Bongino

    He was told by Cumulus who airs his radio program that he could not discuss the election or else be taken off the air. Rumble is not Cumulus.

    The intolerance of the left is because they cannot stand up to the truth. It’s all about power and those desiring power must suppress the truth. That is why the press is constantly lying.

    you don’t want to discuss the question of whether the exercise of right reason, properly applied, will always lead to the one right objectively true viewpoint, or whether it’s possible for people to exercise all those duties and still disagree, do you?

    Why don’t you take a controversial topic and tells us where you come out on it and why??

  236. 236
    Viola Lee says:

    When I wrote to KF, “you don’t want to discuss the question of whether the exercise of right reason, properly applied, will always lead to the one right objectively true viewpoint, or whether it’s possible for people to exercise all those duties and still disagree, do you?”, Jerry replied, “Why don’t you take a controversial topic and tells us where you come out on it and why??”

    Jerry, I think your comment misses the point of what I am trying to say. KS seems to believe that if one uses “right reason” correctly (“truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, neighbour; so also, fairness, and justice.”), there will necessarily be one right position. I claim that people who totally accept those principles and exercise them well can still reach different positions on an issue.

    What I would like to see KD do is illustrate with an example how an acceptance of the seven duties of right reason will lead to the one right objective position.

    As I wrote above, divorce might be a a good issue. To make it clear, I’m not suggesting that deciding whether divorce is or isn’t morally right is the issue. I want to talk about the meta-issue of how the principles of right reason can be used to determine an objective position on divorce: one that all people, if they used right reason properly, would agree on.

    My position on divorce itself is not the issue. KF continually points to the duties to right reason as foundational. If they function as he claims, he ought to be able to outline the position on divorce to which right reason objectively leads. (The reason divorce might be a good topic is that it is not on extreme ends of the spectrum, and it doesn’t involve some of the topics that he doesn’t want discussed on this thread anymore.)

  237. 237
    LarTanner says:

    “The intolerance of the left”

    A stunning comment a mere week after someone riot in United States Capitol holding a confederate flag. This flag, of course, is a symbol of intolerance.

    When we speak of “the intolerance” of the left, let’s not confuse “unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own” with “being tired of hearing the same old nonsense that’s been debunked 100 times before.”

  238. 238
    ET says:

    LoL! The left is intolerant of everyone who disagrees or questions with them. And your whining about things is not debunking them.

  239. 239
    Querius says:

    ET,

    It seems like a lot of disagreements are due to irregular verbs and other parts of speech in English:

    – I’m patriotic, you’re intolerant and divisive
    – I hold a mostly peaceful protest, you commit a violent insurrection
    – I have emotional intelligence, you’re irrational
    – I’m being passionate and emphatic, you’re spreading hate speech
    – I’m a visionary, you’re a lunatic
    (smile)

    -Q

  240. 240
    mike1962 says:

    Seversky: If someone is using a megaphone to incite a crown to violence against some of their fellow-citizens then there is at least a case for taking that megaphone away.

    The USA was founded on violent resistance to the British crown. (See the Declaration of Independence. And Jefferson’s later writings.) Violence is baked into every single government on planet earth in one form or another, locally and nationally. Violence has always been a part of the fabric of the swirling vagaries of human society. “Megaphones” are utilized by people who think that they are being unfairly exploited. Are you against the “megaphone” to violence in all cases?

  241. 241
    kairosfocus says:

    VL,

    where have I said or suggested that application of these principles will lead inevitably to our here and now knowledge of the absolute truth on all topics?

    In fact, I quoted a classic source you seem to despise, we know in part, we see through a glass darkly. I have for a very long time pointed out that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill-willed etc. The reality of alternative worldviews . . . all, bristling with difficulties but also where we cling to the incoherent as it supports where we want to go . . . leads to comparative difficulties and diverse choices.

    So, right off, you have projected a strawman in the teeth of more than adequate information to the contrary.

    (Given ongoing impeachment proceedings, it is clear that strawman fallacies are common, effective and potentially massively destructive, cf. Mr Bongino’s clip from Mr Deshowitz. Duty to right reason includes exposing the fashionable fallacies of the day.)

    At the same time, we can, do and should use first duties and embedded first principles of right reason to confidently know what we can and correct key errors such as radical relativism and subjectivism. Including, that the first duties are inescapable as even indirect objections and distractors are forced to pivot on duty to truth, to right reason, to prudence etc; so they are inescapably and self-evidently true. Moral truths, known to undeniable certainty, thus exploding the fact/value dichotomy so often used to split apart our thinking on truth/fact from that on right/wrong and “values.” Let me add: rationality is demonstrably, inescapably, morally governed.

    As well, the first duties are obviously pervasive in all of our arguing, so the issue on particular topics is how not if they apply.

    It is also obvious that you want to suggest that such principles and duties are often inconclusive so they are effectively useless and one is left to relativism and power plays so there. To which, the proper answer is, that far, far more often, the problem is that we wish to cling to preferred agendas, ideologies and beliefs that would be readily corrected were we willing to attend to evidence, logic, the significance of factual inadequacy or incoherence, the problem of explanatory inadequacy [simplistic or ad hoc] and issues on fallacies. On specific issues of justice and right/wrong, we would do well to recognise that to justly claim a right, we need to justify that we are in the right, esp. that we are not in fact seeking to subjugate others under false colour of law compulsion to do or support evils. Including, compelling them to taint conscience by lying or enabling lying. A truth/ accuracy to reality issue. And the like.

    Where, a key evil is the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb. Life, is the first right, and blood guilt is among the most corrupting of influences, utterly warping ability to think or decide aright.

    KF

    PS: How many times do I need to say, that there are many relevant cases already on the table that make the point without resort to toxic, repulsive side-tracks?

  242. 242
    kairosfocus says:

    LT, I think you need to explain to us regarding Marcuse’s repressive tolerance, as is clipped above and as is linked here: https://sites.evergreen.edu/arunchandra/wp-content/uploads/sites/395/2018/07/tolerance.pdf Absent which, we can freely infer that your remarks are simply distractive and strawmannish, enabling a wave of marginalisation, censorship and persecution on the theory that anyone who can — in remotest degree — be rhetorically connected to an idiot fringe rioting in explicit defiance of the calls from leadership of a protest rally, can be stigmatised and attacked freely. KF

    PS: Marcuse, of course, was an actual member of the Frankfurt School.

  243. 243
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, your point about whataboutism is well taken. KF

  244. 244
    kairosfocus says:

    LESSONS OF HISTORY: The Reichstag fire, HT Enc Brit:

    Reichstag fire, burning of the Reichstag (parliament) building in Berlin, on the night of February 27, 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship and widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its opponents and to assume emergency powers.

    Adolf Hitler had secured the chancellorship after the elections of November 1932, but his Nazi Party had not won an overall majority. He therefore obtained Cabinet consent to hold new elections on March 5, 1933. Meanwhile, his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, was supposed to have devised the scheme whereby 10 agents led by Karl Ernst were to gain access to the Reichstag through a tunnel leading from the official residence of Hermann Göring, Reichstag president and Hitler’s chief minister, who was then to conduct an official investigation, which would fix responsibility for the fire on the communists. The supposed arsonist was a Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, whom some have claimed was brought to the scene of the crime by Nazi agents. Others have contended that there was no proof of Nazi complicity in the crime, but that Hitler merely capitalized on van der Lubbe’s independent act. [–> there is on balance stronger evidence of opportunism] The fire is the subject of continued debate and research.

    On February 28, 1933, the day after the fire, Hitler’s dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree “for the Protection of the People and the State,” which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights. Though the ensuing elections still did not give the Nazis an outright majority, they were able to persuade the Reichstag to pass an Enabling Act (March 23) whereby all its legislative powers were transferred to the Reich Cabinet by a vote of 444 to 94, so sanctioning the dictatorship.

    The rest, of course, is history.

    KF

  245. 245
    Belfast says:

    Viola lee @236
    I think the only thing that would make you happy is to find a bush big enough so that it would take you a month to beat around it.
    Tendentious overwritten equivocal prolixities will not get your point across.
    More matter with less art.

  246. 246
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 242 –
    This doesn’t make any sense:

    I think you need to explain to us regarding Marcuse’s repressive tolerance

    So telling LT that he needs to do this or else he can be dismissed is a bit unfair.

    You might want to re-phrase that sentence, so the discussion can move on.

  247. 247
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: Have you read above where it came up, or read the linked? If you do so, you will see the extremely central relevance of what an actual member of the Frankfurt School taught on “Repressive Tolerance,” the title of the linked paper. KF

    PS: Opening words from Marcuse:

    Repressive Tolerance
    Herbert Marcuse
    (1965)

    This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our ad-vanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opin-ions, [–> those of the Capitalist, Constitutional Democracy West] and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. [–> those of the radical, Jacobin Left] In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modem period — a parti-san 1 goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Con-versely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance to-day, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression. [–> the now familiar turnabout projection] The author is fully aware that, at present, no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate lib-erating tolerance into practice, but he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve his-torical possibilities which seem to have become utopian possibilities — that it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which this society can be recognized as what it is and does.

    Of course, the concept is inherently incoherent. So is what has been going on on the ground. The following plain language summary and application to political correctness gone mad, by Macris [already given above], will help:

    let’s just summarize the doctrine of repressive tolerance in plain English:

    Tolerance is only to be extended to truth.

    Leftism is objectively true, and anything other than leftism is not.

    Therefore tolerance is only to be extended to leftism.

    Anyone who disagrees with this has been indoctrinated. To the extent that the majority of people disagree, that means the majority of people are indoctrinated.

    Since most people are indoctrinated, leftists must break the indoctrination so that they can grasp the truth of leftism.

    To break the indoctrination, leftists must promote left-wing thought and suppress right-wing thought.

    Promoting left-wing thought is accomplished by changing “established universes of meaning” and actively presenting “information slanted in the opposite direction,” e.g. by political correctness and propaganda.

    Suppressing right-wing thought is accomplished by withdrawing the freedom of speech, press, and assembly for anyone who disagrees with leftists on race, gender, religion, armament, public services, social security, or healthcare, e.g. deplatforming us entirely.

    If necessary to withdraw these freedoms, leftists must operate at such scale that the actions cease to be non-violent and become revolutionary violence.

    Leftists who use revolutionary violence are not to be condemned by any leftists.

    In brief, the doctrine holds that left-wing speech, assembly and even violence must be praised and promoted; while right-wing speech, assembly, and especially violence must be condemned, suppressed, and punished.

    And that doctrine is being implemented 24/7/365 . . .

    That is why I pointed LT there.

  248. 248
    Bob O'H says:

    kf – but what should Lars explain, and why? You need to make the connection to what he wrote, and show why the link needs commenting on, and what aspect warrants comment.

  249. 249
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: I have given enough to counter the narrative of tainting and linked censorship now being pushed far and wide. I do not need to address further how street theatre, agit prop, lawfare, sing off the same hymn sheet media narrative bombardments etc work. Perhaps, you might find the further above on the Reichstag Fire of 1933 and its aftermath a further relevant context, as a capital example of several agit prop stratagems and lawfare at work. Having seen this before in my native land, 1976 – 1980, complete with lying slanderous declarations in parliament and manipulated election under the shadow of such, I simply declare that I have spoken under right of fair comment. All of this illustrates the underlying concern, that unless we restore responsible governance of reason and acts pivoting on reason such as policymaking and legislation through the first duties of reason [esp. truth, prudence, justice], we are headed for civilisation-level disaster. KF

  250. 250
    jerry says:

    Do we want to list the intolerances of the left? Does anybody doubt it? The list would be endless.

    On a previous thread I asked what policies of Trump were bad for the US? No answers.

    One person said his lies made him reprehensible. I asked which lies led to bad things for the country? No answers.

    But it has become a close call as to was the most attacked president in US history. Lincoln or Trump?

  251. 251
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Wikipedia, inadvertently testifying against interests, on the Nazi seizure of Dictatorial power, exploiting the Reichstag fire:

    Political consequences

    The day after the fire, at Hitler’s request, President [Paul von] Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree into law by using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany, including habeas corpus, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, and the secrecy of the post and telephone.[13] These rights were not reinstated during Nazi reign. The decree was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered “friendly” to the Nazi cause. Despite the fact that Marinus van der Lubbe claimed to have acted alone in the Reichstag fire, Hitler, after having obtained his emergency powers, announced that it was the start of a Communist plot to take over Germany. Nazi Party newspapers then published this fabricated “news”.[13] This sent the German population into a panic and isolated the Communists further among the civilians; additionally, thousands of Communists were imprisoned in the days following the fire (including leaders of the Communist Party of Germany) on the charge that the Party was preparing to stage a putsch. Speaking to Rudolph Diels about Communists during the Reichstag fire, Hitler said “These sub-humans do not understand how the people stand at our side. In their mouse-holes, out of which they now want to come, of course they hear nothing of the cheering of the masses.”[14] With Communist electoral participation also suppressed (the Communists previously polled 17% of the vote), the Nazis were able to increase their share of the vote in the 5 March 1933 Reichstag elections from 33% to 44%.[15] This gave the Nazis and their allies, the German National People’s Party (who won 8% of the vote), a majority of 52% in the Reichstag.[15]

    While the Nazis emerged with a majority, they fell short of their goal, which was to win 50–55% of the vote that year.[15] The Nazis thought that this would make it difficult to achieve their next goal, passage of the Enabling Act giving Hitler the right to rule by decree, which required a two-thirds majority.[15] However, several important factors weighed in the Nazis’ favour, mainly the continued suppression of the Communist Party and the Nazis’ ability to capitalize on national security concerns. Moreover, some deputies of the Social Democratic Party (the only party that would vote against the Enabling Act) were prevented from taking their seats in the Reichstag, due to arrests and intimidation by the Nazi SA. As a result, the Social Democratic Party would be under-represented in the final vote tally. The Enabling Act passed easily on 23 March 1933, with the support of the right-wing German National People’s Party, the Centre Party, and several fragmented middle-class parties. The measure went into force on 27 March, effectively making Hitler dictator of Germany.

    The Kroll Opera House, sitting across the Königsplatz from the burned-out Reichstag building, functioned as the Reichstag’s venue for the remaining 12 years of the Third Reich’s existence.

    Does anyone imagine that the Nazis could not have easily rebuilt the Reichstag, or that it is not a telling point that thereafter, the rump, rubber-stamp parliament literally sat in a theatre?

    Those who refuse to learn from history doom themselves to echo its worst chapters.

    KF

  252. 252
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Even in Nazi Germany, defendants had a say, here, in his own defence, one cross-examines Herman Goering:

    Dimitrov: Herr Prime Minister Göring stated on February 28 that, when arrested, the “Dutch Communist Van der Lubbe had on his person his passport and a membership card of the Communist Party”. From whom was this information taken?

    Göring: The police search all common criminals, and report the result to me.

    Dimitrov: The three officials who arrested and examined Van der Lubbe all agreed that no membership card of the Communist Party was found on him. I should like to know where the report that such a card had been found came from.

    Göring: I was told by an official. Things which were reported to me on the night of the fire…could not be tested or proven. The report was made to me by a responsible official, and was accepted as a fact, and as it could not be tested immediately it was announced as a fact. When I issued the first report to the press on the morning after the fire the interrogation of Van der Lubbe had not been concluded. In any case I do not see that anyone has any right to complain because it seems proved in this trial that Van der Lubbe had no such card on him.

    Dimitrov: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior what steps he took to make sure that Van der Lubbe’s route to Hennigsdorf, his stay and his meetings with other people there were investigated by the police to assist them in tracking down Van der Lubbe’s accomplices?

    Göring: As I am not an official myself, but a responsible Minister it was not important that I should trouble myself with such petty, minor matters. It was my task to expose the Party, and the mentality, which was responsible for the crime.

    Dimitrov: Is the Reichsminister aware of the fact that those that possess this alleged criminal mentality today control the destiny of a sixth part of the world – the Soviet Union?

    Göring: I don’t care what happens in Russia! I know that the Russians pay with bills, and I should prefer to know that their bills are paid! I care about the Communist Party here in Germany and about Communist crooks who come here to set the Reichstag on fire!

    Dimitrov: This criminal mentality rules the Soviet Union, the greatest and best country in the world. Is Herr Prime Minister aware of that?

    Göring: I shall tell you what the German people already know. They know that you are behaving in a disgraceful manner! They know that you are a Communist crook who came to Germany to set the Reichstag on fire! In my eyes you are nothing, but a scoundrel, a crook who belongs on the gallows!”.[19]

    Notice, the substance of the exchange and subtext of imposed dominant narrative and claims of fact vs suppressed evidence under shadow of censorship.

  253. 253
    Viola Lee says:

    Thanks for the reply at 241, KF.

    You write, “where have I said or suggested that application of these principles will lead inevitably to our here and now knowledge of the absolute truth on all topics? In fact, I quoted a classic source you seem to despise [I do not know what you refer to], we know in part, we see through a glass darkly. I have for a very long time pointed out that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling, too often ill-willed etc.”

    Yes we are fallible, so I know you don’t claim that we can always get “here and now knowledge of the absolute truth on all topics”. But you also imply that there is some absolute truth, and our inability to know is because of our fallibility, not because there is in fact no one objective absolute truth.

    I have suggested divorce as a trial topic because it is not one of the “toxic, repulsive” ones you would like us not to use. Some believe that “til death do us part” is an inviolable commitment, and divorce should not be allowed just because people don’t want to be married any more. Others believe divorce should be allowed if certain “faults” are met, such as adultery, for instance. Others believe two people can just decide they don’t want to be married any more.

    My question is not who is right here. My question is is there a “right” position here? Or is this an issue for human beings to work out for themselves, and as a society.

    You decry subjectivism and relativism, but doing so implies that there would be some objectively true position about divorce.

    So, even though you understand that human fallibility might lead people to different conclusions, there is an objective truth that exists: that appears to be what your writing implies.

  254. 254
    kairosfocus says:

    VL,

    there are some absolute truths that we can and do know, that’s part of why I gave some Math examples. By logic of being implications that opens up a lot including that we can warrant and know absolutely. Bye bye relativism as a general principle on knowledge. Similarly, here are necessary, world framework eternal beings by example.

    Going on, we have inescapable truths antecedent to proofs, here I used the principle of distinct identity. It was shown to take effect in reasoning as part of seven similarly inescapable first duties, also self-evident. Such are self-evident MORAL truths, BTW the ones behind the US DoI esp its para 2 and reference to laws of nature, laws coeval with our morally governed humanity. Thus too, framing justice as due balance of rights, freedoms, duties. This is a different world from the notions that are popular today.

    Beyond, lie objective truths, as reflecting a degree of warrant at least enough to recognise as reliable and in certain cases as at least morally certain. I forget, truth is accurate summary of reality which is antecedent to our saying things about it; objective truth is warranted, reasonably reliable, credible claims about reality. There can be undiscovered objective truths and corrupt intellectual climates can reject objective truths or even absolute ones, much less live in denial of reality, cf parable of the ship of state.

    Such, allow reformation of law and government. And these are antecedent to ever expanding lists of distractive side issues.

    Enough cases, now including the warning of history on the Nazi seizure of power are on the table to guide sound reformation. That is what is focal.

    Where, if we don’t respect these things we will undermine the cultural buttresses for sound government, for sci-tech, medicine and math as recognised respected disciplines, maybe even engineering. Forget, responsible journalism.

    We are playing with fire recklessly.

    KF

  255. 255
    Viola Lee says:

    KF, you write, “there are some absolute truths that we can and do know, that’s part of why I gave some Math examples. By logic of being implications that opens up a lot including that we can warrant and know absolutely.”

    Yes, I understand what you have to say about math. But I don’t think the “implication” that you can then jump to absolute morals is justified. This has been my point from the very beginning of this discussion.

    You write, “Truth is accurate summary of reality which is antecedent to our saying things about it; objective truth is warranted, reasonably reliable, credible claims about reality.”

    But there are truths about different kinds of things. Is it true that the earth is spherical: yes, that is an “accurate summary of reality which is antecedent to our saying things about reality.” Is it true that people have a moral obligation to stay married “until death do us part” even if they wish to divorce. That kind of truth is certainly of a different kind than the shape of the earth. Is there an “accurate summary of reality” about divorce.

  256. 256
    LarTanner says:

    KF and B’OH, I intended my comment to show we have recent examples of intolerance from the non-Left. My comment responded to a previous one made about “the intolerance of the Left.” I am observing that people here like to see intolerance as characteristic of the Left, while in the Right, it’s just a few bad apples who don’t represent the whole.

    The same process happens in reverse when the greater number of speakers/commenters are Left-leaning. That is, the Right becomes intolerant by nature and the Left becomes the group with just a few intolerant outliers. These reversals are important. Marcuse critiques the idea of intolerance as a political end in itself, and I am mostly aligned with that critique.

    We might consider dropping the “Left” and “Right” labels and aiming to get beyond partisanship. We could also think more about how to tell the difference between ideas that should be tolerated and those that are unreasonable and can be legitimately dismissed in non-partisan or multi-partisan discussions.

  257. 257
    kairosfocus says:

    VL, we have on the table seven inescapable first duties that are truth claims on moral government of reason, and which are by inescapability, undeniably and self evidently true. Such are in fact antecedent to proofs, and they are inescapable in precisely the same way that the principle of identity is inescapable. Namely, to try to deny or to try to evade or sideline it, etc, one has to implicitly use what one would overthrow. Proofs start from such principles and duties, they are antecedent to proofs, warrants, thinking responsibly, reasoning, arguing etc. That may cut cross ways to the grain of current dominant thought but that only highlights just how much of a crooked yardstick we have to remove to get back to being straight. KF

  258. 258
    Viola Lee says:

    KF, I have agreed that I accept the seven inescapable duties.

    Do you understand that?

  259. 259
    ET says:

    The “left” seem to be more ignorant of science even though they try to pretend otherwise. Science says life starts @ conception and the left ignores that. The left also thinks science has a theory of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. And don’t forget the blatant hypocrisy demonstrated by the left pertaining to their country-wide riots and lootings and what happened in DC last week.

    And now the left has abandoned due process in an attempt to deeply divide the country. Pathetic, really.

  260. 260
    asauber says:

    ET,

    Yes, but the progressive left are interested sciencey optics so they can confiscate your energy supply and shut down your businesses.

    Andrew

  261. 261
    asauber says:

    And by sciencey optics I mean…

    Crying doctors and nurses
    Dry lake bed images
    Red line trends on charts
    Polar bears on photoshopped ice floes
    Scientists and pre-teen girls on fantastic voyages
    Circles and arrows
    Al Gore on a (reinforced) lift by a big sign
    etc…

    Andrew

  262. 262
    Seversky says:

    Mike1962/240

    Violence has always been a part of the fabric of the swirling vagaries of human society. “Megaphones” are utilized by people who think that they are being unfairly exploited. Are you against the “megaphone” to violence in all cases?

    If someone found out where you lived and tweeted urging a mob to come around and ransack the place and attack anyone they found inside, would you consider that protected speech under the First Amendment? I certainly wouldn’t.

    The fact that violence has always been a part of human society doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do whatever we can to control it.

  263. 263
    jerry says:

    For intolerance, read Sharyl Attikisson’s book “Slanted.” There are lots of examples of intolerance there by national organizations that are endemic.

    When one points out a rare instance of intolerance by a group, they are actually affirming that the group is extremely tolerant. For the left. It’s a rarity to see consistent tolerance. Some are. Yesterday someone pointed out two journalists that were tolerant. Two out of thousands. I’m sure there are more but they cannot be so and keep their jobs.

    The left has to be intolerant and hypocritical because their ideas are internally inconsistent and thus cannot stand scrutiny.

  264. 264
    ET says:

    seversky:

    If someone found out where you lived and tweeted urging a mob to come around and ransack the place and attack anyone they found inside, would you consider that protected speech under the First Amendment?

    I would consider it a turkey shoot.

  265. 265
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev,

    Did you notice what I wrote during the long months of enabled, police stand down riots? Did you observe the case I put on the table at that time, from Acts 19? Did you notice my remark that riots cannot be justified in any reasonably lawful state, in context the Roman Empire under Nero’s early days? (Yes, Nero. Before he went utterly, demonically mad. He faced a coup, and committed suicide.)

    Did you notice, that I pointed to the amelioration-reformation model [e.g. William Wilberforce], as opposed to radical rebellions?

    It seems not.

    Your suggestion by pouncing above tells me that.

    I now add to the above, that you need to ponder very carefully the compiled evidence and case — in key parts turning on public facts — that election integrity was willfully and fatally compromised, leading to destruction of credibility and legitimacy of not only the Government but the associated deep state. Where, there is no legitimisation of fraud. Yes, fraud, there is abundant cause to conclude such.

    Then multiply that by the history surrounding the Reichstag fire.

    What do you think is a conclusion of prudence when we see some of what is going on in a rush?

    In that context, a clearly fringe mob and its foolish riots and violence has been used to taint and declare agit prop and lawfare open season on millions who had nothing to do with such. Even, including a clearly surprised Mr Trump; who has been falsely impeached a second time on the flimsiest of excuses. This, by the same pols and associates who enabled months of riots and violence with dozens of murders including Chief Dorn, whose last moments were ruthlessly, sadistically streamed. Yes, the other black man who died on video tape under dubious circumstances.

    Do you see why some sobering lessons of history are coming to mind?

    Now, kindly scroll up and observe in the OP the analysis of how a slide into lawless oligarchy under misanthropic Jacobin ideologues has come about again and again.

    Message sent, message received.

    Those you are enabling have managed to pose an existential threat to an undefeated Western people. A grim resolve is forming as those you enable continue to ignore warnings and counsels. And no, no turnabout projection games or lawfare such as the latest sham impeachment is going to stop the conclusion that this is a power move of ruthless, power-mad misanthropic Jacobin ideologues and those making ill-advised common cause with such.

    I think the first level response of appeal to courts was frustrated on any convenient excuse. The ham-handed censorship says, you will be silenced. Threats and fraud — yes the evidence contradicts the gaslighting — with elections say, the ballot box is rendered meaningless.

    Be very thankful that you are dealing with the fundamentally lawful, they are going to go for remaining, alternative media access, exposure of crimes, perhaps rico.

    If the message is sent that there is “a long train of abuses and usurpations,” utterly unresponsive to any remonstrance, you will not be facing a fringe riot you can play agit prop and lawfare or censorship and slander games with. You will likely face, first a logistics lockdown of key urban centres, a limited general strike. Likely the cities at the centre of the election tainting and Wash DC. Maybe, it will start with truckers having protest banners on their trucks and if that protest is attacked, lockdown.

    Attempts to use force to break that, likely will lead to full bore general strike. Beyond that, the consequences are incalculable.

    I think you would be well advised to sober up right now and seek instead to examine what went wrong and render due restitution for a tainted election. And yes, that is fair comment.

    There is not a lot of time left to set things right without a level of chaos not seen in over a Century.

    At this stage, bad geostrategic consequences are already beginning, those have to be dealt with later.

    KF

  266. 266
    mike1962 says:

    Seversky: “If someone found out where you lived and tweeted urging a mob to come around and ransack the place and attack anyone they found inside, would you consider that protected speech under the First Amendment? I certainly wouldn’t.”

    I wouldn’t either. That would be an invalid instance in my my opinion. (Naturally.) That example does not invalidate all possible instances of violence incitement.

    You didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask it again:

    Are you against the “megaphone” to violence in all cases?

  267. 267
    Querius says:

    Notice that all of this discussion is subject to interpretation: straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. Please consider the following:

    Read the text of Executive Order #9066 issued by Franklin Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. Then please explain how this could possibly lead to the internment of all Americans of Japanese descent on the entire west coast of the United States in what can only be called concentration camps.
    https://www.albuqhistsoc.org/source-documents/executive-order-9066-japanese-internment/

    Regarding inciting violence: Is the Black Lives Matter slogan, “Silence is violence,” something that you would agree or disagree with?

    -Q

  268. 268
    mike1962 says:

    Querius: what can only be called concentration camps.

    While I agree with your main point, calling the internment camps in the USA “concentration camps” is unwarranted. (I don’t know where you live. I live in the USA.) I don’t know what they teach in public schools these days, but back in my day, the term “concentration camps” essentially became a technical term uniquely applied to the Nazi slave/death camps, which had a different function, and far far worse conditions, than the internment camps in the USA. The function and nature of the two types of camps were as different as night and day.

  269. 269
    jerry says:

    concentration camps

    A term from the 19th century first referring to the Spanish Cuban wars in the 1870’s. The term was also used during the Boer wars in South Africa. The most infamous use is with the Nazi concentration camps. The Japanese also had them for those who resisted them during WWII. Some were more horrendous than others.

  270. 270
    mike1962 says:

    Jerry: A term from the 19th century first referring to the Spanish Cuban wars in the 1870’s. The term was also used during the Boer wars in South Africa. The most infamous use is with the Nazi concentration camps. The Japanese also had them for those who resisted them during WWII. Some were more horrendous than others.

    While you are historically correct, I would bet that in general people think “Nazi death camps” when the term “concentration camp” is used. When using “concentration camp” with respect to Japanese internment camps, I think the responsible thing to do is clarify that those camps were nothing like Nazi concentration/slave/death camps.

    Do a search for “concentration camp” and see what comes up. Not many pics of Cuban prison camps or Japanese internment camps.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffcm&q=concentration+camp&iax=images&ia=images

  271. 271
    Querius says:

    Did anyone actually read Executive Order #9066?

    That and its exaggerated interpretation was my primary point. I’m hoping for some frequent critics in this forum to show up.

    What happened was that the entire west coast was declared “a military base” and Americans of Japanese ancestry lost their homes, their jobs, their cars, their businesses, and their possessions.
    After emigrating to the USA from Europe after the war, our family lived in an area of our city called “Japan Town.” Many of our friends and neighbors were Japanese. Here are some quotes snipped from a History web page.

    Army-directed evacuations began on March 24. People had six days notice to dispose of their belongings other than what they could carry. Anyone who was at least 1/16th Japanese was evacuated, including 17,000 children under 10, as well as several thousand elderly and handicapped.

    These [assembly] centers were located in remote areas, often reconfigured fairgrounds and racetracks featuring buildings not meant for human habitation, like horse stalls or cow sheds, that had been converted for that purpose.

    The Santa Anita Assembly Center, just several miles northeast of Los Angeles, was a de-facto city with 18,000 interred, 8,500 of whom lived in stables. Food shortages and substandard sanitation were prevalent in these facilities. On August 4, 1942, a riot broke out in the Santa Anita facility, the result of anger about insufficient rations and overcrowding. At Manzanar, California, tensions resulted in the beating of a Japanese American Citizens League member by six masked men. Fearing a riot, police tear-gassed crowds, and one man was killed by police.

    The concentration camps were located in 10 remote areas and these Americans were housed in tar paper shacks. Some of them were shot and killed by guards if they walked too near the barbed wire fences around the camps.

    For a more complete picture, see
    https://www.britannica.com/event/Japanese-American-internment

    Sarcasm follows . . .
    And here’s a photo of happily interned Japanese-Americans at a snowy mountain resort enjoying a community gathering with several attractive cottages visible in the background along with a wildfire observation tower.
    https://www.newstarget.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2016/08/Japanese-internment-camp.jpeg

    -Q

  272. 272
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Concentration camp: a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution.

    It certainly sounds like the Japanese internment camps qualify as concentration camps. The US rounded up citizens, seized their businesses and property, and placed them in guarded compounds. All because of their ancestry. Of note, this was not done to citizens of German or Italian descent.

    The internment camps were the result of fear due to systemic racism.

  273. 273
    Steve Alten2 says:

    FN/ As a kid I had a couple friends who’s parents were placed in Japanese internment camps. At different times I asked the fathers if they felt bitter about it. Both of them said that they didn’t. That they felt sorry for the people who had so much fear and insecurity in their lives that they felt it necessary to take away their freedom. I don’t know if their attitude was a cultural thing or if they were anomalies.

  274. 274
    kairosfocus says:

    KEY DEVELOPMENT

    https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1349865669383356419?s=21

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1354781/download

    TWEET STRING (with screen shots, see complaint):

    >>@amuse
    @amuse
    ·
    3h
    BREAKING: The FBI has arrested #BlackLivesMatter

    self-described anti-fascist John Sullivan for leading the charge during the insurrection at the Capitol. Sullivan goaded the first casualty of the event to climb through a window just before she was killed.
    https://justice.gov/opa/page/file/1354781/download
    Image
    @amuse
    @amuse
    ·
    3h
    2/ The FBI alleged that moments before breaching the Capitol’s security John Sullivan told a crowd of disguised counter-protesters, “we about to burn this [SNIP] down, we got to rip Trump out of office, [SNIP] pull him out of that [SNIP], we ain’t waiting until the next election…
    Image
    @amuse
    @amuse
    ·
    3h
    3/ “…we about to go get that mother [SNIP], it is time for a revolution.”

    Shortly afterward Sullivan could be heard goading Ashli Babbitt to jump through a window as he filmed her being shot and killed by law enforcement.
    Image
    @amuse
    @amuse
    ·
    3h
    4/ According to the FBI Sullivan was charged with rioting and criminal mischief during a BLM riot in July in which another civilian was shot and injured. The case is still pending.
    Image
    @amuse
    @amuse
    ·
    3h
    5/ Despite Sullivan’s claims to the contrary the video footage he provided to the FBI showed that he was clearly inciting the protesters exclaiming, “Let’s go! This [SNIP] is ours! [SNIP] yeah! We accomplished this [SNIP]! We did this together! [SNIP] yeah! Let’s burn this [SNIP] down!
    Image

    @amuse
    @amuse
    ·
    3h
    6/ According to the FBI the video also shows Sullivan helping protesters climb the wall.>>

    So, we now have an evident case of real incitement, indicating that in part the actual riot was a street theatre event to feed an agit prop and lawfare narrative barrage.

    The rioters were idiots and lawless but the contrast to the call for peaceful protest by Mr Trump, speaks.

    The Time on Target barrage has now met a first counter-battery hit. So, whose report should we believe, why? ANS: first duties of reason.

    KF

  275. 275
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: He was on CNN the night of the riot, reportedly, in guise of videographer. They are already trying to spin him as fake BLM . . . refer to what BLM was doing for months, which is of a piece with the issues above. Whether he is double or triple agent . . .

    think here, what was Mata Hari [I think, largely a convenient dupe who then became most useful as a target for a firing squad at Vincennes (apparently, one of the squad fainted on being called upon to fire)]

    . . . is of no consequence to the reason to take seriously the question that he was a key agent provocateur triggering what has been exploited for over a week for an agit-prop- censorship- lawfare coordinated barrage. Some serious rethinking and likely some walking back is/are in order. I am not about to hold my breath, cf. the Reichstag fire and its role in history (don’t overlook the patsy and the designated scapegoats), which was by and large ignored above.

  276. 276
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A reminder on relativism, subjectivism and emotivism, as objectors have a habit of not reading:

    Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping:

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

    Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts.

    Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values.

    Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible.

    Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.

    KF

    PS: On “decry” I note:

    de·cry (d?-kr??)
    tr.v. de·cried, de·cry·ing, de·cries
    1.
    a. To condemn as wrong or reprehensible: “an editorial in which he decried the proliferation of cheap handguns” (Bill Turque).
    b. To express disapproval of (a person); denounce: “I could not bear to hear my old nurse so decried” (Charles Dickens). See Synonyms at criticize.
    2. To depreciate (currency, for example) by official proclamation or by rumor.
    [French décrier, from Old French descrier : des-, de- + crier, to cry; see cry.]
    de·cri?er n.
    American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

    It seems that there is warrant on the table, not merely dismissiveness or disapproval.

  277. 277
    kairosfocus says:

    LT, kindly answer to the history of radical revolutions since 1789, and their cumulative body count. You may also need to address the coherence or otherwise of the C and R parts of the usual LCR spectrum model. The development just above may be relevant also. KF

  278. 278
    mike1962 says:

    Steve Alten2: That they felt sorry for the people who had so much fear and insecurity in their lives that they felt it necessary to take away their freedom.

    Heh. well, ya know, it was… war. Insecurity? The better term is self-preservation. The Japanese attacked the USA, killed thousands of Americans and were hell-bent on killing a lot more. Of course there was fear and insecurity. Derp. Idiotic to think the USA’s response was not justifiable.

  279. 279
    mike1962 says:

    Querius: What happened was that the entire west coast was declared “a military base” and Americans of Japanese ancestry lost their homes, their jobs, their cars, their businesses, and their possessions.

    Yeah, it was war… that the Japanese started. Derp.

    You can’t tell who to trust in the fog of war. Humans are tribal.

    The interred Japanese were treated quite humanely.

  280. 280
    Querius says:

    Mike1962,

    These were Americans, not Japanese. Compared to the Nazi and Soviet concentration camps, yes. And yes, this exposed the racism and xenophobia in American society at that time. In earlier times, there was similar discrimination against Italian and Irish immigrants.

    Again, my primary point was the gross exaggeration and misapplication of Executive Order #9066. https://www.albuqhistsoc.org/source-documents/executive-order-9066-japanese-internment/

    Steve Alten2,
    No, your experience was not an anomaly. The Americans of Japanese ancestry that I’ve spoken with were all gracious and understanding, although their internment was clearly unwarranted and unconstitutional and they were embarrassed and saddened by what was done to them. And now, I just saw this from last year.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/20/california-japanese-internment-camps-apology

    Unlike impeachment, admitting guilt and issuing a formal apology to Japanese-Americans takes more than a few days: for the Federal government, it took only 43 years but for the state of California it took a full 77 years (the last interned Japanese-Americans were finally released in 1946).

    But we still haven’t heard from KF’s most vocal critics on my question:

    “Regarding inciting violence: Is the Black Lives Matter slogan, “Silence is violence,” something that you would agree or disagree with?”

    How about it? Hello?

    -Q

  281. 281
    mike1962 says:

    Querius: These were Americans, not Japanese.

    They looked like the Japanese evaders. (In case you hadn’t noticed.) Like it or not, humans are tribal. And it’s not easy to determine who is loyal in the fog of war, esp after an invasion. When things get down to basics, humans strip down to basics in their thinking. Just the way it is. Hindsight is 20-20.

  282. 282
    mike1962 says:

    Querius: Is the Black Lives Matter slogan, “Silence is violence,” something that you would agree or disagree with?”

    It’s a slogan that could apply to literally anything. In this case, the people using it are Marxist agitators looking to cause friction between the races, and beyond. Only idiots are fooled by this. Unfortunately you may have defend yourself against someone who thinks slogan such as this are justification for abuse against you.

  283. 283
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Excerpt from the already linked Sullivan complaint Affidavit, p. 5, substantiating and expanding what is in the tweet string above:

    11. SULLIVAN, DOB 07/18/1994, is a resident of Utah. Based on publicly available
    information and information provided by SULLIVAN in an interview on January 7, 2021, described
    further below, SULLIVAN is the leader of an organization called Insurgence USA through which
    he organizes protests. On July 13, 2020, SULLIVAN was charged with Rioting and Criminal
    Mischief by the local law enforcement authorities in Provo, Utah, based on his activities around a
    June 30, 2020, protest in which a civilian was shot and injured
    . The case is still pending.

    [–> this is consistent with his being a BLM/Antifa activist and organiser, which lends weight to the issue, agent provocateur, creating street theatre to feed a narrative bombardment. Things are, after all, a little further along than in 1933]
    12. The United States obtained a video of SULLIVAN, posted on YouTube, in which,
    while attending a protest in Washington, D.C., SULLIVAN can be seen telling a crowd, over a
    microphone, “we about to burn this [SNIP] down,” “we got to rip Trump out of office . . . [SNIP] pull
    him out of that [SNIP] . . . we ain’t waiting until the next election . . . we about to go get that [SNIP].” SULLIVAN then can be seen leading the crowd in a chant of, “it’s time for a
    revolution.”
    1

    This is real incitement, in immediate proximity to the scene and lends credibility to the onward clips above.

    From p. 9:

    b. After the crowd broke through the last barricade, and as SULLIVAN and the
    others approach the Capitol Building, SULLIVAN can be heard in the video saying
    at various points: “There are so many people. Let’s go. This [SNIP] is ours! [SNIP] yeah,”
    “We accomplished this [SNIP]. We did this together. [SNIP] yeah! We are all a part of
    this history,” and “Let’s burn this [SNIP] down.”
    c. Later, SULLIVAN’s video includes footage of individuals climbing a wall
    to reach a plaza just outside the Capitol Building entrance, as seen in the screenshot
    below. As individuals are climbing the wall, SULLIVAN can be heard saying, “You
    guys are [SNIP] savage. Let’s go!”

    This shows the same pattern.

    From p. 15:

    23. At various times in his statements to law enforcement, to others inside the U.S.
    Capitol that were recorded in his video, and to news outlets, SULLIVAN has claimed he was at the
    U.S. Capitol only to document and report. In addition, your affiant is aware that, at various times,
    SULLIVAN has claimed to be a journalist. He has admitted, however, that he has no press
    credentials and the investigation has not revealed any connection between SULLIVAN and any
    journalistic organizations.

    The contrast with the reported record speaks for itself.

    Now, were the major media and interests involved primarily servants of truth, sound reasoning and prudence, we would expect a balanced discussion and waiting until reasonable investigations can give a clear enough picture. It speaks volumes that such is exactly what has not happened.

    KF

  284. 284
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: As they have been ignored and buried under further comments, many distractive, I again point to the Reichstag fire and aftermath, as a worked out, sober warning from history.

    First, Enc Brit on the incident, in summary (why is this yet another point where there is widespread ignorance?):

    Reichstag fire, burning of the Reichstag (parliament) building in Berlin, on the night of February 27, 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship and widely believed to have been contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its opponents and to assume emergency powers.

    Adolf Hitler had secured the chancellorship after the elections of November 1932, but his Nazi Party had not won an overall majority. He therefore obtained Cabinet consent to hold new elections on March 5, 1933. Meanwhile, his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, was supposed to have devised the scheme whereby 10 agents led by Karl Ernst were to gain access to the Reichstag through a tunnel leading from the official residence of Hermann Göring, Reichstag president and Hitler’s chief minister, who was then to conduct an official investigation, which would fix responsibility for the fire on the communists. The supposed arsonist was a Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, whom some have claimed was brought to the scene of the crime by Nazi agents. Others have contended that there was no proof of Nazi complicity in the crime, but that Hitler merely capitalized on van der Lubbe’s independent act. [–> there is on balance stronger evidence of opportunism] The fire is the subject of continued debate and research.

    On February 28, 1933, the day after the fire, Hitler’s dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree “for the Protection of the People and the State,” which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights. Though the ensuing elections still did not give the Nazis an outright majority, they were able to persuade the Reichstag to pass an Enabling Act (March 23) whereby all its legislative powers were transferred to the Reich Cabinet by a vote of 444 to 94, so sanctioning the dictatorship.

    Now, Wikipedia, speaking against interest:

    Political consequences

    The day after the fire, at Hitler’s request, President [Paul von] Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree into law by using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany, including habeas corpus, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, and the secrecy of the post and telephone.[13] These rights were not reinstated during Nazi reign. The decree was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered “friendly” to the Nazi cause. Despite the fact that Marinus van der Lubbe claimed to have acted alone in the Reichstag fire, Hitler, after having obtained his emergency powers, announced that it was the start of a Communist plot to take over Germany. Nazi Party newspapers then published this fabricated “news”.[13] This sent the German population into a panic and isolated the Communists further among the civilians; additionally, thousands of Communists were imprisoned in the days following the fire (including leaders of the Communist Party of Germany) on the charge that the Party was preparing to stage a putsch. Speaking to Rudolph Diels about Communists during the Reichstag fire, Hitler said “These sub-humans do not understand how the people stand at our side. In their mouse-holes, out of which they now want to come, of course they hear nothing of the cheering of the masses.”[14] With Communist electoral participation also suppressed (the Communists previously polled 17% of the vote), the Nazis were able to increase their share of the vote in the 5 March 1933 Reichstag elections from 33% to 44%.[15] This gave the Nazis and their allies, the German National People’s Party (who won 8% of the vote), a majority of 52% in the Reichstag.[15]

    While the Nazis emerged with a majority, they fell short of their goal, which was to win 50–55% of the vote that year.[15] The Nazis thought that this would make it difficult to achieve their next goal, passage of the Enabling Act giving Hitler the right to rule by decree, which required a two-thirds majority.[15] However, several important factors weighed in the Nazis’ favour, mainly the continued suppression of the Communist Party and the Nazis’ ability to capitalize on national security concerns. Moreover, some deputies of the Social Democratic Party (the only party that would vote against the Enabling Act) were prevented from taking their seats in the Reichstag, due to arrests and intimidation by the Nazi SA. As a result, the Social Democratic Party would be under-represented in the final vote tally. The Enabling Act passed easily on 23 March 1933, with the support of the right-wing German National People’s Party, the Centre Party, and several fragmented middle-class parties. The measure went into force on 27 March, effectively making Hitler dictator of Germany.

    The Kroll Opera House, sitting across the Königsplatz from the burned-out Reichstag building, functioned as the Reichstag’s venue for the remaining 12 years of the Third Reich’s existence.

    The key prudence, right reason and accurate report of reality [= truth] issue, here, is that the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears. Those who ignore, suppress/censor, dismiss, distract from, deny or supplant those lessons doom themselves to pay in the same coin over and over again. Hence, the pattern Marx (yes, Marx) pointed out in speaking of the history of the two Napoleons. History repeats, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

    My prediction and analysis is, we will continue to see refusal to attend to soundness and prudence. Precisely what Plato’s parable of the ship of state warns against. And which itself is a lesson of history rooted in the collapse and failure of Athenian Democracy through the Peloponnesian war.

    Soundness does not sit well with the narrative, so much the worse for the history. That silly stargazer of a navigator, why not toss him to the sharks too?

    Over the cliff . . .

  285. 285
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: The issue is not soundness or evidence but our timely responsiveness to such.

  286. 286
    jerry says:

    our timely responsiveness to such

    No it is not timely responsiveness. They are all aware of the evidence and generally understand it. It is something else.

    What drives an individual to be consistently hypocritical? That is the interesting question. Being a hypocrite used to be unpardonable social gaffe. But now it is the norm for a large percentage of the population.

    Yesterday, just for an exercise I visited a couple news sites to look for liberal intolerance and hypocrisy and found about 15 different instances of this behavior. But. this is nothing new as we have years of comments on this site that demonstrate this behavior. The real question is what drives people to be this way?

  287. 287
    ET says:

    Acartia Stevie:

    The internment camps were the result of fear due to systemic racism.

    That is your uneducated opinion. It is very telling that the alleged racism didn’t rear its head until after Japan did their sneak attack on US military positions in the Pacific.

  288. 288
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, timely responsiveness to truth etc implies due response. Hypocrisy is not due response, nor is unwarranted dismissiveness, nor evasion, etc. KF

  289. 289
    jerry says:

    internment camps were the result of fear due to systemic racism

    The Democratic Party was then as it is now the source of racism in the United States.

  290. 290
    Querius says:

    Kairosfocus,

    Your observations regarding the Reichstag fire are highly applicable here! They follow a long list of similar events that politicians needed to justify their planned actions. This is why some atrocities are ignored and others are magnified. The whole purpose is to manipulate popular opinion, discredit some political enemy (sometimes foreign, usually domestic), or take draconian measures such as martial law, mandatory camps for “internment or “re-education,” outlawing a political party, shutting down opposition media, expulsion of a minority, military intervention, or war.

    Examples involving the U.S include “Remember the Maine,” the sinking of the RMS Lucetania (which carried 173 tons of munitions by the way), Pearl Harbor (FDR forced the U.S. Navy to move their Pacific base from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, dismissing an opposed admiral in the process), the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Twin Towers and the “Patriot Act,” and so on.

    I’m not saying that these incidents did not deserve a response, but that responses are carefully chosen or ignored by politicians. They strain out gnats and swallow camels according to their immediate interests.

    -Q

  291. 291
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Querius “Is the Black Lives Matter slogan, “Silence is violence,” something that you would agree or disagree with?”

    I think it is very appropriate. When you think about it, it is no different than MLK’s statement that “For evil to succeed, all it needs is for good men to do nothing.“.

  292. 292
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Mike1962 “Yeah, it was war… that the Japanese started. Derp.

    Then why weren’t all citizens of German ancestry rounded up? Why weren’t all muslim citizens rounded up after 9/11?

    You can’t tell who to trust in the fog of war. Humans are tribal.

    That does not justify rounding everyone up who had Japanese ancestry. And how do you justify seizing their businesses and property, and only allowing them to take everything they can carry?

    The interred Japanese were treated quite humanely.

    Being force to live in horse stalls, being shot if they get too close to the wire. How is this being treated quite humanely?

  293. 293
    ET says:

    The Germans did NOT bomb Pearl Harbor in a SNEAK attack.

  294. 294
    orthomyxo says:

    Remember when the Dominion liable suit was just an idle threat, then a terrible idea that would back fire on them? Lol https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/statement.html

  295. 295
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Orthomyxo, are you suggesting that all of the accusations made against Dominion on this thread and its’ predecessors were false and libellous?

  296. 296
  297. 297
    ET says:

    And now the liberal media is judge and jury. Someone fighting back means they are right. No guilty party would ever claim innocence and try to bully their way clear of all charges.

    Does one chump cheerleading for another give the first more points?

  298. 298
    Seversky says:

    Mike1962/240

    “Megaphones” are utilized by people who think that they are being unfairly exploited. Are you against the “megaphone” to violence in all cases?

    Using a “megaphone” to bring legitimate grievances to the attention of others is one thing. Urging violence against others where there are other means of addressing grievances is quite another.

    I would say that, in time of war, it is acceptable to use a “megaphone” encourage your soldiers to kill enemy soldiers as matter of duty. Even then, it would not be acceptable to call for the massacre of civilians such as was carried out by the Nazi Einsatztruppen in Russia in WWII.

  299. 299
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/244

    LESSONS OF HISTORY: The Reichstag fire

    Are you suggesting that the storming of the Capitol was engineered by Democratic and/or BLM agents provocateur?

  300. 300
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Seversky “ Are you suggesting that the storming of the Capitol was engineered by Democratic and/or BLM agents provocateur?

    Based on his comments at 274, 275, and 283 I think that is exactly what he is saying.

  301. 301
    jerry says:

    Are you suggesting that the storming of the Capitol was engineered by Democratic and/or BLM agents provocateur?”

    It seems that Sullivan exacerbated the situation where he was. I don’t believe anyone believes he was the sole one responsible. There are lots of others who were directing things in what was described as a coordinated way. At least that how it looked this morning.

    The real question is why a police force of 2,000 couldn’t handle about 300 rioters? Especially when they were warned something was about to happen. Also many more police officers were seriously hurt during the BlM riots.

  302. 302
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky [& attn SA2],

    I posed the Reichstag incident first and foremost as a warning, a general warning that I think should be a part of our general education. Had this been my native homeland, I would have pointed to the Werewolf incident by which a conspiracy was announced, a state of emergency was declared, and a down-spiral happened, into civil war.

    Your obvious dismissiveness of its relevance to what can happen, is checked by recognition of the fact that the Weimar Republic had a Democratic Constitution but discredited itself, and opened the door to the creation of the sort of coup shown. The USA stands warned that constitutional democracies can die, can slide down the slope into lawless oligarchy; cf. my chart on such in the OP.

    A second warning is on how agit prop works in a polarised situation where credibility has been weakened.

    Thirdly, Mr Sulllivan is an example of what an agent provocateur can do, and there were apparently others of similar character and behaviour. Do not forget the incident of January 2017, in which an agit prop media and social media mob lynching was well underway until there were decisive interventions; this time with the sort of censorship that has been put in place, such interventions are going to be very hard to get through. I add, notice his organisation and recent history as are clipped on above. This suggests strongly that he is part of a movement as was noted on for months already. Recall, here, the u-Haul a Riot incident and the network of organisations it pointed to.

    And that is independent of the other obvious fact that there was an idiot fringe willing to riot, which is to be distinguished from the vast majority of 100’s of k, who attended a protest rally but are now routinely slandered as attenders at a riot or insurrection.

    Further to this, the videotape record of Mr Sullivan’s words are to be studied by direct contrast with those of Mr Trump, on the subject of what actual incitement looks like as opposed to call to peaceful protest as a form of petition for redress of grievances . . . this is directly relevant to the hasty act of a second impeachment; which hastiness is a direct point of comparison with president Hindenberg’s action and the follow-on election under shadow of agit prop manipulation and lawfare that led the rump legislature to vote Hitler his dictatorial powers.

    Obviously, such are possibilities on the strong prudential basis that such has already happened within living memory in a major and democratic state.

    A similar issue may attach to, say, the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    On these the contrast with events and media narrative for months is a telling indicator of what Ms Attkisson warns against in Slanted and of what you and others need to answer to in the paper, Repressive Tolerance, by Marcuse.

    KF

  303. 303
    mike1962 says:

    Steve Alten2: Then why weren’t all citizens of German ancestry rounded up? Why weren’t all muslim citizens rounded up after 9/11?

    Different policy. 20-20 hindsight. If you have a problem with the Japanese internment, get out your Ouija board and bitch to FDR. What occurred was reasonable given the situation and the times.

    Me: “You can’t tell who to trust in the fog of war. Humans are tribal.”

    You: That does not justify rounding everyone up who had Japanese ancestry.

    It’s matter of opinion. Yours is yours. Mine is mine.

    And how do you justify seizing their businesses and property, and only allowing them to take everything they can carry?

    I think that was wrong. They should have been compensated justly.

    Me: “The interred Japanese were treated quite humanely.”

    You: Being force to live in horse stalls, being shot if they get too close to the wire. How is this being treated quite humanely?

    It could have been much worse. Compared to how the Nazis treated the Jews, it was pretty decent. My main point was using the term “concentration camp” with respect to the Japanese internment camps is irresponsible without clarification.

  304. 304
    mike1962 says:

    Seversky, then your answer to my question is “no.” Okay then.

  305. 305
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: I would compare that the Lusitania sinking was relevant to German violation of war of commerce treaties and standards in effect, despite there being munitions. The going to war in 1917 had more to do with renewed unrestricted warfare and the Zimmerman telegram inviting Mexico into war with the US. In 1941, the notion that Mr Roosevelt (a former Navy Secretary) would deliberately sacrifice the battleship core of the US Battle Fleet to provide a pretext for war falls of its own weight; blunders there were, such a stunt, no. As a key blunder think of the institutional failure tied to how the approaching air raid was detected on radar over a year after the Battle of Britain but was not reasonably and promptly responded to. The 9/11 attacks were real, and the known softening of Iron alloys under heat readily explains pancake collapse. Yes, acts since have often been ill advised but the main incident was real and exposed undetected vulnerabilities — itself a lesson. The abuse of surveillance powers and supervisory courts in recent years, is a lesson that should have been drawn. The USS Maine explosion and its manipulation through yellow journalism is a troubling lesson with more relevance than many would admit. The draconian measures of WW1 in the US were uncomfortably parallel to dictatorship. And more.

  306. 306
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Mike1962 “ My main point was using the term “concentration camp” with respect to the Japanese internment camps is irresponsible without clarification.

    I find it amusing that some people got all up in arms about redefining marriage but think nothing of redefining concentration camps. The Japanese internment camps meet all of the definitions of concentration camps. Let me remind you.

    Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial.

  307. 307
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, on fair comment your rhetorical dishonesty shines through your strawman caricature and even more dishonest turnabout projection. Concentration camp has an overwhelming connotation post WW2, that for cause would make any responsible person hold back from using that term for the internment camps in the US in the 1940’s. Some bad things happened, indeed, but that has nothing to do with genocide. Next, the attempt to redefine marriage under false colour of law goes against core human biology and linked moral imperatives of sound society; the undermining of the natural connexions of law is itself a danger sign through absurdities of legal positivism, etc. The link onward to confusion about our genetically stamped complementary sexes is a further sign. And no, this is not an open door to a toxic side track. I have already given three references with a significant body of reading for the genuinely perplexed. You have managed to again underscore, inadvertently, the significance of first duties of reason in reform of our civilisation. KF

    PS: A jury of dictionaries:

    concentration camp
    n.
    1. A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as suspect.
    2. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.
    American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
    concentration camp
    n
    (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a guarded prison camp in which nonmilitary prisoners are held, esp one of those in Nazi Germany in which millions were exterminated
    Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014
    concentra?tion camp`
    n.
    a guarded compound for the confinement of political prisoners, minorities, etc., esp. those established by the Nazis for the internment and persecution of prisoners.
    [1900–05]
    Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

    Here, Merriam-Webster is particularly relevant:

    Definition of concentration camp

    : a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard —used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisonersThe Nazi soldiers hauled [Mordechai] Strigler off to a concentration camp, and carved swastikas into his cheeks and forehead with a razor blade. Over the next five years, he was sent from one concentration camp or slave-labor camp to another.— David RemnickShe ended up dying in a concentration camp, just a few months before she would have been liberated.— Marilyn ReynoldsThe V2 killed thousands of British civilians while 20,000 concentration camp inmates died as slave labourers during its manufacture in the closing stages of the second world war.— Anna Tomforde et al. — see also death camp

    Howard Zinn’s immoral equivalency tactics here stand exposed.

  308. 308
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ Concentration camp has an overwhelming connotation post WW2, that for cause would make any responsible person hold back from using that term for the internment camps in the US in the 1940’s.

    How many of these “responsible persons” you are referring to were American citizens who had their constitutional rights arbitrarily removed because they belonged to an identifiable group? Who had their houses and businesses seized? Who were given short notice to pack only what they could carry? Who were forced to live in substandard conditions, behind barbed wire? Who were never charged with any crime?

    Your attempt to justify this crime because they weren’t treated as bad as Jews in Nazi concentration camps speaks volumes. And not in your favour. A concentration camp, by any other name, would smell as repulsive.

    And, I must say, you reprimanding me on using the term “concentration camp” for Japanese internment camps given its association with NAZI concentration camps is rich coming from someone who repeatedly uses the term “Holocaust” when referring to abortion.

  309. 309
    Querius says:

    It seems that most everyone appreciates how a definition frames an argument. So, when we raise the issue of “using a megaphone to incite violence” and couple it together with the BLM slogan, “silence is violence,” one can see that carrying a megaphone without screaming BLM slogans is using that megaphone for violence puts one at risk of arrest!

    This exaggeration is not dissimilar to defining the entire west coast as a military base, and removing American citizens of an identifiable ethnicity to . . . “vacation cottages.”

    See my point? I see that Steve Alten2 does.

    -Q

  310. 310
    mike1962 says:

    Steve Alten2: think nothing of redefining concentration camps. The Japanese internment camps meet all of the definitions of concentration camps.

    Arguing against a straw man. I’m not trying to redefine anything.

    I’ll repeat what I wrote:

    “I would bet that in general people think “Nazi death camps” when the term “concentration camp” is used. When using “concentration camp” with respect to Japanese internment camps, I think the responsible thing to do is clarify that those camps were nothing like Nazi concentration/slave/death camps.”

    “My main point was using the term “concentration camp” with respect to the Japanese internment camps is irresponsible without clarification.

    I have not tried to redefine any terms nor prevent their usage.

    Hope that helps.

  311. 311
    kairosfocus says:

    A SIGN: The mindset that is emerging from the shadows; note, the thoughts below are coming from recent graduates of the Harvard school of government . . . so, even if a small circle, it speaks:

    https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/harvard-campaign-seeks-revoke-degrees-trump-officials-and-trump-allies

    >>Graduate students and alumni of the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) have launched a campaign and petition to revoke the degrees earned by Harvard alumni who worked in the Trump administration and Harvard grads in Congress who support the president.

    “Harvard must revoke the degrees of alumni whose incendiary language and subversion of democratic processes — rooted in a history of white supremacist voter suppression — incited the violent insurrection on January 6,” reads the petition, which is headlined “Revoke Their Degrees.”

    “This includes all who have used their platforms to deny the validity of the presidential election,” it states. “They do not and should not represent a university committed to ‘strengthening democracy’ and ‘the advancement of justice.’ . . . .

    “It’s no secret that over a dozen Harvard graduates worked hard to spread the disinformation and mistrust that created last Wednesday’s insurrection — from Representative Dan Crenshaw (HKS ‘17), who supported the December Texas lawsuit to invalidate the election, to Senator Ted Cruz (HLS ’97), one of the loudest claimants of fraud and a rare senator still objecting to the election certification after the violence at the Capitol, to White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany (HLS ’17), who dutifully denies the validity of the election,” states the petition. >>

    These, likely, lack a Biblical background, so they don’t know what the misanthropy they are manifesting is ever so ugly an echo of:

    Rev 13:16 Also it [the second Beast, from the earth/land] causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[e] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the [first] beast [from the sea] or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.[f] [codes to Nero Caesar, i.e. the first Emperor to lawlessly persecute the Christian Church, an allusion to a myth of Nero reborn] [ESV]

    The underlying judgement of widespread conspiracy to carry out an insurrection, extrapolates excessively from a fringe isolated riot to the despised other across the board. It is then used to suppress even consideration of public facts, not to mention a considerable body of evidence that is dismissed. The repressive intolerance of the desired other also then throws an ugly light on the pattern of favoured riots across the past seven months.

    Unfortunately, this petition finds an echo in too many other cases of intemperate speech over the past several days and in the significance of an excessively hasty act of impeachment.

    The echoes of truly horrific chapters of history are not going to go away.

    KF

  312. 312
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, your refusal to heed the message of the jury of dictionaries inadvertently tells us much, ever so much. Your slanderous projection to me of attempted justification of a wrong because I pointed out that despite the bad things done to Japanese immigrants and citizens [where, BTW, the Nisei regiment had soldiers who literally came out of internment or had family in such internment], there was no proper parallel to the genocide that the Konzentrationslager (KZ) represented . . . yes, genocide . . . further speaks. Where, a close parallel is the Gulag Archipelago from the 1920’s to the threshold of the 1990’s as the Soviet Union used a similar manner to target those it sought to repress, with a similarly horrific death toll in the key years as Solzhenitsyn documents. The clear evidence of the jury of dictionaries is, that KZ or its English equivalent has been tainted by the Nazi case. So, no responsible person should use such language without good cause to infer or imply genocide or democide. Internment camp with abuses and wrongs that may have in part reflected racial animus, is enough; though there may well have been some military necessity in the situation. That you continue to enable Howard Zinn-style immoral equivalence and willful demonisation of the US etc through invidious comparison with the Nazi state, despite correction, tells us: cognitive dissonance resolved through projection to the despised other. KF

    PS: As documented readily, the unborn child is alive, half the time a different sex from his mother and is clearly innocent of any crimes. The deliberate mass slaughter of such under colour of law, globally 800+ millions, and in the US about 63 millions is legitimately comparable to the mass slaughter by the state of about 6 million Jews, 5 – 7 million others (with Poland epicentre) as well as the associated 20 millions of non battlefield deaths in the USSR, which overlaps. Your crude turnabout projection fails. It is also further highly suggestive. For, as Schaeffer and Koop pointed out, Germany underwent a slippery slope ratchet process that started with abortion and euthanasia (on the launch of the war, disabled WW1 vets were killed as well as others deemed life unworthy of life, eventually children were killed for bedwetting), then proceeded to genocide. All of this reflects the undermining of the BATNA of lawfulness as I analysed in the OP. The analysis you have not cogently responded to; and which analysis should have implied to any responsible person that abuse across the board through lawlessness is being implied. And no, I am not going to yield to shut-up rhetoric on this key evil of our time.

  313. 313
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A more balanced and informative historical perspective https://history.army.mil/html/topics/apam/Nisei.htm KF

  314. 314

    How do we move civilization forward?

    While there is a hodgepodge of a zillion different things to do, in order to move civilization forward, only one thing stands out as the most important.

    Which is to teach the difference between fact and opinion in school.

    The two fundamental categories of creator and creation, perfectly correpond with the categories of what is subjective and objective. As explained on the website.

    http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy

    Materialists make bad opinions, simply because materialism does not validate the concept of opinion at all. Materialism only validates the concept of fact.

    Materialism is the reason why communists and nazi’s make bad government.

    In regards to nazi’s, it is because they mistakenly asserted that personal character is material / factual.

    As personal character is on the side of what makes a choice, logic dictates that it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

    If you would take out this single mistaken materialist element from nazism, then nazism would not be a disaster anymore. It wouldn’t be nazism anymore, it would just be some politics to prop up the national feeling.

    People are really very, very, very, stupid in not understanding the difference between fact and opinion, and not appreciating the importance of understanding the difference. The importance of it is fundamental.

  315. 315
    kairosfocus says:

    INDICATOR: The battle of the polls is telling us something, given the polling failure of the election just past:

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/15/nolte-rasmussen-poll-shows-no-slip-in-support-for-president-trump/

    Nolte: Rasmussen Poll Shows No Slip in Support for President Trump
    John Nolte15 Jan 2021

    On January 5, President Trump’s job approval rating with Rasmussen was 47 percent. Today, the president’s job approval is 48 percent.

    The attack on Capitol Hill took place on January 6. Since then, there has been more than a week of 24/7, highly-coordinated media hysteria attacking the president as a traitor, as guilty of sedition, of being criminally liable for leading a violent coup against the United States of America … and his job approval rating is up a point.

    Don’t pay any attention to media pollsters. Please don’t. They’re all [SNIP]. All liars. All proven liars who have been deceiving and lying to you for at least three election cycles. Rasmussen is one of the few pollsters you can trust, so when Rasmussen tells us Trump’s support has not slipped, you can not only believe it, you are offered the opportunity to wonder why.

    The main reason why is that corporate media no longer have the power to sway public opinion. Look at what’s going on out there right now. You not only have the fake media accusing Trump of sedition and of starting a riot, you have all of Hollywood climbing on board and the Democrat Party impeaching him (again).

    Trump was just impeached a second time, and his job approval rating hasn’t budged.

    In other words, the media and Democrats and Hollywood are only talking amongst themselves. No one else is even listening. These institutions have turned it up to 11 for the past ten or so days, and have persuaded no one NO ONE to drop their support for Trump.

    Nobody’s listening to these idiots anymore. Their hysteria is echoing only throughout their own echo chamber. The rest of us are numb to it, don’t trust it, and know when we’re being hustled and lied to.

    Nolte is obviously rather angry and it shows in his over the top language. However, it is not the emotion but the underlying perceptions, observations and judgements or inferences that are key. It is after all facts and logic that are the basis of credible warrant. Which is a main theme in the focus for the OP and discussion above.

    Let us notice:

    1: Other polls have shown about 47% believe there is a material integrity breakdown with the election, something substantiated by a considerable body of evidence that is being marginalised, censored and stigmatised but is not going away. Suing the unwelcome messenger for $1.3 billions — an index that the suit is not reasonable — does not change the baseline realities.

    2: There has been a clear push to use a fringe riot to stigmatise and demonise that half of the US population, which per one of the few remaining credible polls, has essentially not moved Mr Trump’s support.

    3: The dominant narrative, has failed to budge the support, indicative that there are other contexts of evaluation that point to severely eroded credibility of the dominant narrative’s backers and presenters. Note, the demonstrable distortion of Mr Trump’s words into their opposite and a similar campaign of spreading taint surrounding the Charlottesville clashes is likely relevant.

    4: In this context, talk about re-education etc is a sign that there is a streak of ruthlessness among some supporters of the dominant narrative.

    5: There is a serious hardening of polarisation.

    Until there is serious addressing of the injection of effectively uncontrolled mail-in ballots, 3rd party ballot harvesting and frustration of scrutineering, the clear judgement is that election integrity has been fatally compromised. Which poses an existential threat. The obvious import is, that this will be the central, largely unspoken point of contention going forward, and that this implies a heightened 4g war conflict in the various battlespaces of current conflict (mostly, low kinetic) as events move to strategic decision across this year.

    By analogy, Pearl Harbor led to running the board through strategic overstretch offensives. Then, Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal marked the turning of the tide. Conflict continued for years but the strategic outcome was decided at Midway.

    KF

  316. 316
    kairosfocus says:

    MNY, I note your comment. I agree, moving civilisation forward is a multifaceted issue of great complexity. I have highlighted first duties of reason as pivotal to such a broader process. We have to straighten out our collective thinking, not just on facts and opinions but on reasoning, duty, moral government of rationality, the nature of our humanity, law, justice and government and more. KF

    PS: Nazis were all over the place. A significant line was neo-pagan.

  317. 317

    Kairosfocus

    I believe we only have to straighten out fact an opinion, because then people will make good opinions. Or rather, not systematically make bad opinions.

    The reason for the success of the USA is mainly ammendment no 1, free speech. So if free speech is that important, then obviously to validate the concept of opinion would be important also.

  318. 318

    Nazism is best explained by the textbook for schooling the hitler youth. It says:

    “the foundation for the National Socialist outlook on life is the perception of the unlikeness of men”

    Which is then explained in terms of scientific facts about personal character.

    So then there is no freedom to be merciful in judgement on personal character, as the issue is forced by evidence. From this derives the coldhearted calculating attitudes for which nazi’s were infamous.

    So the nazi objectifies, what is properly a subjective issue, throwing out their emotions in the process. The nazi has no use for emotions in making judgment on the personal character of their family, or anyone.

    Natural selection theory also uses subjective terminology in an objectified way. The entire life cycle of organisms is described using subjective terminology in regards to differential reproductive “success”. Which subjective terminology is asserted as objective, factual.

    So then the textbook for the Hitler Youth states:

    “wiping out the inferior and selection of the best, is the means for raising the racial values of our people”

    Meaning natural selection heory is the catalyst causing people to objectify what is properly a subjective issue.

  319. 319
    jerry says:

    To summarize, to advance civilization

    Opinion must be based on truth

  320. 320
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, which points to duty to truth . . . “must” . . . then to right reason and prudence, with sound conscience as guide. KF

  321. 321

    Jerry

    Wrong. An opinion must be chosen, and must express what it is that makes a choice.

    It is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful or ugly, but to be forced to say a painting is beautiful provides an invalid opinion.

    And facts are just 1 to 1 corresponding models of things. The facts about the circumference of the moon, the mass of it, what it consists of, the craters on it’s surface, all these facts together make up a 1 to 1 corresponding model of the moon in the mind.

  322. 322
    jerry says:

    Wrong. An opinion must be chosen, and must express what it is that makes a choice

    I will rephrase it

    To summarize, to advance civilization

    Beliefs must be based on truth

    I’m not sure I agree that opinions are chosen. They are felt often without much effort to judge why they are held. That is the problem.

    Sometimes they are based on truth, sometimes they are based on falsities, sometimes they are just instinctive and arbitrary. It the last case there may be something inherent in the human makeup (human nature) that leads people to agree that certain things are beautiful or ugly, etc.

  323. 323
    jerry says:

    which points to duty to truth . . . “must” . . . then to right reason and prudence, with sound conscience as guide

    Maybe “truth” summarizes it all. I am not sure what you mean by “right reason” even though you use it a lot (very nebulous.)

    But truth would certainly include logical thinking and recognizing that prudence and consideration of others leads to a better outcomes. So in that sense these are truths.

    Also what is civilization? Is it the Kenneth Clark version? Or is it something else. The modern world has existed for about 200 years. But obviously civilization existed prior to that. There was little concern with the “other” during those civilizations. Not sure they were very prudent. They were mostly power based.

  324. 324
    Querius says:

    Back to the OP, I would say that I’m extremely pessimistic about any “progress” in moving civilization forward. Here are my reasons:

    1. Civilization emerges out of the individual qualities of its citizens.

    2. An intellectually lazy, spineless, self-centered, and self-righteous people should only expect misery. In fact, they demand misery as an excuse and justification for their sloth and immorality. Ultimately, such people join mobs and mobs are only good for de facto slavery. They will live under large, heartless bureaucratic governments in which everything that’s not illegal is mandatory.

    3. Businesses focused on and optimized for profit without the integrity or vision to deliver value to society, produce useless junk made my exploited slave-wage workers and covered with glitter and promises.

    4. Educational institutions become indoctrination centers and diploma mills. Academic research focused on and optimized for publishing and fame without the integrity to deliver rigorous scientific truth, produce fabricated junk science without any value, but defended to their last breath.

    5. Political movements focused on winning at all costs without the integrity and vision to deliver laws that are fair and simple, produce mindless propaganda covered with glitter and lies. They hide behind good intentions, but must ultimately rely on force, ruthlessly centralize power, suppress the initiative and creativity of its citizens, and rob the industrious to shower gifts to their friends and their mobs. They nationalize everything, resulting in minimum quality and impossibly long wait times. Ultimately, they resort to genocide or war both as a catharsis for the mob and to cover their complete incompetence at doing anything but gaining more power and slandering their opponents.

    6. Institutional religions focused on funding and size without respect to the Creator, simply become community entertainment centers with vacuous promises and feel-good philosophies that assure its participants of their self-righteousness.

    7. Such a civilization inevitably collapses under its own weight of useless elites, celebrities, and bureaucrats. Its currency becomes worthless and is replaced by direct bartering of products and services of value.

    However as for me, my intention is not to sink to into despair, but warn people and follow these precepts . . .

    “Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.” – Philippians 4:8

    “He has told you, mortal one, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness [or mercy], and to walk humbly with your God.” – Micah 6:8

    -Q

  325. 325
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Querius “ Back to the OP, I would say that I’m extremely pessimistic about any “progress” in moving civilization forward.

    I think it is far worse than that. I think it is impossible to move civilization forward because there is no agreement on what we want to move civilization towards. It is clear that Kairosfocus’ idea of the ideal civilization differs greatly from what my ideal would be.

  326. 326
    jerry says:

    Kairosfocus’ idea of the ideal civilization differs greatly from what my ideal would be.

    Why don’t you specify how your ideals and Kf’s ideals are different since they differ greatly? That may help clear things up.

  327. 327
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, right reason is an ages old powerful technical term for a framework of logical reflection that is sound, starting with the principle of distinct identity and its close corollaries law of non contradiction and excluded middle, as well as other similarly pivotal first principles, with associated duties. See OP above for brief points. Such is why, for example, Aristotle spoke of prudence as right reason applied to practice. Unfortunately, we are educationally impoverished in our day and so lack canons of deep, rich, sound nurture to our souls. KF

    PS: Cicero, applying to Law and so too sound government:

    {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, On the Republic, Bk 3

    This is of course a key text on natural law pivoting on the inescapable, so self-evident first duties I have highlighted.

  328. 328
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, the just above, from that Bible thumping half-mad, half- illiterate Christofascist, right wing fundy theocrat — NOT — Marcus Tullus Cicero, outlines a key plank of my ideal for civilisation; something that once I hear it, it sings in my soul. Do, tell us why you differ, on what grounds; and what you would put in its place. What would be the result, how? KF

  329. 329
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/265

    I now add to the above, that you need to ponder very carefully the compiled evidence and case — in key parts turning on public facts — that election integrity was willfully and fatally compromised, leading to destruction of credibility and legitimacy of not only the Government but the associated deep state. Where, there is no legitimisation of fraud. Yes, fraud, there is abundant cause to conclude such.

    You proclaim rationality, prudence, fairness and justice as amongst the pre-eminent principles on which any civilized society must be founded, principles which I acknowledge as much as you, then why do you not apply them with due diligence to the alleged evidence for electoral fraud?

    In 60 out of 61 cases, the courts have dismissed cases alleging such fraud, in some cases on procedural grounds – which speaks to the ineptness of the “elite strike force” of lawyers acting for the Trump administration – but in others because the evidence was not judged sufficient to warrant the complaints based upon it.

    What you need to ponder, if you hold yourself to be governed by the principles you have listed, is whether there exists evidence at all of electoral fraud on the scale necessary to shift the result of a national election from one candidate to another. Can you honestly say that this alleged evidence has survived the rigorous scrutiny you apply to claims concerning evolutionary theory, for example? Or is your viewpoint so distorted by your dread of some global Marxist conspiracy that you actually see Trump and his cronies as some sort of unlikely bulwark against it, so much so that you will forgive – or, at least, turn a blind eye to – anything else they might do?

    In that context, a clearly fringe mob and its foolish riots and violence has been used to taint and declare agit prop and lawfare open season on millions who had nothing to do with such. Even, including a clearly surprised Mr Trump; who has been falsely impeached a second time on the flimsiest of excuses.

    I watched the speeches and statements made by Trump on that day and there was no mistaking his support for – and encouragement of – the mob of his supporters.

    Message sent, message received.

    The mob certainly got it.

    Those you are enabling have managed to pose an existential threat to an undefeated Western people.

    No, this is not about some “East” versus “West” Third World War. There may be something like that in our future but the shifting currents and eddies of global politics are far too complex for us to predict that with any certainty. As for the notion that someone as ignorant and self-obsessed as Trump would have the insights necessary to deflect it is absurd in the extreme. And if you want a warning from history, consider all those Germans who held their noses and aligned themselves with Hitler and the Nazi Party out of a greater fear of the Soviet monster to the east. How did that work out for them?

  330. 330

    USA is already much the ideal civilization, with it’s free speech law, elections, balance of power etc.

    The only thing that is turning USA into chaos is “materialism”.

    Materialism is really better explained as a psychological condition, rather than an intellectual position.

    Materialism starts with the idea, that to make a choice means to figure out the best option from available alternatives. Psychological pressure and temptation leads to this idea, not intellectual reasoning.

    The correct understanding of making a choice is for the spirit / emotions, to make one of alternative futures the present. Choices are essentially spontaneous and expressive of love, hate, whatever.

    So, people think of making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, they throw out the spirit from the concept of making a choice, and this is precisely when they become a materialist.

    They lose touch with their own emotions, and instead they calculate a course of action, using facts about what is good and evil to evaluate options with. As like a chesscomputer calculating a move in a completely forced way.

    So the materialist sees good and evil in the chosen options, he doesn’t see it in the spirit making the decision. This is how the materialist develops an obsession with struggle, as reflective of good and lesser options in a choice, struggling with each other.

    The class struggle, and racial struggle, are reflective of the materialist obsession with struggle, derived from the better and lesser options in a choice.

    The idea of figuring out the “best” option, leads to an utopian vision.

    Because the materialist has defined making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, it means anytime they make a choice, then by definition they always did the best. So conscience does not really function.

    The political application of materialism is socialism. Right wing socialism, nazism, or left wing socialism, communism.

    So the socialists have this idea of continuous struggle. They always think they do what is best, no matter what chaos they produce. They assert what is good and evil as being a matter of scientific fact, because they evaluate options based on the facts of good and evil, and consequently they allow no freedom of opinion.

    The whole materialist / socialist threat can very simply be destroyed by teaching the difference between fact and opinion in school. Which involves teaching the correct understanding of making a choice.
    http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy

  331. 331
    Querius says:

    Mohammadnursyamsu @330,

    Nicely articulated!

    -Q

  332. 332
    Querius says:

    Seversky @329,

    Do you agree or disagree with the Black Lives Matter slogan, “Silence is violence”?

    -Q

  333. 333
    jerry says:

    then why do you not apply them with due diligence to the alleged evidence for electoral fraud?

    Read this

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/did-the-democrats-steal-the-presidential-election.php

    Then answer their objections if you can. No one has yet.

    We spent over 5000 comments on election fraud and no one could answer why if the Democrats won, they stonewalled any examination of the counting process. One would think they would have been all over proving they won by opening up the observation process. But they did just the opposite. They acted as if they were guilty.

    Right reason would indicate there was massive fraud in the election. But this OP is not about the election.

  334. 334
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, Jerry is right; it is precisely because we tracked carefully, day by day across the two months and probed beneath the talking points and narrative to evidence and public facts tracing back in some cases decades, that we see that the technical issue dismissals by courts and the like are missing something deeply disturbing. We saw, live, the reaction to the ability to, in a few hours, use banks of scanners to validate kinematic artifacts that would show the truth to the world: evasion, suppression, distraction, personal attacks. We have seen how narrative has been repeatedly poisoned and more, all typical acts of guilty but determined mind backed by power. So, our abiding concerns are founded on first duties of reason. But even more troubling is the attitude to evidence, linked responsible argument and the like. That is why we are now engaging a different, deeper focus: if civilisation and especially the lawful constitutional self-government of a free people are to be preserved, we have to rebuild recognition, understanding of and commitment to said first duties and principles of reason. Things that are in fact embedded in the roots of our civilisation; but which, in recent generations, we have neglected, sidelined and — too often — even undermined. Hence, this thread of discussion and others to follow. KF

  335. 335
    mike1962 says:

    I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but the lefties are just not that persuasive or impressive.

    I could be wrong.

    (But rarely.)

  336. 336
    jerry says:

    the lefties are just not that persuasive or impressive.

    They don’t have to be persuasive. Wait till your job or livelihood depends on you obeying all they say.

  337. 337
    ET says:

    Any society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. Right now we allow our most vulnerable to be killed at will. There isn’t any way to move a society forward that is bent on murder.

  338. 338
    Viola Lee says:

    Statement from the American Thinker:

    American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on http://www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently.

    These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.

    It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error.

  339. 339
    ET says:

    Right, they don’t want to get sued so say anything. Got it.

  340. 340
    Seversky says:

    Querius/332

    Do you agree or disagree with the Black Lives Matter slogan, “Silence is violence”?

    If, by that, they mean that silence in the face of racial violence is equivalent to consent, then I would agree.

    I previously cited the Tulsa race riot in 1921, which the city had attempted to erase from its history. More recently, I learned of this uprising in Wilmington, NC in 1898, which is rather apposite in the current situation.

    These are far from the only examples of violent racial oppression in this country which are not widely known.

    There is also the scene from the movie version of A Man For All Seasons where Sir Thomas More is on trial for treason. At one point, the question is raised of how a witness’s silence might be construed. More replies “The maxim is “Qui tacet consentit“: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented.”

    So you could argue that the BLM slogan has both a good historical and a good legal foundation.

  341. 341
    AndyClue says:

    @Viola Lee:

    Statement from the American Thinker: …

    Wrong. It’s a statement from Dominion’s lawyers, published on American Thinker’s blog.

  342. 342
    Seversky says:

    Jerry/333

    Read this

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/did-the-democrats-steal-the-presidential-election.php

    Then answer their objections if you can. No one has yet.

    They don’t have to. The burden of proof is on the claimant. In 60 out of 61 cases, the Trump legal team failed to meet that standard. How many chances do they need? So what makes you think that their complaints are now anything more than just sour grapes?

    We spent over 5000 comments on election fraud and no one could answer why if the Democrats won, they stonewalled any examination of the counting process.

    There are probably billions of such comments now on the various social media platforms. So what? What counts is what can be proven in a court of law and Trump supporters don’t have anything or we’d have certainly seen it by now.

    I tell you what, pick five or ten of what you think are the strongest pieces of evidence for electoral fraud and we can examine them in detail to see if they stand up to the degree of close scrutiny they would face in a court of law.

  343. 343
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus/334

    Seversky, Jerry is right; it is precisely because we tracked carefully, day by day across the two months and probed beneath the talking points and narrative to evidence and public facts tracing back in some cases decades, that we see that the technical issue dismissals by courts and the like are missing something deeply disturbing.

    Like Jerry, you are confusing quantity with quality so I will put to you the same challenge as I put to Jerry, “… pick five or ten of what you think are the strongest pieces of evidence for electoral fraud and we can examine them in detail to see if they stand up to the degree of close scrutiny they would face in a court of law.”

  344. 344
    jerry says:

    misrepresenting Dominion’s track record

    I know a lot of time and space was spent here on Dominion. However, the vote fraud was never really about Dominion despite the peculiar statistical anomalies connected with its machines. That was essentially a red herring. It was always about the lack of transparency for mail in ballots.

    So what is the point of the comment? The posting of it means the real fraud still exists and there is no answer to it.

  345. 345
    jerry says:

    pick five or ten of what you think are the strongest pieces of evidence for electoral fraud and we can examine them in detail to see if they stand up to the degree of close scrutiny they would face in a court of law.

    Can you explain why the counting was not transparent? Why the bullying and restrictions? Why such low voter rejection for mail in ballots when one would expect higher amounts for such large numbers of ballots by first time users of this system? Why all the changes in the rules for handling mail in ballots?

    Why hide behind a technicality? How many of the court rejections were based on lack of evidence? No one who investigated this believe the counting was fair? They could not be that stupid.

  346. 346
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry,

    Wait till your job or livelihood depends on you obeying all they say.

    You mean, like:

    Rev 13:16 Also it [–> the 2nd Beast, from the earth/land] causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[e] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the [1st] beast [from the sea] or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.[f]

    Our collective folly is manifest. Real lemmings don’t march over cliffs, only humans can be that collectively suicidal.

    KF

  347. 347
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, this thread is not about the just past election. For that, the issue is not the public longstanding facts demonstrating intent to undermine election integrity, or about the knowing injection of effectively uncontrolled mail-in ballots, or 3rd party ballot harvesting [through an army of lawyers and activists], or the deliberate gameplan to suppress scrutineering which broke chain of custody tainting the ballots and the counting. It is not about the forest of forensic audit red flags; including those that mean that no sane jurisdiction will ever trust electronic election gadgetry and the promoters of such again, $1.3 billion lawsuits — immediately, demonstrative of ruthless demonic domineering evil and a proof by act of guilty mind — notwithstanding. It is not even about the acts of guilty mind to suppress investigation, toss court inquiries on any convenient technicality — the TX + 17 states case is most blatant — or the like. That is finished, as . . . on this line of drift . . . is the credibility of any future pseudo-election in the former Constitutional Republic known as the USA. It is not even about the ongoing playout of the 4th gen civil war of which these things are a part. (“Congratulations” on that, you chose and enabled the worse of bad options, on the delusion that such marked progress . . . and managed to tell one and all that you have no credibility on matters of evidence and logic.) No, those are finished. What is now on the table is whether we can build a critical mass of people who so acknowledge first duties of reason and are willing to start there that we might begin to rescue civilisation. KF

    PS: The implications for the debates over the design inference and other matters are just as plain. The problem is not evidence or logic but the fallacy of the closed mind wedded to ideological, ruinous imposition by an arrogant but ultimately suicidal radical secularist elite.

  348. 348

    The domion system was shown to flip some few thousand votes in Antrim county. As far as I know what happened was, the dominion system flipped the votes, then the system said that everything is hunky dory. But then the election officials did some common sense figuring that everything was not ok, because the results were not as expected. Then they did a hand count and found the error.

    Election officials doing common sense figuring, is not part of the Domion system. Maybe it’s not even part of the legal voting system, as in maybe it was illegal for the election supervisor to do a hand count based on common sense figuring that the results were wrong.

    Dominion lies that their system worked to uncover the error. The Dominion system did nothing to uncover the error.

    Trump, much like the election official in Antrim county, did some common sense figuring that the election results were wrong. But now election officials say, that people are not allowed to verify that no fraud took place. And then dominion asserts that this is evidence that their system works, which is a total lie.

  349. 349
    Querius says:

    Seversky @340,

    Do you agree or disagree with the Black Lives Matter slogan, “Silence is violence”?

    If, by that, they mean that silence in the face of racial violence is equivalent to consent, then I would agree.

    Nicely answered. However, violence and consent are not the same thing. That’s why we have two words in play rather than only one. And those are not the only ones available. There’s also, silent and non-violent disagreement, and there’s coercion and intimidation, and so on. The patrons involved in a violent bank holdup are not consenting in silence. Furthermore, false equivalents can be used to create a chain of transitive equalities that can end up anywhere someone wants.

    The distinction is important and I appreciated your help in proving my point about the interpretation of words in 239 and 267.

    -Q

  350. 350
    AndyClue says:

    @mohammadnursyamsu:

    The domion system was shown to flip some few thousand votes in Antrim county. As far as I know what happened was, the dominion system flipped the votes, then the system said that everything is hunky dory. But then the election officials did some common sense figuring that everything was not ok, because the results were not as expected. Then they did a hand count and found the error.

    Election officials doing common sense figuring, is not part of the Domion system. Maybe it’s not even part of the legal voting system, as in maybe it was illegal for the election supervisor to do a hand count based on common sense figuring that the results were wrong.

    Dominion lies that their system worked to uncover the error. The Dominion system did nothing to uncover the error.

    What’s the source?

    I only found an issue reported by Sheryl Guy, that she failed to update the software, which resulted in an tabulation error. But you’re not talking about that, right?

  351. 351
    Seversky says:

    Querius/349

    Nicely answered. However, violence and consent are not the same thing. That’s why we have two words in play rather than only one. And those are not the only ones available. There’s also, silent and non-violent disagreement, and there’s coercion and intimidation, and so on. The patrons involved in a violent bank holdup are not consenting in silence. Furthermore, false equivalents can be used to create a chain of transitive equalities that can end up anywhere someone wants.

    We are talking about political slogans here, not carefully-crafted philosophical arguments, something you can chant at rallies and have printed on baseball caps and T-shirts to be worn by supporters as a badge of their support.

    Does “Make America Great Again” explain how “greatness” is defined and measured? Does it show that it was once an observable property of the United States which has since been lost but can be reclaimed? No, of course not. It’s an aspirational slogan which makes people feel more hopeful.

    I have no doubt there are extremists on both sides who are looking forward to – as they see it – advancing their causes through violence. The reality is, that if they get their way, there will be open warfare which both sides will eventually come to regret. Unfortunately, a lot of blood could be shed and a lot of lives lost before that begins to sink in.

  352. 352
    David Macphail says:

    What concerns me about the statement ‘silence is violence’ is this. If you are deemed guilty of violence, merely by being silent, this justifies coercive measures against you. It’s forced speech, in effect. You MUST support this cause.
    I remember seeing a picture of a group of BLM activists surrounding a white woman at an outdoor cafe, fists raised, demanding that she join in their cause. ‘silence is violence’ could very easily be the rationale to justify this intimidation. They are justified, in their minds, in confronting her ‘violence’.

  353. 353

    If some system was not updated, it’s still not supposed to flip votes, and act like nothing is wrong. It’s not supposed to silently flip votes in any circumstances whatsoever. That is catastrophic failure of the system. It’s supposed to produce an error message, if something is wrong.

    And professional fraudsters could know all these kinds of things. This cannot automatically be attributed to accident. Dominion systemsvote should be verified, but the verification was refused.

  354. 354
    Querius says:

    Seversky @351,

    Historically speaking, do you think genocides, declarations of war, and other atrocities more likely to be a result of (a) a vacuous political slogan or (b) a well-thought-out political or philosophical conclusion?

    A “silence is violence” mob did go around in NYC confronting people with that slogan to see whether pedestrians and outdoor diners would remain silent (i.e. react violently against African-Americans) or contribute money to their BLM cause.

    Faced with an angry mob, do you think you would have opened your wallet to them?

    -Q

  355. 355
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, you are missing the decisive clue in a rather saddening, key public fact. Namely, that the decision-makers of an election gadget company decided to attack a lawyer with a $ 1.3 billion lawsuit, known to be vastly beyond any reasonable penalty. That means two things directly, first, that they, collectively are utterly, ruthlessly unjust and second that they think they can get away with such in the court system. Per fair comment on public fact, the first act of guilty mind tells us about the balance of merits on the evidence on election gadgetry already in hand as they here show what sort of a company this is; i.e.. where you need here the sort of “fit and proper persons” requirements to be met by auditors and bankers or the like [that benchmark/yardstick case again!], you see instead decisive moral government character failure. The second, strongly suggests that they are confident that the US Court system is manipulable. The two, together unfortunately sit very well with the rest of evidence we have been looking at for two and a half months. I guess, we can safely add, that they — probably quite accurately — estimated that the American public and media are so broken down in moral awareness that they cannot or will not recognise and act decisively on this actually decisive sign. Where, of course, all of this points, yet again, to the centrality of first duties and surprising ways in which they can speak powerfully. KF

  356. 356
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 345 –
    You were asked to provide your best evidence for fraud:

    Can you explain why the counting was not transparent?

    This is not evidence for fraud – a vote could be untransparent without fraud.

    Why the bullying and restrictions?

    Again, bullying and restrictions are not evidence for fraud – there could be other reasons.

    Why such low voter rejection for mail in ballots when one would expect higher amounts for such large numbers of ballots by first time users of this system?

    Once more, no evidence of fraud.

    Why all the changes in the rules for handling mail in ballots?

    Guess what? No evidence for fraud.

    So, even if we were to accept the implied facts in your questions, you haven’t presented any evidence of fraud.

  357. 357
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H, given that ruthless dishonest people exist and are often organised, deliberate breakdown of election integrity per public facts is proof of intent. Deliberate frustration of a key safeguard, scrutineering, is proof that intent is being carried forward in practice. Further to such we have direct video evidence and we have testimony of witnesses, and more. Follow-up acts of guilty mind coming from key quarters clench over the nails. Mind you, I have little confidence that any degree of accessible evidence will have significant impact. In short, the past several weeks have served to confirm decisively that the problem with not only this but any number of issues including ID debates is not quality or quantity of evidence and/or warrant, but ideologically induced unresponsiveness. That is why the debates on particular issues is effectively decided on merits but has little traction on the way people act. This is an age of en-darken-ment pretending or imagining that the darkness and shadow shows of the cave are reality and light. So, going forward, while warrant still has to be there, a major emphasis has to be on restoring sound civilisation from first duties of reason on up. KF

    PS: In light of your background in statistics, we can be confident that you are aware of the cumulative effect of a body of evidence, similar to how a long strong rope can be built up from short relatively weak fibres as they are twisted and counter twisted together in an overall structure. In that light you are challenged to cogently respond to the compilation of evidence here https://hereistheevidence.com/ and also to the summary remarks that give wider context https://hereistheevidence.com/election-2020/stats/ Dismissiveness on your part does not constitute either want of evidence or want of reliable warrant on the part of this case.

  358. 358
    Bob O'H says:

    kf –

    BO’H, given that ruthless dishonest people exist and are often organised, deliberate breakdown of election integrity per public facts is proof of intent.

    Eh? So existence of groups like the Taliban is proof of fraud? Err, no. You need a lot more than that.

    Deliberate frustration of a key safeguard, scrutineering, is proof that intent is being carried forward in practice.

    Intent to deliberately frustrate. But not proof, of itself, fraud.

    Further to such we have direct video evidence and we have testimony of witnesses, and more.

    OK, but Jerry didn’t think this was the best evidence for fraud. So you might want to discuss this with him, not me.

  359. 359
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H, you are only managing to confirm the ideologically driven selective hyperskepticism. Further to our universal duty to truth evidentiary gerrymandering and arbitrary datum lines are good reason to infer a known weak case on your part. I will however note that deliberate frustration of scrutiny on chain of custody on material or valuable documents is a strong and by itself nearly decisive sign of fraud, as any auditor will tell you. Of course you are rhetorically evading the issue of warrant– as opposed to “proof” — per cumulative mutually supportive evidence yet again, and I here provide a print-off of the 1600+ line tabulation of evidence already linked. You are challenged to address it cogently i/l/o the already linked summary. KF

    PS: The existence of bodies such as the Taliban demonstrates the actuality and possibility of organised criminality, secret plots and plans of deadly intent and that it is possible to carry such out. The class is non-empty. In that context, signs of mens rea count and particularly in a context of handling a chain of custody and accounting for large numbers of valuable small documents. Your rhetorical dance on the topic of benchmarking against normal run of mill banking procedures is recalled. In that context the fit and proper persons test is relevant, as is the importance of sound, transparent chain of custody. The deploying of an army of lawyers and activists to push through a deliberate injection of a class of balloting known to be fraud conducive on specific cases, multiplied by what happened surrounding such is decisive in that light. Where, it is clear that the next step is an update to OP on warrant by cumulative evidence, as part of right reason that is proving material to restoring sound civilisation.

  360. 360
    AndyClue says:

    @mohammadnursyamsu:

    If some system was not updated, it’s still not supposed to flip votes, and act like nothing is wrong. It’s not supposed to silently flip votes in any circumstances whatsoever. That is catastrophic failure of the system. It’s supposed to produce an error message, if something is wrong.

    Yes, it was a failure. And I imagine the error might have been one of the reasons why you were supposed to update the system.

  361. 361
    AndyClue says:

    @kairosfocus:

    AC, you are missing the decisive clue in a rather saddening, key public fact …

    No, I don’t. Me and mohammadnursyamsu were talking about the Antrim inicident.

  362. 362
    kairosfocus says:

    Added, using the structure of a rope vs that of a chain as instructive comparison.

  363. 363
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, omission of a material fact is an example of unreliable reasoning. The fit and proper persons test, failed, shifts the balance on evaluating claims and counter claims. Further to which, in said county, there was a court supervised extraction and inspection of software, which confirmed that the software was grossly defective and fully capable of manipulating ballot counts, indeed the presence of a vote-fraction capability was confirmed. However, the point for this thread is not the particular case it is how do we restore sound reasoning as a key step to restoring sound civilisation. You provide an inadvertent illustration of the challenge. KF

    PS: MNY is quite correct to note that the flipping behaviour is a sign of fundamental, core system flaws that are not mere issues of a minor update. Where also, chain of state custody and law on updates and system tests is a further matter. However, all of this is secondary and potentially distractive. This thread is about restoring soundness to rationality as core to our civilisation.

  364. 364
    AndyClue says:

    AC, omission of a material fact is an example of unreliable reasoning

    That’s why I don’t omit a material fact.

    Despite my name I have no clue where your allegations against me are coming from. I’ve asked mohammadnursyamsu a question:

    What’s the source?

    I only found an issue reported by Sheryl Guy, that she failed to update the software, which resulted in an tabulation error. But you’re not talking about that, right?

    kairosfocus, I think you’re confusing me with someone else.

  365. 365
    kairosfocus says:

    DM, you are right to highlight the challenge of mob rule. KF

  366. 366
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, again, when the context is a key part of the story, locking out potentially material facts is unreliable reasoning. Sometimes that is error sometimes it is deceit. MNY is correct that the systems should not have this sort of error as was brought up in discussions with you earlier. Votes are inherently integers and properly curated addition is the only normal process. A system that misallocates vote totals or misreports them is fundamentally flawed beyond oh there was an update gap or error or glitch etc. That is patent. It was then confirmed through a court supervised software inspection. What is material to the current thread focus — and kindly note the thread ownership — is the quality of our reasoning per first duties of reason. How we respond to issues of truth, of principles of right reason, of prudence [so, warrant] has decisive impact on the general soundness of where we are going, and the signs are bad. KF

  367. 367
    AndyClue says:

    @kairosfocus:

    AC, again, when the context is a key part of the story, locking out potentially material facts is unreliable reasoning.

    I’m lost. Could you please quote the post you’re referring to?

  368. 368
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, I am not going to get into a distractive rhetorical dance with you. Enough has been said on your particular case and it is in a context of your prior interventions over the past weeks. The election issue is not primary now, something deeper is. KF

  369. 369
    jerry says:

    So, even if we were to accept the implied facts in your questions, you haven’t presented any evidence of fraud.

    You just agreed that there was fraud. All are examples of people hiding something. People who are proud of something don’t hide it. People who want others to accept their achievements don’t hide how their achievements were obtained.

    Stacey Abrams admitted that the change in signature verification is how it was done.

  370. 370
    AndyClue says:

    @kairosfocus:

    AC, I am not going to get into a distractive rhetorical dance with you. Enough has been said on your particular case and it is in a context of your prior interventions over the past weeks.

    Huh?? One of my previous interventions was actually quoting the report about Dominion’s lawsuit against Powell (and Coomer’s lawsuit also). You’ve alleged here, that I somehow missed this clue. So all the “distraction” was your part.

  371. 371
    kairosfocus says:

    AC,

    did you notice the key clue you and others missed, from 355?

    the decisive clue in a rather saddening, key public fact. Namely, that the decision-makers of an election gadget company decided to attack a lawyer with a $ 1.3 billion lawsuit, known to be vastly beyond any reasonable penalty. That means two things directly, first, that they, collectively are utterly, ruthlessly unjust and second that they think they can get away with such in the court system. Per fair comment on public fact, the first act of guilty mind tells us about the balance of merits on the evidence on election gadgetry already in hand as they here show what sort of a company this is; i.e.. where you need here the sort of “fit and proper persons” requirements to be met by auditors and bankers or the like [that benchmark/yardstick case again!], you see instead decisive moral government character failure. The second, strongly suggests that they are confident that the US Court system is manipulable. The two, together unfortunately sit very well with the rest of evidence we have been looking at for two and a half months. I guess, we can safely add, that they — probably quite accurately — estimated that the American public and media are so broken down in moral awareness that they cannot or will not recognise and act decisively on this actually decisive sign. Where, of course, all of this points, yet again, to the centrality of first duties and surprising ways in which they can speak powerfully.

    KF

  372. 372
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, we are seeing sign after sign of a breakdown of reasoning, especially where moral government of responsible freedom is involved. The issue of acts of guilty or ruthless mind and implications for evaluation of the balance on merits of fact logic and inference to best explanation is particularly glaring. So is the willingness to sweep away over 900 people — many of whom are not normally engaged in politics or public issues — willing to put freedom and reputation on the line by blowing the whistle in the face of the demonstrated ruthless.This is pointing to a deep, wide rot in our ability to think aright and act to the right in our civilisation. Discernment has been undermined, so too prudence; a key cardinal virtue summed up as right reason applied to [habitual] right action. KF

  373. 373
    AndyClue says:

    @kairosfocus:

    did you notice the key clue you and others missed

    Huh? I, too, think the amount is unreasonable. Where have I ever claimed otherwise?

    I think I was correct, when I said:

    kairosfocus, I think you’re confusing me with someone else.

    .

  374. 374
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerrry –

    You just agreed that there was fraud.

    Err, where?

    All are examples of people hiding something.

    Something, but you have to establish that the something is actually fraud.

    Stacey Abrams admitted that the change in signature verification is how it was done.

    You didn’t present that as your best evidence of fraud, so one can infer that it’s even worse evidence.

  375. 375
    kairosfocus says:

    Andy, did you notice what you did not follow up on, leaving only oh yes the amount is unreasonable? That gap in your response is revealing. I only draw it to notice as illustrative of the problems with reasoning I am highlighting. KF

  376. 376
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H: You are again sidestepping the material issue that you are dealing with a cumulative evidence, empirical case on inference to best explanation. I have already pointed to the 1600+ items of evidence you need to cogently address to draw the sort of conclusions you have tried to impose above. Again, all of this is going to the issues of roots of reason and linked duties. KF

    PS: I presume you are familiar with inference on sign, where to acknowledge the sign is to point to the signified state of affairs. Which does not need a logical implication, just empirical reliability. The means of electoral fraud for example is first and foremost corruption of chain of custody on ballots. Once that is present, those implicated have lost the presumption of innocence. That 900+ witnesses point to details under that, speaks, as do other lines of evidence you are trying to avoid on the stunt of pick five points please. No, reality does not work like that, only rhetoric.

  377. 377
    AndyClue says:

    @kairosfocus:

    Andy, did you notice what you did not follow up on, leaving only oh yes the amount is unreasonable? That gap in your response is revealing. I only draw it to notice as illustrative of the problems with reasoning I am highlighting. KF

    What did I not follow up on?

    Could you please be more direct what you’re insinuating? I’m not a mind reader. Are you talking about the implications of the amount being unreasonable, e.g. unjust and so on?

  378. 378
    Bob O'H says:

    kf – I was responding to Jerry. Seversky @ 342 suggested he “pick five or ten of what you think are the strongest pieces of evidence for electoral fraud and we can examine them in detail to see if they stand up to the degree of close scrutiny they would face in a court of law.” Jerry seems to have tried that, but thus far not terrible successfully (in my opinion!). Perhaps you would like to too.

    The reason for picking 5-10 is that 1600+ is far too many to look at. Presumably some evidence is better than others, so pick your best. If you need the other 1590 pieces of evidence to support your best 10, then indicate (briefly!) how they support it.

  379. 379
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, the text is directly there, showing the direct import of making such a corporate decision; gross injustice is such a decisive flaw that when a corporation’s directors take an action such as we see on public fact it tells us directly what sort of corporation this is. For, a corporation has no independent existence, its nature is that of its decision makers, and that directly points as telling sign to the nature of goods and services provided. In that light, your evasive rhetoric – probably hoping to pharisaically entrap — simply tells me you are not discussing in good faith; such is the act of guilty mind, too. And BTW the sock on the puppet is slipping. KF

  380. 380
    AndyClue says:

    @kairosfocus:

    your evasive rhetoric

    I’m an engineer, I try to be concise. For instance: I’ve quoted Trump Jr’s opinion about Twitter in one of the previous posts. Yet I’ve never mentioned, that simultaneously I left Twitter and joined Gab. See? I don’t make every opinion I have public.

    simply tells me you are not discussing in good faith;

    Well, you’re telling yourself falsehoods. Look, the discussion should have been over when I corrected you in post 361:

    AndyClue: No, I don’t.

    You’ve made an error in judgement. Can happen to anyone. It was nothing to worry about.

    Yet you continued to spread falsehoods about me and distract the discussion. I can’t help you. These are your demons and you have to fight them alone.

  381. 381

    @Andyclue

    The fact is that 100 percent of cases where Dominion systems were checked, the Dominion system was found to flip votes. Which is only 1 case.

    AFAIK the other recounts involving Dominion systems, were not actual hand recounts like in Antrim county, eventhough they were advertised as being hand recounts.

    Votes should be verified to be accurate. That is very obvious common sense.

  382. 382
    jerry says:

    P –> q. Not q –> not p.
    Fair election –> transparency. Not transparent –> not fair election.
    Fair election –> willingness to demonstrate how. Not willing to demonstrate how –> not fair election.
    Fair election –> nothing to hide. Hiding several things –> not fair election.
    Fair election –> want opponents to agree. Preventing opponents from agreeing –> not fair election.
    Fair election –> keep all records for examination Destroying records–> not fair election.

    Take your pick. There are more.

  383. 383
    Seversky says:

    Jerry/345

    Can you explain why the counting was not transparent?

    Can you be more specific? Is there a particular county where you believe the counting was not transparent which we could study? Do we know what degree of transparency was required by the law that applied in that county so we can determine how far short of that standard the actual practice fell?

    Why the bullying and restrictions?

    What bullying and restrictions and where?

    Why such low voter rejection for mail in ballots when one would expect higher amounts for such large numbers of ballots by first time users of this system?

    Is there a specific example of such a discrepancy and has the data and the statistical analysis that led to this conclusion been verified by independent audit?

    Why all the changes in the rules for handling mail in ballots?

    Again, can you cite a specific instance where the rules were changed and was there disclosure by the relevant authorities of the reasons, if any, for the changes?

    If alleged evidence is to pass muster as such before a court then this is the sort of due diligence that needs to be performed. Otherwise, to quote an old saying in British legal circles, “you wouldn’t hang a dog on that evidence.”

  384. 384
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 382 – you’re still not providing evidence for fraud.

  385. 385
    Seversky says:

    Querius/354

    A “silence is violence” mob did go around in NYC confronting people with that slogan to see whether pedestrians and outdoor diners would remain silent (i.e. react violently against African-Americans) or contribute money to their BLM cause.

    Yes, I saw the video and read the reports of such incidents and that such intimidatory behavior clearly overstepped the bounds of peaceful protest.

    Faced with an angry mob, do you think you would have opened your wallet to them?

    That would depend on how serious I felt the threat to my person was. I don’t remember reports of widespread shakedown attempts by the protestors.

    Set against that, how many of the following were you previously aware of?

    1898 – Wilmington, NC

    Wilmington 1898: When white supremacists overthrew a US government

    […]

    Following state elections in 1898, white supremacists moved into the US port of Wilmington, North Carolina, then the largest city in the state. They destroyed black-owned businesses, murdered black residents, and forced the elected local government – a coalition of white and black politicians – to resign en masse.

    Historians have described it as the only coup in US history. Its ringleaders took power the same day as the insurrection and swiftly brought in laws to strip voting and civil rights from the state’s black population. They faced no consequences.

    1921 – Tulsa, OK

    Tulsa Race Massacre

    During the Tulsa Race Massacre (also known as the Tulsa Race Riot), which occurred over 18 hours on May 31-June 1, 1921, a white mob attacked residents, homes and businesses in the predominantly Black Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma. The event remains one of the worst incidents of racial violence in U.S. history, and one of the least-known: News reports were largely squelched, despite the fact that hundreds of people were killed and thousands left homeless.

    1906 – Atlanta, GA

    Atlanta Massacre of 1906

    The Atlanta Massacre of 1906 was an attack by armed mobs of white Americans against African Americans in Atlanta, Georgia (United States), which began the evening of September 22 and lasted through September 24, 1906. The events were reported by newspapers around the world, including the French Le Petit Journal which described the “lynchings in the USA” and the “massacre of Negroes in Atlanta,”[1] the Aberdeen (Scotland) Press and Journal under the headline “Race Riots in Georgia,”[2] and the London (UK) Evening Standard under the headlines “Anti-Negro Riots” and “Outrages in Georgia.”[3] The final death toll of the conflict is unknown and disputed, but officially at least 25 African Americans[4] and two whites died.[5] Unofficial reports ranged from 10–100 black Americans killed during the riots.[citation needed] According to the Atlanta History Center, some black Americans were hanged from lamposts; others were shot, beaten or stabbed to death. They were pulled from street cars and attacked on the street; white mobs invaded black neighborhoods, destroying homes and businesses.

    1908 – Springfield, IL

    Springfield race riot of 1908

    Springfield race riot of 1908 were events of mass racial violence committed against African Americans by a mob of about 5,000 white Americans and European immigrants in Springfield, Illinois, between August 14 and 16, 1908. Two black men had been arrested as suspects in a rape, and attempted rape and murder. The alleged victims were two young white women and the father of one of them. When a mob seeking to lynch the men discovered the sheriff had transferred them out of the city, the whites furiously spread out to attack black neighborhoods, murdered black citizens on the streets, and destroyed black businesses and homes. The state militia was called out to quell the rioting.

    The riot, trials and aftermath are said to be one of the most well-documented examples of the complex intersection of race, class, and criminal justice in the United States.[1][2] In 2008 an NPR report on the centenary of the race riot said that the fact of its taking place in a Northern state, specifically in “The Land of Lincoln”, demonstrated that blacks were mistreated across the country, not just in the South, and described the event as a proxy for the story of race in America.[3]

    At least sixteen people died as a result of the riot: nine black residents, and seven white residents who were associated with the mob, five of whom were killed by state militia and two committed suicide. It was mistakenly reported for decades that blacks were responsible for white deaths and that more whites than blacks had died. Personal and property damages, suffered overwhelmingly by blacks, amounted to more than $150,000 (approximately $4 million in 2018), as dozens of black homes and businesses were destroyed, as well as three white-owned businesses of suspected black sympathizers.[4][5][6]

    1919 – Chicago, IL

    Chicago race riot of 1919

    The Chicago race riot of 1919 was a violent racial conflict started by white Americans against black Americans that began on the South Side of Chicago, Illinois on July 27, and ended on August 3, 1919.[1][2] During the riot, thirty-eight people died (23 black and 15 white).[3] Over the week, injuries attributed to the episodic confrontations stood at 537, with two-thirds of the injured being black and one-third white, while the approximately 1,000 to 2,000 who lost their homes were mostly black.[4] It is considered the worst of the nearly 25 riots and civil disturbances in the United States during the “Red Summer” of 1919, so named because of the racial and labor related violence and fatalities across the nation.[5] The prolonged conflict made it one of the worst riots in the history of Illinois.

    There are many more examples. How many are widely known? How many are taught in school or is white culture largely “silent” on the matter?

    Perhaps if there had been more resolute, outright condemnation of such behavior and more determined measures taken to suppress it, we would not have seen what happened at the Capitol.

  386. 386
    jerry says:

    you’re still not providing evidence for fraud.

    Of course I am providing the most reliable evidence used since the beginning of human activity. The Democrats have admitted fraud by their actions. It’s called human behavior.

    To help implement it, Facebook gave a half billion dollars to set it up. Their was no verification of signatures. About 79 million in ballots and few rejections.

    Stacey Abrams admitted how they did it.

  387. 387
    jerry says:

    How many are widely known? How many are taught in school or is white culture largely “silent” on the matter?

    An admission that there are no racial problems in the US. The incidents are 100+ years ago. Also the George Floyd incident is indicative of rarity of police brutality towards blacks. It stands out against the lack of other incidents meaning there are extremely few such incidents. Also two of the four police officers in a very liberal/Democratic city involved were minorities.

  388. 388
    kairosfocus says:

    AC, the onward rhetoric doesn’t change the import of public facts on the behaviour of relevant decision makers [which gives us a right of prudence to apply the character thus shown to evaluation of claims], and on evidence, we have pointed to a 1600+ item tabulation. That’s on top of 5,000 or so comments tracking live, with infographics and videos — those that haven’t been censored yet [another red flag] — etc. The issue at this point is how to restore sound thinking. I hope it won’t take finding ourselves broken backed at the foot of a cliff; but frankly I am not optimistic. I am led to that by recall of where my native land is forty years after we went over a cliff; many are still bewitched by the heady agit prop of those days and are in denial of reality. KF

  389. 389
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: To get things out of a rut, a summary on unrestricted warfare, hailed by some as 5g, I think 4g is able to embrace it . . . .

    https://warontherocks.com/2016/04/a-new-generation-of-unrestricted-warfare/

    In 1999, two Chinese colonels wrote a book called Unrestricted Warfare, about warfare in the age of globalization. Their main argument: Warfare in the modern world will no longer be primarily a struggle defined by military means — or even involve the military at all.

    They were about a decade and a half before their time.

    Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui argued that war was no longer about “using armed forces to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will” in the classic Clausewitzian sense. Rather, they asserted that war had evolved to “using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military and non-military, and lethal and non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.” The barrier between soldiers and civilians would fundamentally be erased, because the battle would be everywhere. The number of new battlefields would be “virtually infinite,” and could include environmental warfare, financial warfare, trade warfare, cultural warfare, and legal warfare, to name just a few. They wrote of assassinating financial speculators to safeguard a nation’s financial security, setting up slush funds to influence opponents’ legislatures and governments, and buying controlling shares of stocks to convert an adversary’s major television and newspapers outlets into tools of media warfare. According to the editor’s note, Qiao argued in a subsequent interview that “the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden.” That vision clearly transcends any traditional notions of war.

    Unrestricted Warfare was an explicit response to the reigning Western military orthodoxy of the time. The preface is dated January 17, 1999, which the authors note was the eighth anniversary of the outbreak of the 1991 Gulf War. In many ways, their argument refuted many of the Western lessons drawn from that conflict: that wars could be short, sharp, and dominated by high-technology weaponry used with stunning precision to shatter an enemy’s armed forces in hours or days. By 1999, U.S. military thinking was dominated by the revolution in military affairs and network centric-warfare, which relied on advanced technologies to give the United States total battlefield dominance.

    But Qiao and Wang argued that the battlefield had fundamentally changed. It was no longer a place where militaries met and fought; instead, society itself was now the battlefield. Future wars would inevitably encompass attacks on all elements of society without limits. Military battles resembling those of 1991 might become secondary elements of conflict — if they even occurred at all.

    In short, war that by and large does not SEEM to be war due to lack of naked high kinetic weaponry in action. War that is only visible as war once one recognises ruthless domination and subjugation by use of force and deception. Force, that is often masked as legitimate actions (often, by turnabout projections of blame . . . maskirovka); force calibrated to seem legitimate to the superficial onlooker. Force, that needs not involve state actors or states.

    War waged by vultures in the shadows, not just obvious ones in the sky.

    Further implication, near-perpetual war.

    Resemblance to current patterns is not coincidence.

    KF

  390. 390
    jerry says:

    One of the problems with crying election fraud is that every accusation gets treated as valid by one side and all get treated as invalid by the other side. And when some of these prove to be actually invalid or small, they are used for discounting the rest.

    Much of the attention was focused on illegal voters such as dead voters, out of state voters, and underage voters and the manipulation of voting machines that when they were shown not accurate, the election officials could bury the main way the fraud took place. Which was hard to see directly but was held back from investigators. Namely, good old fashion ballot stuffing with mail in ballots that were too often never validated as legitimate.

    The hiding of the accuracy of counting when there’s absolutely no reason to do so shows intentional conduct.

    One former prosecutor said he never investigated a person that was guilty who wanted me to see the evidence of their guilt. He never investigated an innocent person who didn’t want to show evidence of his innocence that he controlled. In this case it is state officials refusing access to see information. That only points one way. Guilt by these officials of something. Either fraud or incompetence.

    One has to be really stupid to believe these election officials are not hiding something substantial. Their actions are evidence and compelling.

  391. 391
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, acts of guilty mind are evidence, Something several objectors have refused to acknowledge, right from when I laid out the failed moral duty challenge. But that too is an act of guilty mind. KF

  392. 392
    Seversky says:

    Jerry/369

    Stacey Abrams admitted that the change in signature verification is how it was done.

    Are you referring to this ?

    AP FACT CHECK: Trump wrong on Georgia voter signature checks

    ATLANTA — President Donald Trump has wrongly claimed that Georgia election officials are unable to verify signatures on absentee ballot envelopes because of a legal settlement known as a consent decree.

    Here’s a look at Trump’s claims, in a tweet on Saturday:

    TRUMP: “The Consent Decree signed by the Georgia Secretary of State, with the approval of Governor @BrianKempGA, at the urging of @staceyabrams, makes it impossible to check & match signatures on ballots and envelopes, etc. They knew they were going to cheat. Must expose real signatures!”

    THE FACTS: There is nothing in the consent decree that prevents Georgia election clerks from scrutinizing signatures. The legal settlement signed in March addresses accusations about a lack of statewide standards for judging signatures on absentee ballot envelopes.

    Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said that not only is it entirely possible to match signatures, but that the state requires it.

    When a voter requests an absentee ballot on a paper application, he or she must sign it. Election officials compare that signature to the signature in voter registration files before a ballot is sent to the voter, Raffensperger said.

    When those ballots are returned, the required signature on the outer envelope is compared to signatures in the voter registration system.

    This process was spelled out in detail in the consent decree, a legal settlement that was signed March 6.

    A lawsuit by the Democratic Party, which led to the agreement, argued that minorities were disproportionately affected when they had their ballots rejected. Among other things, the settlement sets steps for local election officials to notify a voter — by phone, mail or email — in a timely fashion about problems with a signature.

    The changes were made by the state election board.

    Following state law, Georgia is pursuing a hand tally of votes in the presidential race. Democrat Joe Biden leads Trump by about 14,000 votes in the state. There are no examples of similar recounts that have overturned leads of that magnitude.

  393. 393
    orthomyxo says:

    I think Trump and Jerry are confused by Stacey Abrams comments about defeating “exact matching”. The exact match rule has nothing to do with signatures. Rather, in order to be properly registered a voters details (name, spelling, address etc) had to exactly match records held elsewhere. About 70% of the voters who had their registration flagged due to this rule were black, a large over-representation compared to GA’s population.

  394. 394
    Querius says:

    About 70% of the voters who had their registration flagged due to this rule were black, a large over-representation compared to GA’s population.

    Do you think that’s because the people checking registrations could tell that the ballot in question was from an African-American person, or could it be that some *districts* with a high proportion of African-American voters had more voter fraud than other districts, or could it be that the standards for verification were different in different districts?

    How could you tell which it is?

    -Q

  395. 395
    jerry says:

    Are you referring to this ?

    No. I was referring to this

    We were able to secure absentee ballot rules that actually treated every single voter the same. We were able to mitigate and eviscerate the exact-match system that was keeping so many people off the rolls

    Stacey Abrams.

    Essentially there was no verification of signatures. It was an onerous procedure to verify nearly a million ballots in Georgia. Trump wanted this to be observed by independent observers but they wouldn’t allow for an observation of the verification check.

    In 2016, 6% of mail in ballots were rejected. In 2018, 3% of mail in ballots were rejected. In 2020, 0.35% of mail in ballots were rejected.

  396. 396

    Teach the difference between fact and opinion in school = teach the the creationist conceptual scheme

    Then people will make better opinions, and have more accurate facts.

    That’s got to be the solution.

    People make bad opinions for reasons of sin, like lust, or greed, but people also make bad opinions simply because they are conditioned to be fact obsessed, and don’t understand what an opinion is.

    Nazi’s wrongly asserted personal character is a factual issue. That means they had the factual attitude in regards to people’s character. An unemotional, measuring, calculating attitude, the attitude that is appropriate for factual issues. So the nazi had an unemotional, measuring, calculating attitude in regards to the personal character of themselves, their father and mother, their brothers and sisters, and anyone. The factual attitude in regards to personal character, translates to a merciless judgement on personal character. The judgement is just by design bereft of any emotion.

    In retrospect nazism could have, and should have, been defeated, by teaching the difference between fact and opinion in school. That is the elegant, effective way of defeating nazism.

    And defeating nazism by opposing hate, is counterproductive. Because really in opposing hate you are opposing emotion. And by opposing emotion, you promote the unemotional factual attitude in regards to personal character, which is the foundation of nazism.

    Personal character is on the side of what makes a choice, and by logic anything that is on the side of what makes a choice can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

    1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / opinion
    2. Creation / chosen / material / fact

    Personal character is in category no 1, an attribute of a creator. So it is a matter of chosen opinion whether someone is lazy. We can see as objective fact someone deciding not to work, instead of deciding to work. That is still objective. But to find out what it was that made the decision turn out that way, the conclusion on it can only be reached by feeling what it was, and then expressing that feeling by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, choosing an opinion on the issue.

    http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy

  397. 397
    orthomyxo says:

    As I say about, “exact-match” is not about signature checking.

  398. 398
    kairosfocus says:

    Again, I note this thread is not about tracking the US election, after about 5,000 comments and several OPs, the issue on the table is far more fundamental: how are we reasoning, or not, and import for civilisation in a 4th gen war era. Including, what would happen to sci-tech etc. Do I need to again point to the fate of aviation pioneer Professor Hugo Junkers? KF

  399. 399
    orthomyxo says:

    I don’t know man, the fact you dedicated 5000 comments to baseless and often laughable claims of fraud that helped create a narrative that led to 5 deaths in an attempt to prevent a democratic election might not mark you out as someone to lead when it comes how we ought to reason.

  400. 400
    kairosfocus says:

    Ortho, the basic problem is sound chain of custody on ballots tied to legitimate voters, with scrutineer control; which was massively breached in many ways. For the most troubling case, mail-in ballots, controls were undermined through an army of lawyers and activists sent out across the states. We have also direct testimony of poll workers and the frustrated scrutineers that signature validation was deliberately undermined. Something as basic as that suitable scans can detect kinematic artifacts that would indicate legitimacy at least for some cases was also frustrated and continues to be frustrated. The point here is that we deal with cumulative evidence and inference to best explanation constrained by that evidence. This is a clear weak point in our thinking. But then basic education in first duties and principles of right reason have been undermined. Where in particular a facet of prudence, discernment, requires long and disciplined practice to build up experience-based habitual skill. KF

  401. 401
    Steve Alten2 says:

    I have to agree with Orthomyxo on this.

  402. 402
    kairosfocus says:

    Ortho, drumbeat repetion of a selectively hyperskeptical, slanderous fallacy does not convert such into truth. As you have in effect personally accused me, I counter-challenge you to cogently and substantially address the 1600+ tabulated points of evidence tabulated here (for convenience) or else stand exposed as a false accuser. KF

    PS: I point out to you that my core argument turns on established public facts and moral duties, I again note it here for record; this too you need to cogently address i/l/o what was published in NYT and the US Congress archives, etc:

    The Failed Moral Duty Challenge:

    First, all relevant officials and connected persons have a main duty to ensure integrity of elections, and know or should acknowledge the potential for fraud and what it can mean. [–> almost self-evident] Therefore, neglect on a systemic basis is only partly negligence, it becomes in material part a strong sign of wrongful intent. [–> refusal to do due diligence and known duty are signs of tort] In the case of the US and a relevant party, in Feb 1994, the NYT published a front page, just below fold article [see, 1273 first previous thread] on a judge’s reversal of an election outcome and of majority in a legislature in PA, due to fraud connected to a known vulnerable type of ballot and to harvesting, intimidation etc. [–> public fact 1] Ten years later in 2004, The US congress received testimony on fraud in the Ukraine [see, U/D 17, first previous thread] that further amplified such techniques. [ –> public fact 2] So, systemic ignorance cannot be responsibly pleaded and indeed is discredited. [–> public duty, the media have a duty of reporting such to the public and of giving a true and fair view of the circumstances] Accordingly there were just on these cases sixteen to twenty six years to purge the said party of such a taint [–> direct implication of the duty and necessarily known fact, with some Arithmetic], but instead this year excuse of a pandemic was taken [–> public fact 3] to multiply opportunity and means for similar fraud. [–> the injection of the destabilising element, here judged on its known likely consequence: [1] effectively uncontrolled mail-in ballots on an industrial scale, [2] 3rd party ballot harvesting, [3] deliberate frustration of effective scrutineering, breaking chains of transparency and control on validity, joined to [4] fraud-conducive election gadgetry as has been demonstrated on videos shown in a previous OP and recorded based on tests and competent witness] This is a moral duty demonstration of wrongful intent [–> refusal to do duty, to one’s advantage] and shifts or should shift our common sense evaluation [–> in short, decisive on best explanation] of evidence [affidavits, anomalous patterns, disturbances to counts, frustration of proper scrutineering (ponder barriers erected to block even distant observation as has been circulated by images, not just reports of witnesses), surge in vulnerable ballots, single candidate ballots etc][–> list of evidence] to recognise these as consistent with [–> inferred best explanation] carrying out a morally demonstrated intent. [–> duty failure implies intent in such a case] This obtains whether or not sufficient weight can be amassed to lead courts to vacate suspect ballots [–> anticipates failure of the court system], or whether criminal charges can be brought against leading individuals. [–> given cases as the 30k emails on a server willfully set up outside the government] That common sense issue is also implicated in Federalist 68 [–> historical analysis, to which there has been little or no cogent response], etc so state legislatures may have a duty to act in face of a tainted election. [–> the US Constitutional assignment of responsibility] The implication, no you do not get a second round to try again, but responsible bodies take up from [and remedy] your failure can be taken as a built in deterrent effect. [–> inference, on the nature of the backstops] However moral fibre in our civilisation has long been progressively undermined for generations. [-> I here point to the impacts of the currents of thought over the past 300 or so years, including the rise of amoral, nihilistic philosophies and ideologies, leading to the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb and the utterly corrosive implications of linked mass blood guilt]

  403. 403
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, on your endorsement, you too have crossed the line. You are now personally responsible to provide a substantial cogent reply or stand exposed as a false accuser. KF

  404. 404
  405. 405
    orthomyxo says:

    I’m obviously not going to spend my life addressing 1600 claims. If you can pull out the strongest evidence for fraud i:d be happy to consider it

  406. 406
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ You are now personally responsible to provide a substantial cogent reply or stand exposed as a false accuser. KF

    Is that more or less serious than the false accusations made against Dominion over the last couple months? Or the false accusations of dead people voting? Or the false accusations of ballot dumps? Or the false accusations of out of state people voting? Or the false accusations of…

  407. 407
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: On the main focus, it is relevant to point to abductive reasoning:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

    Abduction
    First published Wed Mar 9, 2011; substantive revision Fri Apr 28, 2017

    In the philosophical literature, the term “abduction” is used in two related but different senses. In both senses, the term refers to some form of explanatory reasoning. However, in the historically first sense, it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in generating hypotheses, while in the sense in which it is used most frequently in the modern literature it refers to the place of explanatory reasoning in justifying [[–> better, warranting] hypotheses. In the latter sense, abduction is also often called “Inference to the Best Explanation.”

    This entry is exclusively concerned with abduction in the modern sense . . . .

    Most philosophers agree that abduction (in the sense of Inference to the Best Explanation) is a type of inference that is frequently employed, in some form or other, both in everyday and in scientific reasoning. However, the exact form as well as the normative status of abduction are still matters of controversy.

    The key idea is, there is a body of observations or experiential “facts” f1, f2, . . . fn, which may have dubious cases and which includes being open to future facts p1, p2 . . . pm etc. What explanation best covers the facts, helps winnow out dubious cases, is reliable at predicting future cases pk, and is best coherent with balanced explanatory power? Especially, where there may be competing possible explanations e1, e2 . . . er; this number again being open-ended. The candidates can be winnowed as to live options, then compared to identify a best case eb. Such may so outperform the others that it is morally certain. It may be provisional, relative to further investigation (see science) or there may be no decisive balance between eb and eb’ a next best case, on which something like a benefit of doubt or a least regrets prudential choice etc may have to be made.

    Such is obviously a rich, complex subject, one which calls for a cultivated weight of prudence.

    Abduction, in my view, is a form of inductive reasoning, in the modern sense of arguments on evidence lending plausibility to a conclusion, generally i/l/o empirical evidence. The logical issue is to identify reliable, strong degree of support. As we saw.

    This brings prudence and warrant as a function of prudence, to the fore.

    KF

  408. 408
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, you are doubling down, having failed to cogently address the decisive character fail of the election gadget company reflected in its decision to use a ruthless lawfare tactic. That goes directly to a failed fit and proper persons test and allows us to draw fair comment conclusions on the evidence already in hand which was tracked. I have said little on dead voters but that is a longstanding notorious problem of US politics, as are many other forms of dubious election behaviour. The record of F-curve ballot dumps in the wee hours is there so your dismissal there is blatant denial of public fact. As for double state or out of state voters, there has been significant evidence and there is to my recall a longstanding pattern. Again, neither of these is something I have focused, even as a secondary argument. I have taken time to point out my main argument again, as has been highlighted many times in your presence so I am not impressed by your attempt to set up strawman arguments. So far, you have failed in a context of trying to pile on on an accusation that has been challenged to deal with 1600+ lines of tabulated, referenced evidence that belie the agit prop talking point, baseless. Again, by piling on you have personally accused me without warrant, and have doubled down on a failed cross complaint compounded with strawman fallacies. Unless you do a lot better, I have a right to draw pretty direct conclusions. KF

  409. 409
    vividbleau says:

    Random thoughts and predictions

    1) The last four years we have witnessed an all out assault on the outgoing President. It started the moment he came down the escalator. Even before he was elected there was talk of impeachment. When he did get elected they wanted to impeach him before he took office. At his inauguration there were mass protests threatening violence to his person. There were plays staged in New York playing out a mock assassination. Kathy Griffin held a bloody severed head of Trump. Sean Penn encouraged his assassination. Congressmen challenged election integrity. They called him an illegitimate President.

    2)Once he was in office he was the target of a palace coup designed to remove a duly elected President of the United State. Then there was the bought and paid for by the DNC Steele dossier which resulted in the appointment of a special counsel. It was Russia Russia Russia, then it was Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine followed by another round of impeach impeach impeach.

    3) Now we have insurrection insurrection insurrection and yep another round of impeach impeach impeach

    4) For the closing act we have of course impeachment added with a scene taken right out of Hitlers production of the Reichstag fire. Hitler used the Reichstag fire to demonize and liquidate his political opponents. The left is using the assault on the Capitol as an excuse to put 26’
    000 troops into DC to demonstrate their power over domestic terrorists. Exactly who are the tdomestic terrorist? All of the 74 million Trump voters who need to go into indoctrination camps or deprogramming programs just ask Caty Curic and many others. Like Hitler the left must bury any and all opposition using the false narrative of insurrection insurrection insurrection.

    5) Some of us are in for some very dark days. I predict that we will witness an assault on civil liberties the likes we have not seen since the civil war or FDRs internment of Japanese Americans

    Don’t forget it’s Trump who caused all this divisiveness LOL

    Vivid

  410. 410
    Bob O'H says:

    kf @ 398 –

    Do I need to again point to the fate of aviation pioneer Professor Hugo Junkers?

    Yes you do. Unless he was crushed under a pile of fake ballot papers, it’s not clear what his relevance is. Or, indeed, what aspect of his fate is relevant.

  411. 411
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, it is clear that the US has long been in the grip of an entrenched power elite, across the seven mountains/pillars of influence, under the aegis of a worldview and cultural agenda that can be discerned for what it is by its fruit. Start, with the ongoing holocaust of 63 or so million unborn children since the rights in the US Constitution were deliberately manipulated to push in a perceived right to at will remove life unworthy of life in the womb. Blood guilt is the most corrupting of influences, but such corruption at root comes from the self-destruction of guilty mind through inescapable cognitive dissonance: a principle of wrong reason, if you will. There is an onward pattern of prior decisions, and a growing assault under colour of law ever since. Now, the whole world can see the reality of the American elites as they seek to consolidate their power from what they doubtless see as a failed peasant revolt. The price the world is just beginning to pay for that is the leading democratic power showing every wannabe how to utterly corrupt elections. And, I find a very familiar pattern of agit prop in the sing off the same hymn sheet blanket denial and projection-driven designation of scapegoats. Those acts of guilty, ruthless minds constitute confession by projection to the despised other. However, they will not prevail, they have managed to do a Pearl Harbor and hope to run the strategic board, but have forgotten that a move like that is already strategic overstretch. I am confident that across this year the tide will turn, and though that only implies a long, grim struggle, in the end the correlation of forces is such that they will be defeated — and yes. this is a 4g unlimited civil war as I clipped on yesterday; in the onward context of a global war, de facto WW4, welcome to the world of near-perpetual war across the full spectrum of forces and battlespaces. De facto WW3, the Cold War lasted 40 years and its last decade was already running in parallel with the emerging no. 4. The global and local geostrategic cost is already bad and will be awful. KF

  412. 412
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H:

    As it seems you failed to see what the ruthless totalitarian state of the guilty mind can do, let me clip Wikipedia inadvertently testifying against interest — and,

    – the ruthless exploitation of the Reichstag fire,
    – tricking Aging President Paul von Hindenberg into using Art 48 of the Weimar Constitution to destroy freedom of the press,
    – scapegoating the despised other for a show trial, then
    – running an election under that shadow and
    – getting the notorious enabling act out of the rump legislature meeting in the Kroll Opera House

    . . . as I already summarised above are already enough parallel on the election manipulation aspect:

    Hugo Junkers (3 February 1859 – 3 February 1935) was a German aircraft engineer and aircraft designer who pioneered the design of all-metal airplanes and flying wings. His company, Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke AG (Junkers Aircraft and Motor Works), was one of the mainstays of the German aircraft industry in the years between World War I and World War II. His multi-engined, all-metal passenger- and freight planes helped establish airlines in Germany and around the world . . . .

    When the Nazis came into power in 1933 they requested Junkers and his businesses aid in the German re-armament. When Junkers declined, the Nazis responded by demanding ownership of all patents and market shares from his remaining companies, under threat of imprisonment on the grounds of High Treason. In 1934 Junkers was placed under house arrest, and died at home in 1935 during negotiations to give up the remaining stock and interests in Junkers. Under Nazi control, his company produced some of the most successful German warplanes [–> and key piston and jet engines] of the Second World War.

    Capitalists, you see, were pensioners of the state, there was no need to repeat the bolshevik blunder of shooting or exiling them. Cartelise them, under control of the state. In this case, Milch, a former employee of Junkers, crushed and hounded to death a world class pioneer of aviation because out of his pacifism, he would not allow his firms and patents to be used for war. His family was so livid that at his funeral, when the nazis turned up with a hypocritical wreath, they blocked them. I think even Milch realised that was a step too far.

    If you don’t see an obvious destructive cartelisation of big tech and major media in progress today, it is because you are not looking.

    KF

  413. 413
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I updated the OP, on how war has evolved so we can map the operations that are already in progress. It turns out that we need to strip the cover of night and fog from the lurking geostrategic vultures. KF

  414. 414
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Note the dateline on the above clip on unlimited war, 1999. 4g war stuff is also decades old. What are the odds against the view that these have not become common currency because it would not suit the interests of the lurking vultures? I suggest, negligibly different from 0. KF

  415. 415
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Back on the topic of baseless allegations intended to taint the despised other, here is a report where the Russians are complaining:

    https://www.rt.com/usa/512912-clinton-pelosi-putin-trump-capitol/

    Democratic bigwigs Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have called for a probe into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s – real or entirely imagined – role in the Capitol riot, theorizing that he may have personally ordered the unrest.

    The House speaker sat down with the failed 2016 presidential candidate for an interview on Clinton’s podcast, ‘You and Me Both,’ on Monday, where they discussed the bout of chaos in Washington, DC earlier this month. At one point during the conversation, Clinton argued that President Donald Trump “has other agendas” – though hastened to add that “I don’t think we yet know” what those are – wondering aloud about “who pulls his strings.”

    “I would love to see his phone records to see whether he was talking to Putin the day the insurgents invaded our Capitol,” Clinton said, asking Pelosi: “Do you think we need a 9/11-type commission to investigate and report everything they can pull together and explain what happened?”

    Is Twitter going to include Russiagate in its new crackdown on conspiracy theories? @Jack?
    — Paul DellaPelle? (@paolodellapelle) January 19, 2021

    Pelosi responded in the affirmative, saying that when it comes to Trump, “all roads lead to Putin.”

    “I don’t know what Putin has on him politically, financially or personally, but what happened last week was a gift to Putin. Because Putin wants to undermine democracy in our country and throughout the world,” Pelosi added confidently, despite being fuzzy on the details.

    The remarks, made entirely free of evidence, soon triggered a wave of mockery online, with journalist Aaron Mate labeling Clinton and Pelosi’s creative theorizing as “BlueAnon” – presumably the Democratic Party’s version of the eccentric QAnon conspiracy theory popular among many conservatives. He also asked why more than two years of investigation into Trump’s alleged Russia ties were “insufficient,” as they turned up no proof for any such conspiracy.

    After the break: we’ll discuss with our all-FBI panel whether more censorship power is needed to prevent conspiracy theories and disinformation from spreading.And then, our all-CIA panel asks: did Putin use a pee-pee tape to control the US, and did he order the Capitol riot??
    — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 19, 2021

    “These people are the *last* ones with any moral standing to rant about conspiracy theories & disinformation,” wrote journalist Glenn Greenwald, adding:

    Remember when Mueller spent 18 months and millions of dollars armed with a team of prosecutors and subpoena power, then closed his investigation after arresting *zero* Americans for conspiring with Russia? Let’s do it again!

    #BlueAnon is real. And it’s hilarious. pic.twitter.com/SeaWatuYWK
    — Hannibal Khoury ? (@The_Cyrenian) January 19, 2021

    Hillary, can you show me on the doll were Trump hurt you?
    — Dr. Lazy Boondoggle (@T_RoyReborn) January 19, 2021

    Others weighed in to ask whether Twitter’s policies against conspiracy theories and “dangerous disinformation” – harshly enforced for the QAnon community – would apply to Clinton and Pelosi’s baseless musings, joking that they are likely to “sow discord” in the US political scene.

    By their unsubstantiated projections shall ye know them?

    This is of course only one slice of a surge of unsubstantiated toxic projections to the despised other, which has led to a rushed second impeachment that provided hardly any time to examine evidence much less carry out a reasonable defence.

    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

    If you miss my point, ponder parallels to 284 above. The court transcript at 254 above should also be noted.

    Compare the 1600+ line tabulation of evidence that is still not cogently, substantially addressed by the objectors we see making projections above; go to the web site to follow up links. If you need help mapping the picture, see the Navarro summary of red flags above.

    KF

  416. 416

    The socialists will prevail to defeat the US constitution, because they have prevailed in academics and education. And with the large increase in education, that is an unsurmountable position of power socialists have.

    Really creationism is a total laughing stock in academics. Even many intelligent design theorists have little respect for creationism. Creationism is totally marginalized in education.

    Creationism should be the center of education, because it provides the 2 main tools for reasoning. The concept of opinion (like opinion on beauty), and the concept of fact.

    Everyone likes to glory in the certitude of facts. Opinions on the other hand are regarded as pathetic, “it’s just my opinion”.

    Even creationists love facts, and hate opinions. Which is why the US is inevitably turning into a socialist nation.

  417. 417
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Looks like the Russians were complaining about this:

    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1351297926769872899?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    >>Hillary Clinton
    @HillaryClinton
    ·
    18h
    .@SpeakerPelosi
    and I agree:

    Congress needs to establish an investigative body like the 9/11 Commission to determine Trump’s ties to Putin so we can repair the damage to our national security and prevent a puppet from occupying the presidency ever again.
    >>

    They would have a right to send a diplomatic note over that. Mrs Clinton is a former Secretary of State of the US and Ms Pelosi is Speaker of the House. This is nearly causus belli language.

    Given the outcome of a US$ 40 mill investigation over several years, Mr Trump . . . in a jurisdiction with sane defamation law . . . would have reason to sue. This is an unsubstantiated accusation of treason as agent of a foreign power.

    In addition, Ms Pelosi just pushed an impeachment of Mr Trump on flimsy grounds [again] and particularly accused him of incitement in teeth of what he actually said. An unsubstantiated accusation of treason like this is exactly the sort of incitement that was used in the process of establishing the suppression of freedoms and in establishing the enabling act in aftermath of the Reichstag incident.

    Frankly, such projections to the despised other reek of cognitive dissonance and invite a mirror principle inference to confession by projection.

    At the minimum, serious retractions are in order.

    KF

  418. 418
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: U/D6 to OP, the screen shot, with comments. KF

  419. 419
    jerry says:

    Some of us are in for some very dark days

    No, everyone is in for some bleak times including all the supporters of leftist policies worldwide. They believe they are immune but eventually the virus will come for them when the left gets power. Leftists always eat their own. It’s all about power, not some ideology that has a happy ending.

  420. 420
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “SA2, you are doubling down, having failed to cogently address the decisive character fail of the election gadget company reflected in its decision to use a ruthless lawfare tactic.

    What character fail? And what ruthless lawyer tactic? A company that employs 250+ people will likely go out of business because of the reckless and fallacious accusations of people like Sidney Powell. Yes, the $1.3 Billion is intended to shock the person being sued. However, if she actually has the evidence she repeatedly claimed that she had, the dollar value is immaterial as she will have no problem winning the case. The reason that the individual news networks (e.g., American thinker and others) are retracting these fallacious claims is because they know that they don’t have the evidence necessary to win the case. And if they don’t have the evidence necessary to win the case they should never have repeatedly made the accusations and are equally culpable.

    Even if any of these go to court, Dominion will never be awarded the $1.3 billion, and if they are, it will never be paid. And Dominion knows this. The reckless and fallacious actions of Powell and others may have ruined a business and the livelihoods of over 250 people. If I were the CEO of that company I would make every effort to ensure that the accusers pay for their actions. Forcing them into personal bankruptcy seems like a small price to pay for what they have done. Frankly, I thought that Dominion was being gracious in allowing its accusers to get off the hook by publicly admitting that they had no evidence to support the claims they were making or reporting. I don’t think that I would be that generous.

  421. 421
    Querius says:

    Jerry @419,

    Great point–exactly!

    -Q

  422. 422
    orthomyxo says:

    As KF seems unwilling to choose the strongest evidence for voter fraud from his 1600 I chose 5 at random to look at. Sampling from only the “illegal votes” category I got numbers 11, 63, 65,74 and 87.

    Amazingly, the evidence presented for all of these is typically youtube videos of press releases from conservative think tanks. Here’s what we got

    11: A minute proportion of GA voters are registered at a non-residential address (https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/ga-non-residential/). This seems to ignore the fact that some people live at motels and others are homeless or have no fixed address, in which case the suggestion is that they register at a charity, govt building etc. As long as these people are still allowed to vote this is not fraud at all.

    63: Some guy on twitter thinks Philly had 95% turn out (https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/1325453248254406657). This is simply not true (https://results.philadelphiavotes.com/VoterTurnoutDetails.aspx?)

    65: A witness says 100k votes had there dates changed in a youtube video with 40 views (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK15um7TTaU&ab_channel=TheFraudoftheCentury). The video itself doesn’t explain what the claimed fraud is and why dates would be changed in September, so I can’t see any evidence for fraud here.

    74: Bellweather counties weren’t bellweathers in 2020 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/bellwether-counties-nearly-wiped-out-by-2020-election-11605272400). Not evidence for fraud at all.

    87: 100 people in VA where maile absentee ballots twice (https://www.nbc12.com/2020/09/22/double-absentee-ballots-accidentally-sent-some-henrico-voters/). Not evidence for fraud at all, and because of the tracking system on ballots the mistake can’t be taken advantage of by the few people affected.

    Given how utterly lame this random sample of the evidence is, I think we can dismiss the idea the that the share weight of evidence is overwhelming. So I encourage you to provide the bests cases or perhaps reconsider you position.

  423. 423
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, you continue to confirm what you are. The public fact of a $1.3 billion lawsuit targetting an individual is a character statement about the executive suite and board doing something like that. No, that is not a mere shock tactic, it is lawfare extremism. As for election gadgetry, I for cause believe that industry should be closed for want of customers. Elections should be done on paper ballots with proper scrutiny, similarly hand counted locally, with totals communicated by scanned signed paper documents, followed up by certified, scrutineered transmittal of sealed ballots and counts. No software beyond standard spreadsheets will be needed to add up at regional centres, with files and process scrutinised. At no time should votes be converted from integer values and any subtraction on claimed errors should be supervised at a higher level by a panel with judicial responsibility. At the most, optical scans with log files and certified accurate OCR can be used to accelerate counting, on certified machines that are sealed and isolated from wired or wireless connectivity, with the sealed ballots similarly certified. Absentee balloting should be strictly controlled with relevant cross checks and chain of custody. KF

    PS: Allow me to cite from Locke, his source Hooker and onward on foundational precepts of law:

    [2nd Treatise on Civil Gov’t, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: “14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . “ and 13: “9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . “ Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]

  424. 424
    kairosfocus says:

    Ortho,

    the 1600 form a coherent body of evidence including 900+ eyewitnesses [with copious documentation], live video demonstrations by election supervisors of gadgetry capabilities, the public facts that demonstrate intent and much more. Your strawman dismissal tactics simply reveal your underlying enabling and failure to understand or acknowledge the rope principle of cumulative evidence.

    To give a simple example let me take something from Babbage.

    Suppose a witness to X could be in error 1 in 1,000 times. When we have 3 witnesses, the cumulative odds of error are like 10^-3 cubed, already 1 in 10^9, that is why scripture points out that a few independent witnesses are already strong warrant, especially where there is a chain of circumstances so it is 1 in 10^9 for X, by the same for Y then Z etc. When we hit 900 witnesses, on a simplified model, we are looking at 1 in 10^2700 per point of agreement. That’s just to bring out the point that even a few mutually reinforcing witnesses are strong evidence.

    On the public facts linked above, we already have decisive warrant for intent to undermine election integrity through injecting effectively uncontrolled mail-in ballots, 3rd party harvesting and frustration of scrutineering. Remember an army of lawyers and activists went out to do that in the teeth of the events in PA in 1994 and the further case brought before Congress of what happened in Ukraine, how, 2004.

    That cannot be wiggled out of.

    KF

    PS: Yet again, my main argument:

    The Failed Moral Duty Challenge:

    First, all relevant officials and connected persons have a main duty to ensure integrity of elections, and know or should acknowledge the potential for fraud and what it can mean. [–> almost self-evident] Therefore, neglect on a systemic basis is only partly negligence, it becomes in material part a strong sign of wrongful intent. [–> refusal to do due diligence and known duty are signs of tort] In the case of the US and a relevant party, in Feb 1994, the NYT published a front page, just below fold article [see, 1273 first previous thread] on a judge’s reversal of an election outcome and of majority in a legislature in PA, due to fraud connected to a known vulnerable type of ballot and to harvesting, intimidation etc. [–> public fact 1] Ten years later in 2004, The US congress received testimony on fraud in the Ukraine [see, U/D 17, first previous thread] that further amplified such techniques. [ –> public fact 2] So, systemic ignorance cannot be responsibly pleaded and indeed is discredited. [–> public duty, the media have a duty of reporting such to the public and of giving a true and fair view of the circumstances] Accordingly there were just on these cases sixteen to twenty six years to purge the said party of such a taint [–> direct implication of the duty and necessarily known fact, with some Arithmetic], but instead this year excuse of a pandemic was taken [–> public fact 3] to multiply opportunity and means for similar fraud. [–> the injection of the destabilising element, here judged on its known likely consequence: [1] effectively uncontrolled mail-in ballots on an industrial scale, [2] 3rd party ballot harvesting, [3] deliberate frustration of effective scrutineering, breaking chains of transparency and control on validity, joined to [4] fraud-conducive election gadgetry as has been demonstrated on videos shown in a previous OP and recorded based on tests and competent witness] This is a moral duty demonstration of wrongful intent [–> refusal to do duty, to one’s advantage] and shifts or should shift our common sense evaluation [–> in short, decisive on best explanation] of evidence [affidavits, anomalous patterns, disturbances to counts, frustration of proper scrutineering (ponder barriers erected to block even distant observation as has been circulated by images, not just reports of witnesses), surge in vulnerable ballots, single candidate ballots etc][–> list of evidence] to recognise these as consistent with [–> inferred best explanation] carrying out a morally demonstrated intent. [–> duty failure implies intent in such a case] This obtains whether or not sufficient weight can be amassed to lead courts to vacate suspect ballots [–> anticipates failure of the court system], or whether criminal charges can be brought against leading individuals. [–> given cases as the 30k emails on a server willfully set up outside the government] That common sense issue is also implicated in Federalist 68 [–> historical analysis, to which there has been little or no cogent response], etc so state legislatures may have a duty to act in face of a tainted election. [–> the US Constitutional assignment of responsibility] The implication, no you do not get a second round to try again, but responsible bodies take up from [and remedy] your failure can be taken as a built in deterrent effect. [–> inference, on the nature of the backstops] However moral fibre in our civilisation has long been progressively undermined for generations. [-> I here point to the impacts of the currents of thought over the past 300 or so years, including the rise of amoral, nihilistic philosophies and ideologies, leading to the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb and the utterly corrosive implications of linked mass blood guilt]

    PPS: The further documentation today of unsubstantiated accusation of treason on thoroughly investigated discredited allegations is a further case on what is going on.

  425. 425
    orthomyxo says:

    the 1600 form a coherent body of evidence including 900+ eyewitnesses

    This is the dumbest argument… Lots of non-evidence for fraud doesn’t some how combine to make a strong case.

    If you have strong evidence let us know, otherwise, maybe take a step back and wonder if the narrative you have clinged to for months is actually justified.

  426. 426
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ SA2, you continue to confirm what you are.

    I assume that you are suggesting that I am a person who believes in justice. Thank you.

    ”The public fact of a $1.3 billion lawsuit targetting an individual is a character statement about the executive suite and board doing something like that.

    And what exactly is that? A character statement that they seek recompense for the damage done to them and their employees by the reckless and fallacious claims made by Powell? I would argue that they are meeting the fiduciary responsibility they are legally required to follow.

    ”No, that is not a mere shock tactic, it is lawfare extremism.

    Really? Let me make this relevant at the individual level. What would you do if a person with access to the media repeatedly made accusations about you that was not supported by evidence? And what if these accusations resulted in your company going under? And what if these unsupported accusations resulted in your 250+ employees being unemployed, and unemployable? Would you just say “Oh well, that’s politics”? Or would you try to get reimbursed for the lost profits you were deprived of, and the lost livelihoods of your employees, that resulted from this person’s actions?

  427. 427
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, you continue to dig in deeper in the hole you are in. First prob, you are refusing to acknowledge abundant evidence up to and including live demonstration of election machinery questionable capabilities by a responsible county officer. Not to mention, the results of examining the Antrim machines and much more, that’s just on the basic facts. As to lawfare extremism the lawsuit scale is tantamount to an admission of intent to ruthlessly destroy an individual. Failure to recognise the issue here speaks. At this point, the issue is not evidence but how ever so many are thinking as those who are rational, responsible creatures. KF

  428. 428
    ET says:

    Wow. Did Ortho really just say that over 900 people witnessing transgressions is meaningless? Really?

  429. 429
    jerry says:

    If someone was guilty of something, how would they act to prevent examination of evidence that shows they are guilty? Or in the case of elections, you were incompetent.

    If someone was innocent of something, how would they act to encourage examination of evidence to show they are clean and unjustly accused especially if you would profit immensely by your innocence?

    That the press and Democrats imply you are not allowed to question the election.

    That’s all you need to know about election fraud being highly likely.

  430. 430
    orthomyxo says:

    Wow. Did Ortho really just say that over 900 people witnessing transgressions is meaningless? Really?

    The 900 witnesses are presumably the typo-ridden affidavits that Powell and others collected for lawsuits. Many of these are laughable. Like the guy calling himself “Spyder” while lying about his credentials (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sidney-powell-spider-spyder-witness/2020/12/11/0cd567e6-3b2a-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html), the expert and careful analysts who confused Michican an Minessotta or the people that felt intimidated because someone was wearing a BLM t-shirt near a polling place.

    So the fact there are 900 of them adds up to nothing. Again, if there if strong evidence let’s see it.

  431. 431
    jerry says:

    There were substantial ballot dumps for Biden during ballot counting but none for Trump. A ballot dump is defined as an increase in votes of over 25K at a single instance favoring one candidate. Except the PA threshold for a dump is 60k and AZ is 100k

    Arizona
    – 363,014 (B) 254,499 (T) 108,515 (B+) 8:05 PM
    – 798,568 (B) 655,467 (T) 143,101 (B+) 8:06 PM

    Georgia
    – 162,133 (B) 42,322 (T) 119,811 (B+) (Nov 4) 1:32 AM

    Michigan
    – 141,258 (B) 5,968 (T) 135,290 (B+) (Nov 4) 6:31 AM

    Pennsylvania
    – 70,565 (B) 4,218 (T) 66,347 (B+) (Nov 3) 8:15 PM
    – 73,945 (B) 8,543 (T) 65,402 (B+) (Nov 3) 8:26 PM
    – 88,865 (B) 23,713 (T) 65,152 (B+) (Nov 3) 8:38 PM
    – 62,445 (B) 1,159 (T) 61,286 (B+) (Nov 4) 9:16 AM

    Wisconsin
    – 38,989 (B) 14,004 (T) 24,985 (B+) (Nov 3) 9:27 PM
    – 143,379 (B) 25,163 (T) 118,216 (B+) (Nov 4) 3:42 AM

    None of these are indicative of anything in particular but represent things that should be examined. If the dumps represent highly Democratic areas then that may explain them. If each of these dumps were entirely explainable then that would go a long way to explaining how Biden won these particular states. But if signature verification did not match up then that would indicate that something was not valid.

    There are other states that are suspicious too.

    Minnesota
    – 198,564 (B) 84,809 (T) 113,755 (B+) (Nov 3) 11:30 PM

    Virginia had three ballot dumps that added close to a half million votes for Biden. At 2:20 in the morning Biden picked up 230,000 votes in one dump getting 80% of the vote.

    At a minimum, Democrats and pro Biden people should be demanding a thorough examination of these vote dumps to show they legitimately won the election. But they are not. They are trying to prevent it.

    Also there is the half billion dollars that Facebook gave to Democratic cities to help in counting the ballots and in getting the vote out. This should be illegal for a private organization to organize how a government entity conducts an election and then counts the ballots and to specifically focus on one political party.

  432. 432
    Querius says:

    Seversky @385,

    Yes, I saw the video and read the reports of such incidents and that such intimidatory behavior clearly overstepped the bounds of peaceful protest.

    Faced with an angry mob, do you think you would have opened your wallet to them?

    That would depend on how serious I felt the threat to my person was. I don’t remember reports of widespread shakedown attempts by the protestors.

    Ok, so it sounds like you would object to coercion even when based on historical grievances.

    Yes, I was aware of a couple of the nasty racist riots against blacks that you listed, but not all. You might also be interested in “black towns,” if you don’t already know about them:
    https://www.theroot.com/historys-lost-black-towns-1790868004

    My original point concerned the BLM “Silence is Violence” slogan:

    Regarding inciting violence: Is the Black Lives Matter slogan, “Silence is violence,” something that you would agree or disagree with?

    From your response, it sounds like you disagree with the slogan. Is that correct?

    -Q

  433. 433
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ SA2, you continue to dig in deeper in the hole you are in. First prob, you are refusing to acknowledge abundant evidence up to and including live demonstration of election machinery questionable capabilities by a responsible county officer. Not to mention, the results of examining the Antrim machines and much more, that’s just on the basic facts.

    Sorry, I must have missed the part where this evidence was presented to legal authorities, and where the outcome was presented in court.

    As to lawfare extremism the lawsuit scale is tantamount to an admission of intent to ruthlessly destroy an individual.

    Strange, you think that it is OK for someone to falsely accuse a company of illegal activities without being called to task for their unsupported claims. And to expect the company not to seek retribution.

    Failure to recognise the issue here speaks.

    Yes, it certainly does. And not in your favour.

    At this point, the issue is not evidence but how ever so many are thinking as those who are rational, responsible creatures. KF

    Whatever that means.

  434. 434
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2 [& attn Ortho et al],

    you unfortunately continue to show the basic problem in action. Namely, disregard for first duties of reason, even as you appeal to our known duty to such in order to try to gain traction for your claims. That inconsistency is the heart of lawlessness and in today’s 4g age of unlimited war is an act of enmity to humanity (misanthropy) and so also to civilisation — which, is instituted to support human thriving. Such is the key error of the Jacobins, their heirs and many others who would reduce the despised other under hopeless subjugation through imposing their will to power.

    That is a first, pivotal point.

    To illustrate, let us focus the question of witness. Simply, what an affidavit is, is a sworn statement under duty of truth as a witness, it is directly evidence under penalty of perjury. Further statements by an affiant, then come under the umbrella of that statement and are natural extensions. Once a person passes the basic test of qualification, I was there in some relevant sense, I was of responsibly sound mind and understanding of duty to truth, I was able to accurately recall and report, here is that report under duty to truth. That person qualifies to be a witness. Hence the report, which, can then be subjected to reasonable evaluation as to confidence in truthfulness.

    Where, further, affiants may also be whistleblowers seeking to serve civil duty by speaking truth that makes disclosure in the public interest. Which, is manifestly the case in the current circumstances.

    However, witness is wider than this. To be a witness does not require the presence of a human, societally established, formal or customary law court. For, each of us is before the bar of conscience and the Power behind conscience. A classic statement of that is in a document you are likely to disdain, but which is actually foundational to our civilisation:

    Rom 2: 14 When Gentiles, who do not have the Law [since it was given only to Jews], do [c]instinctively the things the Law requires [guided only by their conscience], they are a law to themselves, though they do not have the Law. 15 They show that the [d]essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts; and their conscience [their sense of right and wrong, their moral choices] bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or perhaps defending them 16 on that day when, [e]as my gospel proclaims, God will judge the secrets [all the hidden thoughts and concealed sins] of men through Christ Jesus. [AMP]

    [Due context is in Ac 17: 29 So then, being God’s children, we should not think that the Divine Nature (deity) is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination or skill of man. 30 . . . God overlooked and disregarded the former ages of ignorance; but now He commands all people everywhere to repent [that is, to change their old way of thinking, to regret their past sins, and to seek God’s purpose for their lives], 31 because He has set a day when He will judge the inhabited world in righteousness by a Man whom He has appointed and destined for that task, and He has provided credible proof to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” [1 Cor 15:1 – 11, with 500+ witnesses.]]

    In a key sense, every day, every minute, we are all on the witness stand, before conscience and before our Creator. Where, we are duty-bound to seek and sustain then heed sound conscience. Thus, the heeding or otherwise of this duty is a — one of several, but it is a key one — test of the probative value of a witness. Regard or disregard of the universal binding duty of this built in law can be observed and is a qualification. Where recognition of simple duty to truth suffices with the same force as an oath or affirmation, which simply formally acknowledges such.

    There is no hierarchy of duties where a statement under some degree or other of oath confers a greater or lesser duty of truthfulness than some ordinary statement not under formal bond to tell truth. The binding law coeval with our humanity of duty to truth covers all cases. Never mind that it is far too often disregarded.

    So, the very fact that you rhetorically demand statements in a formal court room; knowing that courts have played every flimsy technicality to lock out, speaks. Not in your favour.

    I have already noted, on witnesses:

    To give a simple example let me take something from Babbage.

    Suppose a witness to X could be in error 1 in 1,000 times. When we have 3 witnesses, the cumulative odds of error are like 10^-3 cubed, already 1 in 10^9, that is why scripture points out that a few independent witnesses are already strong warrant, especially where there is a chain of circumstances so it is 1 in 10^9 for X, by the same for Y then Z etc. When we hit 900 witnesses, on a simplified model, we are looking at 1 in 10^2700 per point of agreement. That’s just to bring out the point that even a few mutually reinforcing witnesses are strong evidence.

    This point is for illustrative purposes, to help us see how mutuality of multiple witnesses can confer moral certainty to a judgement. Where, this degree of warrant is that degree of support in regards to some X, that we would be irresponsible to disregard its force and pretend that we may freely act on the presumption that X is false.

    Further to this, one of the characteristics of multiple witnesses of truth on a matter of any complexity, is superficial diversity with inner coherence on a core. The proper subject of the moral certainty is the core. Witnesses can be partly mistaken, or can be reporting diverse perspectives or use language in substandard ways etc without sacrificing or undermining fundamental truthfulness.

    In this case, it is morally certain that there was a deeply unprofessional approach to the election and that scrutineering was frustrated to the point of tainting the process. This was partly on excuse of the CV19 pandemic but it seems it is a longstanding widespread challenge, especially in urban areas exhibiting the pattern of machine politics tracing to Tammany Hall, 1789. Further to this, especially for effectively uncontrolled mail in ballots and the fruit of 3rd party ballot harvesting, chain of custody was compromised, rendering the result dubious; justifying investigation — apparently 69 million of some 150 million ballots fall under this cloud to one degree or another. A climate of partisan hostility and consistent widespread bias fits in with the separately established failed moral duty challenge for officials. Yet more, there is sufficient testimony

    The ballot gadgetry similarly fails the chain of custody/transparency test. In this case direct demonstrations and inspections have been carried out and the problem extends from c 2000 to 2021. Multiply this by the ballot dumps shown in the key F-pattern changes of lead and we have a signature of fraud, given the far fluctuation statistical issue. This is compounded by official action to frustrate a scanning of ballots that credibly would detect kinematic artifacts of the history of key ballots.

    That points to acts of guilty mind, which have considerable probative value.

    There is sadly excellent reason to conclude that on massive evidence including eyewitness testimony, that electoral misconduct materially affected the outcome of the just past US election. Until the substandard, fraud conducive patterns are acknowledged and corrected, there is good reason to hold that onward elections will be similarly tainted. This is a direct existential threat to liberty, so also to life.

    I trust that a strong movement of correction will emerge, but it is likely that the powers in de facto place, with the mindset we have seen, will try to take advantage of tainted victory to deeply entrench the fraud-conducive elements. Such is a predictable point of clash over this year, which will be a contributory part to the strategic decision in the ongoing 4g civil war driven by geostrategic vultures in the shadows.

    This is a sad pass, and an utterly needless one.

    KF

  435. 435
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, you are doubling down on false accusations and manifestly improper projections; such invites the inference, implied confession by projection. At this point, for cause, your credibility is effectively nil and your attempts to besmirch the despised other simply speak to your own condition. Please, ponder what your projected accusations reflect in yourself. Then, the only relevant matter in regard to your argumentation is therefore, how do we diagnose and address the problem. That is in part why I spoke to the problem of improper dismissal of witnesses. KF

  436. 436
    kairosfocus says:

    Ortho, the cumulative force of evidence and testimony establishes to moral certainty as a core conclusion that the election was deeply tainted. The public facts demonstrate a failed moral duty challenge that shows knowing intent to put in place a substandard election system conducive to manipulation. The resulting tainted election is a consequence. Until there is a substantial reform, election credibility is fatally compromised and the broken system poses an existential threat to liberty so too to life. That sets up a needless contest for the future of civilisation (with seriously damaging and rapidly mounting geostrategic consequences), and those who have insisted on knowingly undermining election integrity bear primary responsibility, whatever they may wish to project to the despised other. Indeed, such projections are little more than implied confessions. KF

  437. 437
    AndyClue says:

    @Orthomyxo:

    Like the guy calling himself “Spyder” while lying about his credentials

    He wasn’t lying. At least not according to the article you’ve cited:

    He blamed “clerks” for Powell’s legal team, who he said wrote the sentence. Merritt said he had not read it carefully before he signed his name swearing it was true.

    “That was one thing I was trying to backtrack on,” he said on Thursday. “My original paperwork that I sent in didn’t say that.”

    Powell’s team was the party, who mislead the public.

  438. 438
    orthomyxo says:

    AC, It might be that Powell’s team made up his credentials, but I think signing an affidavit with misleading information of still a lie.

    KF, this is just pathetic. All these words and not a single piece of solid evidence.

  439. 439
    Bob O'H says:

    AndyClue – the affidavit is here. At the end is the following text:

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this November 23th, 2020

    Followed by a blocked-out section, presumably his signature. It’s clear from the article that, to the best of his knowledge, it wasn’t “true and correct”, so yes he was lying.

  440. 440
    kairosfocus says:

    Ortho, all you are doing is showing that evidence can be dismissed through selective hyperskepticism, especially in a polarised situation. That is a key part of the problem that we have to face and resolve if we are to move forward as a civilisation. I stand by my remarks on the nature of witness. KF

  441. 441
    kairosfocus says:

    AC [& attn BO’H], interesting, and showing how mistakes do happen with evidence. A mistake is not a good thing but it is not calculated deception. KF

  442. 442