academic freedom agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games Defending our Civilization Ethics Evolutionary materialism's amorality Geo-strategic issues Governance & control vs anarchy Lessons of History Logic and First Principles of right reason Moving civilization forward UD Newswatch highlights

The folly of projecting group-stereotype guilt and the present kairos

Spread the love

The kairos concept is, in a nutshell, that there are seasons in life and in community, so that there are times that are opportune or even simply pivotal and trend-making. At such times, we are forced to decide, for good or ill. And yes, carry on with business as usual . . . especially on a manifest march of folly . . . is a [collective, power-balance driven] decision; ill advised though it may be:

Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .

More formally:

With that in mind, I now draw attention to Chenyuan Snider’s expose of some of the more terrifying Red Guard-like group-guilt, stereotyping and scapegoating tactics of the totalitarian government she grew up under; here, targetting a particularly revered group in historic, Confucius- influenced Chinese culture, teachers. Let me excerpt to highlight the power dynamics at work:

Mrs Chenyuan Snider, Artist and Teacher

When I was a first grader, there was a new political movement initiated by the Communist Party in China – the anti-teacher movement. It was precipitated by a tragic incident in which a student in China’s remote countryside attempted suicide because of mistreatment by her teacher. Overnight, all teachers in China were considered evil by virtue of being teachers. As students, we were ordered by the authorities to write about our teachers’ unscrupulous behavior towards us. It was mandatory. Every student had to write a condemnation about their own teacher on a poster and paste it on the wall. The bigger the poster and the longer the criticism, the holier the student became. In other words, the more a teacher was vilified, the more righteous the student appeared. There was no time for anyone to process and digest the new situation because it came like a huge wave engulfing everyone. During my time growing up in China, there were several movements during which one group was set up against another. These movements had proven to be enormously effective for the communist government to consolidate power. In the process, enemies were eliminated . . . .

Throughout history, wherever there are humans, there is injustice. However, when events are interpreted not as the fault of individuals, but rather, as a fault of a certain group, it creates hostility between large numbers of people. Through propaganda and political correctness one group can claim ascendant status over another. But this does not resolve the issues. In reality, tension from both sides continues to build up and intensify, which in turn produces more injustice and opposition. The justice that is due to the true victim is often buried in the larger struggle between groups. In the end, the victim is used as a prop serving the purpose of fighting the opposition.

This is of course reflective of the common folly of projecting blame or disdain to race, class, age [or want of age], sex, profession, honest occupation or the like. Surely, we can agree with the apostles and prophets that we partake of the common grace of life, sharing a common Imago Dei.

However, as a civilisation, we now face a recrudescence of one of the worst plagues afflicting our civilisation over the past quarter-millennium, [neo-]Marxism. Here, in a plethora of manifestations of so-called Critical Theories, more accurately: cultural form, mutant Marxism.

Let’s excerpt SEP, to see a self-congratulatory, programmatic self-description (on the way to urgently needed critique):

“Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.

Critical Theory in the narrow sense has had many different aspects and quite distinct historical phases that cross several generations, from the effective start of the Institute for Social Research in the years 1929–1930, which saw the arrival of the Frankfurt School philosophers and an inaugural lecture by Horkheimer, to the present. Its distinctiveness as a philosophical approach that extends to ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of history is most apparent when considered in light of the history of the philosophy of the social sciences. Critical Theorists have long sought to distinguish their aims, methods, theories, and forms of explanation from standard understandings in both the natural and the social sciences. Instead, they have claimed that social inquiry ought to combine rather than separate the poles of philosophy and the social sciences: explanation and understanding, structure and agency, regularity and normativity. Such an approach, Critical Theorists argue, permits their enterprise to be practical in a distinctively moral (rather than instrumental) sense. They do not merely seek to provide the means to achieve some independent goal, but rather (as in Horkheimer’s famous definition mentioned above) seek “human emancipation” in circumstances of domination and oppression. This normative task cannot be accomplished apart from the interplay between philosophy and social science through interdisciplinary empirical social research (Horkheimer 1993). While Critical Theory is often thought of narrowly as referring to the Frankfurt School that begins with Horkheimer and Adorno and stretches to Marcuse and Habermas, any philosophical approach with similar practical aims could be called a “critical theory,” including feminism, critical race theory, and some forms of post-colonial criticism . . . .

It follows from Horkheimer’s definition that a critical theory is adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation.

That ever so humble but sometimes inadvertently revealing crowd-source, Wikipedia, gives somewhat less subtly shielded details:

Critical theory is the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures. It argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. Critical theory has origins in sociology and also in literary criticism. The sociologist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them”.[1]

In sociology and political philosophy, the term Critical Theory describes the Western Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. This use of the term requires proper noun capitalization,[citation needed] whereas “a critical theory” or “a critical social theory” may have similar elements of thought, but does not stress the intellectual lineage specific to the Frankfurt School. Frankfurt School critical theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.[2] Critical theory was established as a school of thought primarily by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. Modern critical theory has additionally been influenced by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, as well as the second generation Frankfurt School scholars, notably Jürgen Habermas. In Habermas’s work, critical theory transcended its theoretical roots in German idealism and progressed closer to American pragmatism. Concern for social “base and superstructure” is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much of contemporary critical theory.[3]

Postmodern [–> thus, current] critical theory analyzes the fragmentation of cultural identities in order to challenge modernist era constructs such as metanarratives, rationality and universal truths, while politicizing social problems “by situating them in historical and cultural contexts, to implicate themselves in the process of collecting and analyzing data, and to relativize their findings”.[4]

Ironically, the “metanarrative” of Western, white male domination and the heroic effort to overthrow it is, of course, an obvious self-referentially incoherent element in all this. And, as we saw from Ms Snider, once sociopathic radical ideologues use this metanarrative to target those whom they wish to turn into scapegoats, the door yawns to group guilt on core characteristics that are genetic or so shaped by one’s life story as to be key to one’s identity, leading to terrifying injustice through agit prop, media amplification of street theatre, media lynch mobs, lawfare, show trials and oh so convenient “progressive” solutions.

If such does not ring true, it should.

Now, several years ago, here at UD, I put on the table an alternative framework for political spectra, informed by historical trends and linked factors on modern liberty and constitutional, democratic self-government through elected representatives:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

It seems to me, that this is a useful framework to speak to some ugly trends of our time that are not without relevance to the marginalising, stereotyping, slandering, expelling and scapegoating of supporters of Intelligent Design. But then, it — more significantly — speaks far more broadly.

The natural state of humanity is tyranny, or at most some degree of lawfulness under a somewhat fair-minded governing elite. The antithesis to that is the raw, untamed wilderness, the “dark and bloody ground” of the so-called state of nature. That description, is how Kentucky (then a mutually agreed hunting grounds of the tribes) was described to one Daniel Boone, by Amerindians. Such a state is so abhorrent, so prone to naked theft, murder and rapine, that it is a repeller-pole that drives communities towards the vortex of tyranny. From which, historically, as a rule one only escapes by rivers of blood and tears.

In my considered opinion, it was only as the rise of moveable-type print coupled to a religious ferment emphasising freedom of conscience and individual accountability before God, that the unstable but sustainable middle ground emerged. Between 1450 and 1650, the groundwork for democratising reforms with due buttressing from key community institutions enabled the rise of modern, elected representative, parliamentary democracy constrained not only by a tradition-bound corpus of law, but by explicit Constitutions pivoting crucially on Bills of Rights articulated on built-in, conscience attested principles of natural law. I should add, interestingly, all of these happened in lands that acceded to Christian Civilisation and which had a significantly Germanic cultural base with its emphasis on freedom, thus consent to legitimate rule.

Where, let us recall, some core theses:

Thus, as we see in Augustine’s and Aquinas’ reflections:

Where, we may see Aquinas’ theme of a naturally evident, intelligible (so, sound conscience attested), creation-order based framework for civil law and for reformation:

We still hear an echo of this in the concept of crimes that shock the conscience. Such crimes can be done by some brigand hiding in a cave, but they can also be done by those in positions of lawful power or even some who pose as liberators. Crimes can even be done under false colours of law or rights and even that of processes of justice, through lawfare.

In my considered view, the ongoing abortion holocaust of our living posterity in the womb . . . 800+ millions in 40+ years and mounting up by another better part of a million per week [statistics suggests 1.4 billion] . . . is a capital, utterly civilisation corrupting example.

Litmus Test: if one cannot pass the test of standing up for the unborn, further claims to be a champion of liberation of the oppressed can be disregarded.

However, in our day, the toxic brew we face is compounded by a widespread rejection of the natural law vision with its pivot on sound conscience sensitive to truth, duty, justice. I here point to legal positivism and the nihilism that crouches at the door.

Again, SEP is subtly veiled, but enough sticks out that we can pick up hints as to the lurking reefs of a graveyard of ships of state:

Legal positivism is the thesis that the existence and content of law depends on social facts and not on its merits. The English jurist John Austin (1790–1859) formulated it thus:

>>The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry. (1832 [1995: 157]) >>

The positivist thesis does not say that law’s merits are unintelligible, unimportant, or peripheral to the philosophy of law. It says that they do not determine whether laws or legal systems exist. Whether a society has a legal system depends on the presence of certain structures of governance, not on the extent to which it satisfies ideals of justice, democracy, or the rule of law. What laws are in force in that system depends on what social standards its officials recognize as authoritative; for example, legislative enactments, judicial decisions, or social customs. The fact that a policy would be just, wise, efficient, or prudent is never sufficient reason for thinking that it is actually the law, and the fact that it is unjust, unwise, inefficient or imprudent is never sufficient reason for doubting it. According to positivism, law is a matter of what has been posited (ordered, decided, practiced, tolerated, etc.). Austin thought the thesis “simple and glaring”. While it is probably the dominant view among analytically inclined philosophers of law, it is also the subject of competing interpretations together with persistent criticisms and misunderstandings.

Wikipedia is again inadvertently more frank and tellingly revealing:

Legal positivism is a school of thought of analytical jurisprudence developed largely by legal philosophers during the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. While Bentham and Austin developed legal positivist theory, empiricism provided the theoretical basis for such developments to occur. The most prominent legal positivist writer in English has been H. L. A. Hart, who, in 1958, found common usages of “positivism” as applied to law to include the contentions that:

— laws are commands of human beings;

— there is not any necessary relation between law and morality, that is, between law as it is and as it ought to be;

— analysis (or study of the meaning) of legal concepts is worthwhile and is to be distinguished from history or sociology of law, as well as from criticism or appraisal of law, for example with regard to its moral value or to its social aims or functions;

— a legal system is a closed, logical system in which correct decisions can be deduced from predetermined legal rules without reference to social considerations;

— moral judgments, unlike statements of fact, cannot be established or defended by rational argument, evidence, or proof (“noncognitivism” in ethics).[1]

Historically, legal positivism is in opposition to natural law’s theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer’s claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.

Got that? As in, “moral judgments, unlike statements of fact, cannot be established or defended by rational argument, evidence, or proof.”

Thus, then, “legal positivism is in opposition to natural law’s theories of jurisprudence, with particular disagreement surrounding the natural lawyer’s claim that there is a necessary connection between law and morality.”

Morality and justice, having been banished to the realms of irrationality, law is severed from the premise of morality, thus, justice. Nihilism — raw, untrammelled will to power (tempered only by cunning calculation as to what one can get away with, or cannot YET get away with) crouches at the door.

Enter, stage left, the sociopath with power or hoping to gain power; even under the guise of righting grave wrongs and liberating the oppressed. (And we need not detain ourselves on cheap agit prop stunts of turnabout projection as to who is oppressor. All polities are prone to injustices, the issue is to keep open a path to sound reformation.)

Destination, tyranny and the ruinous march of angry fools following a demonically anointed false political messiah:

Reformation is indicated, in defence of our civilisation.

As a start-point, we must recognise certain inescapable first principles and duties of reason that not only pervade but actually govern all of our rationality. Pace the legal positivists, morality is central to rationality and is itself rational, pivoting on self-evident first principles.

How can we — in an age blighted by selective hyperskepticism sitting in the seat of proper prudence — have confidence in such?

Simple, the very one who objects to such principles, inevitably, inescapably, implicitly, ALWAYS appeals to our intuitive adherence to such first duties of reason. So, we may freely hold that what is inescapably bound up in our rational life is just as inescapably, manifestly, necessarily, self-evidently true.

Where, of course, I here speak of our inescapable first duties of reason: to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice, etc.

Epictetus gives us a classic demonstration in a nutshell:

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? [Cf J. C. Wright]

Let the legal positivist or critical theorist object rationally and responsibly without implicitly relying on such, if he can: _______ . We confidently, freely hold that he cannot do so.

On this, we may go down the line of asking what sort of reality root must obtain, in a world of such rationally, morally governed creatures. There is no serious answer to that, but that that root is the inherently good, utterly wise source of worlds. A familiar figure, but we need not explore that side, other than to note that the rise of both so called legal positivism and cultural marxism trace to the rise of atheism as a mass movement. First, among intellectual classes then more widely as ideologies dressed up in lab coats took root and seized cultural high ground.

That is significant, as it implies that needed reform has to challenge such intellectual roots and correct such ideologies. Which brings us to the general relevance of a useful but sometimes controversial mapping exercise:

You tell me that this model — originally tracing to the circle, Bill Bright, Loren Cunningham and Francis Schaeffer 40+ years past — does not capture a good slice of the issue. I think, we can freely use it as a map . . . which is not the territory but if well made, a helpful guide to it. (I suggest, using it in two modes: one, as a map of high ground dominating community life with seven metaphorical hills to match the famous seven hills of Rome; two, as a temple with seven columns that support and are in turn protected by a common roof.)

So, we can clearly see elements of the witches’ brew and storm that has begun to break across our civilisation in this, The Year of Our Lord, 2020, MMXX.

We have to challenge worldviews and cultural agendas, exposing Overton Window power games:

(Who would have thought that significant voices in a leading power in our day, would irresponsibly call for “defunding the police” in the context of a case where one officer . . . on evidence, likely for good reason . . . faces Murder 1 charges and three juniors face only slightly lesser charges? That, shocks both mind and conscience. Yes, reform the police is always a legitimate issue, defunding them would only trigger snap-back to the vortex of tyranny. If you needed evidence of a fourth generation, agit prop, media manipulation and lawfare driven, so far low kinetic civil war in that power, there it is. A voyage of folly is ruinous as the ghosts of Socrates, Plato and even Alcibiades would jointly warn.)

However, the issue is far wider and deeper than current political and police follies. Reformation is what is needed, and that has to engage worldviews roots. Such as, turtles all the way down being impossible:

“Turtles, all the way down . . . ” vs a root cause

Let us consider how we get to worldview root level, first plausible framework faith points:

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

In this context, rebalancing how we consume mass and nowadays social media will be necessary also — as one of our very first steps:

Similarly, it is clear that cultural marxism and legal positivism cannot make the grade. So, it is time for serious re-thinking towards sound reformation. Otherwise, shipwreck. END

PS: Notice how street protesters in DC added to the BLM street slogan put up by the Mayor:

In broad daylight:

WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 08: People walk down 16th street after ‚ÄúDefund The Police‚Äù was painted on the street near the White House on June 08, 2020 in Washington, DC. After days of protests in DC over the death of George Floyd, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has renamed that section of 16th street “Black Lives Matter Plaza”. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The platform:

PPS: Warlordism and “protection” demands emerge in Seattle WA, USA — anarchy is a repeller pole that tends to push communities to the vortex of tyranny:

PPPS: The monument to fallen police officers that was recently vandalised:

And, after repeated vandalisation this is the statue of the man who warned against appeasing Herr Schicklegruber and Co. then led Britain’s lonely stand with backs to the wall in 1940. Yes, Sir Winston Spencer Churchill, in London:

320 Replies to “The folly of projecting group-stereotype guilt and the present kairos

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    The folly of projecting group-stereotype guilt and the present kairos

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    How sadly appropriate that today is the anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1944.

  3. 3

    Kairos,

    Do you ever publicly present these charts/graphics (or teach a course) in a question and answer format? I have lots of questions (genuine, not debunking) about them.

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    T+, Ask away, there is no reason not to. Just list your q’s, as I can I will respond. I note in succession above. Change Challenge is a version of decision theory issues distilled with inputs from history etc. Challenge of Good Govt is a reworking of political spectra, driven by three main variables, also reflecting history and political theory issues. Notice my point on how printing and Reformation set bup the ferment by late 1600s leading to Glorious Revolution 1688 then Locke and onward American Revolution and down to today. The natural law summaries are YT vid clips and have fairly serious backup from what I can see. The adapted 7M map is a modification of some useful ideas. I added double BATNAs to the Overton Window concept and set in the context of Plato’s Cave and Mt 6. First plausibles though independently arrived at is similar to the Agrippa trilemma, and sets up comparative difficulties analysis. The Straight-Spin grid I developed as co host of a talk show to help people sort through the kind of media we too often see today. KF

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    1688 Bill of Rights — yes, still in force — http://www.legislation.gov.uk/.....rSess2/1/2 KF

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    T+, just start; a few or a first Q would be okay. If you have a longer list, fine too. KF

  7. 7
    News says:

    People who espouse group rights and group guilt almost never – at least in the experience of some of us – want to have a group bank account or charge card with assorted unknown persons who supposedly belong to some group. Can’t think why not. 😉

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    (Who would have thought that significant voices in a leading power in our day, would irresponsibly call for “defunding the police” in the context of a case where one officer . . . on evidence, likely for good reason . . . faces Murder 1 charges and three juniors face only slightly lesser charges?

    My understanding is that the officer who knelt on the victim is being charged with 2nd degree murder and manslaughter and the three other officers face charges of aiding and abetting.

    I agree that calls to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department are over-reactions but you have decades of discriminatory policing against the black population of the city and a resistance to permanent reforms of the force. It is not a little ironic that MPD has complained that it is difficult to investigate major crimes in some parts of the city because local people will not co-operate. This against a background where disciplining, let alone bringing charges against, a “bad apple” are next to impossible because of a tribal culture which makes it anathema to “rat” on your colleagues. This means that police can literally get away with murder. Small wonder people – in some areas – do not trust the police.

    Set against this, I like watching the “Live PD” type of fly-on-the-wall coverage of day-to-day policing. From that it is clear that many, if not most, police are out there trying to help. They are out there trying to clean up the worst messes created by our society – the drunks, the drug addicts, the petty crooks, the incorrigible repeat offenders, the domestic abusers, the mentally ill, the homeless and the carnage on the roads. We rely on them to contain social problems which they have no hope of actually solving and which we would prefer to ignore.

    There are clearly problems of recruitment, of training, of morale and of discipline in police forces. Officers should not come to regard citizens exercising their First Amendment right to peaceful protest as the enemy or as “terrorists”. Anyone encouraging such an attitude is being grossly irresponsible. They need to be reminded that the Revolutionary War was fought against such despotism and that if they continue down that path it may come to that again.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, defund the police is being called for across the board; it seems to have started at national level with a former campaign spokesman for a presidential campaign of 2016; no, it is not mere exaggeration of a local issue. Already in LA, $150 mn is said to be about to be stripped from policing budget. In showing what is at stake more broadly, in Tenn, a Police Officer, in answer to demands that he kneel, had to state that he kneels only before God. What is going on is playing with a level of fire that many caught up in the agit prop of the moment don’t dream to begin to understand. The 4th gen civil war is ratcheting up before our eyes, and we need to ask, what are the likely further items on the agenda of radicals clearly already aiming to abolish police. Are they aware that the alternative is blood feuds and warlords? And no, one cannot excuse this as a local call for reformation or as anything but a reflection of anti-civilisational sentiment. Likewise, arson — especially targetting civilisation level symbols such as an historic church, rioting, pre-positioned pallets of bricks, throwing of frozen bottles of water that injured dozens of police officers, murder of present or retired police officers, deliberate defacing of civilisation symbols and the like cannot reasonably be regarded as mere peaceful expression or as assembly. The Antifa group, further, manifestly is not a legitimate protest group but one with a track record of organised violence up to and including clear attempted murder and arson; terrorists is an accurate description of such organised intimidatory, politically motivated tyranny and I trust RICO investigations are in progress. . Where the sudden manifestly inconsistent contrast between official response to peaceful assembly in houses of worship or protest to end lockdowns and that to riotous, arsonous assembly in the face of social distancing is itself a sign. Such is part of why I am arguing that we are back to the inescapability of first duties of reason reflecting moral government through built in law and extending to sound civil law and polities. KF

    PS: As the issue of claimed deep-rooted systemic racism of Police is being raised, I note a significant study https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877 and its authors’ clarification of a point i/l/o critiques: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/16/9127 The key correction is that >>As we estimated Pr(race|shot, X), this sentence should read: ‘As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.’ This is consistent with our framing of the results in the abstract and main text.>>

    In the main article, results that catch my eye are: >>Controlling for predictors at the civilian, officer, and county levels, a person fatally shot by police was 6.67 times less likely (OR = 0.15 [0.09, 0.27]) to be Black than White and 3.33 times less likely (OR = 0.30 [0.21, 0.47]) to be Hispanic than White. Thus, in the typical shooting, we did not find evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity. However, averaging across shootings may provide an incomplete picture if racial disparities vary across types of fatal shootings. The remaining models (1–20) separate different types of shootings to test for this variation. No model showed significant evidence of anti-Black or -Hispanic disparity, although evidence for anti-Black and anti-Hispanic disparities was stronger when civilians were young (Model 1 vs. 2). Evidence for anti-Black disparities was also stronger when civilians were not suicidal (Model 7 vs. 8). Overall, there was considerable variation in racial disparities (OR ranges from 0.09 to 0.54) across different types of shootings . . . .

    Concerns that White officers might disproportionately fatally shoot racial minorities can have powerful effects on police legitimacy (31). By using a comprehensive database of FOIS during 2015, officer race, sex, or experience did not predict the race of a person fatally shot beyond relationships explained by county demographics. On the other hand, race-specific violent crime strongly predicted the race of a civilian fatally shot by police, explaining over 40% of the variance in civilian race. These results bolster claims to take into account violent crime rates when examining fatal police shootings (20).

    We did not find evidence for anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity in police use of force across all shootings, and, if anything, found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime. While racial disparity did vary by type of shooting, no one type of shooting showed significant anti-Black or -Hispanic disparity. The uncertainty around these estimates highlights the need for more data before drawing conclusions about disparities in specific types of shootings.
    Policy Implications.

    Overall, officer demographics such as sex and experience were not related to racial disparities in fatal shootings. Although officer race was related to racial disparities, the fact that Black and Hispanic civilians were more likely to be shot by same-race officers was largely explained by similarities between officer and county demographics. Because racial disparities in FOIS do not vary based on officer race, hiring more diverse officers may not reduce racial disparities in FOIS. This is not to say that increasing officer diversity is without merit, as increasing officer diversity may broaden understanding of diverse communities and increase trust in law enforcement. However, these data suggest that increasing racial diversity would not meaningfully reduce racial disparity in fatal shootings (32).

    One of our clearest results is that violent crime rates strongly predict the race of a person fatally shot. At a high level, reducing race-specific violent crime should be an effective way to reduce fatal shootings of Black and Hispanic adults. Of course, this is no simple task—crime rates are the result of a large and dynamic set of forces. However, the magnitude of these disparities speaks to the importance of this idea. In counties where minorities committed higher rates of violent crime, a person fatally shot was 3.3 times more likely to be Hispanic than White and 3.7 times more likely to be Black than White. This suggests that reducing disparities in FOIS will require identifying and changing the socio-historical factors that lead civilians to commit violent crime (20).>>

    It seems to me that there is something in this. There is a significant American underclass of multi-generational character. A good part of this is definitely tied to historical oppression. At the same time, after decades of intervention intended to make a positive difference, entrapment in the underclass persists, with sub optimal family and education patterns being a clear part of the picture. Further to this, the de-industrialisation of the hinterlands points to the spreading nature of the problem. The persistence of widespread drug abuse and linked deaths of despair (including a recognisable pattern of “suicide by cop”) point to an underlying pathology. It seems to me (I am open to be persuaded otherwise) that the police — now significantly diversified after a generation of deliberate diversification — white, black and hispanic, are picking up the tab for deep rooted, persistent ills of society that drive or at least contribute to violent crime.

    I find much of this familiar to me as I reflect on strikingly similar problems in my native land.

    I doubt that there are short term answers, but long term, I think spiritually rooted reformation is where things have to go.

  10. 10
    JVL says:

    Bye the way, just out of curiousity, what happened to frequent contributor Mung. He used to be a real stalwart on this site.

    I think I know what happened to Mapou. I think he lives on.

  11. 11
    aarceng says:

    So what it means is that Critical Theory is an instrument for advancing one’s own political or moral agenda.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Aarceng, it may well advance an ideological and power agenda but it is actually an anti-morality; a manifestation of will to power nihilism. KF

  13. 13
    john_a_designer says:

    In a recent article about the “indefensible killing… of George Floyd, following closely after the release [of an earlier] video showing the killing of Ahmaud Arbery,” Peter Kirsenow (NR 6/4/20) argues that “the riots are a result of the [false] narrative that the Floyd and Arbery killings are but the latest of increasing examples of innocent blacks being disproportionately shot by white cops and targeted by racist white civilians. The narrative is played hourly on cable news shows. It’s embellished by major newspapers across the country…

    The facts he argues makes it clear that this ideological narrative is not just untrue but very biased.

    Here are a few of the points Kirsenow makes based on some recent statistics:

    First, ”the data make clear that blacks are, indeed, overrepresented among victims of police shootings, but underrepresented relative to black overrepresentation in crime, particularly violent crime.”

    For example:

    In 2016, 466 whites were killed by police; 233 blacks were killed by police.

    Whites are 76.5 percent of the U.S. population (including Hispanics); blacks are 13.4 percent of the U.S. population.

    [However, whites] commit 59 percent of violent crimes (defined as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, aggravated assault); blacks commit 37.5 percent of violent crimes.

    One out of 8,511 blacks is arrested for murder; one in 58,582 whites is arrested for murder.

    Blacks are approximately 6.8 times more likely than whites to be arrested for murder.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/flames-from-false-narratives/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    Then as far as cop killings:

    Black males are responsible for 42 percent of cop killings in the last decade.

    In 2015, a cop was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was likely to be killed by a cop…

    AGAIN, none of this is meant in any way to excuse the horrific, criminal and unjust killing of George Floyd. However, the response to his death which has resulted, among other things, in the looting, destruction and burning of minority owned businesses is inexcusable and disproportional. If nothing else justice is about proportionality. Mob violence fuelled by a false narrative is anything but proportional, rational or JUST.

  14. 14
    Ed George says:

    KF

    Sev, defund the police is being called for across the board…

    People have been protesting for fair treatment by, and true accountability for, police for at least 60 years, to only moderate success. Sadly, the threat of defunding may be the only thing that will get results.

    When there are crimes in black neighborhoods in the US, police often complain that they get little cooperation from the people in the neighborhood, even those that could be witnesses. They don’t have the same problem in white neighborhoods. Why do you think that is?

  15. 15
    ET says:

    A police officer is 18x more likely to doe from the hands of a black man than a black man will die from a cop. OK JAD beat me to it.

    Last year 18 unarmed WHITE men were shot and killed by cops., while 9 black men suffered the same fate. But those don’t come close to the number of police officers killed on duty.

    What needs to happen is all police need to wear functioning cameras and mics. The pro sports league can easily ante up and make this happen.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    10 months before George Floyd’s untimely death another cop knelt on the neck of a white man. That white man died. Had we protested then the George Floyd incident would never have happened.

    Does anyone remember the protests for Mike Keohan? An unarmed white man tasered to death by cops in Los Angeles in 2007.

  17. 17
    john_a_designer says:

    A key question here is whether any naturalistic or materialistic worldview can provide any kind of basis for universal human rights? Keep in mind exactly what that means. A universal human right applies to all people living at all times. In other words, you naturally or intrinsically have rights because you are human and only human beings have those rights.

    A Darwinian “survival of the fittest” approach at best leads us to a form of tribalism which views a particular group think and herd morality as better or more privileged than another group think. That is not a basis for universal human rights because it is the group that grants its members their rights.

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, it is simple. Anyone who is in a responsible position and has a modicum of education (a High School Diploma is more than enough) who calls to defund/abolish the police is an enemy of civilisation. Not, Western Civilisation (which so many have been misled to imagine is the root of all ills) but civilisation. That people are willing to even entertain such is as big a red warning sign of the destructive influence of the sort of cultural marxism and agit prop with media amplification behind it as we can get. We are responsible to know that the alternative to properly organised police and court systems is blood feuds and warlordism, neo-barbarism. With nukes and similar horrors on the loose. And no, it is too late to try to stuff that genie back into the bottle, the very thought is demonstrative of irresponsibility, profound misanthropy and unfitness to rule. Indeed, it is suggestive of an agenda: removing policing tied to principles of lawfulness and courts premised on justice (which clearly implies the natural law not positivism, which is nihilistic), intimidate and then impose a new totalitarian tyranny. The fact that there is good evidence that the systematic racism thesis about policing is false and that key media trumpeted cases were propagandistically twisted into slanderous falsehood, are further signs. Yes, policing can do with reform, that is no excuse for proposing to revert to barbarism. KF

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: The other shoe drops, as if on cue:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8384065/Black-Lives-Matter-leader-declares-war-police.html

    >>EXCLUSIVE: ‘We prepare to stop these murders by any means necessary.’ Black Lives Matter leader declares war on police and group is ‘training our people to defend our communities’ in Black Panther style armed ‘patrols’

    Hawk Newsome, Chairman of BLM’s Greater New York chapter, says the black rights group is ‘mobilizing’ its base, he told DailyMailTV in exclusive interview
    The activist said BLM aims to develop a highly-trained ‘military’ arm to challenge police brutality head on in the wake of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis
    ‘It’s our obligation, it’s our duty to provide people with a way forward. We want the immediate end of government sanctioned murder by the police’
    ‘We prepare to stop these murders by any means necessary. We are preparing and training our people to defend our communities,’ Newsome added
    Newsome, 43, an imposing 6ft 6in, who wore shades and smoked a thick cigar for our photo shoot, believes his group can lead the ‘war on police’
    BLM will have ‘Peace Officers’ patrol black communities to challenge law enforcement and stop police brutality, reminiscent of the Black Panther Party

    By Ryan Parry West Coast Editor For Dailymail.com In Los Angeles

    Published: 18:42 BST, 3 June 2020 | Updated: 21:37 BST, 3 June 2020 >>

    Turnspeech agit ptop to “justify” creation of warlord controlled ideological militias on the streets specifically targetting the police en bloc as murderers. As if, we have not been down this road endless times before, most notably with the SA Brownshirts in Germany.

    Put this with the Antifa that has just been exposed as such a subversive paramilitary warlord entity and we see the pattern, loud and clear. Anti-civilisation.

    KF

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Possible perfect storm, it seems there may — repeat, may — be a Dept trained method that was in use, compounded with a possible “speedball” drug overdose. (as support, notice this emergency vote.)

  21. 21
    john_a_designer says:

    Once again, without a transcendent standard for interpersonal moral obligations there is no basis for universal human rights. Nevertheless, the secular progressive left, which has no transcendent basis for morality, ethics or human rights because it is rooted in a mindless naturalistic metaphysic, has illegitimately co-opted the idea of human rights to push its perverted political agenda of so-called social justice. But how can someone’s (or anyone’s) subjective opinion of right and wrong become the basis of universal human rights?

    Many of our regular interlocutors, have tried to argue that moral values are in fact subjective. But again, subjective values do not carry any kind of interpersonal moral obligation. They are your values not mine. They are simply arbitrary personal preferences. Why should I be obligated to even respect your personal opinion? How can one have something like universal human rights based on arbitrary subjective personal preferences? And what good is any kind of moral system if moral obligations are not real and binding?

    The U.S. founding fathers appear to have understood that ideologically motivated groups or “factions” which existed in the 18th century, like todays social justice warrior left (with its so-called factions like Black Lives Matter, Antifa etc.) would try to subvert the political process. This is one reason why they made it difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. For example, the first 10 amendments to the constitution, which were passed very quickly, (the so-called Bill of Rights) required a 2/3 vote in each house of congress as well as approval of ¾ of state legislatures. It appears the founders thought this would prevent a small vocal faction from subverting the will of the people. However, apparently they didn’t notice the loophole in article III that allowed Supreme Court judges to appropriate more power than was constitutionally granted to them. That’s the loophole that the secular progressive left has been able to exploit and is why they have used the courts to push their agenda. You don’t need to convince an overwhelming majority of people you are right– you don’t even need to convince a majority. All you need is to convince are a few sympathetic judges who share your “enlightened” group think. The problem is that is not representative or small-r republican government. That’s an oligarchy. An oligarchy is one of the types of government that takes away rights.

    Furthermore, moral subjectivism or relativism provides no basis to create a broad based consensus which is necessary for society and government to protect fundamental human rights.

  22. 22
    jerry says:

    Maybe an apt analogy for a lot of what is happening in the world today. From Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises

    “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asks. “Two ways,” Mike responds. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

    How many things in the world could be described by this statement today?

  23. 23
    jerry says:

    Imagine the riots if Chauvin gets off.

    Dept trained method that was in use

    Someone said that this maneuver has been used in Minneapolis about 3-4 times a week somewhere by its police force.

  24. 24
    vividbleau says:

    “So what it means is that Critical Theory is an instrument for advancing one’s own political or moral agenda.”

    Critical theory is the antithesis of classic liberalism. Critical Theory, Critical Racist Theory and Critical social Justice theory has deceived classic liberals across the board. Alarm bells should be going of all across America but our ignorance about the true intentions of the Critical Theorists will unleash a whirlwind. Classic liberals are unknowingly participating unbeknownst to what it means for them, in short sheep to the slaughter.

    Vivid

  25. 25
  26. 26
    vividbleau says:

    EG
    “They don’t have the same problem in white neighborhoods. Why do you think that is?”

    When Ferguson erupted and the police officer was absolved I decided I would read the full transcript of the investigation and the witnesses that were involved.. They testified that the Michael Brown hands up don’t shoot was BS, a lie that is still repeated today. Once you understand Critical Theory you understand that is is not about truth rather narrative. Anyway these witnesses were afraid for their lives and were extremely reticent to come forward. They were all African Americans.
    The proposal to defund the police is going to harm the very community everyone seems so concerned about. I had to laugh when I saw Garcetti is going to cut police funding and give that money to community groups, what a joke. There is not one penny of that money that will find its way to the community itself. What is going on is disgusting.
    I say abolish the police see how that works out!

    Vivid

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, actually on experience of seeing descent into partial warlordism, some money will go into the communities, to help set up the warlords and their retinues. To get back out of that abyss, it will take blood and tears by the riverful. And. notice how bang-bang-bang in lockstep this all is? I bet this bit of misanthropy was all cued up and waiting for something to be spun into a trigger event. We need to conclude that those who propose something like this are implacable enemies of civilisation and those they carry with them, then think very carefully about where this voyage of mutinous folly would end if unchecked. And allusion to the parable of the ship of state is deliberate. KF

  28. 28
    john_a_designer says:

    NYU professor Jonathan Haidt, who is anything but a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, makes a valiant but misguided attempt find a naturalistic basis for morality in an article that was republished a couple of years ago in the National Review. Does he succeed? I think he falls short but he does raise a few good points. Here are some excerpts from his article:

    When we look back at the ways our ancestors lived, there’s no getting around it: we are tribal primates. We are exquisitely designed and adapted by evolution for life in small societies with intense, animistic religion and violent intergroup conflict over territory. We love tribal living so much that we invented sports, fraternities, street gangs, fan clubs, and tattoos. Tribalism is in our hearts and minds. We’ll never stamp it out entirely, but we can minimize its effects because we are a behaviorally flexible species. We can live in many different ways, from egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups of 50 individuals to feudal hierarchies binding together millions. And in the last two centuries, a lot of us have lived in large, multi-ethnic secular liberal democracies. So clearly that is possible. But how much margin of error do we have in such societies?

    Here is the fine-tuned liberal democracy hypothesis: As tribal primates, human beings are unsuited for life in large, diverse secular democracies, unless you get certain settings finely adjusted to make possible the development of stable political life. This seems to be what the Founding Fathers believed. Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of those 18th-century deists clearly did think that designing a constitution was like designing a giant clock, a clock that might run forever if they chose the right springs and gears.

    Haidt is alarmed by the way illiberal tribalism has begun to take over our democratic institutions– the media, higher education and government. Can a diverse multi-ethnic culture like we find in the United States survive a resurrected form of tribalism? If the trends continue the way they have been going for the last the last 50 years, the answer, in my opinion, is NO.

    It appears to me that the secular progressive left have gone all in with tribal identity politics. Despite claims to the contrary, they really don’t have arguments based on reason, facts, evidence, logic and truth; rather it’s a commitment to group-think– “we think we are reasonable and right because of who we are: good, virtuous people.” Again that kind of group-think was/is also typical of Marxists and Fascists. That should be no surprise much of the secular-progressive left is made up of cultural Marxists. Haidt appears to agree with me:

    Today’s identity politics has another interesting feature: It teaches students to think in a way antithetical to what a liberal-arts education should do. When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I was given so many tools for understanding the world. By the time I graduated, I could think about things as a Utilitarian or a Kantian, as a Freudian or a behaviorist, as a computer scientist or a humanist. I was given many lenses to apply to any one situation. But nowadays, students who liberal major in departments that prioritize social justice over the disinterested pursuit of truth are given just one lens — power — and told to apply it to all situations. Everything is about power.* Every situation is to be analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people. This is not an education. This is induction into a cult, a fundamentalist religion, a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety, and intellectual impotence.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ge-outrage

    (*Emphasis added.)

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: For those willing to learn from history of how Athens failed, Ship of state. And no, if you have two neurons to rub against one another, DO NOT SKIP OVER THIS DISMISSIVELY. Rivers of blood are now on the table as the US 4th gen civil war threatens to ramp up from bleeding Kansas and Harper’s Ferry stage to full kinetic stage. But this time, with a nod to the Nazi seizure of power. This is when we had better get it straight that the National Socialist German Worker’s party was a party of the left and learned all the dirty tricks of their kissing cousins the Bolsheviks, with a few fresh twists:

    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)

  30. 30
  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:

    T+, still interested to ask Q’s? KF

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    CONFIRMED: I just saw a CNN interview where a Minneapolis rep of the council that just voted to defund/abolish the police indicates that when she and others ran in 2017 whether they could envision a police free future. She said she could. That indicates, they had been thinking of this well before that. Immediately, what further, even more radical and ill-advised items are on the remaining hidden part of the policy agenda. Where, obviously as we see slogans rolled out widely (including in a “protester” addendum to the Mayor’s new street slogan in Wash DC) this is NOT confined to any one location. KF

  33. 33
    Ed George says:

    KF

    CONFIRMED: I just saw a CNN interview where a Minneapolis rep of the council that just voted to defund/abolish the police indicates that when she and others ran in 2017 whether they could envision a police free future. She said she could. That indicates, they had been thinking of this well before that.

    Sorry KF, but this is bordering on tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theories. If you cannot envision a society without the need for police then you are completely devoid of hopes and dreams. A world that doesn’t need police or armies should be something that we all strive for.

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    FURTHER ON, same interview, who answers when an intruder shows up. Oh, that question COMES FROM A PLACE OF PRIVILEGE, what is it like to already live that reality where calling the police may mean more harm. To such, I answer that, that policing is imperfect and even sometimes abusive (as is so for any human institution) is warrant for improvement, not removal. What we are seeing is obviously insane and the language of “privilege” points to an ideological source, cultural marxism and its front of critical studies theories and metanarratives. The OP is all too relevant to our day. KF

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, you are spewing hyperskeptical dismissiveness and belittling to deflect attention from manifest insanity being pushed as policy agenda. FYI, I know what “mainstreaming” is all about and that is what is at work here. So, kindly, just stop the enabling behaviour. Further to this, so long as we live in a world of morally struggling humanity, we will need civilising — yes, civilising — developments such as sound courts and police; as well as disciplined, accountable, professional armed forces at the next level. Maybe it has not dawned on you that I do know a bit about realistic “alternatives” from history and from experience of a society where, sadly, partial descent into warlordism happened and where protesting students led and influenced by Communist agitators blocked the main road to a major hospital which was also the road down which army reinforcements would have to come if massive disorder broke loose. Coming back from warlordism takes rivers of blood and tears. KF

  36. 36
    Barry Arrington says:

    EG

    this is bordering on tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theories. If you cannot envision a society without the need for police then you are completely devoid of hopes and dreams. A world that doesn’t need police or armies should be something that we all strive for.

    Is there any evidence that we live in a world that does not need police or armies? That’s a rhetorical question Ed. In 2017 there was absolutely no warrant for a concrete policy proposal to do away with the police department. Now, if that person’s comment could be interpreted to mean that while she was running for office she just happened to be dreaming of the eschaton, it would be one thing. But only an idiot would interpret the comment that way. In context, she clearly meant that while she was running she intended to be dangerously reckless if she gained office. She is morally culpable.

  37. 37
    News says:

    Historically, police were an alternative to vigilante justice, witch hunts, vengeance killings, and mob rule.

    That is the whole point of having police: Remove the citizen’s right to take direct, violent action in favour of enforcement of the Criminal Code and the Civil Code (I am here speaking in Canadian terms but I believe the principles are similar elsewhere). Canada became, famously, a non-violent country largely on that account.

    During the entire, stupid COVID-19 uproar, I never witnessed a violent incident. People didn’t like the hassle with all the security guards enforcing social distance but… if you didn’t want to deal with them, they could call the police.

    So I would say that, just by being available in principle, the police prevented violence. No one wants to be charged with creating a disturbance at a shopping mall… Social death and all that…

    Whoever chooses to do without the police had best have a really good alternative – and that is not what I am seeing.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    If you cannot envision a society without the need for police then you are completely devoid of hopes and dreams.

    That doesn’t follow. One can clearly have hopes and dreams without envisioning some utopia.

    By Acartia’s logic realists can’t have hopes and dreams. That’s plain ignorant.

    A world that doesn’t need police or armies should be something that we all strive for.

    And then reality shakes us awake…

  39. 39
    john_a_designer says:

    I was wondering. Is there a way that the Minneapolis police dept. or their union could sue the city to stop or forestall this kind of legislation taking effect? There are a lot of jobs at stake here.

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, the issue is that the city’s pols should be recalled from office for cause and should face consequences of culpable misconduct in office. This is outrageous abuse of office and in the face of a civil emergency. Meanwhile, we can see clear signs of the cultural marxist Critical studies theories, metanarratives and agit prop at work, with street theatre, media trumpeting and now lawfare against law enforcement itself to mainstream abolition of police. Those are 4th gen civil war moves. KF

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: what are the odds that Mr Floyd’s family spontaneously came up with the idea to petition the UN against the USA, to disarm the police and it looks like, remove SWAT and riot training, further framing fatalities from policing as “extrajudicial killings” (a term of art for death squads and the like)? My bet, slim to none. KF

  42. 42
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Daily Mail’s bullets:

    >>Minneapolis city council president says fears of having someone break into a house ‘comes from a place of privilege’ as she defends disbanding the police force [–> notice, disband]

    Minneapolis’ City Council president Lisa Bender defended the move to disband the city’s police department on Monday
    She explained George Floyd’s death was a ‘wake-up call’ that the police ‘is not keeping every member of our community safe’ [–> an impossible standard, showing gross incompetence and/or cynical manipulation]
    When asked what will happen if a home is broken into, Bender explained that her worry and expectation police will help comes from a place of privilege [–> signature of cultural marxist agendas]
    She said council is already working on community-based safety strategies and analyzing how to shift some 911 calls to crisis and mental health workers [–> irrelevant to core issues on the table, demonstrating again gross incompetence and/or cynical manipulation]

    By Marlene Lenthang For Dailymail.com

    Published: 16:41 BST, 8 June 2020 | Updated: 18:52 BST, 8 June 2020 >>

    KF

  43. 43
    Ed George says:

    JaD

    I was wondering. Is there a way that the Minneapolis police dept. or their union could sue the city to stop or forestall this kind of legislation taking effect? There are a lot of jobs at stake here.

    The city, as employer, is within its rights to hire, fire and restructure. But that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t come with significant financial consequences (severance payouts and wrongful dismissal settlements). I suspect they would lose some state funding, or receive bills from the state, as state police have to fill the gap.

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Next Minneapolis election for city council is Nov. 2, 2021. We will see what the people say.

    I still think it’s priceless that ANTIFA black lives matter “protesters” ruined Minneapolis’ businesses owned by blacks and minorities. Can’t wait to see what happens when they disband the PD.

  45. 45
    john_a_designer says:

    In 2014 a young African American nurse Carlesha Freeland-Gaither was abducted after getting off a bus near her home late at night. Someone in the neighborhood heard her screams and dialed 911… At first the detectives didn’t think they had much to go on. The witness told them about a gray sedan they had seen speeding away from the scene and then they found a cell phone someone had dropped nearby on the side walk. The phone they soon learned belonged to Carlesha… they then recovered some surveillance video which showed the car the witness described. While the video was not that good (they couldn’t make out the tag number) they thought the car was a gray Ford Taurus.

    Soon the FBI was involved and they put a trace on the victim’s credit and debit cards. Not long after that they got a hit. A black male withdrew money from an ATM using Carlesha’s debit card. But again, the video was not that clear… But then they got a big break. The suspect purchased a bag of chips at a convenience store using the stolen debit card. This time they got very good video and a clear picture of their suspect which they sent out to police departments in the surrounding region. An officer from Richmond Virginia soon called them back and said, “Yeah we know who that is. That’s Delvin Barnes,” who had just been released from prison. They also learned that he had just bought a used gray Ford Taurus. Then they got their really big break. The dealership that sold Barnes the Taurus told them, “We put a GPS tracker on the car because he was a credit risk.”

    Hours later an ATF swat team took down Barnes in a parking lot. They were also able to rescue Carlesha alive at the scene… The police solved their case in a little under 72 hours.

    https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/abducted-woman-found-alive-in-maryland-police-source/2114404/

    The law enforcement officers who worked on this case Philadelphia PD, FBI and ATF worked around the clock to rescue this young African American woman. They’re hero’s not evil racists. Look at the video of the detective hugging Carlesha’s mom. He promised her that he would find her daughter. The idea of disbanding police depts. and law enforcement is pure insanity. People need to think this through. Justice needs to be proportional. Disbanding an entire police dept. because of a few bad cops is not justice. It’s injustice.

  46. 46
    vividbleau says:

    “The idea of disbanding police depts. and law enforcement is pure insanity.”

    There is always going to be a police department the question is who or what will it be? Nor should anyone be under the illusion that this agenda to defund or dismantle the police is some kind of new spontaneous idea it’s not. This has been on the BLM ( a front group of The Freedom Road Socialist Organization) agenda for years.

    The New mantra is going to be reframed by the establishment Democrats to “ We don’t want to get rid of the police we just want to reimagine it” Not even the Dems are stupid enough to run on getting rid of the police.

    Vivid

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, they are trying for killing budget cuts and you note the suspicious evasions with that commission president who voted partyline to disband the police. She doesn’t have a sound replacement in mind that can stand normal scrutiny. Yes, they intend to put a community based organisation in its place but it will not be anything like the law-based police services we know, we are looking at warlords with their paramilitary, ideological militias. Observe a telltale phrase, “community-led public safety.” At another level, we are looking at secret state police, equally ideologised. Spell Secret in German and you get Geheim, first part of Gestapo. Then, too we are looking at ideologised — cultural marxist critical theory metanarrative — police power wielding social services. By then, courts will be just as corrupted. Then there will be friendly, local Citizen Committees for the Defence of the new order. And yes, all of that will be spun as reforms and sounder, liberating replacements. KF

  48. 48
    vividbleau says:

    KF
    Notice what happened to the Mayor of Minneapolis when he did not bow the knee it was like a scene from Maos cultural revolution. The decent classic liberal class are in for the shock of their lives. At least you and I know they are coming for us but the liberals have no clue that BLM and all it’s other manifestations are coming for them. Earlier tonight they were outside DeBllasios house.

    Vivid

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid,

    All of this leads me back to themes in the OP, pivoting on the inescapable, so self-evidently true, first duties of morally governed reason. Namely, to truth, to right reason, to prudence {so, warrant, etc], to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness & justice, etc. Where, even the would be objector is forced to appeal to such, to be persuasive. Where, yes, this points to the necessity that the root of reality is inherently good and utterly wise . . . by contrast with say a demiurge.

    This then grounds civil law in objective core built-in natural law, much along lines envisioned by Paul in his writing to the Romans. Here, I cite to note the creation-order, rationally intelligible, naturally evident balance that shaped legal thought in the founding era of modern liberty and democratic self-government:

    Rom 13: 3 . . . [civil] authorities are not a source of fear for [people of] good behavior, but for [those who do] evil. Do you want to be unafraid of authority? Do what is good and you will receive approval and commendation. 4 For he is God’s servant to you for good. But if you do wrong, [you should] be afraid; for he does not carry the [executioner’s] sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an avenger who brings punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject [to civil authorities], not only to escape the punishment [that comes with wrongdoing], but also as a matter of principle [knowing what is right before God].

    6 For this same reason you pay taxes, for civil authorities are God’s servants, devoting themselves to governance. 7 Pay to all what is due: tax to whom tax is due, customs to whom customs, respect to whom respect, honor to whom honor.

    8 [b]Owe nothing to anyone except to [c]love and seek the best for one another; for he who [unselfishly] loves his neighbor has fulfilled the [essence of the] law [relating to one’s fellowman]. 9 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 statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor [it never hurts anyone]. Therefore [unselfish] love is the fulfillment of the Law.

    Here, civil government is recognised and good citizenship is recognised, pivoting on the civil peace of justice among community members. In which context, due and presumably frugal funding of the state is directly connected to providing law enforcement services. Where, further, key principles of morality and justice stated in the Decalogue are seen as flowing from the Golden Rule duty to neighbour.

    So, we see a framework for civil law in defence of the civil peace of justice, guarded by the sword of justice. So too, it is then in the end unsurprising that Alfred of the West Saxons, the Great, began his Book of Dooms with the Decalogue, the Golden Rule and the letter to Gentile converts from the Jerusalem Council of 48/49 AD. Thus, we see the roots of the Common Law tradition of Churchill’s English Speaking Peoples.

    This then culminated in the declarations that framed the American Revolution, where to justly claim a right one must manifestly be in the right as no one can have a right to compel another to taint sound conscience. Hence, the objection of the Georgia State trooper (who is black, BTW) that he bows the knee to God, rather than man. If you hear an echo of Penn’s insistence on the same point,or that of the three Hebrews in Babylon, it is there. In this light, justice can be understood as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, framing accountability over civil codes and the operations of courts, law enforcement, parliaments, Constitutions and bodies of law, referenda etc.

    Thus, law is not merely an ideological tool of power, but a framework that is or should be reasonable i/l/o first duties constituting built in law. Unjust decrees then reveal their character by violating that which is built in, often demanding to taint conscience, act imprudently or unreasonably, treating lies or false narratives as though they were truth.

    We need to ponder very carefully where the cultural marxist metanarrative that, intending to topple that framework, would take us.

    KF

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, confirming the patterns we are seeing. But, I suspect a shock is coming, first in investigations on abuses of federal agencies and courts leading to attempted railroading. Second, as the sheer insanity of what is being pushed hits home to a critical mass, it is likely that the next US election is going to put on the ground a result that will say a sharp no to this unfolding agenda. Which will lead to even more desperate shrillness. KF

  51. 51
    kairosfocus says:

    T+, do you have questions?I suggest, start with one or a few and take it from there. KF

  52. 52
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: DM Bullet points on AG Barr’s response:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8401099/AG-Bill-Barr-says-demonizing-police-dangerous-amid-growing-far-left-calls-defund-police.html

    >>AG Bill Barr says ‘demonizing’ the police is ‘wrong’ and ‘dangerous’ amid growing far-left calls to ‘defund’ police and claims replacing forces with ‘vigilantism’ results in MORE deaths

    Attorney General William Barr said: ‘I think defunding the police for the actions of certain officers is wrong’
    The attorney general added that he thinks that it’s ‘dangerous to demonize police’ during Fox News interview
    Barr said if police were to be defunded ‘you would have increases in vigilantism and increases in chaos in the city’, which would ultimately result in more killings
    His remarks come as Black Lives Matter activists pushing to defund police proposed plans to replace officers
    The proposal would replace officers with social workers, mental health advocates and homeless charities [–> So, when robbers break in, it’s coming from a place of privilege to call 911??????]

    By Valerie Edwards For Dailymail.com

    Published: 04:53 BST, 9 June 2020 | Updated: 07:51 BST, 9 June 2020 >>

    Insanity driven by irresponsible, misanthropic, anti-civilisational cultural marxist critical studies theorising and metanarrative agendas.

    Money shot clip from Barr:

    Attorney General William Barr said Monday that ‘demonizing’ cops is ‘wrong’ as thousands call for the defunding of police departments across the United States following the death of George Floyd.

    Barr expressed his concerns during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier. ‘I think defunding the police – holding the entire police structure responsible – for the actions of certain officers is wrong and I think it’s dangerous to demonize police,’ Barr said.

    The attorney general, who said there are approximately 900,000 police officers in the nation, backed up his statement by saying departments ‘understand the need for change and there has been great change’ in the last 60 years.

    Barr then told the network that if police were to be defunded: ‘You would have increases in vigilantism and increases in chaos in the city’.

    He said that it has ‘been shown’ that an increase in vigilantism would result in more killings.

    KF

    PS: Contrast, Mr Biden in a CBS interview:

    No, I don’t support defunding the police. I support conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness [–> subjective standard, responsible policing meets any reasonable standard] and in fact are able to demonstrate [–> to whose satisfaction, i.e. door for hyperskepticism games] they can protect the community and everybody in the community [–> it is literally impossible to protect “everybody” in a community and that language sounds like a loaded talking point from an agenda] .

  53. 53
    john_a_designer says:

    How are social workers going to solve crimes like I described above @ #45? What exactly is a Committee of Public Safety supposed to do? Didn’t they have something like that during the French Revolution? How did that work out?

  54. 54
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, utter irresponsibility that then points to an agenda of anti civilisational destabilisation. KF

  55. 55
    john_a_designer says:

    Members of the MSM are telling us (uncritically parroting BLM’s talking points) that there is systemic racism is urban PD’s across the U.S. But where exactly is this systemic racism? I’m asking because I don’t see it. But what do I know? I only know what I know and most of that comes from T.V. shows. For example, I’m a big fan of true crime documentaries. One of these is A&E’s “The First 48,” which embeds camera crews with real life homicide detectives investigating actual crimes in several cities across the U.S.: Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, New Orleans, Mobile Al., Tulsa Ok– even Minneapolis. (BTW there are no Hollywood actor reenactments. The investigators, witnesses and suspects etc. are all the real deal. However, sometimes the witnesses’ faces are blurred out along with the crime scene carnage.)

    I haven’t watched all 422 episodes (the show has been in production since June of 2004) but I’ve probably seen well over 100. I don’t recall seeing anything like “systemic racism.” In fact, I don’t recall even seeing a hint of racism. What I do recall seeing are integrated PD’s with black detectives often taking the lead in several investigations; a true blue brotherhood that crossed racial lines, real compassion for the victim and a no nonsense toughness when it came to dealing with criminals.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_48

    So again where is the “systemic racism?” My view is that the bad cops are really very few and far between. But again, what do I know?

  56. 56
    Heartlander says:

    Excerpt from – Leaving Plato’s Cave: The Truth about Police Brutality and Race:

    The authors of the most comprehensive study to date on the subject of police brutality and race have concluded that white police officers are no more likely than black and Hispanic officers to shoot minority civilians.

    Up to this juncture (2015), “databases of fatal officer-involved shootings (FOIS) [have] lack[ed] details about officers” (emphasis added).  Yet this information is critical, for without it, the conventional wisdom that “racism” is to blame for fatal police shootings involving non-white suspects is unsustainable.

    …And when, since “the majority of FOIS involve armed civilians,” researchers have used “race-specific violent crime as a benchmark,” “anti-Black disparities in FOIS disappear or even reverse” (emphasis added).  (A select sample of literature substantiating this point can be found here, here, here, and here.)

    So, when measured according to race-specific violent crime, there are not only no “anti-Black disparities;” whites of the same description are fatally shot by police at a disproportionately higher rate.

  57. 57
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 52

    Insanity driven by irresponsible, misanthropic, anti-civilisational cultural marxist critical studies theorising and metanarrative agendas.

    A world without police or armed forces would be ideal but, while humanity is as it is, I fear it is going to be nothing more than an ideal for the foreseeable future. That said, dismantling and then rebuilding police departments where corruption and racism are too ingrained, may be the only practical option

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, the toned down issue would gave been, rebuild or renew or restore. The cry is to financially strangle or dismantle and replace with ideological community systems or to shift funds to something wholly other. Likewise, the claim is systematic, widespread — national, at least — racism requiring dismantling. So, no, good cop bad cop is really two bad cops in cahoots. Not buying that. A line that must not be crossed was crossed, and status quo ante cannot be restored, onward the issue is whether barbarism or civilisation wins. Communist tyranny 2.0 is no more acceptable than 1.0 was and this time, we will drive a stake through the heart before we bury it. KF

    PS: Only a world of saints will need no police or courts, which are civilising improvements over the alternative: warlordism, blood feuds and vigilantism.

  59. 59
  60. 60
    Ed George says:

    I am your poster child for white privilege. In my 62 years of existence, I have been pulled over for speeding at least six times. And In each case, I was guilty as hell. In every case, the cop dropped the fine so that it didn’t mean points on my license. If I were black, is there anyone here who would think I would have received the same treatment?

  61. 61
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A question of deceptively misleading editing of a Barr i/v with CBS, in the broadcast version:

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/08/cbs-deceptively-edits-barr-interview-leaving-out-key-details-on-violent-riots-police-oversight/

    >> CBS Deceptively Edits Barr Interview, Leaving Out Key Details On Violent Riots, Police Oversight
    Some of the most colorful descriptions of the violence facing police officers at Lafayette Square were clumsily spliced out of the middle of Barr’s answers to questions.
    Mollie Hemingway
    By Mollie Hemingway
    June 8, 2020

    Key details on violent riots near the White House were removed from the broadcast of an interview of Attorney General William Barr on CBS News’ “Face The Nation” Sunday. Anchor Margaret Brennan repeatedly described protests as “peaceful” and the clearing of protesters to set up a stronger perimeter as unnecessarily rushed, contentions Barr strongly denied.

    Left out of the interview that aired on CBS on Sunday morning was Barr’s detailed accounting of much of the violent context of that perimeter expansion, including that “bricks and inflammable liquid” were being thrown at police in Lafayette Square near the White House as rioters “were trying to get entry” over the fences, the five dozen officers guarding Lafayette Square who were “lost” the night prior in the violence, and the individuals who at the time of their forced dispersal “wrestled with the police officers trying to tear their shields from them, in one case, struggling to get one of the police officer’s guns.”

    Some of the most colorful descriptions of the violence facing police officers at Lafayette Square were clumsily spliced out of the middle of Barr’s answers to questions. The rather important detail about a protester trying to get a police officer’s guns was simply removed from the end of the interview. These remarks were edited out of an interview in which Barr said media mantras about Park Police facing peaceful protesters were lies.

    “They were not peaceful protesters. And that’s one of the big lies that the- the media is- seems to be perpetuating at this point,” Barr said.

    Also left out of the broadcast interview were Barr’s detailed comments on how to improve policing, ostensibly the biggest news issue in the country. Barr said that experience and research showed that “you can actually get more focused change and more real change by working in more collaboration with the police,” and that approaches taken in previous years “make the police pull back and actually lead to more death, more murders, more crime.”

    “What’s happened in the past is that politicians can check the box by slapping a consent decree on the department. We’re not interested in gestures. We’re interested in getting real results and working with police chiefs and- and- and public safety directors and mayors who really do want to change the system,” Barr said . . . .

    Brennan taped the interview earlier on Sunday morning before it aired. When it aired, she went to the commercial break with a brief announcement that contained still more false reporting:

    BRENNAN: I want to make sure to note that CBS News stands by our David Martin’s reporting. And we want to clarify here that the Secretary of Defense Esper does oppose the Insurrection Act. You can hear for yourself.

    MARK ESPER: I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.

    First off, CBS did not explain why it stood by reporting from a single anonymous source that was rebutted by at least two eyewitness accounts on the record.

    Secondly, Brennan’s characterization of the Insurrection Act debate is completely muddled and left out Esper’s actual words. The debate wasn’t over whether the senior advisors support or oppose the law of the land but whether they thought it should be invoked at the particular moment. Barr carefully noted that he and Esper didn’t think it should be used except “as a last resort.”

    The full quote from Esper said just that: “The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort…”

    Esper’s unedited quote didn’t rebut Barr’s characterization of the debate, but confirmed it . . . .

    [While CBS later posted the full interview online] Edited out of the broadcast was Barr’s explanation of what constitutes a “last resort” and the history of using the military in the states, beginning with the country’s first president George Washington who “led the army into the field to suppress rebellion and insurrection in Pennsylvania in the very first term of his administration.” He noted he brought the military in last time he was Attorney General, during the George H. W. Bush administration, once in the Virgin Islands. “The governor opposed us at that point, but there was a complete breakdown of law and order. Lives were in danger, and we sent in 82nd Airborne military police, along with U.S. marshals and FBI agents.” The military was used to quell riots in Los Angeles as well.

    “I would also point out it was done during the civil rights era in places like Selma, Alabama, and other places to integrate schools. The governors stood in the doorway. The governors did not approve the use of federal troops to enforce civil rights in the South,” Barr noted in the unaired portion of the interview . . . . The most significant portion of the interview wasn’t about disputing anonymous sources or talking yet again about the expansion of the White House perimeter but instead the discussion of whether law enforcement is systemically racist. Much of that was left out of what aired.

    Asked if he thought reforms were working, Barr said it’s difficult but improvements are being made . . . .

    It is unclear why detailed reports of violent riots and police reforms were deliberately edited out of the interview that was broadcast while so much time was spent on CBS’ single anonymous source and his disputed report.>>

    There is of course a huge audience difference between those who will watch a full interview and those watching and trusting news.

    Therefore, in a polarised, agit prop and lawfare riddled situation, the editing choices being remarked on need serious explanation.

    KF

  62. 62
    Seversky says:

    Heartlander @ 59

    Humor – I’m The Rapid Response Social Worker Who Replaced The Police

    I foresee another long-running not-police procedural – Law & Order: RRSW

  63. 63
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, utterly irrelevant to people asking, who is going to answer 911 if I face a potentially or actually violent household intruder. Who answers, with what background, training, command structure and accountability under law are crucial. I am going to suggest that in contrast, due to med treatments, just in the past couple of months I have been pulled over by police enforcing a curfew maybe a dozen times, once twice in 50 yards around a blind corner. However, two young men had violent encounters being by serious reports batoned in the head, both going to hospital (eventually . . . in one case). Having just seen the Commissioner on going to get domestic gas, I had a short conversation on the subject. His pained expression and response spoke volumes on the difficulties of handling confrontations with young men prone to see police as almost the enemy. (Ganja is of course another flashpoint.) There is of course, no racial gap here to multiply the tension between beat officers and such young men. We need to have a sober discussion on policing. That is very different from evident, emerging agit prop pushes that are anti-civilisational. KF

  64. 64
    vividbleau says:

    “So again where is the “systemic racism?” “

    JAD I posted several links in post 25. Until people come to grips with the underlying ideology of Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Critical Social Justice Theory and white complicity talking about facts misses the point. Critical Theory is not interested in facts, they don’t care about facts, I’m not exaggerating here it’s right in the literature.

    I know the links I posted are not easy reads, I had to read and reread several times but once you understand Critical Theory and it’s subsets everything happening has become clear, I understand what’s going on and why where before I was just like you wondering where is the evidence. The fight is on an ideological level not a factual level.

    Vivid

  65. 65
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, the satire is a bit heavy-handed. KF

  66. 66
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, you are right of course, and this is a mutant form on the old Communist metanarrative. See the OP. KF

  67. 67
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    And In each case, I was guilty as hell. In every case, the cop dropped the fine so that it didn’t mean points on my license.

    The fact that you were crying like a little baby, each and every time, probably had something to do with it. 😛

  68. 68
    john_a_designer says:

    No one is more hypocritical than a white guy who shows up on line to confess his “white privilege” and then and tries to shame every other white as a form of virtue signaling. Whites are not racist because they are white.

  69. 69
    Heartlander says:

    If an investigator coerces a suspect into a false confession, can we all agree the officer would be guilty of wrongdoing? A reasonable person wants to think the Black Lives Matter organization agrees, but their actions suggest otherwise.

    Have you seen the YouTube videos of Black Lives Matter members coercing apologies from white men? In both examples, it’s fair to say that one side forces their will on the innocent party. Both cases are morally corrupt. And yet one is seen as tragic while the other declared righteous — neither end with justice.

    “Never apologize for what you haven’t done!” — Steven Crowder.

  70. 70
    john_a_designer says:

    The secular progressive left has turned race into a wedge issue which they have always intended to use to divide people rather than solve any of the lingering problems that underlie racism, which many people like myself agree is an admirable goal. In other words, their intention is to use the issue of race as a means to gain political power and cultural dominance. They’re not motivated by truth or honesty, morality or a genuine respect for human rights. Rather they’re motivated raw power which they won’t hesitate to use ruthlessly and they will use immoral means, including shaming, coercion or violence to accomplish that goal.

  71. 71
    kairosfocus says:

    H, add, never apologise to those who are radically disrespectful or abusive and will simply use it as a further lever of extortion and to hold hostage rather than as a step to reconciliation and renewal. KF

  72. 72

    The analysis suffers from ubercomplication. The obvious error of marxism, nazism, and all that crap, is materialism.

    It is a bit confusing, because materialists redefine many concepts to suit them, thereby making a complicated conceptual mess. And it seems like you have let yourself be drawn into their complicated mess, and you got distracted from pointing out their simple fundamental error, which is materialism.

    Comparison of creationism with materialism

    The creationist conceptual scheme of reality:
    1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / identity of which is a matter of chosen opinion
    2. Creation / chosen / material / existence of which is a matter fact forced by evidence

    The materialist conceptual scheme of reality:
    – material / existence of which is a matter fact forced by evidence

    As you can see in comparison, what is missing from materialism is:
    – the reference to choosing, free will
    – the entire spiritual domain
    – the concept of subjective opinion

    The materialist will then try to cram these 3 missing things into materialism, redefining them beyond recognition in the process. As like redefining free will to mean that you could not have done otherwise, as materialist compabitibilists say.

    The error of nazism was to assert that content of character of people is material, heritable and factual. Because content of character is on the side of what makes a choice, it properly belongs in category 1. Therefore it is a matter of chosen opinion (judgment) whether someone is for instance lazy.

    This factual attitude of nazi’s in regards to content of character, corresponds with their coldhearted and calculating attitudes in regards to the worth of people. The emotionless, calculating attitude, is simply appropiate for factual issues. However it was wrongly categorized as a factual issue.

    And marxism is all the same crap. With it’s signature phrase “quantity transforms to quality”, it is also based on objectifying worth.

    Solely creationism categorically distinguishes opinions from facts, validating each in their own right.

    You are supposed to be championing creationism against materialism, but you don’t.

  73. 73
    john_a_designer says:

    I live in a small Ohio City, with a population less than 100,000, in a very rural county. According to the statistics I have been able to find on-line between 2003 and 2016 there have been zero homicides (per 100,000/yr.) gun related homicides in my community. Indeed in the time I have lived here I have only heard of two murders anywhere nearby. Neither involved a firearm.

    By contrast the murder rate in Chicago, for the same time period have averaged about 18 per 100,000/yr.

    According to the Chicago Tribune 3/26/18 in the last 365 day there were 588 homicides that were the result of gun violence. “The majority of the victims of homicide in Chicago are young, black men.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....story.html

    Where I live there are very unrestrictive gun laws. By contrast, in Chicago the gun laws are very restrictive yet there is still a very high homicide rate. Is racism the reason for that? Most of the violent crimes in black neighbor hoods are black on black crimes. How can racism be the cause of those kind of crimes?

  74. 74
    john_a_designer says:

    And things are not getting any better in Chicago.

    In a city with an international reputation for crime — where 900 murders per year were common in the early 1990s — it was the most violent weekend in Chicago’s modern history, stretching police resources that were already thin because of protests and looting.

    “We’ve never seen anything like it, at all,” said Max Kapustin, the senior research director at the crime lab. “ … I don’t even know how to put it into context. It’s beyond anything that we’ve ever seen before.”

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2020/6/8/21281998/chicago-violence-murder-history-homicide-police-crime

    Yeah now’s the time to start disbanding police depts.

  75. 75
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A Police Union leader challenges the RedGuard shaming game:

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/09/watch-ny-police-union-boss-stop-treating-us-like-animals-and-thugs/

    >>New York police union boss Mike O’Meara said politicians and the establishment media must stop treating police officers like “animals and thugs.”

    O’Meara, president of the New York State Association of Police Benevolent Associations, lashed out at elected officials and the media for invoking fear and hatred towards police officers — specifically in the black American community.

    Every year, O’Meara noted, police have about 375 million interactions with the public with “overwhelmingly positive responses.”

    “But what we read in the papers all week is that in the black community, mothers are worried about their children getting home from school without being killed by a cop,” O’Meara said. “What world are we living in? That doesn’t happen. It does not happen.” He continued:

    Our legislators are failing us. Our press is vilifying us. Stop treating us like animals and thugs and start treating us with some respect. That’s what we’re here today to say. We’ve been vilified. It’s disgusting … trying to make us embarrassed of our profession.

    O’Meara denounced former Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin, charged with killing George Floyd last month, and said politicians and the media must stop equating the alleged murder with the actions of New York police officers.

    “I am not Derek Chauvin. They are not him,” O’Meara said, pointing to police officers behind him. “He killed someone, we didn’t. We are restrained. We roundly reject what he did as disgusting. It’s not what we do.”

    “Everybody’s trying to shame us — the legislators, the press. Everybody’s trying to shame us into being embarrassed about our profession,” O’Meara said. “You know what? This [police badge] isn’t stained by someone in Minneapolis. It’s still got a shine on it, and so do theirs.”>>

    KF

  76. 76
    john_a_designer says:

    Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender know all about white privilege. Here’s what she told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota in a recent interview:

    “Do you understand that the word, dismantle, or police-free also makes some people nervous, for instance?” CNN’s Alisyn Camerota asked Bender on Monday. “What if in the middle of night, my home is broken into? Who do I call?”

    Bender dismissed such concerns as stemming from an inherent “place of privilege”:

    “Yes, I mean, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and I know, and myself too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done.”

    So if Lisa Bender comes from a place from a place a privilege she’s in a position to tell other people of privilege that they should be willing to give up their rights of safety and security? Am I understanding her “logic” here?

    Lara Logan had the courage to criticize Bender, “I remember when I was being gang-raped & beaten by a mob in Egypt, would have been great to have a police force to call then…”

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/09/lara-logan-rips-minneapolis-lisa-bender-was-it-white-privilege-i-wanted-police-to-stop-my-gang-rape/

    My suggestion is that people who suffer from white guilt because of their white privilege, should step down from their positions of leadership. But we all know that Ms. Bender won’t because this is all a phony hypocritical charade. Unfortunately there are people out there who swallow this lie hook, line and sinker bad logic and all.

  77. 77
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, that came up above. Notice the exchanges. And I now can confirm that the = defund the police is right next to the BLM slogan put on a DC street by its mayor. It’s funny how hard it is to find that out in the coverage. I wondered if it was photoshop at first. I don’t think they realise the message they just sent to any discerning, informed person. KF

  78. 78
    kairosfocus says:

    T+, again, are you still wishing to pose some Q’s? KF

  79. 79
    john_a_designer says:

    Black Lives Matter is the wrong name. The name should be Only Black Lives Matter because that is what they really believe. Everyone else they and their “white privilege” allies try to shame, demonize and vilify– whites, Asians and Hispanics– everyone. The only solution, if we’re going to solve the things that divide us, is to emphasize that All Lives Matter. Shaming anyone else because of their race is– well– racist.

    Of course, the idea that All Lives Matter is quickly denounced by BLM as racist. Being inclusive is racist?

  80. 80
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    I think it’s very important for people to be saying and thinking “Black Lives Matter”. You tell your child, wife, etc. “I love you“, not “I love everyone”. People need to be told that they in particular matter.

    As a white person, I think we are being asked to affirm that, indeed, Black Lives Matter. In part, because evidence suggests that in the eyes of some, Black Lives are less important than others.

  81. 81
    asauber says:

    “in the eyes of some, Black Lives are less important than others”

    DaveS,

    Do you know what demographic is the #1 killer of black men in the USA?

    Andrew

  82. 82
    daveS says:

    asauber,

    Please go ahead and tell us, then explain the relevance to my statement.

  83. 83
    asauber says:

    “Please go ahead and tell us, then explain the relevance to my statement.”

    DaveS,

    If you don’t see the relevance, you’re brain-dead.

    Andrew

  84. 84
    Silver Asiatic says:

    “in the eyes of some, Black Lives are less important than others”

    In the eyes of evolutionary atheism, human lives have no importance and/or have whatever importance anyone wants to assign to them. There’s no justice in that worldview.
    Thus, cities can be looted and burned and people harmed from feelings of guilt and vengeance.
    The chaos we see in many places today is just the living-out of atheistic nihilism. People seeking to heal their guilt by violence and collectivism.

    Strange how materialism still doesn’t kill off the desire for atonement and conscience, even stretching back centuries. Looking for forgiveness and reparation for sins of the past. But those sins have an infinite quality. All the suffering of every black person who ever lived. Finite reparations can never atone for infinite guilt. The reparations would need to be endless – carried on by every generation. Why not? Money, social advantage, prestige, power – all of that can be given, but will it truly make up for the interior psychological suffering? What if it only creates new hostilities, new resentments from one group to another?
    Christianity has an answer for this – ending the cycle of vengeance and guilt. But it has to be understood and applied.

  85. 85
    kairosfocus says:

    DS,

    it is indeed a mess. The tragedy is, both are partly right. Life matters, starting with in the womb and the ghosts of 800+ millions cry out against us all.

    My conclusion and — for cause — litmus test is, if we cannot pass the holocaust of the unborn test, our consciences are so warped and seared that nothing else in our reasoning will be reliable or truly coherent.

    That is why I speak of inescapable first duties of reason as the plumb line cluster of self evident truths that help us sort everything else out again. History then tells us that in large part it is the record of our crimes and follies, with their consequences; if, it is sound history. That starts with being true, well warranted fair and balanced i/l/o duty to neighbour including posterity that must learn from the past to avoid repeating it.

    That is why it is material that BLM pivots on a set of false narratives of events and that in cases where there is substantial truth, key context is suppressed. Biased, manipulative, divisive half truth is among the most dangerous forms of deception.

    The further missing context of undermining of respect for the built in moral government of our rational, responsible nature by intelligible, core, self-evident law that extends to just civil law through the rise of evolutionary materialistic scientism and associated so-called positivism is material. So is the rise of clearly anti-civilisational, misanthropic cultural marxist critical studies theories, manipulative metanarratives and agendas.

    Which now reach a half-truth demand, emphatic, BLACK lives matter (though, apparently, not the ones being disproportionately aborted). Yes, racism needs to be finally pushed into a coffin and a stake needs to be hammered through its heart. But the same obtains for marxism, one of the most destructive ideologies ever. In that context, demands to defund and abolish the police cross a genie [= demon] out of the bottle threshold that now forces one of those re-runs of ugly history.

    This should never have happened but the marxists began the fight, we will finish it in defence of civilisation.

    Police and courts, however flawed and needing of onward sound reform [they have kidnapped the word, reform], are infinitely better than blood feuds, ideologised autocratic or oligarchic warlordism and snitch states.

    And if THAT is already on the table, what else lies behind it that is too ugly to even mention yet, until forces of lawful order have been shattered?

    That is the magnitude of demonic folly that has been let loose by those who must know better.

    Mischief, thou art afoot, thou hast cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

    The abyss, reeking of sulphur, lies before us.

    Fools, we are.

    Fools.

    KF

  86. 86
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    If I were black, is there anyone here who would think I would have received the same treatment?

    I’m guessing you don’t live near any black people, have any interaction with them, or live in an area where there are black cops. If so, I’d understand why you feel guilty and want to project that guilt on everyone else (although there’s no reason to feel guilty about wanting to live with your own kind).

    I live in such a neighborhood. I shop stores where among 30 people I’m the only white. We have black cops and a black mayor. It may be hard to believe, but black cops are merciful also.

    In my religion, when we are guilty for sins we go to sacramental Confession and turn to God for forgiveness, resolving to do better in the future. We are taught not to hold on to guilt, because only God truly can forgive, not human beings, not anonymous people who have been hurt by our ancestors. They can’t forgive our guilt.

  87. 87
    asauber says:

    I’m fairly certain that DaveS and EG can’t get past believing the rhetoric they’ve been programmed with.

    Andrew

  88. 88
    john_a_designer says:

    Don’t try sugar coating the issue, Dave. We’re not being asked to do anything. They’re demanding that we– mainly whites– feel ashamed for not agreeing with their agenda. They are also demanding they be given something nobody else is getting– society’s unconditional affirmation and approval… not going to happen. I don’t approve looting, burning destroying businesses- mostly minority owned businesses. Don’t ask for my sympathy when you do things like that… Touchy-feely pity doesn’t help anyone and that’s what they’re really asking for.

    By the way, I’m all for equal rights but being equal means taking equal responsibility. Defunding police departments which are manned overwhelmingly by heroic people is not morally responsible. IT PUTS EVERYONE’S LIFE AT RISK! But if you don’t believe that All Lives Matter then you don’t really care.

  89. 89
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF

    But the same obtains for marxism, one of the most destructive ideologies ever. In that context, demands to defund and abolish the police cross a genie [= demon] out of the bottle threshold that now forces one of those re-runs of ugly history.

    It is a re-run of history and events are following the Marxist revolutionary playbook exactly. Resistance against an outright Communist state in the US is very weak. We can see the foundation being established now. We might think that business owners would resist but large corporations have already been leaders in cultural Marxism for decades, so the next steps to an oppressive socialism are not difficult to imagine. Many small businesses have closed due to street violence. Walmart is pulling out of Chicago to avoid more losses from destructive mobs. If a pro-business environment collapses, people won’t fight for freedom. They’ll try to hunker down and avoid the Marxists mobs. In this case, quarantine won’t work though. Leftist thugs and bullies actually have to be engaged-with and stopped.
    It is sad but very clear that honest discussion and thoughtful, frank dialogue will not work (leaders don’t have any skills in such anyway given their politically correct speak).

    I haven’t read much from the amoral evolutionists on this matter, but I’m sure they’ just contradict themselves and preach all sorts of leftist moral platitudes about how we must achieve moral righteousness and goodness – through armed forces.

  90. 90
    asauber says:

    And for the record, all the white cops who have pulled white ol’ me over through the years wrote me tickets every time, and seemed to have limited capacity for cutting me slack. 😉

    Andrew

  91. 91
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Some people are just very reluctant to say “Black Lives Matter” and leave it at that, as if this statement cannot stand alone. Often people will immediately say “of course, all lives matter”, implicitly diminishing the more specific “Black Lives Matter” in the process. I think the current situation calls for specificity.

  92. 92
    Silver Asiatic says:

    It’s the projection of their own guilt on everybody else. They feel guilty, as they should. They corrupted the world and oppressed people (minorities and blacks) with atheistic lies and hatred. These are the people who have spread pornography, abortion — hedonism and nihilistic selfishness. Of course they feel guilty. So, they want everybody to feel their guilt. But they can’t admit how evil they are so they pretend to be morally superior to everyone. It would be a joke if it wasn’t so ugly.
    Supposedly, we must feel guilt for generational sins.
    The same people who praise evolutionary materialism believe that guilt from sins are passed down from generation to generation.
    Did the first bacteria commit sins that we still have to atone for? Or did some other species make up for those sins somehow with reparations?

  93. 93
    JVL says:

    John_a_Designer: Black Lives Matter is the wrong name. The name should be Only Black Lives Matter because that is what they really believe. Everyone else they and their “white privilege” allies try to shame, demonize and vilify– whites, Asians and Hispanics– everyone. The only solution, if we’re going to solve the things that divide us, is to emphasize that All Lives Matter. Shaming anyone else because of their race is– well– racist.

    Of course, the idea that All Lives Matter is quickly denounced by BLM as racist. Being inclusive is racist?

    I think the point is that at this moment in time a certain group of the population is being discriminated against much more that other groups.

    Think of it this way: if it turned out that houses that were some shade of green were being burnt down at a much higher rate than houses of other colour were being burnt down you might sensibly choose to focus on saving green houses. It doesn’t mean you don’t think all houses are valuable but sometimes you have to focus because of a particular problem.

    What charities do you donate to? Do you choose to focus on some that you think are addressing a particularly pressing need? Does that mean you think the other charities are rubbish? Of course not.

    Maybe we HAVE to say Black Lives Matter because it seems that some people in our societies don’t think so.

  94. 94
    Silver Asiatic says:

    DS

    “I think the current situation calls for specificity.”

    I would agree. Specifically, from an atheistic, materialist, evolutionary standard – why do they matter? Where in evolutionary history do we see that anything matters?

  95. 95
    asauber says:

    “I think the current situation calls for specificity”

    Yes JVL, please give us the scientific approach to BLM. I can’t wait.

    Andrew

  96. 96
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Do you know what demographic is the #1 killer of black men in the USA?

    I suspect you’re going to say that it’s other blacks. So what? Don’t you care about black people being killed? Are they so much different from you that you just shrug your shoulders and say: that’s their problem as if they are somehow separate from you? Is that not a subtle form of racism? They’re different and we don’t have to worry about helping them solve their problems? You’re not like black people and you don’t have their problems?

  97. 97
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Think of it this way: if it turned out that houses that were some shade of green were being burnt down at a much higher rate than houses of other colour were being burnt down you might sensibly choose to focus on saving green houses. It doesn’t mean you don’t think all houses are valuable but sometimes you have to focus because of a particular problem.

    It’s a good analogy. But if one solution given was to deliberately burn down all other houses at the same rate as the green ones, then the phrase “All Houses Matter” would be the best to use.

    I view the people involved in social engineering (especially revolutionary or forced) as perceiving themselves as superior to everyone else, and therefore oppressive. They choose a segment of the population, decide that they will try to lift them up to their level, and then force everyone to agree with them.
    They just enhance and build their own social privilege in so-doing. They are the judges and arbiters of society. And if you don’t like it, they’ll burn your city down.

  98. 98
    asauber says:

    “I suspect you’re going to say that it’s other blacks. So what? Don’t you care about black people being killed?”

    I care about people being killed yes. That’s why I think there should be a campaign targeted at the #1 killer of black men, to try and get them to kill each other a little less.

    Andrew

  99. 99
    ET says:

    Police are more likely to die at the hands of a black man than an unarmed black man is to doe at the hands of a cop. And there are fewer police than there are black men. So what does that do to the alleged discrimination?

  100. 100
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Yes JVL, please give us the scientific approach to BLM. I can’t wait.

    I didn’t say the quote you used. However, I think I have already stated my position pretty clearly and it’s not a scientific opinion, clearly.

    Again: obviously all lives matter but when it appears that some people think that certain groups of people are less valuable then it’s okay to remind them those groups are important and should be protected and supported just like everyone else. It doesn’t matter who is doing the discriminating.

  101. 101
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I care about people being killed yes. That’s why I think there should be a campaign targeted at the #1 killer of black men, to try and get them to kill each other a little less.

    I took the Black Lives Matter campaign to be directed at everyone: blacks, whites, asians, everyone. Why would you think differently?

    It doesn’t matter who is doing the killing: let’s work to stop it no matter what its source. Unless you think “they” should just sort it out amongst themselves . . .

  102. 102
    Ed George says:

    Black Lives Matter isn’t anti white. just as Pride is not anti-heterosexual or the world wildlife fund is anti-human (or anti-oxygen).

    Was the old Jerry Lewis telethon anti able bodied?

  103. 103
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: It’s a good analogy. But if one solution given was to deliberately burn down all other houses at the same rate as the green ones, then the phrase “All Houses Matter” would be the best to use.

    Is anyone proposing the solution you describe? If they are then I would decry that.

    I view the people involved in social engineering (especially revolutionary or forced) as perceiving themselves as superior to everyone else, and therefore oppressive. They choose a segment of the population, decide that they will try to lift them up to their level, and then force everyone to agree with them.

    I don’t know who you are talking about. It sounds like some kind of conspiracy. I just want all people to be treated fairly under the law, to all have the same privileges and benefits, and to have the same opportunities. Sometimes you have to remind people who think some groups are less worthy that that is not the case.

    They just enhance and build their own social privilege in so-doing. They are the judges and arbiters of society. And if you don’t like it, they’ll burn your city down.

    I don’t know who you are talking about. I support working within the law as transparently as possible. If you have a problem with some particular group about some other approach then you and I have no quarrel.

  104. 104
    asauber says:

    “I took the Black Lives Matter campaign to be directed at everyone: blacks, whites, asians, everyone. Why would you think differently?”

    JVL,

    Isn’t this a discrimination issue? Aren’t blacks the victims of discrimination by other races? They can’t discriminate against their own group, can they?

    Andrew

  105. 105
    ET says:

    It was priceless that BLM protesters ruined businesses owned by blacks and other minorities. As if we needed more proof that the left is totally clueless.

  106. 106
    JVL says:

    Asauber: Isn’t this a discrimination issue? Aren’t blacks the victims of discrimination by other races? They can’t discriminate against their own group, can they?

    Why not? If they themselves feel that their lives are not appreciated or worthwhile? I have heard of people who think humans are the problem and if we weren’t around the planet would be better off! (Arguably true if you wear very, very narrow blinders.)

    What do you think? That’s the real issue. Do you want to support all families of all colours and races and creeds to have the same treatment under the law, the same opportunities, the same protections? If yes then you and I have no quarrel. If black families knew you felt that way and everyone else felt that way do you think they would treat each other differently? Or are they just “that way”?

  107. 107
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, the true context is first that life is the first right starting in the womb. That litmus test being failed we already know there is no sound conscience, no commitment to prudence or right reason and truthFULness to meet with. then we are facing loaded agit prop agendas and fallacies of the complex question. For simple example, protests over economic strangulation were treated as threats to safety in a pandemic but the current riots, arson and looting laced ones are treated with kid gloves; lesson, be violent to prevail . . . a truly foolish message to signal. In that context, it is necessary to sweep the whole toxic brew aside and start from what is sound then seek a reasonable outcome. Unfortunately once demand to sweep away lawful policing was put on the table (see my PS to the OP) the rubicon was crossed and the genie was let out the bottle. It is utter folly to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. We will be very lucky if this is half-settled by landslide level electoral defeats. And we already saw undermining of elections. The US’ 4th Gen civil war just jumped up several levels to a much higher kinetic phase. The degree of utter folly is beyond belief. Have we ever learned from history? God have mercy on us all for the chaos demons we have now set loose. We are such fools, such fools, we have made ourselves into cannon fodder for our folly. And the cannons are hungry. KF

  108. 108
    asauber says:

    JVL,

    In the USA “white priviledge” is one of the rhetorical slogans in use. Looks like “white” is the problem. Wouldn’t you agree to this assessment?

    Andrew

  109. 109
    JVL says:

    ET: It was priceless that BLM protesters ruined businesses owned by blacks and other minorities. As if we needed more proof that the left is totally clueless.

    Are you saying that only “the left” think that black lives matter? Do you think black lives matter? Yes, the same as all lives matter. Or do you think they just need to sort it out amongst themselves? That they are “different” and “just that way” and we should just let them get on with it ’cause “we” don’t have those problems?

  110. 110
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, who murdered a black, retired police chief and callously videoed his dying moments? Do we see what we are letting loose? Fools, we are, fools and cannon fodder. KF

  111. 111
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Are you saying that only “the left” think that black lives matter?

    Wow. I didn’t say that. I didn’t think that. And I didn’t imply that.

    Why do lefties always respond with BS instead of responding to what they are quoting?

  112. 112
    ET says:

    kairosfocus- Yes, I saw that. Sadly pathetic.

  113. 113
    JVL says:

    Asauber: In the USA “white priviledge” is one of the rhetorical slogans in use. Looks like “white” is the problem, wouldn’t you agree to this assessment?

    I think that facile and easy and doesn’t get to the real root of the problem. Obviously there are racist whites who have had opportunities that some blacks have not had. And most of those whites think: those blacks, if they just did what I and my family did they could be just as successful as we were. They are their own worst enemy. They need to sort out their own “internal” problems.

    I say we need to support everyone the same, give everyone the same protections and opportunities and support. And when you say: let them sort it out themselves then you are NOT treating them as equals. That’s when you think black lives don’t matter as much.

  114. 114
    kairosfocus says:

    AS, it is more, it is Christendom, flawed but important Christian-influenced civilisation and its heritage that is hated, vilified, strawmannised and scapegoated. We don’t begin to realise the blessings we should count and prize instead of following Marxist pied pipers to cast away. Fools and cannon fodder is what we now are. The cannons are licking their chops. And here come the vultures in their wake. KF

  115. 115
    asauber says:

    “I say we need to support everyone the same, give everyone the same protections and opportunities and support. ”

    JVL,

    This statement I can agree with. But this is very far from what the fruit of BLM is, if you are paying attention or using your brain.

    Andrew

  116. 116
    asauber says:

    KF,

    Indeed. One of the main focuses of the media in the USA is the demoralization of Christians.

    Andrew

  117. 117
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, abolishing the police will NOT lead to equal protection under the civil peace of justice. KF

  118. 118
    daveS says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    I would agree. Specifically, from an atheistic, materialist, evolutionary standard – why do they matter? Where in evolutionary history do we see that anything matters?

    To fully answer this question, I think I’d have to tell you my life story. Not that my story is really unusual, but it would be necessary to illustrate how I got to where I am.

    I should clarify I’m not a materialist (I don’t really know whether non-physical things exist, but I sometimes operate as if they do). I also don’t know much about evolution; in any case, I don’t base my worldview on it specifically.

    It is true that I doubt that there is a God that deliberately created us. Nevertheless, other people do matter a great deal to me. And to you, I’m sure, as well as virtually all other people. This is where my life story would come in, if I wrote it. But I don’t think the existence of a God or lack thereof makes any difference to this issue. A specific example: the importance of my wife to me has nothing to do with whether a God exists. (Now I am a weak or agnostic atheist, and perhaps my view would change if I converted, but I see no indication of that.)

  119. 119
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, EG, Sev et al, can you say with me, without addendum, modification or mental reservation: first, that life is the first right, without which there are no more rights. Second, that life begins with conception and flows from there to natural death. Third, that we all share in the common grace of human life. I believe, for cause, that this is where any sound solution will have to be founded. KF

  120. 120
    daveS says:

    KF,

    DS, the true context is first that life is the first right starting in the womb. That litmus test being failed we already know there is no sound conscience, no commitment to prudence or right reason and truthFULness to meet with.

    Surely you haven’t completely given up? You seem fairly confident in you ability to reason about things. People I meet in real life also appear to have some grasp on reality.

  121. 121
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, I have seen too much up close and personal (including a 4th gen civil war) and I know too much history. The USA and so the civilisation that will have to suffer with it, just passed a fatal threshold. And, the upcoming election will be telling, who in his right mind would bow down to radicals who just fomented riot, rapine, arson, looting and murder to gain power and are demanding that the police who took 700+ casualties to hold the line be taken out of their way? And do you think those who have got a taste of such foul power will turn back because of mere elections, court rulings and parliamentary votes, much less 30 second spots and 700 word op eds? Oops, they just pushed out the editor who dared to allow an op ed that didn’t toe the partyline. Do you think anyone in his right mind will now trust the media to tell 1/4 the truth? Fools and cannon fodder is what we have now become. Such fools are we. KF

  122. 122
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Such fools we are.

    Are you a fool yourself? Or just other people? If you’re a fool I won’t read your posts anymore. 😛

    Regarding post #119, will you go first, mutatis mutandis?

  123. 123
    john_a_designer says:

    You don’t do anything to create or improve racial harmony by marginalizing, demonizing or vilifying anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with your racially centered agenda. You don’t gain sympathy and support by burning down your own community then trying to dismantle or dramatically defund police departments or by vilifying police officers. Again, IT PUTS EVERYONE’S LIFE AT RISK!

    PS This just in about Seattle.

    Hundreds of protesters, aided by a sympathetic City Council member, stormed Seattle’s City Hall Tuesday night to demand the mayor’s resignation, just days after seizing a six-block downtown zone that includes a shuttered police precinct.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-city-hall-protesters-autonomous-zone

  124. 124
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, every last striking one of us is individually, personally implicated, me included. This is a judgement on our civilisation. Our only hope is to face how we failed to act earlier and to now stand with courage in the face of coming rivers of blood. Go and re-read Churchill’s vol 1 on history of WW2, on what happened while England slept. We failed, all of us. And now, it is literally hell to be paid. The best is, can we try to be half-decent men in the breaking storm? KF

  125. 125
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, I have already affirmed all three, that is why . . . alas, too late . . . I have stood on the pivot, we must face the holocaust of our living posterity in the womb. And on the third, we are formed of one blood (or I would not exist! My ancestry is tri-continental), so there is no foundation for racism. KF

  126. 126
    JVL says:

    Asauber: This statement I can agree with. But this is very far from what the fruit of BLM is, if you are paying attention or using your brain.

    It sounds like we have no quarrel then. That is good. If you have a problem with the organisers of some of the protests then that has nothing to do with me.

  127. 127
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, they are trying to take turf for establishing warlord domains. They are daring you to take them back, with the media 5th column watching. They don’t realise that they are playing with fire. KF

  128. 128
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: abolishing the police will NOT lead to equal protection under the civil peace of justice.

    Something I did not advocate. Stop labelling me and just listen to what I am saying.

    Sev et al, can you say with me, without addendum, modification or mental reservation: first, that life is the first right, without which there are no more rights. Second, that life begins with conception and flows from there to natural death. Third, that we all share in the common grace of human life. I believe, for cause, that this is where any sound solution will have to be founded

    You are trying to bring the abortion issue into the mix and I think that’s an attempt to usurp the issue. We are talking about how people with darker skin, like yourself, have been ill supported by various governments. Shall we just stick to that? Unless you think that issue is not important.

    every last striking one of us is individually, personally implicated, me included. This is a judgement on our civilisation.

    Well put. We can all change and make a difference.

  129. 129
    daveS says:

    KF,

    I mean, will you state “Black lives matter”, without addendum, modification or mental reservation?

  130. 130
    JVL says:

    John_a_designer: You don’t do anything to create or improve racial harmony by marginalizing, demonizing or vilifying anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with your racially centered agenda.

    Good thing I am not doing that.

    You don’t gain sympathy and support by burning down your own community then trying to dismantle or dramatically defund police departments or by vilifying police officers. Again, IT PUTS EVERYONE’S LIFE AT RISK!

    I’m in favour of helping those communities, to listen, to figure out what’s wrong, to try and find things we can improve, to implement positive changes, to support. Agreed? Or are they “just not like us”?

    Hundreds of protesters, aided by a sympathetic City Council member, stormed Seattle’s City Hall Tuesday night to demand the mayor’s resignation, just days after seizing a six-block downtown zone that includes a shuttered police precinct.

    I DO NOT agree with everything the protestors have done. Not by a long ways. But I hope you agree with me that people, all people, should be supported and encouraged and helped and protected TO THE SAME DEGREE. Let’s work on that first.

    Look, I know we’re all frustrated and angry and fed-up. Now is the time for calmer heads to stand up and guide things past the rhetoric and political machinations. Mostly we all agree. Let’s start with that. And let’s start by first just listening to people’s feelings.

  131. 131
    john_a_designer says:

    So Seattle is not liberal or woke enough? I guess the Mayor’s unforgivable sin was not agreeing to defund the police dept. So as a white person is my defense of the police is racist? Again this is BLM’s agenda which is dangerous, destabilizing and deadly. BLM is going to hurt themselves and everyone else.

  132. 132
    daveS says:

    BLM is not monolithic. Even Mitt Romney joined with BLM supporters the other day.

  133. 133
    Silver Asiatic says:

    DaveS

    A specific example: the importance of my wife to me has nothing to do with whether a God exists. (Now I am a weak or agnostic atheist, and perhaps my view would change if I converted, but I see no indication of that.)

    I can appreciate how you have placed the focus on your individual view and your own personal life. The example you give is of your wife. It makes sense that she has meaning and would matter to you. But to move from your individual interests to a sweeping statement about humanity does not follow. For example, your wife matters to you. If I was an atheist, I could logically say that she doesn’t matter to me. I don’t know her and most likely never will. So, you haven’t explained even why one person should matter to me.
    You do not see how God would change things, but I would think that you would see things differently if you converted (and I would wish that for you).
    The first step in belief is accepting: You were created by God, for a reason. You were created through an intelligent, deliberate, loving action – with you, Dave S, specifically in mind.
    So, you weren’t accidental.
    But then secondly, since you are not your own creation, you actually “belong” to your Creator. You’re only “borrowing” (so to speak), the life you have. You received it from Him. The person “Dave S” was invented by God. He gave you that identity, from birth.
    This has a big implication for any believer.
    Because to harm Dave S, is to harm someone who God cares about, who God created, and who God loves very much. We better have a good reason for anything we do, because our life on this earth does not belong to us alone. We have to answer for it.
    In that view, every person has meaning and value. Every person matters. We’re not permitted to have a hatred towards anyone: Black, Spanish, Italian, Protestant, Jewish, Asian, Atheist … you name it. We have to have care for them.

  134. 134
    john_a_designer says:

    Former Federal Prosecutor Andy McCarthy warns:

    The people whose families, property and lives would be most under siege if police departments were defunded are minority communities. The places that would collapse are the cities run by the progressives who promote this lunatic fantasy.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/defund-police-what-dems-blm-ignoring-crime-andrew-mccarthy

    Indeed, the cities where they are presently having the most unrest are cities run by so-called progressives. It’s ironic that the people who have the most Utopian views can never get even close to bringing their dream society to fruition. That’s because utopia is nowhere. However, are they ready to give up or concede they have made mistakes? Never. They believe in their heart of hearts that they are good, virtuous people with all the right intentions. So don’t expect the woke virtue signaling to end any time soon. I mean if you have nothing else you can always engage in virtue signaling. That’s at least doing something, isn’t it?

  135. 135
    daveS says:

    SA,

    It is true that I can’t appeal to God as a reason for caring about others.

    But do you not feel some sort of affinity with other people simply because they are making their way through life just as you are? I know that people I will never meet are also experiencing joy, sorrow, and all sorts of other emotions as we travel along our respective trajectories. Life is sometimes good and sometimes bad, and I believe that all sufficiently sentient creatures (such as dogs, cats, people, etc) have a kind of connection due to this shared experience.

  136. 136
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, where did you ever get the notion that I am labelling you? Kindly go up to the OP and see the PS documenting just who are saying that, officially as a plank of their platform. So, the RHS added by street activists to the street painting by order of the DC mayor is in fact accurate. Where, as this is DC, it instantly has federal, national and even international import. KF

  137. 137
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, as you know, a good bit of my ancestry is subsaharan African. The most prominent member of my family was kangaroo courted and hanged unjustly for fomenting uprising. That history is literally written into my name. In this context of anti-civilisational agit-prop loading, I will state: All lives matter, starting with those in the womb and ranging through to natural death. That cuts across all human distinctions and emphasises the litmus test case which is an actual not pretended holocaust in progress. That directly implies that black lives matter, as life is the first right, without which there are no other rights, but it does not endorse the manipulative anti-civilisation agenda that is using that slogan as a stalking horse for an agenda that has as a plank, to abolish the police, who guard the civil peace of justice. No, I will not bow the knee to Baal. KF

  138. 138
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Dave,

    Life is sometimes good and sometimes bad, and I believe that all sufficiently sentient creatures (such as dogs, cats, people, etc) have a kind of connection due to this shared experience.

    At a very generalized level, yes. We have shared experiences so there’s a connection. But moving beyond that is difficult – we have to say that all of those beings “Matter”, beyond just the fact that they all experienced something like I did.
    Our society, for example, is marked by competing interests. There are winners and losers. There are friends and enemies. Without God, I do not see how merely a shared experience is enough to convince anyone that our enemies “matter”, or that all people deserve equal treatment.
    Social justice, in secularist-atheistic terms, really doesn’t make sense. It’s a corruption of Christian ethics without a transcendent focus. So, for worldly reasons offering no pay-back, we’re supposed to have justice. But there’s no justice in the Darwinian view – only winners and losers. In that view, if I win – then I win. No matter what the cost is in human life. There’s only one opportunity to get what I want in the competition. I can’t afford to care for enemies unless they pay me some how.

  139. 139
  140. 140
    john_a_designer says:

    Personally I don’t think street demonstrations accomplish much but when they are accompanied by looting, arson and lawlessness they are totally counterproductive. I was already convinced that our society had unsolved racial issues that needed to be addressed but the only thing that the past few weeks has convinced me of is that racial movement among blacks has been completely hijacked by the radical left which is anti-establishment and racially intolerant. For example, it is a complete lie that there has been no progress on racial issues over the last twenty to thirty years. There has been a lot of progress with the integration of urban police departments across the nation but BLM wants to undo all that. If blacks want to advance their cause they need to desegregate. Yes segregation ended legally decades ago but blacks have continued to self-segregate. They continue to cluster in urban areas where most whites do not live. How do you begin to have “a conversation” with people you do not know?

    Again according to Andy McCarthy:

    Though it is fashionable to speak of police departments and the criminal justice system as “institutionally racist,” it is also specious… Over time, police departments more and more reflect the racial and ethnic composition of their communities. In many big cities, top political and law enforcement officials are themselves African-American. And as for the justice system writ large, it is overseen by professionals who graduated from elite American law schools. With the possible exception of college professors, there is no more politically progressive stratum in our society – and no one prouder to say so than lawyers themselves. The notion that they would abide racism, much less thoroughgoing anti-black racism, in an institution they run would be laughable if the matter were less fraught.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/defund-police-what-dems-blm-ignoring-crime-andrew-mccarthy

  141. 141
    daveS says:

    SA,

    But there’s no justice in the Darwinian view – only winners and losers. In that view, if I win – then I win. No matter what the cost is in human life. There’s only one opportunity to get what I want in the competition. I can’t afford to care for enemies unless they pay me some how.

    I think we realize at a young age that if we try to live like this, we’re going to have a miserable life. No one outside of sociopaths actually does.

    We learn that life is not a zero-sum game, and if we cooperate with others, we have a better chance of having our needs fulfilled.

  142. 142
    Heartlander says:

    Excerpt from Jason L. Riley – The Full Truth About Race and Policing.

    Chicago has long been one of the nation’s most dangerous big cities, and it seems determined to keep that distinction.

    The Chicago Sun-Times reports that 18 people were killed on one Sunday, May 31, “making it the single most violent day in Chicago in six decades.” Over the full weekend, “25 people were killed in the city, with another 85 wounded by gunfire.” None of these deaths or shootings involved police, so there will be no massive protests over them, no tearful commentary on cable news and social media, no white politicians wrapped in Kente cloth taking a knee for photographers.

    Sadly, the only thing remarkable about the episode is that it occurred in the middle of a national discussion about policing. The political left, with a great deal of assistance from the mainstream media, has convinced many Americans that George Floyd’s death in police custody is an everyday occurrence for black people in this country, and that racism permeates law enforcement. The reality is that the carnage we witness in Chicago is what’s typical, law enforcement has next to nothing to do with black homicides, and the number of interactions between police and low-income blacks is driven by crime rates, not bias. According to the Sun-Times, there were 492 homicides in Chicago last year, and only three of them involved police.

    So long as blacks are committing more than half of all murders and robberies while making up only 13% of the population, and so long as almost all of their victims are their neighbors, these communities will draw the lion’s share of police attention. Defunding the police, or making it easier to prosecute officers, will only result in more lives lost in those neighborhoods that most need protecting.

    Matthew 7:5 – “You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

    If we were to have a truly frank discussion, we would need to address culture issues. This is not black/white – but education, lack of fathers, dependency on welfare systems, victimhood mentality – a culture in the US set up by liberal policies which effects both white, black, and hispanic households. Asian and Indian Americans due better statistically than white and black Americans and it’s due to their culture. Why are Nigerian immigrants so successful in the US? – again, culture.

  143. 143
    john_a_designer says:

    From the perspective of the secular progressive left DIVERSITY trumps everything else! That is if they believed in moral absolutes (most of them don’t) it’s something that must be treated as a moral absolute. So, if some educational institution, business entity, government agency, entertainment or athletic entity isn’t diverse enough some kind of quota based on race, gender etc. should be imposed to correct the obvious injustice.

    For example, consider the NBA. The league is predominantly African-American. There are very few Hispanics, whites or Asians. It’s even worse for some other races. I cannot think of a single Native American professional basketball player past or present. Obviously that’s a blatant lack of racial diversity. Therefore, the U.S. government needs step in to impose race based quotas on the NBA to correct their blatantly discriminatory practices.

    Of course, that’s not my reasoning, I’m just trying to apply, what I understand the reasoning of the SJW left to be, fairly and justly which means universally. Actually I am also using what Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz terms the “shoe-on-the-other-foot” criteria. I mean the race based diversity standard is required everywhere else shouldn’t we also apply it to the NBA? If not, why not?

  144. 144
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Dave S

    I think we realize at a young age that if we try to live like this, we’re going to have a miserable life. No one outside of sociopaths actually does.

    That the reason a person cares about something is to benefit themselves first? I think most people do that. The whole bandwagon of corporations proclaiming BLM is self-serving. Is tolerance for violence and anti-social behavior really an expression of care for people? Or is it not, more likely, an expression of fear and avoidance and letting people suffer from their own out-of-control tendencies, rather than trying to correct them and face their wrath?
    But I also see a number of “winners” who proclaim their happiness, but who are also ruthless and cunning and build their empires through hard-competition. That’s how sales executives get to the top. There’s some collaboration, but it’s all part of the formula for beating the competition.

  145. 145
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JAD

    I mean the race based diversity standard is required everywhere else shouldn’t we also apply it to the NBA? If not, why not?

    Agreed. But they start by proclaiming that they have a measure on everyone’s level of suffering. Then, society is ranked on that basis. So, other minorities, supposedly, have not suffered to an equal extent, so they will not receive equal benefits. Jews, for example, are perceived to have suffered more than any other group, so they receive cultural benefits for that. Christians, on the other hand, are believed to not have suffered at all, so they do not benefit from diversity. In the same way, not all blacks will receive benefits from the SJWs. Black cops, for example, will be ignored. Black supporters of Trump will not receive diversity credits. First generation immigrants from Africa also do not gain a benefit for being black since their not in ancestry with the slave populations and whatever they suffered happened in Africa, not here.

  146. 146
    john_a_designer says:

    It’s not just whites like me who think defunding PD’s is an insane idea. It’s also the opinion of Angela Jacobs, a Lancaster, Calif., city council member, who is the sister of “a federal protective officer in Oakland who was fatally shot during a protest for George Floyd that turned violent told Congress on Wednesday calls to defund the police are ‘ridiculous’.”

    “It is a ridiculous solution to claim that defunding police departments is the solution to police brutality and discrimination because it’s not a solution. It gets us nowhere as a nation and removes the safety net protection that every citizen deserves from their communities elected officials,”

    “The actions of a few are dividing us as a nation,” Jacobs said of Floyd’s death. “We will never solve generational systemic injustice with looting burning, destruction of property and killing in the name of justice.”

    “When those in a position of authority choose to abuse their power, that is a very definition of oppression. And when innocent people are harmed in the name of justice, no one prevails. We all lose,” she added.

    “Police brutality of any kind should not be condoned, however, it is blatantly wrong to create an excuse out of discrimination and disparity to loot and burn our communities, to kill our officers of the law.”

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/sister-slain-federal-protective-officer-defund-police-ridiculous

  147. 147
  148. 148
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, defund the police is not a racial issue, it is civilisational. Those who are that irresponsible are threats to us all, anywhere. KF

  149. 149
    john_a_designer says:

    SA,

    The secular progressive left tends to see discrimination, bigotry and intolerance anytime they believe that a certain identity group is under represented somewhere in society. Personally I think there may be other reasons for the so-called lack of diversity in a lot of cases and not all of them are necessarily bad. For example, I’m okay with the way the NBA is. The next question is: can we openly “have a conversation” (a phrase those on the left love to use) as to why the NBA is the way it is? Or is that something that is totally taboo?

    KF,

    But BLM has been pushing it. The want it to be a racial issue.

  150. 150
    asauber says:

    “The secular progressive left tends to see discrimination, bigotry and intolerance anytime they believe that a certain identity group is under represented somewhere in society. ”

    JAD,

    But the “anytime they believe that a certain identity group is under represented” is *all the time*. Whatever occasion/event/story is always in use as a pretense for advancing the tribe. I don’t think they are interested in any ideals that help would help anyone but themselves.

    Andrew

  151. 151
    Heartlander says:

    CNN: Over 1,000 health professionals sign a letter saying, Don’t shut down protests using coronavirus concerns as an excuse

    “However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.

  152. 152
    daveS says:

    SA,

    That the reason a person cares about something is to benefit themselves first? I think most people do that.

    It is one reason, but not the only one. I’m sure many older people would risk their life in certain situations to save a younger person, when there is no clear payoff. I have been quite fortunate, and would like to see others have the same opportunities I have enjoyed, so I contribute to various causes anonymously, without expecting any benefit in return.

    And it is true that some people are particularly ruthless and competitive, especially CEOs and powerful politicians, I gather. However, the average person does not find that type of position attractive. I certainly wouldn’t trade my very modest lifestyle for that.

  153. 153
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, that is indeed their agit prop stance. Unsurprisingly, while manipulative, it is irrelevant. It is clearly the case that police and courts with sound laws, regardless of flaws and ever present need for improvement, are a huge civilising advance over ideologised warlords and their paramilitaries or clan levys and blood feuds. Any entity seeking to overturn such is anti-civilisational and needs to be treated as such. KF

  154. 154
    kairosfocus says:

    H, the self-refuting incoherence is self-defeating. By now, we should be seeing a spike in new cases if there is a serious lingering threat. Lessee . . . OWID shows only a tiny bump for the US though its baseline is high, a SLOOOW down-trend continues. It is the UK and Canada that show distinct bumps over the past week or so. Germany and Italy may be showing slight upticks. There is absolutely no good reason to make a difference between one type of gathering and another. These health workers only manage to show that the health care professions are also being caught up in ideological thinking, undermining credibility of their analysis and advice. KF

  155. 155
    john_a_designer says:

    A few years ago student activists at Claremont Pamona College in California succeeded in shutting down a lecture by Manhattan Institute scholar and author Heather Mac Donald. In a letter to the school’s president they wrote:

    The idea that there is a single truth — ‘the Truth’ — is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain,” the students’ letter stated, according to The Claremont Independent. “This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny.”

    The following article gives several more long excerpts from the letter:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/m.....ee-speech/

    Libertarian writer, Kat Timf observes that…

    “Once you start trying to argue that it’s bad to encourage people to seek the truth, you have officially reached peak idiot. For one thing, admitting that you find valuing the truth to be offensive hardly helps your case when you’re literally trying to convince others that something is true.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....-supremacy

    Indeed, you can’t begin to make a moral argument unless it is based on moral TRUTH and that it is true that morality is really grounded in interpersonal moral obligation. It appears the Pomona students reject moral truth but still believe in some kind of interpersonal moral obligation. That is either hypocritical or absurd. Their beliefs and opinions are clearly based on passion not reason. When such idiotic thinking begins to spread through a democratic society it’s putting that society at risk. It will first lead to anarchy and then end up with tyranny or totalitarianism.

    The same type of thinking is behind the BLM movement. Again, how can we achieve any kind of broad based consensus about justice there is no such thing as moral truth?

  156. 156
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, part of the failure is undermining understanding that reality is there and truth accurately describes reality. They have been indoctrinated in relativism and are in error. KF

  157. 157
    Ed George says:

    KF

    It is the UK and Canada that show distinct bumps over the past week or so.

    I don’t see how you interpret a 40% decrease over the past week in Canada as a distinct bump. Besides, given the delays often seen in reporting, a running average is a better indication. Both the UK and Canada have seen a consistent decrease over the last month of about 70%, whereas the US decrease over the same time period is less than 30%.

  158. 158
    kairosfocus says:

    EG you are not looking at the data I am seeing. The bumps are there.That is not unexpected. A jump up then back down is visible, on about a 10 day span. It may be there in US but would drown against its lingering scale. KF

  159. 159
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is an argument I have presented before at UD which I think is worth repeating here for some context.

    Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights.

    Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard.

    Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights.

    Please notice what I am not arguing:

    *(1.) That atheists do not believe in human rights. Many do and do so sincerely if not very strongly. But strongly held beliefs and opinions are not the same as moral obligations. (How am I or anyone obligated to your personal opinions?) Human rights are moral obligations. Atheistic naturalism/materialism has no logical basis for human rights.

    *(2.) That atheists do not have human rights. They do. Again the argument is that they have no BASIS for human rights or any kind of objective moral standard.

    *(3.) That Christian theism is the only possible basis for universal human rights. Rather the argument is that the standard needs to be an eternally existing transcendent one. Platonic philosophy, for example, at least appears to provide such a standard. Are there others? Apparently so. However, I do believe that Judeo-Christian moral teaching provides a better grounding than Platonic philosophy or any other world view.

    Obviously any kind of antirealist or moral subjectivist view is not only a very poor basis but it is a completely untenable basis for morality, civil law or fundamental human rights– nor does it provide any kind of starting point for creating a broad societal consensus which is absolutely necessary for functioning democratic society. It’s basically self-righteousness, narcissism or outright moral nihilism. In other words, moral subjectivism is a totally irrational basis for interpersonal morality or universal human rights.

  160. 160
    kairosfocus says:

    T+, are you still around? For some days now, I have suggested that you ask your questions. KF

  161. 161
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, we are not dealing with coherent thought on morals or just about anything of consequence. Unfortunately, even the significance of coherence has been dismissed along with the rest of core right reason. We are dealing with nihilistic will to power and rhetorical manipulation to gain power without dirtying one’s hands with overt violence. Such reflects debased, sometimes outright reprobate minds and seared, warped, hardened consciences. . All of this is part of the ramping up 4th Gen civil war that has turned us into fools and cannon fodder then vulture lunch. Only rivers of blood and tears will wake up a remnant. Sad. KF

  162. 162
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A police officer cries out from the heart as he and others move towards mass resignation in protest and disgust:

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/491422-i-my-colleagues-are-quitting-as-us-police-officers/

    >> ‘You won’t need to abolish us – we won’t be around for it’: Why I and many of my colleagues are quitting as US police officers
    10 Jun, 2020 15:26 / Updated 20 hours ago

    ‘You won’t need to abolish us – we won’t be around for it’: Why I and many of my colleagues are quitting as US police officers

    Travis Yates is a serving police commander in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He is a doctoral student in Strategic Leadership, a graduate of the FBI National Academy, and the author of “The Courageous Police Leader: A Survival Guide for Combating Cowards, Chaos & Lies”. This article was first published on lawofficer.com

    After more than 27 years in the force, I’ve had enough. These protests and riots are the final straw. The nasty words we get called all the time have now turned into rocks, bottles and gunfire. It’s over, America: we are leaving.

    This is the hardest thing I have written.

    I grew up in a law enforcement family. My father worked his way up to the rank of Captain at the Fort Smith, Arkansas, Police Department. As a kid I remember going with him on Friday to pick up his check and I was in awe of these super heroes he worked around.

    My dad sacrificed a lot and so did my late mother. Whether it was the week-long surveillance or wiretap or chasing drug runners across the country, he gave it all for my family and worked plenty of extra details to never let our family be without. Some would call that privilege but where I grew up, it was called hard work.

    The kids at school thought it was cool what my dad did and while he sometimes asked me if anyone gave me a hard time, they never did. There was respect among all… even the kids in shop class.

    I didn’t grow up wanting to be a cop but one fateful night, as a freshman in college, that all changed.

    I went on a ride along and my life’s journey would never be the same.

    After four years of college my dad wanted me at an agency that respected that education so I moved to Tulsa (Oklahoma) at 21 years old and never looked back.

    I didn’t know anyone and all I knew was what I saw my dad do, work hard and treat people with respect. I saw a lot of other cops working hard as well and doing all they could to keep the community safe.

    27 years has passed and if you would have told me the condition of law enforcement today, I would have never believed you.

    It’s not that law enforcement has changed for the worse but everything around it has.

    The mentally ill used to get treatment and now they just send cops. Kids used to be taught respect and now it’s cool to be disrespectful.

    Supervisors used to back you when you were right but now they accuse you of being wrong in order to appease crazy people.

    Parents used to get mad at their kids for getting arrested and now they get mad at us.

    The media used to highlight the positive contribution our profession gave to society and now they either ignore it or twist the truth for controversy to line their own pockets.

    There used to be a common respect among criminals. If they got caught, they understood you had a job to do but now it’s our fault they sit in handcuffs rather than their own personal decisions.

    If someone attacked a cop, they were seen as such. Now we martyr them and sue for millions.

    We used to be able to testify in court and we were believed. Now, unless there is video from three different angles, no one cares what you have to say.

    With all this talk about racism and racist cops, I’ve never seen people treated differently because of their race. And while I know that cowards that have never done this job will call me racist for saying it, all I’ve ever seen was criminal behavior and cops trying to stop it and they didn’t give a rip what their skin color was.

    I’ve seen cops help and save any type of race, gender or ethnicity you can think of and while that used to mean something, no one cares anymore.

    I’ve been called every name you can think of and many of them with racial overtones and it’s never come from cops. I’ve watched African American cops take the brunt of this and even talked one rookie out of quitting after he was berated by a lot of cowards that had the same skin color as him.
    Authoritarian liberals calling to end cop movies/TV shows NOW will NOT fix any racism or police brutality problems

    I’ve heard words I never heard before being a cop.

    Uncle Tom, Cracker, Pig and the N Word just to name a few. I’ve heard them thousands of times and never once did I see a police officer retaliate.

    They just took it.

    Despite that, it’s been the greatest opportunity of my life to do this job. I would have recommended it to anyone and I secretly hoped one of my kids would do it one day.

    They would have been a 4th Generation Cop.

    But today, all of that is over. I wouldn’t wish this job on my worst enemy. I would never send anyone I cared about into the hell that this profession has become.

    It’s the only job you can do everything right and lose everything.

    It’s the only job where the same citizens you risk your life for hate you for it.

    It’s the only segment left in society where it’s cool to discriminate and judge, just because of the uniform you wear.

    You never get to explain.

    You can never reason with them.

    The nasty words have now turned into rocks and bottles and gunfire.

    I’ve watched it happen to those around me and I have seen the total destruction of their life.

    This job is a walking time bomb and you could get cancelled or prosecuted on the very next call, even if you do everything right.

    No profession has to deal with that . . . .

    It’s over America. You finally did it.

    You aren’t going to have to abolish the police, we won’t be around for it.

    And while I know most Americans still appreciate us, it’s not enough and the risk is too high.

    Those of you that say thank you or buy the occasional meal, it means everything.

    But those of you that were silent while the slow turning of the knives in our backs happened by thugs and cowards, this is on you.

    Your belief in hashtags and memes over the truth has and will create an environment in your community that you will never expect.

    If you think Minneapolis will never turn into Mogadishu – it’s coming.

    And when it does, remember what your complicity did.

    This is the America that you made.>>

    This is what fatal disaffection looks like, and when a critical mass no longer stands by a nation, it falls as France fell in six weeks in 1940. Of course, such a fall is precisely what the radical subversives using their manipulated cannon fodder on the streets want.

    But now, all of us, collectively have been played for fools, too many of us have played the fool and we are all now cannon fodder and liable to become a feast for vultures, literal and metaphorical.

    KF

  163. 163
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JAD

    The secular progressive left tends to see discrimination, bigotry and intolerance anytime they believe that a certain identity group is under represented somewhere in society.

    True but I think they also add that the identity group must have suffered something, especially at the hands of people they don’t like.
    For example, Christians are a minority in many places but they do not get much sympathy for that. Even if they are persecuted.
    Blacks were persecuted and suffered at the hands of supposed, right wing white guys. So, they’re a good cause.
    It’s the same with Illegal Immigrants to the US. Even Moselms will have some of that privilege.
    Catholics, for example, have been persecuted in the US since the beginning – and have always been a minority, but for obvious reasons never gain a privileged status.

    The next question is: can we openly “have a conversation” (a phrase those on the left love to use) as to why the NBA is the way it is? Or is that something that is totally taboo?

    I think it’s taboo in today’s culture. In the same way, some people try to have an honest conversation about the Jewish religion/culture and that’s impossible.

  164. 164
    john_a_designer says:

    KF @ 161,

    Unfortunately the nihilists won’t ever concede that. They’ll argue that they are being reasonable. Of course, their reason is not really reason it is rationalization. Indeed, when confronted they’ll push back with something touchy-feely. For example, if they can’t refute one of my arguments they’ll respond with, “But how would you feel…” In other words, if they can’t give a rational response they’ll make an emotional appeal. But they will still think they are being reasonable. So they’ll argue that their beliefs about human rights are universal and binding (which is of course what rights need to be) even if it’s a right that never existed before, like SSM, because that is what they passionately believe. If you don’t agree they’ll cram it down your throat.

  165. 165
    Silver Asiatic says:

    DS

    It is one reason, but not the only one. I’m sure many older people would risk their life in certain situations to save a younger person, when there is no clear payoff. I have been quite fortunate, and would like to see others have the same opportunities I have enjoyed, so I contribute to various causes anonymously, without expecting any benefit in return.

    Doing good works is one of the best ways to discover the goodness of God in His charity and mercy to us. Everything we receive from God is a gift – and God does not often receive thanks or get credit for what He does. We tend to give credit to ourselves.
    Believers are “agnotistic” in some ways. We cannot know everything about God.
    But that’s where Faith comes in.
    A good thought for you might be: “I do not know that God exists, but I will have faith that He does and that He is directing my life to a purpose”.
    The good works we do are appreciated by God and He rewards them either in this life (for those who will not join Him later) or in the next.

  166. 166
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, few will ever openly acknowledge being incoherent and irrational. KF

  167. 167
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: PPS to OP on how warlordism and protection demands have emerged in Seattle WA, USA. As is predictable. KF

  168. 168
    john_a_designer says:

    A&E announced Wednesday that it has canceled Live PD, the popular real-time documentary series that showcased police solving crime across America.

    https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/06/10/ae-cancels-live-pd/

    Political correctness scores another victory… Better be careful what you believe and think.

  169. 169
    daveS says:

    KF,

    F/N: PPS to OP on how warlordism and protection demands have emerged in Seattle WA, USA. As is predictable. KF

    Mostly a bunch of edgy kids playing kibbutz in the middle of an already very eclectic neighborhood. I predict their numbers will collapse once fall semester starts. It’s not freaking Somalia by any means.

  170. 170
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, this is how things begin to spin out of control. When an identifiable warlord emerges and businesses are shaken down, that is not a joke. It is a harbinger for what can happen on a far more serious scale. Remember, no-go zones for police in Europe? This is where such things begin. KF

  171. 171
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, mobocracy. KF

  172. 172
    daveS says:

    KF,

    I remember some hyperbolic claims about no-go zones in Europe being pushed by the right-wing agit-proposphere. 😛

    Are there any in Europe at the moment?

  173. 173
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A few “demands” from the 8-block insurrection zone (which built a “wall” as almost first act):

    >>Given the historical moment, we’ll begin with our demands pertaining to the Justice System.>>

    — cultural marxist, critical theory insurrectionists imagining they scent a revolutionary moment to seize power

    >>1. The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus.>>

    — destroy the stabilising systems of law and order, to be replaced by “revolutionary” ones, warlordism imposed of course

    >> This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police. >>

    — So, tortuous interference in reasonable expectation of pensions and salary, to attaint bloodlines and rob of assets leaving them to bear the debts. This was one of the barbarous punishments for treason.

    — So, to be a law enforcement officer is to be guilty of treason, a crime that typically is viewed as capital.

    >>At an equal level of priority we also demand that the city disallow the operations of ICE in the city of Seattle.>>

    — to drastically shift ethnic-cultural balance of worldviews and cultural agendas, knocking out the buttresses that make stable constitutional democracy and free enterprise economy possible

    >>2. In the transitionary period between now and the dismantlement of the Seattle Police Department, we demand that the use of armed force be banned entirely. No guns, no batons, no riot shields, no chemical weapons,>>

    — disarm the already judged traitors, the better to enable their being outlawed and killed at will

    >> especially against those exercising their First Amendment right as Americans to protest.>>

    — appealing to OUR principles, to subvert them

    >>3. We demand an end to the school-to-prison pipeline and the abolition of youth jails. Get kids out of prison, get cops out of schools. We also demand that the new youth prison being built in Seattle currently be repurposed.>>

    — demand, not responsible solution to problems of deeply entrenched juvenile delinquency

    >>4. We demand that not the City government, nor the State government, but that the Federal government launch a full-scale investigation into past and current cases of police brutality in Seattle and Washington, as well as the re-opening of all closed cases reported to the Office of Police Accountability.>>

    — show trials

    >> In particular, we demand that cases particular to Seattle and Washington be reopened where no justice has been served, namely the cases of Iosia Faletogo, Damarius Butts, Isaiah Obet, Tommy Le, Shaun Fuhr, and Charleena Lyles.>>

    — under what conditions, but show trials?

    >>5. We demand reparations for victims of police brutality, in a form to be determined.>>

    — hand over a cheque book of pre-signed blank leaves

    >>6. We demand that the City of Seattle make the names of officers involved in police brutality a matter of public record. Anonymity should not even be a privilege in public service.>>

    — attaint of blood, to be understood in the context of media lynchings and show trials

    >>7. We demand a retrial of all People in Color currently serving a prison sentence for violent crime, by a jury of their peers in their community.>>

    — blanket overthrow of law

    >>8. We demand decriminalization of the acts of protest, and amnesty for protestors generally, but specifically those involved in what has been termed “The George Floyd Rebellion” against the terrorist cell that previously occupied this area known as the Seattle Police Department.>>

    — lawlessness to be protected and given the immunities of privileged power

    — Etc.

    The pattern should be clear enough, the trend lines should be read in light of all too bloody history.

    KF

  174. 174
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, there were and are such zones, despite dismissive rhetoric. You should research Jihad of Settlement. KF

  175. 175
    john_a_designer says:

    Here’s another example PC run amok:

    UCLA suspended and launched a racial discrimination investigation into Gordon Klein after he refused to move or alter final exams for African-American students in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6163218259001#sp=show-clips

    The students want him terminated for following school policy… UCLA gave into the mob and suspended him.

  176. 176
    daveS says:

    >>9. Free ponies for everyone.

    ***

    Anyway, you’re reading a lot into those demands (“disarm the already judged traitors, the better to enable their being outlawed and killed at will”? Come on).

    Remember you come from a background which is very different from these kids’. Have you ever been within 1000 miles of Seattle, btw?

  177. 177
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, The difference is, I have had to live with warlordism and 4th Gen civil war. I lost an “Aunt” to a vigilante over rice shortage and an irresponsible radical demand on radio to self-appoint as inspectors. Then after the murder the radical blandly declared she had no fault or blame for enabling behaviour. That is the fire you are playing with. And it’s not the kids on the streets drafting bills of demands, it’s the pro ideologues and profs who indoctrinated them that I am reading between lines on. I have heard it can’t happen here before, about 40 years ago, but of course it did happen. Maybe I should tell you Jamaica’s house of parliament sits on attainted family land taken after a kangaroo court and hanging where leave was not given for the physician to testify why my relative was absent from a Council meeting . . . he was gravely ill. KF

  178. 178
    Heartlander says:

    If You Don’t Support Black Lives Matter, You’re Fired

    The list of people who have lost their jobs or been suspended for criticizing or even questioning the BLM movement is long—and growing daily. Most prominent on the list is erstwhile New York Times opinion page editor James Bennet, who “resigned” under pressure from woke NYT staffers after he ran an op-ed by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton that made the uncontroversial case that the U.S. military should be deployed if police can’t get riots under control.

    Then there was Stan Wischnowski, top editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, forced to resign over a headline of an architecture column that read, “Buildings Matter, Too,” which ran after scores of buildings in downtown Philly had been destroyed by rioters.

    Bon Appétit editor-in-chief Adam Rappaport stepped down Monday after a piece he published genuflecting to BLM was deemed insufficient by staffers who claim there’s a discriminatory culture at the magazine. Also, someone posted a 13-year-old photo of Rappaport in a Halloween costume that some people thought was offensive.

    Claudia Eller, editor-in-chief at Variety, was forced to take administrative leave after she got into a Twitter spat with a woman of South Asian descent who thought a piece Eller wrote lamenting the lack of diversity at the magazine wasn’t obsequious enough.

    On and on it goes. NBA announcer Grant Napear was fired from his sports talk radio program and resigned as the Sacramento Kings announcer after tweeting “all lives matter.” A professor at UCLA was placed on leave after refusing to cancel a final exam following the death of George Floyd. A reporter in Wales was forced to step down as Wales Book of Year Judge after complaining that a BLM protest violated the government’s social distancing rules.

    A cast member for MTV’s reality competition series “The Challenge” was fired after writing “people die every f–king day” in response to an Instagram comment about George Floyd. Professional soccer player Aleksander Katai was “released” by the LA Galaxy not for anything he wrote or said, but because his wife criticized BLM on Instagram. A former Canadian cabinet minister lost three jobs after saying on television that he didn’t think Canada was a racist country.

    That’s just a partial list.

    SEE ALSO: Like a Tweet, Lose a Lease

    You can lose your lease a lot of ways — if you fall behind on payments, abuse the property, or follow conservative media. Like most people Chris Hodges probably didn’t think a quick tap of support for posts on Donald Trump or China’s role in the coronavirus would amount to much of anything. Turns out, he was wrong. A local English teacher decided to catalogue Hodges’s “likes” and share them with the press. Little did anyone know, it would be the beginning of the end of the church’s services at two local high schools.

  179. 179
    kairosfocus says:

    Snitch state, with guilt by accusation of deviation from the party line.

  180. 180
    john_a_designer says:

    I have said here before the secular progressive/ social justice warrior left, which dominates if not controls the mainstream media (MSM,) exploits race as a wedge issue. For example, if you replay the whole tape of the January 2019 incident with the Covington Catholic school boys (not just a heavily edited portion of it) you will see that the whole incident was instigated by a group of racist blacks who then began angrily confronting the Native Americans who were gathered there for their own rally. The school boys were literally not even in the picture at that point. This is something, despite reluctantly admitting they have “egg on their face” the MSM have left out of their coverage.

    ”the left’s argument that blacks can’t be racist was disproven the moment the Black Hebrew Israelites entered the picture. This explains why the MSM gave them a black privilege pass by leaving them out of their reporting altogether. Conservatives now have a face to point to that isn’t that of a white male when dealing with racism in America. This is a positive thing. If race-relations are going to improve in America, both sides must acknowledge racism is a heart issue, not a Caucasian issue. We can thank the Black Hebrew Israelites for that revelation. If racism dies in America, so does the democratic party. Therefore, they’re motivated to keep hate alive. We mustn’t allow that to happen.” (emphasis added)

    https://townhall.com/columnists/carljackson/2019/01/28/3-silver-linings-in-the-covington-catholic-high-hoax-n2540326

    However, don’t hold your breath. The MSM is not going to abandon the narrative that racism is rooted in “white privilege,” patriarchy and colonialism etc. That is: they are not interested in reporting the truth but rather an agenda driven narrative. They call that journalism; I call it propaganda.

    I’m interested in improving race relations in my society. You can only do that by looking at the truth even if the truth is sometimes ugly.

  181. 181
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, that narrative is an agit-prop talking point driven by cultural form marxism manifested in so-called critical studies theories and their metanarrative that targets historic Christendom and its legacy. Even the slave trade narrative leaves off the centuries longer and in aggregate arguably larger trade that went north and east to North Africa and as far as Arabia and even India. In fact, the Atlantic leg was in key part those not wanted trans-sahara: men, who had often been simply killed. The trade in eunuchs was “good” for that as 9/10 castrated and mutilated under prevailing conditions, died. Where also the very word slave points to another major target, the slavs. Slavery was the universal plague and still is, why the antislavery society is still very active. KF

    PS: Notice how we are back to the primacy of inescapable, self evidently true first duties of reason that are the pivot of the natural law? Specifically, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to fairness, to neighbour, to fairness & justice, etc? From such, we can reconstruct the frame of law on objective, reasonable intelligible principles that we do not invent nor can we abolish, only we can be willing to acknowledge. They are also inherently moral, demanding bridging the IS-OUGHT gap, only feasible in the reality root. Which thus needs to be inherently good and utterly wise. Yes, such is scarcely thought about much less taken seriously but it is crucial. Indeed, the one who tries to object to such principles cannot but implicitly rely on them to be persuasive, defeating himself.

  182. 182
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF

    A few “demands” from the 8-block insurrection zone

    Most of those demands don’t specifically deal with trying to solve racism. It seems that people are adding their own various interests to the initial protest.
    This one demand does speak of race:

    We demand a retrial of all People in Color currently serving a prison sentence for violent crime, by a jury of their peers in their community

    It’s an interesting idea. They could be saying that the only fair jury would be one comprised entirely of one’s “color”. I think?

  183. 183
    kairosfocus says:

    SA, no, the incident . . . which was bad . . . was turned into an obvious pretext for something long since queued up to go once something could grab headlines. Notice, the representative from Minneapolis admitted that closing down the police was asked of candidates as part of their preparation in 2017. The demands are a string of agit prop wedge issues meant to further polarise a situation. KF

  184. 184
    john_a_designer says:

    Again, personally I don’t think street demonstrations ever accomplish much but when they are accompanied by looting, arson and lawlessness they are totally counterproductive. I was already convinced that our society had unsolved racial issues that needed to be addressed but the only thing that the past few weeks has convinced me of is that racial movement among blacks has been completely hijacked by the radical left which is antiestablishment and racially intolerant. (Demonizing and vilifying whites for being white IS RACIST!) Furthermore, it is a complete lie that there has been no progress on racial issues over the last twenty to thirty years. I’ve personally witnessed that progress myself.

    For example, back 15 to 20 years ago I briefly and casually got to know a person who had an incredible commitment to other human beings. For example, one of the stories I heard about him was that one morning while he was in his office working on something else he heard over the radio that there was a woman about to throw herself off a bridge into a ravine 100 feet below. Since the site was just a few minutes away from where his office was located he decided drive over and see if he could do anything to help. No, he had never done anything with suicide prevention before. After introducing himself to the police who were there (however, he was not completely unknown in the community) they agreed to let him try to talk to the woman… He was able to quite literally talk her off the ledge. But it didn’t end there. He committed himself to spending time with her in the weeks and months following to get to know here and help her with her problems.

    However, that was not just an isolated Boy Scout good deed for the day on his part. In 2005 after hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast this individual organized a relief effort. For example, he obtained the use of a semi-trailer and had people donate relief supplies (nonperishable food, clothing, bedding etc.) Within week a truck with the trailer in tow was on its way south to New Orleans.

    However, the relief efforts didn’t end there. This same person helped organize teams of ordinary people who were willing to sacrifice their vacation time to go down south and work with Habitat for Humanity to help build new homes for people who had lost them in the hurricane. The teams were predominantly white but the communities where they rebuilt the homes were predominantly African American on Mississippi coast. Race wasn’t an issue. They went without prejudice where the needs were the greatest. Our common humanity transcends class and race. A full year a later teams were still making the trek south to build new homes.

    The person I’m talking about also was concerned race relations in our community and in the 1990’s worked with a black he had befriended to promote dialogue and understanding. For example, in 1997 he and his friend participated in a town hall that took place in our community that was moderated by President Bill Clinton.

    Imagine instead of street demonstrations which have resulted in looting, burning down minority businesses, BLM instead decided to organize the demonstrators to build new homes clean up the neighbor hoods or help the police. But of course that probably would not have made the news because as we have been told, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

  185. 185
    kairosfocus says:

    JAD, street theatre to feed the media amplifiers, driving a sense of crisis. KF

  186. 186
    daveS says:

    street theater

    Perhaps a "street theater" tag/category would be useful? 🤔

  187. 187
    daveS says:

    I see that Dave Chappelle has a new special out addressing George Floyd on youtube. I’m not very familiar with his work, but I have heard he is a brilliant speaker, so I’ll give it a watch.

  188. 188
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, legitimate protest is one thing, agit-prop rioting, looting, arson and mayhem that feed the media amplifiers and optics to promote agendas such as abolishing lawful policing are wholly another. Did I ever tell you about the first road blocking protests of Jan 1979, that then fed the culture of blocking vehicular arteries (often with burning tyres etc)? In that context, there is already a relevant UD category, or two. KF

  189. 189
    asauber says:

    “Again, personally I don’t think street demonstrations ever accomplish much”

    I march in The March For Life every year in DC, and I can partially agree with this. The March for Life accomplishes a lot but not any direct or legal protection of innocent life in the womb, which is why the March happens. It’s a morale booster for Pro-Lifers, that’s why it’s valuable. It’s to rally the troops for the real work that happens in other areas.

    Demonstrations against racism don’t do anything positive in relation to racism. All they do is provide an occasion for the demonstrators to vent. Any real progress in race relations happens in other places at other times.

    Andrew

  190. 190
    asauber says:

    The difference between the March For Life and say a BLM demonstration is that BLM gets massive media propaganda campaigns spread worldwide to boost its cause and MFL gets media blackouts, so to speak. Excuse the pun.

    Andrew

  191. 191
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Asauber

    All they do is provide an occasion for the demonstrators to vent.

    It seems like the activity in Seattle is an example of that, more than anything. Street theater is a good term for it. The protestors are acting out a fantasy – like a video game conquest. It’s a chance for people to pretend they have some power. The homeless population in Seattle is significant, and that contributes to the problem.
    I think the March for Life has quietly built support for a pro-life culture. Progress has been slow but I think the MFL has had a huge positive impact.

  192. 192
    john_a_designer says:

    Just to clarify, I am not against peaceful demonstrations. It’s an essential part of democracy. Rather I am saying that demonstrations are not enough. If you can organize a demonstration, why can’t you organize those same people to do something good, like actually helping people in need?

    As for the March For Life it could get more attention if it was accompanied by looting, rioting, burning of buildings and civil disobedience which included throwing bricks and bottles at the police. Of course, if that ever occurred you and I know the MSM would immediately condemn MFL even if they were not responsible for the violence. With BLM they’re turning a blind eye… double standard? Duh!

  193. 193
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Alienated, unemployed, despairing young Americans have been propagandized towards revolution.
    I read something about the Big Box culture in America and how it is almost impossible to find dignified work at the lower levels of Staples, Target, Walmart, Dollar Tree — or even places like Starbucks and Whole Foods that appeal to hipsters. People need to have some dignity and respect for the work they do. The university preaches left-wing ideals of social revolution, but there’s no way to create a practical day-to-day life out of it.

  194. 194
    kairosfocus says:

    SA, the Unis were the first territory taken. KF

  195. 195
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: If you needed proof of misanthropy and anti-civilisation sentiment, a monument explicitly dedicated to a list of police officers fallen in the line of duty since the 1800’s to 1998 has been vandalised. In France, graveyards of fallen German soldiers are respected. In Russia, people spend their vacation doing archaeological investigations of German soldiers. This is an outrage. KF

    PS: Please see PPPS above. Also for Churchill’s statue 80 years after he led the stand against triumphant German armies in 1940.

  196. 196
    daveS says:

    The Chappelle video that I linked to above is excellent, IMHO. He really is an excellent communicator.

  197. 197
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF

    SA, the Unis were the first territory taken.

    Exactly. Darwinism, then then Frankfurt School in Chicago. By now they’re totally corrupt. Graduates are often disoriented and hopeless.
    Media and entertainment are other occupied territories.
    I think Big Money and Big Corporations are forces of anti-civilization, manipulated by the very same universities that they support.
    Small to Intermediate-scale industry and employment is what suffers.
    Our culture makes a big mistake thinking that everything can be solved with more money.
    There are healthy cultures around the world where people are not constantly dreaming of having more money and more stuff. They have dignity and respect for their own lives, religion and culture and even poverty can’t take that away from them. In fact, money can often be a corruptive power. Wealthy people will think that money will provide more freedom but that’s not necessarily the case. It’s the same with racism. Mere money alone will not heal that problem.
    The same culture that turns a blind eye to the death of children (and family life) from abortion and infanticide, cannot provide solutions for hatred between adult individuals. People who declare (philosophically) that human life has no real value, cannot logically proclaim that black lives matter. They’ve already tried to convince us that their own life doesn’t matter at all.

  198. 198
    john_a_designer says:

    I am more of a passive pro-life supporter than an active one. I’d probably be more of a supporter if they were doing a better job with their messaging… For example, last Christmas people across the U.S. were bombarded* by the following SPCA commercial with the tune of Silent Night being softly sung in the background.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5mIQGaRQHg

    Where are the pro-life commercials?

    This animal rescue commercial is very well done and pulls at your heartstrings. I can see doing something very similar with a pro-life commercial and it wouldn’t need to be a year round campaign– just around Xmas leading up the MFL.

    Christmas is actually a great time for the pro-life message. The incarnation did not happen at Jesus’ birth but when Mary conceived 9 months earlier. That goes to the very heart of the pro-life message.

    *BTW I have nothing against the SPCA or being kind to animals (PETA, however, is a more than a little bit too extreme for me.) Over the last ten years I have adopted two stray cats– well, it’s more like they adopted me. Don’t worry they treat me well.

  199. 199
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I wonder how Dawkins, Ken Miller and all the other the darlings of the materialist Left, respond.

    Black lives matter, don’t they?

    Richard Dawkins: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

    Lawrence Krauss as follows: “We’re just a bit of pollution…. If you got rid of us…the universe would be largely the same. We’re completely irrelevant.”

    Ken Miller: “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here … as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.”

    George Gaylord Simpson, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”

    The B:M movement should be trying to convince those guys that human life actually does matter. Darwin is the enemy of human life.

  200. 200
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JAD

    Christmas is actually a great time for the pro-life message. The incarnation did not happen at Jesus’ birth but when Mary conceived 9 months earlier. That goes to the very heart of the pro-life message.

    That is a profound point for anyone to think about.
    I think, for the most part, pro-lifers are not well-versed in the sophistication of worldly advertising and marketing standards. Pro-life is also fighting against forces that cause people to slide down the ladder of virtue and not climb up.
    Otherwise good people support abortion because they want, for themselves, some kind of “escape path”, if ever they (or their kids) have an unwanted pregnancy.
    Bringing forth a child and being a good parent requires significant responsibility.
    In my view, our culture spends a lot of time and effort teaching people to be irresponsible — praising the hedonistic, carefree lifestyle. Kids are taught that you can’t be old enough even to be married until you’re in your mid-30s.
    The truths of the pro-life message are irrefutable. But they remain a hard-sell in an anti-child, narcissistic worldview.

  201. 201
    asauber says:

    “Where are the pro-life commercials?”

    JAD,

    In a lot of cases, I think big media won’t air them. Too controversial. Big Abortion would have the mob out before you could finish saying “conception”.

    Andrew

  202. 202
    asauber says:

    “But they remain a hard-sell in an anti-child, narcissistic worldview.”

    SA,

    This is true. I volunteer at a pregnancy center and when we get some time to interrupt the demanding yelling of the Culture of Death and quietly talk to someone, they go right back out into the din.

    Andrew

  203. 203
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Pregnancy centers are places that do so much good for the community and have done for decades. they get zero recognition from our mainstream culture – the Culture of Death. But as you say, the message gets lost most of the time, even when you can have a quiet and good talk with someone. They understand, even agree – then walk away and block the truth out of their mind and return to the mob.
    In those few cases though, pregnant women come in, confused – wanting to abort, but then change their mind and a baby is born into the world later. New life. An innocent child has a chance to live.
    But this is a big problem for the Culture of Death? They have such a hatred for human life that they cannot celebrate the turn-around of an abortion-minded woman? They frown on this baby and wished that the child had never been born?
    That is truly horrifying.
    We never hear anything of those good results. Never celebrate the pro-life volunteers and workers.
    But even

  204. 204
    asauber says:

    “An innocent child has a chance to live.”

    Amen,

    Andrew

  205. 205
    Seversky says:

    Before we all get too self-righteous and sanctimonious, try reading the following about what happened to children in a good Christian country which denied women access to birth control and abortion:

    The Home

    Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home

  206. 206
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, you are committing a capital, misanthropic blunder. Abuses and errors etc are an extreme, they are not the general fate of children in families. The solution to abuse is reform, not the ongoing mass slaughter of our living posterity in the womb at the rate of 800+ millions in 40+ years, and currently at a little less than 1 million more per week. That you make such a move tells us that deep down you know that mass slaughter of the unborn at will is indefensible. At least, that is a hopeful sign. KF

  207. 207
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: A deadly, telling, utterly revealing poll. KF

  208. 208
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: As a reminder, Plato’s Ship of State parable:

    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)

    The fire democracies can fall into playing with (and obviously, oligarchies too, autocracies are so dangerous we need not note).

  209. 209
    asauber says:

    Sev,

    I know you can’t be reasoned with, but there are lots of abortion horror stories, too. Starting with the horror of the procedure itself, and then on to other grisly stories.

    Andrew

  210. 210
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Sev

    Before we all get too self-righteous and sanctimonious, try reading the following about what happened to children in a good Christian country which denied women access to birth control and abortion

    We should set our standards for moral behavior higher rather than lower. Pro-life is saying that we should strive for something better. That’s not self-righteous or sanctimonious. It’s a question of discerning the truth about the situation and striving to live up to it.
    Where there’s life, there’s hope. If the child at least can live, there’s hope and potential.
    Abortion, infanticide and birth control kills that hope. It not only ends the potential for the child but damages the couple (they attack and kill their own offspring and therefore hate themselves) – and society, because we have to try to justify a Culture of Death, and live with the pain and guilt of all of that.

  211. 211
    Ed George says:

    SA, does this mean that you are opposed to the death penalty and life sentences?

  212. 212
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF

    Abuses and errors etc are an extreme, they are not the general fate of children in families.

    True. We shouldn’t argue by citing extreme cases or exceptions.

    The solution to abuse is reform, not the ongoing mass slaughter of our living posterity in the womb…

    True again. We can work on improving a commitment to family life and ending abortion.

    That you make such a move tells us that deep down you know that mass slaughter of the unborn at will is indefensible. At least, that is a hopeful sign.

    I found that to be a good indicator from Sev also. He’s not saying “abortion is good” as some are starting to do now.
    Perhaps some would say that we have to tolerate certain evils in society.
    But we notice also, we do not tolerate infanticide. But the same reasoning could be used as we tolerate abortion, to allow for the killing of children up to a certain age. It seems unthinkable, but for me, not at all.

  213. 213
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    SA, does this mean that you are opposed to the death penalty and life sentences?

    I’m sorry, does what (this) mean that?

  214. 214
    john_a_designer says:

    Here a few thoughts on the way tolerance has shifted its meaning.

    Apparently those on the secular progressive left define tolerance as being able to tolerate everyone except those people with whom you disagree. However, that is exactly opposite of the way tolerance has been historically or “classically” defined. But if you are a moral and epistemological relativist you can define terms any way you want, even if they don’t make any sense at all.

    Following up from my comment above, here’s a pertinent quote by Charles Murray, from an article by Denyse O’Leary of “News,” which illustrates the way the meaning of the term tolerance has shifted.

    “The German-born Herbert Marcuse was a brilliant and controversial philosopher whose writing became almost a sacred text for new-left intellectuals of the 1960s and 1970s. Nowadays, his best-known work is the essay “Repressive Tolerance.” There he sets out the argument that the downshouters are putting into practice.

    For Marcuse, the fact that liberal democracies made tolerance an absolute virtue posed a problem. If society includes two groups, one powerful and one weak, then tolerating the ideas of both will mean that the voice and influence of the strong will always be greater. To treat the arguments of both sides with equal respect “mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society.” That is why, for Marcuse, tolerance is antithetical to genuine democracy and thus “repressive.” … That is why tolerance, unless it discriminates, will always be repressive…

    To treat the arguments of both sides with equal respect “mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society.” That is why, for Marcuse, tolerance is antithetical to genuine democracy and thus “repressive.” … That is why tolerance, unless it discriminates, will always be repressive.

    Marcuse is quite clear that the academy must also swallow the tough medicine he prescribes: “Here, too, in the education of those who are not yet maturely integrated, in the mind of the young, the ground for liberating tolerance is still to be created.” Today’s campus downshouters, whether they have read Marcuse or not, have plainly undertaken his project.”

    https://www.mercatornet.com/features/view/the-war-on-intellectual-freedom/19663

    However, it appears that the vast majority of activists on the secular-progressive left continue to use the term “tolerant” even though it has lost all its meaning. If tolerance does not mean respecting the rights of those you disagree with ideologically, does it really mean anything? Apparently for the left, which fond of redefining words so they are “politically correct”, it still has some propaganda value– some dishonest, disingenuous propaganda value. Of course if they were honest they would have to describe themselves as intolerant. But apparently, emotively (which from their POV is all that is important) that doesn’t come across quite right.

  215. 215
    Ed George says:

    SA

    I’m sorry, does what (this) mean that?

    If you truly believe in what you said:

    Where there’s life, there’s hope.

    Then you must oppose the death penalty and life sentences (ie, life sentence with no chance of parole).

  216. 216
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, irrelevancies, the issues of mercy to a convicted criminal in states with resources to support such are utterly different from those of the mass slaughter under colour of law and claimed rights, of a bit under a million utterly innocent unborn children per week. In turn, such is tangential to where we have now come as an evidently suicidal civilisation. KF

  217. 217
    ET says:

    LoL! @ Acartia Eddie:

    If you truly believe in what you said:

    Where there’s life, there’s hope.

    Then you must oppose the death penalty and life sentences (ie, life sentence with no chance of parole).

    That doesn’t follow. People die and life still persists. We have HOPE that criminals will be duly punished.

    How the hell does one go from Where there is life, there is hope., to the asinine “so you must oppose the death penalty.”?

    Anyone?

  218. 218
    Retired Physicist says:

    We need the occasional open thread so I can put comments like this:

    Happy Loving Day! On this day in 1967 the SCOTUS gave Americans a right they should have always had. If you’re a day over 53 years old, when you were born racists often told you who you could marry.

  219. 219
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    Where there’s life, there’s hope.
    Then you must oppose the death penalty and life sentences (ie, life sentence with no chance of parole).

    Simple answer. No. That phrase it not meant to be absolute. It was meant to be applied in this case, not in all cases. Where there’s young, innocent life of a baby – there’s hope for the future.
    Beyond that, I’ll accept that you see the radical difference between killing a child and punishing a convicted criminal, right?
    A mass murderer is convicted and sentenced.
    Are you saying that the Culture of Death does the same thing with the child about to be born?
    The child is a threat, a danger – something evil that should be eliminated.
    I do think that’s what it is.

  220. 220
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RP

    If you’re a day over 53 years old, when you were born racists often told you who you could marry.

    As do many Jewish rabbis today.
    Are you an anti-Semite, by chance?

  221. 221
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ET

    How the hell does one go from Where there is life, there is hope., to the asinine “so you must oppose the death penalty.”?
    Anyone?

    It’s beyond ignorant and I don’t have an answer.
    But we talk about the innocent life of a baby, and the response is that we’re supposed to equate the child with convicted mass murderers and rapists?
    I don’t get it.

  222. 222
    ET says:

    SA @ 219 – You mean “EG” for Ed George

  223. 223
    Silver Asiatic says:

    ET,
    ahh – caught it in time. Thanks.

  224. 224
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JAD

    If society includes two groups, one powerful and one weak, then tolerating the ideas of both will mean that the voice and influence of the strong will always be greater.

    That was eye-opening. It explains a lot. People assume that the Left means that tolerance should have equality. But Marcuse is saying that they can only promote tolerance for ideas that oppose “the strong” in society – who happened to be their enemies.
    So, the notion that “they only want tolerance for their own ideas, and none for their opponents” is actually a very real part of their strategy, made explicit.

    They also divided society into “the strong and the weak”. So, he claims that for ideas, the strong part of society will always win.
    But that indicates that they don’t care about the actual truth-value of the ideas. He doesn’t say that we have to fight for the truth whether we’re weak or strong. It’s all about using power to protect and advance, and ultimately force people to accept ideas that cannot win in the arena of rationality.

    So, the whole matter of arguing and logic and rationality is destroyed. The truth of something doesn’t matter. They just want some outcome. They’ll fill the culture with lies and absurdities that are clearly false, but all that matters is we have to tolerate it because otherwise their opponents will win. And since their opponents, supposedly, are “strong” then they shouldn’t have any more privileges of expressing the truth about things. So, the truth gets repressed and silenced, and through tolerance, the lies are forced into our society.
    That’s evolutionary theory – clearly. Plus a entire social agenda that Marcuse and his comrades delineated.

    Marcuse, paraphrased: “I’m very upset because the truth always seems to win in various arguments. We have to campaign so that society must accept our lies and false ideas – not even just on an equal basis with the truth — but superior to it, for the sake of diversity and tolerance, and because we’re in a minority position”.

    That’s amazing. Protecting lies and falsehoods, under the cover of tolerance for diversity and fairness for minority opinions.

  225. 225
    john_a_designer says:

    According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948:

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

    The U.S. State Dept. (and I assume many other countries as well) affirms the U.N. declaration as something the U.S. agrees with. Most legal scholars I think would agree that “freedom of thought, conscience and religion (or belief)” also affirms the rights of atheists and secularists to not have any kind of religious belief. It’s a universal human right which means it’s a binding universal obligation. In other words, I am obligated to respect the rights of Moonies and Hare Krishna’s even though I find their beliefs to be irrational and silly.

    Furthermore, this right is protected by law in the U.S. (the first amendment the U.S. Constitution) and other countries.

    However, from a moral relativistic/ subjectivist perspective this is not a binding universal obligation. How can it be if morals are not objective?

    We now live in a society which is becoming dominated by morally relativistic group think (or more precisely group thinks) which has no obligation to respect rights which are not only transcendent but are grounded in history or tradition as well. Once universal human rights are gone so is democracy. There are two choices: anarchy (mob rule, which will burn itself out) or tyranny (which can take many ruthless forms.)

    Consider just a few of the things which have taken place this past week:

    Saints quarterback Drew Brees was forced to apologize for his pro-flag comments even though, “what he said was not disrespectful to black Americans. It was a measured, reasonable statement of why he respects the flag and disagrees with those who knelt in protest during the National Anthem. He didn’t denounce anyone.” But they sure have denounced him!

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/drew-breess-patriotism-shouldnt-be-controversial/

    Several popular Cop shows have been canceled.

    “Hollywood is openly threatening to blacklist Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling over her position on transgender issues.” I guess she should have kept her thoughts and opinions to herself.

    https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/06/11/nolte-hollywood-threatens-to-blacklist-j-k-rowling-over-anti-trans-tweets/

    HBO is blacklisting Gone with the Wind.

    Statues are being torn down. Flags are being banned.

    Watch out your “right to freedom of thought” is being rapidly replaced by “the right to not be offended.”

  226. 226
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JAD

    The J.K Rowling thing is the most interesting to me.
    Somehow she figured out that success for the trans-movement means the death of feminism.
    Revolutionaries always end up purging their ranks and destroying themselves.
    It’s like the anti-gun, anti-border leftists setting up armed security and a walled-in enclave in Seattle.
    Progressives were supposedly peace loving -as they kill their own children, and now riot and burn other people’s means of livelihood.
    It’s like expecting evolutionists to believe in intellectual freedom.

  227. 227
    Retired Physicist says:

    “As do many Jewish rabbis today.
    Are you an anti-Semite, by chance?”

    Heavens to Betsy, You need to do a better job of offering comments in good faith, instead of what you’re currently doing.

  228. 228
    Retired Physicist says:

    Any private business who prohibits the flying of the traitor flag on their grounds is simply acknowledging reality and refusing to allow their supporters to consist of nothing but elderly racists.

    Here’s some history, from the Vice President of the Confederacy:

    Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

    Only a person of moral bankruptcy would support slavery. Maybe you like slavery, but I will fight it with every fiber of my being.

    I can quote other passages from that speech, where he lays out how slavery is biblical truth. Those men and those ideas were reprehensible and not a single good man should support them.

    .

  229. 229
    Silver Asiatic says:

    RP

    Maybe you like slavery …

    You mentioned something about offering comments good faith.
    Who are you talking to here and what evidence do you have to make such a statement?

  230. 230
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, irrelevancies,…

    So, you agree that the right to life is not an absolute. Good to know.

  231. 231
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    So, you agree that the right to life is not an absolute.

    That had nothing to do with the context of the discussion. You must be one desperate and twisted troll.

  232. 232
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    The duty of an adult to defend and protect the life of a child in the womb, and under no circumstances to kill it, is an absolute.
    If you’re agreeing on that, that is good to know, indeed.

  233. 233
    ET says:

    If black lives matter then why is the abortion rate for black women almost 4x higher than that of white women?

  234. 234
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    You cut off this part of KF’s response:

    …the issues of mercy to a convicted criminal in states with resources to support such are utterly different from those of the mass slaughter under colour of law and claimed rights, of a bit under a million utterly innocent unborn children per week.

    Nobody on this site is going to give you a victory for taking cheap shots.
    Putting it another way, you’re clearly aware that you’re not offering a discussion or argument.

  235. 235
    Ed George says:

    SA

    The duty of an adult to defend and protect the life of a child in the womb, and under no circumstances to kill it, is an absolute.

    Really? My daughter terminated her pregnancy last month because of a risk to her health. Was that absolutely wrong?

  236. 236
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Planned Parenthood has a business strategy to heavily promote abortion in black neighborhoods.
    Their founder, Margaret Sanger did not believe that black babies mattered at all.

    http://blackgenocide.org/home.html

  237. 237
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    Well, think about a Sophie’s Choice kind of thing.
    The Nazi says to a parent with a child: “I’m going to kill one of you. Tell me which one.”
    Sounds like a very big risk to the parent’s health right there.
    So, your daughter says – kill the child and save me.
    You don’t see a problem with that.
    But to answer your question – yes, it is an absolute duty for an adult to save a child even at the cost of his life. That’s what men do all the time. That’s what women should do.

  238. 238
    Ed George says:

    SA

    Planned Parenthood has a business strategy to heavily promote abortion in black neighborhoods.

    I am glad to see that you fully support Black Lives Matter. If everyone felt that way we wouldn’t have the racial division we see.

  239. 239
    Ed George says:

    SA

    But to answer your question – yes, it is an absolute duty for an adult to save a child even at the cost of his life.

    So, my daughter should have risked her life for an ectopic pregnancy? I guess I and the entire medical community see it differently.

  240. 240
    Silver Asiatic says:

    From Black Genocide

    Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Is her vision being fulfilled today?

  241. 241
    Silver Asiatic says:

    EG

    If everyone felt that way we wouldn’t have the racial division we see.

    That is very kind. If everybody agreed with me, then it would put an end to racial strife. Ok, yes – I think you’re right.

  242. 242
    Silver Asiatic says:

    If you mean “Black Life Matters” the political party using that now-meaningless slogan …
    No, I adopt a different brand of politics that actually cares about people.

    Black Life Matters collaborates with Planned Parenthood

    So let’s get this straight, my Black Brothers and Sisters: Black Life Matters is partnering with an institution which was designed with the hope of completely eliminating African American people. Some would call this genocide, for this same organization is responsible for over twenty million (20,000,000) African Americans missing by sanctioned murder in America. And to add insult to injury, after brutally killing and dismembering these infants within the womb – in a nod to the bad old days of the Slave Block prior to 1865 – Planned Parenthood was caught in a sting selling these African American body parts for profit as determined by a US Congressional investigation and hearing last year. Black Life Matters now becomes bait for unsuspecting Black women to be lured into Planned Parenthood’s killer clinics of Black Life.

  243. 243
    Silver Asiatic says:

    “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” – Margaret Sanger.

    This March, Time Magazine named Margaret Sanger the 1925 Woman of the Year.
    In 2009, Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award.

    Black Lives Matter?

  244. 244
    BobRyan says:

    Black Lives Matter should be changed to Certain Black Lives Matter. There is no concern for the loss of black lives when black on black violence occurs. There is no concern for black children that are murdered through abortion. There is no concern for those who overdose and die. There is no concern when a drive-by shooting kills black people of all ages. The only lives that matter are the rare occasions in which a white police officer is involved.

    There close to a million officers, between local and state, who interact with the public millions of times a day. If all police officers are racist and looking to shoot black people, why does it not happen more often than it does. Statistically, a white person who is unarmed is killed by police is far more likely to happen than a black person who is unarmed.

  245. 245
    BobRyan says:

    Socialist use the media for the purpose of propaganda to being about their desired goals. They pick and choose the outrage of the day, just as they pick and choose their villains. The schools, from lowest to highest levels are not about education, but indoctrination. If it was about education, the US would not be on a continual decent. Furthermore, if the schools believed in education, then you would not have anyone claiming there is no difference between a man and a woman. Biology shows very real differences between the two, beyond a man cannot get pregnant and a woman does not have a prostate.

    The Democratic party has a long history of racism and anti-Semitism, which continues to this day. Joe Biden made racist comments about Obama when he was running against him, which has since been ignored. Joe Lieberman was Gore’s running mate, but forced out of the party over his support for Israel. Other than that, he voted with Democrats across the board. Representatives Tlaib and Omar have made numerous anti-Semitic statements and have never been penalized. Neither has lost so much as a committee.

    Margaret Sanger was a racist and eugenicist. Anyone who has taken any time at all can find the evidence quickly. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood. Hillary Clinton, upon accepting the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, noted just how much she admired Margaret Sanger. Hillary Clinton, like all good Democrats working towards Socialism, has been given cover by the media, just as they do with Biden today.

    Between the media and the indoctrination laughingly called education, people believe the Dixiecrats came about in 1968, even though it happened 20 years earlier. If all the Dixiecrats became Republicans, as is the spin, then why did the Dixiecrat states vote against Eisenhower that same year?

    The segregation of the federal government, including the military, happened with Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat who spent his first term building anti-German sentiment in order to bring the US onto the side of the French. Segregation remained until Eisenhower became president. Every racist policy started by Wilson was continued throughout FDR’s administration.

  246. 246
    kairosfocus says:

    RP,

    slavery encompasses a huge semantic range, e.g. having a large debt such as mortgage would come within that range as would be being a civil servant or Cabinet officer. Indeed, that is part of how the “servant” got in there; think the slaves who ran the admin side of government through Caesar’s household. Under certain circumstances, people faced an option of indenture or death by starvation etc. In that context, we need to have a far more nuanced understanding than is conveyed by our image of the worst of racially loaded plantation chattel slavery.

    One of the key principles is to understand the difference between establishing an order of the times and recognising a fact and regulating it, often with ameliorative elements. For example, in the Biblical text we see “I hate divorce” even as we see regulations thereof and warnings about. Likewise for polygamy. In that context, let us reckon with the near-universal presence of enslavement down to the point where a critical mass were able to assemble and gradually push through abolition of the kidnapping based trade then plantation chattel slavery. And despite that, there are probably more enslaved people today than ever before, hence issues on human trafficking, sex worker enslavement, debt bondage and much more. Just, we do not use the word.

    Let us learn to recognise our own flaws and need for reform, then let us realise that societies will inevitably be deeply flawed so to demand perfection is little more than a manipulative, polarising tactic that undermines ability to learn from history and one another. For example, of course Churchill had racist attitudes, something that was widespread in his times. At the same time, warts, flaws and all, he led the lonely and risky backs to the wall stand that held the line against tyranny of the worst order.

    Much the same can be said regarding Jefferson and Washington et al, and many others.

    To give us an example Olaudah Equiano, the most significant Montserratian in history, bought manumission here in 1766, making his way to the UK. There, he actually joined in a scheme in the UK to try an experiment with ameliorating conditions of enslavement. Eventually, he became a significant abolitionist . . . having realised that abolition was possible, even, conceivable . . . and even author of a key anti-slavery biographically based narrative. One that had significant sponsorship, IIRC including by the then Prince of Wales.

    In turn, that and his strongly manifest evangelical faith were part of the process of democratising reforms consequent on printing, Bible in vernacular, rise of newspapers, coffee house discussion circles and the like that gradually opened up the possibilities for modern representational, constitutional democracy. The sustainable abolitions from the 1830’s on were only possible because of the ferment just described.

    History is a lot more complicated than we tend to see.

    KF

  247. 247
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, again, you speak irrelevantly and simplistically, abusing “absolute.” Notice, the language of the declaration: unalienable. That is, rights are not commodities but can become forfeit under certain circumstances. For example if an aggressive robber gang invades my home, theft, rapine, rape and murder in hand, I have a natural right of defence. This extends to civil society and to criminality or aggressive invasion. Nationhood and bills of rights are not suicide pacts. And in the case of rioting and arson, looting and mayhem etc, a threshold is crossed where self defence and defence of the civil peace of justice can warrant potentially lethal responses as anarchic disorder leading to blood feuds and warlordism are manifestly unjust by contrast. Likewise, there is a patent world of difference between addressing violent criminality and enabling under false colours of law and rights the mass slaughter of our living posterity in the womb at a bit under a million further victims per week. The failure to recognise and respond appropriately to such is a red warning flag. Some re-thinking is due on your part. KF

  248. 248
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    My daughter terminated her pregnancy last month because of a risk to her health. Was that absolutely wrong?

    Every pregnancy comes with the risk to the mother’s health. YOU said the risk to your daughter was very low. So yes, what your daughter did was wrong.

    And that you refuse to apologize for your asinine nonsense, is also wrong.

  249. 249
    john_a_designer says:

    Because a couple cops are rapists all cops are rapists.

    No I didn’t make a spelling error. The fact is there have been policemen who are not only rapists but serial rapists.

    https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-20000427-2000-04-27-0004270008-story.html

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/26/606060349/after-arrest-of-suspected-golden-state-killer-details-of-his-life-emerge

    So we should shut police departments nationwide because of this?

    That’s the same logic being used by BLM because a few cops are racists.

  250. 250
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Are there any circumstances under which abortion would be moral?

  251. 251
    ET says:

    daves- If both the mother and baby will die if an abortion is not performed.

  252. 252
    john_a_designer says:

    The only side that has been willing to compromise in any way is the prolife side. For example, in Ohio where I live they just recently the passed the so called heart beat bill. This would not ban abortion out right but strictly limit it to very early in a woman’s pregnancy.

    https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA132-HB-258

    Of course, so far it’s been blocked by the courts. Meanwhile abortionists are not only okay with abortion but with late term abortion and even infanticide. So I find question’s like Dave’s to be rather disingenuous

  253. 253
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    I’m not quite at the negotiating stage, JAD. I’m just curious about how KF (and any others) answer my question.

  254. 254
    Seversky says:

    My position, for what it’s worth, is that the right to life should be considered to cover the whole of an individual’s existence as a living being. Abortion, therefore, would be a breach of that right except in cases of threats to the mother’s life and well-being. For those who would deny it even in cases of incest and rape they must accept responsibility for continuing the trauma inflicted on the victim and decide if they have the moral right so to do. This must be set against the argument that the unborn child did not choose to be conceived in that way and does not deserve to die because of it. There are no easy solutions to these moral dilemmas.

    The problem for pro-lifers is that if they really want to ban abortion they need to change the law. The whole-life right to life needs to be given statutory force but, thus far, both the courts and legislatures have sidestepped the issue. Unless and until the pro-life movement can carry the majority of the country with them, abortion will remain both legal and even moral, at least in some cases.

    Concerning the pro-life pregnancy advice centers, providing the medical information they provide is as accurate as they can make it and they are open about the religious or moral impulse which drives them then they should be free to offer whatever support they can. However, the reason I cited those two account about the Irish maternity homes is that not only did that appalling treatment occur in a country which prided itself on its Christian faith but it was perpetrated, not by atheists or progressives, but by an order of nuns, for Mog’s sake.

    Sadly, we have all too much evidence of the extremes to which religious zeal will drive some believers. We also have, in the US, some of the public faces of Christianity which either hold extreme views or are manifestly corrupt so it would be highly irresponsible to entrust the welfare of vulnerable women to a faith that apparently cannot hold itself to the high ideals it professes.

    As for overheated rhetoric about ‘Holocausts’ and a ‘Culture of Death, the abortion rate in the US is roughly equivalent to the commonly-quoted figure for miscarriages or spontaneous abortions, which is around 20%. The is more recent research which argues that the true rate for spontaneous abortions is much higher, more like 50% or possibly even higher.

    This is not a problem for evolutionists because we expect waste and inefficiency in biological processes. Evolution works with just-good-enough rather than the-best-possible solutions.

    However, for Christians the problem is different. By their beliefs, the human reproductive system was designed by their Creator. A Creator who is all-knowing and all-powerful, a Creator who would have had the knowledge and the power to do otherwise, to design a reproductive system that is not so appallingly wasteful of potential human life but chose not to.

    So we have to assume He is content with the loss of those uncounted billions of unborn human beings, a casualty rate for which He, if He exists, should be held responsible. And if He is content with such wastage who are His creatures – made in imago dei – to decide otherwise?

  255. 255
    Ed George says:

    KF

    Notice, the language of the declaration: unalienable.

    That is, rights are not commodities but can become forfeit under certain circumstances.
    I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    “ unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.”

    The right to life is a right that society decides what the bounds are. At present, society has decided that it can be abrogated under certain circumstances. Things like self defense and wars. And, under more restricted circumstances, abortion and doctor assisted suicide. These may change as society changes but I, and the majority of society, is comfortable with the balance that has developed. You are not happy with it. That is the nature of society.

  256. 256
    ET says:

    Society does not have the right to decide what the boundaries are. As for not understanding the meanings of words, that is something that exemplifies you, Acartia Eddie

  257. 257
    ET says:

    seversky:

    This is not a problem for evolutionists…

    Evolutionists cannot account for life nor its diversity. They are perhaps the most clueless lot on this planet. Even more so than flat earthers.

  258. 258
    Ed George says:

    KF

    Likewise, there is a patent world of difference between addressing violent criminality and enabling under false colours of law and rights the mass slaughter of our living posterity in the womb at a bit under a million further victims per week.

    If a serial murderer is in jail, there is no risk to society or to individuals within it. The death penalty is not justice, it is revenge. If a single undifferentiated cell has the inalienable right to life, as you claim, how do you justify the taking of the life of a fully conscious human?

    If I were a woman in my thirties and got pregnant by accident, I probably would not have an abortion. If I were sixteen, I probably would. If I were raped, I definitely would.

    My daughter terminated an ectopic pregnancy. The odds of it being carried to term are extremely low, but not zero. Based on a medical study, the risk of maternal death was low (1.4%). I have no doubt that she made the right choice.

  259. 259
    john_a_designer says:

    The U.S. BTW has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.

    Here is an article by someone who is “pro-choice,” comparing abortion laws in Europe with the U.S.

    I assumed that Western Europe would be the land of abortion on demand, likely government-subsidized, and possibly with a free bag of condoms afterward. But as it turns out, abortion laws in Europe are both more restrictive and more complicated than that…

    Waiting periods, decried by American pro-choicers as infantilizing and unreasonably burdensome, are common in Western Europe.

    In Germany, women seeking first-trimester abortions are subject to a mandatory three-day waiting period and a counseling session. Abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy are forbidden except in cases of grave threat to the mother’s physical or mental health. The Netherlands mandates a five-day waiting period between initial consultation and abortion; clinics must provide women with information about abortion alternatives. Abortion is then legal until viability (legally defined as 24 weeks, usually interpreted as 22 weeks). In Belgium, where abortion was illegal until 1990, there’s a six-day waiting period and the woman must claim to be in “a state of distress” before receiving a first-trimester abortion.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/in-liberal-europe-abortion-laws-come-with-their-own-restrictions/278350/

  260. 260
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    If a serial murderer is in jail, there is no risk to society or to individuals within it.

    You don’t know that.

    The death penalty is not justice, it is revenge.

    Wrong, again.

    If a single undifferentiated cell has the inalienable right to life, as you claim, how do you justify the taking of the life of a fully conscious human?

    What an ignorant ass, you are Acartia Eddie. No one aborts a single undifferentiated cell, you clueless loser. And if said fully conscious human committed murder, that alone is justification for ending their life.

    If I were a woman in my thirties and got pregnant by accident, I probably would not have an abortion.

    What? How can someone get pregnant by accident? Is there sperm floating in the air, waiting to land in the right spot? A woman in her thirties who doesn’t understand how babies are made, reminds me of your intellectual vacuity, though.

  261. 261
    Ed George says:

    Just to provide perspective to JaD’s comment. Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. No waiting period, to counselling, no limits on stage of pregnancy.

    Abortion rates.
    Canada. 13.7
    US 19.6

  262. 262
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, there is a difference between justification and being excusable as lesser of evils: it is wrong to steal but it is understood that there are circumstances where it is understandable. Looting is not one of them. ET gave a classic example, one that is vanishingly rare relative to the a bit less than a million cases per week. KF

  263. 263
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, you have loaded in so many assumptions regarding circumstances and actual personal views that it would be hard to disentangle. Historically, most jurisdictions were unable to sustain long term, high prisoner population gaols or staff for same or police forces. The real alternative to execution was indenture or enslavement, as you can easily see from so late an author as Locke. And frankly, there are circumstances that may be closer to the surface than you think, where that may happen again. All of that is tangential to and distractive from the issues actually on the table. The latest development on the group guilt fallacy being someone apparently deliberately loosening lug nuts on a police officer’s vehicle. Attempted murder, with possibility of mass murder. That is where we have reached. KF

    PS: Did you catch the invidious association between being a convicted serial murderer and being an unborn child in a teen mother’s womb? I suggest you think again. And BTW, gaol staff and other prisoners would be directly at risk.

  264. 264
    daveS says:

    KF,

    DS, there is a difference between justification and being excusable as lesser of evils: it is wrong to steal but it is understood that there are circumstances where it is understandable. Looting is not one of them. ET gave a classic example, one that is vanishingly rare relative to the a bit less than a million cases per week. KF

    May I infer that your answer is “yes” then?

  265. 265
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, loaded questions have to be answered on their complexity. I have marked a significant prior issue. KF

  266. 266
    daveS says:

    KF,

    That’s not a loaded question by any stretch. ET didn’t hesitate to give a forthright answer.

  267. 267
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmm, and exactly why should any life matter under Darwinism?

    Only the Christian Worldview Can Consistently Argue that Lives Matter – June 12, 2020 – Mark Farnham
    https://apolotheo.wordpress.com/2020/06/12/only-the-christian-worldview-can-consistently-argue-that-lives-matter/

  268. 268
    ET says:

    daves and kairosfocus- as KF said, the scenario I mentioned has a very low, but not zero, probability. There could be other such rare scenarios, too. Each case would be independent of the others. But each case should be weighed against the fact that there are TWO humans lives to consider.

    That is what we are asking. Just being an “unwanted pregnancy” doesn’t cut it.

  269. 269
    ET says:

    [Points and laughs @ the comparison of Canada to the USA]

  270. 270
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    Hmm, and exactly why should any life matter under Darwinism?

    It doesn’t.

    I assume that you are attempting to make a cogent point.

  271. 271
    john_a_designer says:

    I don’t understand the moral equivalency argument in comparing capital punishment to abortion. With capital punishment the criminal has been given a fair trial and is usually convicted and sentenced by a jury of his peers. What legal due process does an unborn baby get?

    That said I’ll gladly drop my tepid support of the death penalty if the 1973 Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision was overturned. By the way that’s a deal for abortion advocates because it would not make abortion illegal. It would just return the legal and legislative rights to the states.

  272. 272
    bornagain77 says:

    EG,

    “It (life) doesn’t (matter).”

    And so, as someone who defends Darwinism, what is your entire purpose for arguing that life does matter if, as you honestly confessed, in your worldview it really doesn’t matter?

    Without Christianity or some Theistic worldview very similar to Christianity, you simply have no moral foundation in which to argue that any life, even your own life, matters..

    via Nancy Pearcey

    Scientists are being purged for endorsing eugenics.
    Will Darwin be next?

    “First, differences between the sexes. In The Descent of Man, Darwin states that “the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” And in an 1882 letter, he states that “women though generally superior to men to moral qualities are inferior intellectually,” and that “there seems to me to be a great difficulty from the laws of inheritance… in their becoming the intellectual equals of man.”…

    Second, differences between the races. Referring to some natives he encountered in South America during the voyage of the Beagle, Darwin observes, “one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures.” He dedicates a whole chapter of The Descent of Man, to his study of “the races of man.” In that chapter he states, “There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other… Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.”

    And in an earlier chapter of the book, he contrasts the “civilised races of man” with “the savage races,” noting that the former will “almost certainly exterminate, and replace” the latter.

    Third, eugenics. In The Descent of Man, Darwin states, “We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination… Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind.” He then observes, “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

    Verse and DOI quote

    Galatians 3:28
    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    ,,, “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.”,,,
    – The Declaration of Independence

  273. 273
    ET says:

    Why does life matter under Darwinism? Without life there isn’t Darwinism.

  274. 274
    kairosfocus says:

    ET, there is a rule of thumb about complex networks, that full interaction goes as n(n-1)/2, essentially an n-square result. Canada currently has ~ 38 mn people, the US ~ 330 mn. Interaction challenges for the latter are about two orders of magnitude more complex than for Canada. Of course, there is breakdown into sub blocks and there is concentration of info flows and interaction through the media. That still points to the far more complex nature of the US. Similarly, the existence of a two-to three generation length insurgency by culture-form marxism that has seized effective control of the academy, the media and the deep state’s governance classes has led to a 4th generation civil war now moving up towards much more kinetic clashes. The resistance to that soft coup has centred on the hinterlands, which produce key resources consumed by the urban and coastal enclaves dominated by the already radically secularised, marxism influenced [think, Critical Studies of X where X ranges across the span of fashionable academia] urban enclaves. This is seen in the county-level structure of the 2016 General Election, which has the signature of a peasant revolt. Canada’s soft coup (as with that for W. Europe) is much further along because of much higher centralisation and resulting domination by elites. The two are indeed not to be compared, and Canada and Europe significantly gain advantages from materials and services the US provides. Take that off the table and chaos will spread rapidly. Some serious rethinking needs to happen, especially with the current march of folly in full cry. KF

  275. 275
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Some sobering reading: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/abandoning-liberalism-will-destroy-social-peace/ Ask yourself what happens when fatal disaffection sets in.

  276. 276
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 267

    Hmm, and exactly why should any life matter under Darwinism?

    Matter to whom? My life matters to me. Your life matters to you. The lives of the people and creatures I love matter to me and I assume the same is true for you. I don’t need the theory of evolution for that to be true for me. Are you saying you would care for nothing or no one unless it was sanctioned by your faith? Why should things only matter because they have some purpose in the mind of some third party like your God?

  277. 277
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 272
    You quote Nancy Pearcey quoting Darwin as follows:

    Third, eugenics. In The Descent of Man, Darwin states, “We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination… Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind.” He then observes, “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

    Does Pearcey have the intellectual honesty to also quote from the next paragraph in Descent ?

    The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.

  278. 278
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev, via Darwin, claims

    “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. ”

    LOL, And exactly what is suppose to be the material basis for “the instinct of sympathy”

    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    And it is also funny how natural selection can explain completely opposite ‘instincts’ with equal ease,

    “Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”
    – Philip Skell – Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
    https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/why-do-we-invoke-darwin-48438

  279. 279
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is something Seversky said about a year and a half ago which I think is relevant here:

    I believe that the overwhelming majority of ordinary, decent people, if honestly presented with the best information available will choose a moral solution. This is why I believe consensus morality is the only alternative to some sort of imposed command morality, whether theological or ideological. The problem in democracies is that politicians are rarely honest about their real intentions and treat good information as a rare and precious commodity not to be lightly handed out to just anyone. The problem is, how do we prevent the people we choose to run things for us from being corrupted by the power we hand them?

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/severskey-is-honest/#comment-672632

    That sounds nice and well meaning, however, how do we arrive at any kind of consensus without some kind of interpersonal standard which we can use to judge whose moral beliefs or opinions have merit and whose do not? If all moral beliefs and opinions are equal, which they must be according moral subjectivism and relativism, then such a standard does not exist and all talk of so-called consensus is illusory.

  280. 280
    Seversky says:

    Kairosfocus @ 274

    This is seen in the county-level structure of the 2016 General Election, which has the signature of a peasant revolt.

    What peasant revolt? The popular vote was won by nearly 3 million votes by a candidate – who was acknowledged to be not personally the most likeable – but who lost to the vagaries of the Electoral College system. If the “peasants” were to revolt, it should be against a political system which allows those with the wealth and power to manipulate it to their advantage and ignore the expression of popular will. And to pretend that Trump is anything other than a member of that elite is purblind ignorance.

  281. 281
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, your belief that your life matters, like your belief that you exist as a real person, (if your Darwinian worldview were true) is just an illusion.

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    Excerpt: When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
    Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
    How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html

    This impossibility for Atheists to live consistently within their stated worldview directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true
    Specifically, as the following article points out, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

  282. 282
    daveS says:

    I mean our electoral map always looks like that at the county level. The rural areas vote Republican and the urban areas Democrat.

  283. 283
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 278

    LOL, And exactly what is suppose to be the material basis for “the instinct of sympathy”

    In the first place, what does it matter, so long as it is there?

    In the second place, the origins of such an instinct is certainly of scientific interest.

    In the third place, the only alternative explanation – your God – doesn’t really work since, according to Old testament accounts, His “instinct of sympathy” seems to have been notable by its absence on a number of occasions.

  284. 284
    bornagain77 says:

    LOL

    Sev: “what does it matter, so long as it is there?”

    LOL,,, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,,,

    Darwinian logic 101, its there, therefore Darwinism done it!

    LOL,,, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,,,

  285. 285
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer @ 279

    That sounds nice and well meaning, however, how do we arrive at any kind of consensus without some kind of interpersonal standard which we can use to judge whose moral beliefs or opinions have merit and whose do not? If all moral beliefs and opinions are equal, which they must be according moral subjectivism and relativism, then such a standard does not exist and all talk of so-called consensus is illusory.

    What function do moral beliefs serve in a society other than to regulate the way members of that society behave towards one another? What is the purpose of such regulation other than to protect the common interests of all members of that society, such as interests in personal survival and the survival of those who for whom we care, interests in access to water, food and shelter, interests in being able to provide for and support those for whom we care and interests in a safe and secure environment in which such interests can be met? And who better to decide how those interests may best be served than those whose interests they are? Who else should be involved? No, it’s not going to be simple or easy to do it but that’s no reason not to try.

  286. 286
    ET says:

    seversky:

    The popular vote was won by nearly 3 million votes by a candidate – who was acknowledged to be not personally the most likeable – but who lost to the vagaries of the Electoral College system.

    What an ignorant thing to say. This is the United STATES. And the electoral college ensures that each State has a say in who gets elected to the Presidency. Without the electoral college the Presidency would be decided by a few urban areas. Those areas are heavily populated by the “entitled” who are bought and paid for by the Democratic party.

    Hillary would have doomed the USA. And Biden will be China’s puppet.

  287. 287
    daveS says:

    ET,

    And the electoral college ensures that each State has a say in who gets elected to the Presidency.

    Especially Wyoming.

  288. 288
    ET says:

    Is Wyoming still part of the USA? Whoa…

  289. 289
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, there is no US popular vote, that is a popularised media myth. As a component of the balances starting with the Connecticut compromise, the US is a balanced federation with local popular support for one chamber and equal state representation in the other chamber of the senior arm of govt, the legislature. In that context, the presidency is chosen in a way that is designed to block one or two large states dominating the whole (then, it was Virginia). The point is that a president should reflect the balance of the states that form an interdependent federal whole. KF

  290. 290
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 281

    Seversky, your belief that your life matters, like your belief that you exist as a real person, (if your Darwinian worldview were true) is just an illusion.

    No, it isn’t what I’d call an illusion. It’s more like a model built out of abstracted information to be a workable but inevitably partial representation of what is assumed to be actually out there. That’s not an illusion.

    Excerpt: When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”

    It sounds from that description as if Professor Brooks is committing the same error of analogical argument as we see being made here in other contexts. Yes, human beings can be likened to machines in some ways but not in others . There are many ways in which biological organisms differ from the machines we design so it is a category error for Professor Brooks to say that his children are nothing but machines.

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen

    This again?

    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.

    In principle, possibly, but in practice our knowledge of the world is less than perfect so our worldviews are almost certainly going to be in error in various ways. The only reasonable response is to acknowledge that none of us can have perfectly consistent worldviews so we must be prepared to adjust them as errors become apparent – which is obviously a problem for those who believe that their views are inerrant – but should enjoin a degree of humility in those who are not so certain.

    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.

    Says who?

    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.

    Nobody’s worldview is a perfect reflection of reality – not atheist not theist.

    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.

    No, being inaccurate and incomplete does not mean its a delusion.

    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.

    Nothing from above implies that atheism is a delusion.

    Conclusion: Atheism is false.

    Non sequitur! Your facts are uncoordinated!”

  291. 291
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, yes, that hinterland-urban/coastal difference reflects how much further the urban areas are down the line of pull from the generations-long push I pointed out. The issue, further is that in 2016 things were far more polarised than hitherto, a message further underscored by the poll results on the demanded police abolition, with a reported strong majority of one party . . . within only days of this being pushed . . . in favour, and a much stronger majority of the country as a whole rejecting the notion. That is a signature of one side having become extremely radicalised in favour of their party’s views [especially given the patent folly of the demand]. Unless something miraculous happens really fast, this does not look like ending well, as you know I have said over the past few days. KF

  292. 292
    john_a_designer says:

    A couple of years ago I had this exchange with one of our interlocutors who has since moved on:

    Me: “Armand Jacks questioned whether ‘someone else’s opinions’ could be evil. They could be if you try to force your opinions on somebody else.”

    AJ replied: “I agree. But when atheists are creating or influencing laws that impact you negatively, as Christians have done for centuries, let me know.”

    The secular-progressive left is basically atheistic. They are the ones who have illegitimately coopted the idea of human rights and are using it to pass legislation to persecute not only Christians but anyone desiring to live their lives according to traditional moral values.

    If you don’t know that you have not been paying attention to the news– not only in the U.S. and Canada but internationally.

    Am I right that atheistic naturalism/materialism provides no logical or metaphysical basis for human rights? If I am not then one of our atheist interlocutors needs to present a counter argument, refuting the following premise:

    Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights.

    Here is the full argument which I discuss in more detail above @ #159.

    Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights.

    Metaphysically atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not accept the existence of an eternally existing transcendent moral standard.

    Therefore, atheistic naturalism/ materialism does not have a basis for universal human rights.

    https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/the-folly-of-projecting-group-stereotype-guilt-and-the-present-kairos/#comment-704043

  293. 293
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, instead of trying to convince me that you are not just a neuronal illusion that does not really exist as a real person, perhaps you should try to convince Jerry Coyne, and some of the other leading limelights of evolutionary thinking, that you are not a neuronal illusion and that you really exist as a real person? After all, they are suppose to be experts in Darwinism aren’t they? It kind of looks really bad for you when they themselves disagree with you.

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3

    “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today”
    Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video
    https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

    “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.”
    J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

    The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – STEVEN PINKER – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
    Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018
    Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,,
    Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,,
    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2.....s-deniers/

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
    As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”
    Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark
    Quote: “It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren’t in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still.
    You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

    “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.”
    – Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

    The claim that our sense of self, that is to say, our conscious experience, is just a neuronal illusion is simply insane. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”

    The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017
    Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
    – David Bentley Hart
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

  294. 294
    Seversky says:

    John_a_designer @ 292

    The secular-progressive left is basically atheistic. They are the ones who have illegitimately coopted the idea of human rights and are using it to pass legislation to persecute not only Christians but anyone desiring to live their lives according to traditional moral values.

    It is only in recent years that it has become relatively safe to admit to being atheist and, even now, that is not without repercussions in terms of social standing, employability and electability. How many members of Congress openly declare themselves atheist? The furthest a few are prepared to go is to register themselves as unaffiliated.

    So it rings hollow when Christians attempt to play the victim card and complain about persecution when what is really happening is that a little of the unwarranted privilege they have enjoyed for centuries is being eroded.

    As for human rights, who else should decide what rights human beings should enjoy other than the human beings who will benefit from them? There is no reason to believe in some “eternally existing transcendent moral standard” nor is it obvious that there is any need for one. As for the basis for universal human rights that is to be found in the common interests of all human beings and not in the tenets of any particular faith.

  295. 295
    Ed George says:

    JaD

    Am I right that atheistic naturalism/materialism provides no logical or metaphysical basis for human rights?

    I think that is fair to say.

    Only if an eternally existing transcendent moral standard exists is there any basis for universal human rights.

    If by “universal” you mean understood and accepted by everyone, and unchanged over time and culture, then I would agree with this statement. But since we don’t have this I guess we will have to continue to rely on cooperation, shared self-interest, explanatory power and, where necessary, economic pressures, to develop a set of human rights that the majority can live with.

  296. 296
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    If by “universal” you mean understood and accepted by everyone, and unchanged over time and culture, then I would agree with this statement.

    LoL! No, “universal” does not mean “understood and accepted by everyone, and unchanged over time and culture”.

    But since we don’t have this I guess we will have to continue to rely on cooperation, shared self-interest, explanatory power and, where necessary, economic pressures, to develop a set of human rights that the majority can live with.

    Yet we don’t have that.

  297. 297
    john_a_designer says:

    Seversky @ 294,

    I have a moral obligation to respect the civil rights of atheists? Says who?

  298. 298
    john_a_designer says:

    Et to EG @ 295-296,

    LoL! No, “universal” does not mean “understood and accepted by everyone…

    Indeed that’s the problem it’s not “understood and accepted by everyone.” Rather a right is something that ought to be respected by everyone. For example, according to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948:

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

    See my further comments @ 225:

    https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/the-folly-of-projecting-group-stereotype-guilt-and-the-present-kairos/#comment-704175

    Notice, the U.N. Declaration is not legally binding. There are many oppressive regimes that thumb their noses at it. It’s morally binding… But how can anyone’s subjective opinion or belief be morally binding on anyone else?

  299. 299
    Ed George says:

    JaD

    LoL! No, “universal” does not mean “understood and accepted by everyone…

    Indeed that’s the problem it’s not “understood and accepted by everyone.” Rather a right is something that ought to be respected by everyone.

    So, if I am understanding you correctly, and I apologize in advance if I don’t, a universal right is something that is derived and exists outside of human “invention”. Something that is imparted by the “designer”. But human individuals, being flawed, do not always accurately understand or accept these rights. Have I captured the gist of this?

    If so, for these these “Universal rights” to be effective, they must be accurately perceived by enough people (or by enough people with power) that they can be imposed on those that don’t perceive them, by force if necessary.

    The alternate is that humans, based on logic and reasoning (or mutual self interest), come to agreement on what they believe all humans should be entitled to. If a large enough majority of people (or enough people with power) agree with these “rights” they can impose them on those who don’t, by force if necessary.

    Given the evidence of variation in accepted human rights we see today, and we have seen throughout history, I find it difficult to accept that there exists some intelligently designed, unchangeable “universal human rights”.

  300. 300
    ET says:

    Acartia Edie:

    Given the evidence of variation in accepted human rights we see today, and we have seen throughout history, I find it difficult to accept that there exists some intelligently designed, unchangeable “universal human rights”.

    Logic and reason would say that said variation would have started from something. And that something are those “universal human rights”.

    How many times does this have to be explained to you? o you think that your continued willful ignorance is an argument? Really?

    How many times have we observed humans changing things to suit their wants and needs? Just about every day, throughout history. But for some reason Acartia Eddie thinks that if there are universal human rights that humans can’t just do as we please, regardless.

    Ed’s inability to think, while entertaining, is getting obnoxious.

  301. 301
    Retired Physicist says:

    If you say, ‘according to my philosophical position, Japanese people can’t fish’, and someone shows you evidence of Japanese people fishing, and you say, ‘well yes, they may act like they’re fishing, but it’s not properly grounded fishing’, it’s not the Japanese people who are doing it wrong, it’s you.

  302. 302
    Ed George says:

    RP@301, I can definitely see your point. It all has to do with the honest biases imparted by belief systems. If you firmly believe that there is a God and that Jesus was the physical embodiment of that God, then you are going to filter your observations through that lens, in spite of mountains of contradictory evidence. “Universal human rights” and “objective morality” are two cases in point. Even though all human experience and evidence points away from these, the truly faithful will twist logic until it fits their agenda.

  303. 303
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George falsely claims that,

    “If you firmly believe that there is a God and that Jesus was the physical embodiment of that God, then you are going to filter your observations through that lens, in spite of mountains of contradictory evidence.”

    Exactly where are your “mountains of contradictory evidence”? You have none!

    Contrary to your false and empty claim, I can actually produce “mountains of contradictory evidence” that your materialistic Darwinian worldview is false and that Theism is true.

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

    Theism compared to Naturalism – Major predictions of each Philosophy – with references
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vHkCYvFiWiZfMlXHKJwwMJ7SJ0tlqWfH83dJ2OgfP78/edit

    In fact modern science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’

    Specifically, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

    January 2020
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/welcome-to-the-brave-new-world-of-science/#comment-690569

    To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion (Trillion) Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  304. 304
    john_a_designer says:

    Again, my argument is simply that human rights and objective moral values do not follow necessarily from atheistic naturalism/materialism. However, this neither proves or disproves that they exist. Indeed, there many naturalists who agree with me that their world view provides no basis for objective moral values – E.O. Wilson, William Provine, Richard Dawkins, Joel Marks, Alex Rosenberg, Michael Ruse, J. L. Mackie… to name a few.

    Here are some quotes from an online article by the unapologetic Darwinian apologist, Michael Ruse:

    Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: “Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bullshit, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me.” The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer.

    So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective…

    [M]orality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/15/morality-evolution-philosophy

    Of course, why should “your genes,” which according to Darwinian thinking is just the accidental by product of a long mindless natural process, care anything about morality?

    However, if morality is just an illusion, and I believed this (hypothetically speaking) as Ruse does, then I wouldn’t have any real moral obligation towards my fellow man nor should I expect that anyone is obligated to treat me “morally” in return. Morality in such a society would soon become superfluous if not totally meaningless. The surest way to cause the collapse of civilization is to convince a majority or even a large minority of people that Ruse is right– “morality is an illusion.”

  305. 305
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 303

    Contrary to your false and empty claim, I can actually produce “mountains of contradictory evidence” that your materialistic Darwinian worldview is false and that Theism is true.

    “Once more unto the breach, dear friends…”

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    If something< exists then, since you cannot get something from nothing, something must always have existed.

    The current age of the universe is estimated to be around 13.8 bn years. The Big Bang theory is the most widely-accepted theory of the origins of our Universe although there appears to be data which are calling it into question.

    Neither theism nor deism alone predict only the Christian creator God. There are many theistic and deistic faiths that incorporate creation/origins stories.

    Some Christian scholars have estimated the Universe to be just a few thousand years old based on passages from the Bible. That differs hugely from the current scientific estimate.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence.

    Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    Theism covers a number of faiths and denominations. Not all of them hold that God is sustaining the entire universe from second-to-second.

    Non-locality in quantum mechanics (a nat/mat theory) does not necessarily imply that the universe is dependent on something outside itself for continued existence. It is one possible interpretation but it may also be that they are evidence of an additional dimension to physical reality, something we do not observe in our everyday experience but still part of the natural order.

    It also implies that our everyday perceptions are but a partial representation of what is actually out there.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality.

    Consciousness is not observed to exist apart from a physical substrate. A living brain exhibits consciousness, a dead brain does not. The signs of consciousness that were once exhibited by a dead brain have so far proven to be unrecoverable in all cases.

    Researchers are still arguing over how to understand the “observer effect” in quantum physics. It certainly doesn’t support the simplistic notion that consciousness is what holds reality together.

    It doesn’t answer the obvious question which is that, if nothing exists until it is being observed, what is being observed in the first place?

    It also doesn’t answer the next question which is why we all apparently observe the same thing when we look. If there are an infinite number of possible observations then when one person sees a red car why doesn’t another person see a brown cow?

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9)

    Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity are nat/mat theories.

    None of the theistic faiths that I’m aware of make specific predictions about the rate at which time passes.

    Psalm 90:4 – “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” refers to God’s perception of time.

    2 Timothy 1:9 – “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” concerns salvation not time.

    And neither make any prediction concerning the speed of light.

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).

    Observations and calculations have shown that, if certain fundamental physical (nat/mat) constants varied from their observed values by even a small amount, the universe in which we live could not exist.

    We live in a thin film of atmosphere on the surface of a planet that is partially shielded against threats from outside. Even within that shielding there are many things that are dangerous or lethal for human life. Outside the vast majority of this universe is unremittingly hostile to organic life such as ourselves. It is a huge and unwarranted leap of faith from those observations to the absurd conclusion that this entire universe was created just for us.

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez).

    Nat/mat estimates concerning the prevalence of life in the universe vary considerably. Our planet could be unique, not just “extremely unique” (is that like being ‘a bit pregnant’) in the sense that there is no other exactly like it that we know of.

    On the other hand, astronomers are finding plentiful evidence of planets around nearby stars so it’s certainly possible that there are other planets similar to Earth which bear life.

    Any theistic prediction that the Earth is unique as a home for life is in serious danger of being proved wrong.

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth.

    Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time, tailing off billions of years ago and completely at odds with a special creation event 6000 years back.

    One creation story – that of Christianity – refers to life appearing after water. Unfortunately, it also refers to day and night existing before light was created – just one of a number of inconsistencies in the faith.

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD)

    The simplest life found on earth so far is not necessarily the earliest life ever to appear on Earth. Its relative complexity does not contradict the hypothesis that much simpler forms existed earlier or support a claim that they were necessarily created by a god.

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas.

    The nat/mat theory of evolution predicted that the “unfolding” of life would proceed in small, incremental steps but allowed that the rate at which it could happen could vary considerably. The 20-25 mn year Cambrian Explosion was a period when it happened a lot more rapidly but there is evidence of life preceding it. It was not the original creation event described in Genesis.

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. […]

    Nat/mat theory holds that fossilization is a very rare event but even so transitional fossils have already been found.

    Theism makes no predictions whatsoever about the existence let alone the frequency of fossils, transitional or otherwise, in the geological record.

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    It is estimated that new species are being discovered by science at the rate of 15000 – 20000 per year. The rate of speciation can vary hugely, new species of large animals taking hundreds of thousands of years to appear while new bacteria or viruses can emerge in just a few years. One study cataloged some 1400 human pathogens of which 87 were characterized as “novel” (now including COVID-19). If evolution occurs, there is no reason to think it has stopped now.

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    Imago dei is a Christian not just a theistic concept and its meaning is poorly-defined. Does it mean that God is a bipedal humanoid with a head, two arms, two legs, genitals, etc? Does it mean we resemble Him psychologically so He is also capable of rage, jealousy, vindictiveness? That, at least, would be consistent with some of His behavior as described in the Bible.

    “Information” appears to have become the modern-day equivalent of the “luminiferous aether”. Treating it as some fundamental ‘stuff’ of which everything else is made is a misconception which commits the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”.

    Nat/mat still predicts that much of our DNA is ‘junk’. The ENCODE researchers were heavily criticized for overstating their case and using a far too elastic understanding of “function”.

    Theism said nothing at all about the existence of DNA, let alone how much of it night be ‘junk’

    14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford)

    Nat/mat theory always held that more mutations were detrimental than beneficial if for no other reason than that there are many more ways for something to go wrong than to go right.

    With the advent of neutral theory, the majority of mutations are held to be neutral or nearly so, a much smaller number are detrimental and a much smaller number still are positively beneficial, all of that being dependent on circumstances. Detrimental mutations tend to be filtered out by evolution leaving the beneficial ones to proliferate.

    As noted before, theism made no predictions whatsoever concerning the existence of DNA, let alone the relative frequencies of neutral, detrimental or beneficial mutations.

    15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe.

    Nat/mat argues that there is no way to get from ‘is’ to ‘ought’, no way to derive moral prescriptions from our observations of material reality. So they can only be subjective, even if they come from a deity. .

    Theistic faiths simply argue that the morality dispensed by their chosen deity overrides all others. That doesn’t make it objective, just the subjective views of their chosen deity. The claim that morality is somehow embedded in our genes or in the fabric of the universe is an entirely unsubstantiated claim.

    16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

    As noted above, quantum theory is a nat/mat theory. It just deals with nat/mat reality on the very smallest scales. It lends no support to the concept of a transcendent soul which at best is poorly-defined and at worst is incoherent.

    Furthermore, in his The Life of Samuel Johnson James Boswell recounts the following episode:

    After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.”

    The reality is that, if you kick a stone hard now, it will hurt your foot just as much as it did in Johnson’s day. Quantum theory has not changed that one jot. What has changed profoundly is our understanding of the nature of matter right down to the quantum scale. And quantum theory and the phenomena it describes do not appear in any theology. It is entirely a product of naturalistic science. If we had relied on religion to guide us in these matters we would still be entirely ignorant about the quantum domain.

  306. 306
    ET says:

    Acartia Eddie:

    “Universal human rights” and “objective morality” are two cases in point. Even though all human experience and evidence points away from these, the truly faithful will twist logic until it fits their agenda.

    Ed thinks cuz he can say it, it must be so. All human experience and evidence points towards an evolution of those rights and morality, from the universal and objective, to what we see today.

    Just because you are too dim to be able to assess the evidence doesn’t mean anything.

  307. 307
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Some Christian scholars have estimated the Universe to be just a few thousand years old based on passages from the Bible.

    The earth, not the universe. And the Bible predicted the universe would have a beginning.

    Consciousness is not observed to exist apart from a physical substrate.

    You mean you won’t accept the evidence that shows otherwise. Got it.

    Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity are nat/mat theories.

    Liar. Newton definitely states otherwise.

    Nat/mat estimates concerning the prevalence of life in the universe vary considerably.

    More lies. Nat. mat can’t even account for the existence of any life.

    seversky is just another liar for materialism.

  308. 308
    bornagain77 says:

    and once more here is the refutation to Seversky’s long winded, but empty, rebuttal:

    Here is a short defense of all 16 predictions:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-564709

    Moreover, directly contrary to Seversky’s assertion that science is a naturalistic/materialistic endeavor, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

  309. 309
    ET says:

    If you say, ‘according to my philosophical position, Japanese people can’t fish’, and someone shows you evidence of Japanese people fishing, and you say, ‘well yes, they may act like they’re fishing, but it’s not properly grounded fishing’, it’s not the Japanese people who are doing it wrong, it’s you.

    So if someone says murdering is wrong and someone shows you someone else murdering and having a good time, and I say “well yeah, they may act like it’s good, but it definitely isn’t properly grounded good”, are the murderers right and I’m wrong?

  310. 310
    john_a_designer says:

    Here’s a case of freedom of speech for me but not for thee.

    Until recently, Tim [Gordon] was a theology teacher at a Catholic high school…

    His daughter, who had been suffering from relentless bouts of seizures, recently underwent a hemispherectomy, a rare form of neurosurgery in which a large portion of one of the brain’s hemispheres is removed. It is an expensive procedure, and Tim was fortunate to have insurance from the Catholic high school that employed him to defray some of those expenses…

    But after Tim said something unfashionable about Black Lives Matter in public, his employment at the school was swiftly terminated. No longer covered by the school’s insurance, his daughter’s expensive recovery would have to be financed out-of-pocket.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-firing-of-tim-gordon/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

    Tim’s thought crime? Saying in a podcast that BLM was a terrorist organization… In other words, BLM has the right to accuse anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with their agenda (especially if they’re white) of being racist but no one has the right to criticize them? Coercion is a form of terrorism. Tim got that right.

  311. 311
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks,

    It is fairly obvious that there is a deep rooted gap between is and ought, and part of this is something persistently ignored by our circle of objectors: how do they expect us to be persuaded by arguments?

    (This is the key clue . . . and yes, the Japanese fisherman fiasco above is a case in point. [Do I need to point to the real case, the rape of Nanking? If what Japanese fishermen do defines what’s right for them, then what Japanese or German etc soldiers did creates the same result.])

    That is, why do these objectors hope or expect us to yield or at least be discredited in the eyes of onlookers? Apart from, we really do have certain duties which can be failed but still stand as oughts, as duties? Where, is it not the case that by definition the ought is what should be but may not become the actual is of what we do instead? Is not such a sign that moral government i/l/o duty is a reflection of genuine freedom of rational, responsible beings?

    But first, on the way to that, it is obvious that were reality nothing more than blind chance and mechanical necessity acting on a purely material substrate across time, there would be no basis for rationality and responsibility. Don’t take my say-so for it, here is Dawkins on the point, having just appealed to the Malthusian fallacy of inevitable immiseration:

    In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” [River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, p. 8 IIRC]

    Given that rational argument inevitably appeals to first duties of reason (as will be drawn out a bit more below), this is already absurdly self-referentially incoherent and self-defeating.

    Indeed, there is no basis for even accounting for the functionally specific complex organisation and/or information beyond 500 – 1,000 bits in a computational substrate. Which, includes that there is no basis for accounting for the D/RNA and its functionality as alphanumeric, algorithmic code — language — in protein synthesis, thus the heart of cell based life. Evolutionary materialistic scientism with its a priori impositions on science and origins is a non-starter on accounting for life much less mind and even worse, moral government of rational, responsible creatures. Which is a premise for science.

    Now, to try to persuade us and onlookers, we can readily see that objectors invariably appeal to our known first duties of reason, which are inescapable. If you object to this claim, try to state an objection that does not implicitly pivot on known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice etc: ______

    We can freely conclude that those blanks are not going to be filled.

    (So, the Wilsonian fallacy advocated in that textbook of manipulation, The Arte of Rhetorique, i.e. that fallacy of adroitly side-stepping the inconvenient will be predictably resorted to. That evasiveness is itself a strong sign of actual balance on the merits, here and in many other threads at UD as well as in the ongoing war against civilisation. Folly, thou art afoot and on the march.)

    This leads to the issue, what is a right, in the core sense. The answer comes back, a reasonable expectation and demand that others have certain duties of respect, first for life then for conscience, freedom, innocent reputation, legitimately acquired property etc, etc. All, duly informed by the implicit premise of the quasi-infinite worth and dignity of the individual human being. Thus, the civil peace of justice becomes the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities in community. An ought, not an is. An ideal, not a perfect attainment. (Which then exposes the fallacy of demanded perfection of a given community order, on pain of demanding to burn it down and impose a year zero reset, with predictable consequences of falling into a vortex of tyranny, as the OP brings up. Notice, again, evasiveness of objectors on this. As for those currently rioting, looting, burning and demanding abolition of lawful policing, the absurdity of their agenda is obvious.)

    All of this instantly raises the issue, whence that IS-OUGHT Gap, whence duty, whence moral government.

    We already know that evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers are non starters. Further to such, radical relativism and/or subjectivism are equally dead ends. For example, let me 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.

    Many popular views on morality instantly collapse, both at street level and in the academy. Unfortunately, such intellectual bankruptcy does not prevent them from leading our civilisation into ruin through media, court room, board room, cabinet room or parliament.

    So, can we discern actual universally valid rights, instead turns on, is there a built-in moral government pivoting on intelligible premises and principles? For, my right is a demand and expectation that you will carry out your duty. Rights and duties are duals, with freedoms as corollaries, leading to the understanding that justice duly balances the three.

    Where of course, in a conscience benumbed, sensualism-besotted age of ever-ratcheting addictions to more and more absurd evil, such will be at a steep discount. That’s why the apostle is so cutting when he calls for a counter-culture response:

    Eph 4: 17 So this I say, and solemnly affirm together with the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the [unbelieving] Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds [and in the foolishness and emptiness of their souls], 18 for their [moral] understanding is darkened and their reasoning is clouded; [they are] alienated and self-banished from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the [willful] ignorance and spiritual blindness that is [deep-seated] within them, because of the hardness and insensitivity of their heart.

    19 And they, [the ungodly in their spiritual apathy], having become callous and unfeeling, have given themselves over [as prey] to unbridled sensuality, eagerly craving the practice of every kind of impurity [that their desires may demand].

    20 But you did not learn Christ in this way! 21 If in fact you have [really] heard Him and have been taught by Him, just as truth is in Jesus [revealed in His life and personified in Him], 22 that, regarding your previous way of life, you put off your old self [completely discard your former nature], which is being corrupted through deceitful desires, 23 and be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh, untarnished mental and spiritual attitude], 24 and put on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image, [godlike] in the righteousness and holiness of the truth [living in a way that expresses to God your gratitude for your salvation].

    25 Therefore, rejecting all falsehood [whether lying, defrauding, telling half-truths, spreading rumors, any such as these], speak truth each one with his neighbor . . . [AMP]

    After nearly 2,000 years, that indictment stings as it bites home.

    KF

    PS: Those who are ever so quick to deride and dismiss the Christian gospel may find it useful to start here.

  312. 312
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: The latest absurdity is the demanded removal of police protective details at schools in Los Angeles, police who are there in part because of serious disciplinary issues and the known problem of mass murder targetting schools as target-rich inadequately protected zones. Clip:

    A protest in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday demanded that the Los Angeles School Police Department, which protects public schools from gang violence and mass shootings, be abolished.

    Last week, the United Teachers Los Angeles, the union representing teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District, joined a Black Lives Matter demonstration to demand that the school police, a unionized workforce of fewer than 500 officers, be disbanded.

    That demonstration was followed Tuesday by a march to a school board meeting where the school police had not actually been on the agenda, as the Los Angeles Times reported:

    Hundreds of students, parents and community members gathered in front of a downtown L.A. high school Tuesday, calling for the elimination of the Los Angeles School Police Department, a force of about 470 officers and civilians.

    The rally and march began at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex, just west of downtown, and ended at the nearby school district headquarters during an L.A. Board of Education meeting. The future of school policing,however, was not on the posted agenda of the closed-door session.

    Student speakers at the rally expressed pain and fear they experience from the school police presence and their frustration over the lack of much needed services. They also called for greater diversity among teachers.

    Thandiwe Abdullah, 16, a recent graduate of the Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies, said “I hated my school,” and criticized the administration for assigning a white instructor to teach ethnic studies, for placing her in classes with only two Black teachers from middle school through high school, and for involving school police officers who made her feel criminalized, rather than a psychiatric social worker, when she needed support.

    The Times reported in February 2018 — before the infamous Parkland high school shooting later that month — that the Los Angeles School Police Department was an important part of preventing school shootings, and that schools were often safer than the neighborhoods around them as a result of the police force’s presence.

    Separately on Tuesday, members of the Los Angeles City Council introduced a motion to replace ordinary police with an unarmed crisis response team for “non-violent calls for service,” according to local Fox affiliate KTTV 11.

    The chaotic irresponsibility is manifest.

  313. 313
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, Newton in his General Scholium to Principia:

    . . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.

    This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants.

    The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space.

    Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God.

    Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved [i.e. cites Ac 17, where Paul evidently cites Cleanthes]; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God.

    It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God.] Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. [Cites Exod 20.] We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not.

    In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato’s third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.]

    But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. [General Scholium to Principia, paragraphs added.]

    KF

  314. 314
    john_a_designer says:

    The P.C. garbage, which is presently being crammed down EVERYONES throat, comes from SJW secular progressives not from Christians. The problem is that modern secular progressivism, which is the source of this garbage, has emerged out of a culture infested with moral relativism, subjectivism and nihilism. Those kind of beliefs provide absolutely no basis for any kind of viable interpersonal morality, human rights or the kind of cultural consensus which is absolutely essential to have any kind of functioning democratic society.

    Many of our regular interlocutors self-identify as moral subjectivists, which means they believe there is no such thing as moral truth. However, they never explain how you can resolve a moral or ethical debate if everyone is a moral subjectivist with his or her personal agenda. They also claim, very disingenuously in my opinion, that they are prodemocracy. They also sometimes talk about trying to reach some kind of consensus. But again, how can we reach any kind of consensus if everyone is a moral subjectivist with his or her personal agenda. This is another example of sawing off the limb one is sitting on. And, to add to the absurdity they are sawing it off on the trunk side.

    One of the basic obligations for the functioning of society is the obligation to be truthful and honest. Frankly I don’t think most our regular interlocutors are being truthful and honest. How can they be when they believe there is no moral or ethical obligation to be truthful and honest? Obligations must be based on moral standards that are true whether not everyone agrees that they are true. If there are no such standards there are no real moral obligations. In other words, so-called moral subjectivists have basis for morality because they have no moral obligations of any kind. Frankly then, they are not moral people. Their arguments are nothing more than rhetorically empty pretense and posturing. One has to ask why they bother to persist? I have no idea. Maybe one of them will tell us. But that would require them to be open, honest and transparent, something for which they have absolutely no basis.

    Humans, on the other hand, have something known as a moral conscience. However, a moral conscience is of no value unless there are objective moral values (moral truth.) Again how can we have a meaningful discussion or debate about morality unless both sides in the discussion can trust each other to be honest and truthful?

  315. 315
    Retired Physicist says:

    J a D i bet you have opinions about those damn kids on your lawn too.

  316. 316
    ET says:

    LoL! @ RP- So because JAD speaks the truth about ID “critics”, RP has a meltdown.

    Priceless…

  317. 317
    kairosfocus says:

    RP & JaD: the issue of inescapable first duties of reason, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice etc is decisive. Even the objector must implicitly recognise them in trying to object if his arguments are to have persuasive traction. From this all else flows. Let us see how. KF

  318. 318
    kairosfocus says:

    RP & JaD, I believe we are now in the presence of inescapable, thus self evident truth regarding duty. That is, accurate description of moral reality, moral truth. Not, insipid platitudes but pivotal governing principles that, more than one, have transformed the path of civilisation for the good. Where, we neglect such at peril. I therefore invite us to take some time to discuss what actually transcends “the basic obligations for the functioning of society,” as they are in material part constitutive of a society of responsibly, rationally, significantly free creatures. Where too, without such freedom, we are not even free enough to be logical, as a computational substrate is governed by GIGO, driven by dynamic-stochastic processes and the organisation of its components, not by understanding ground and consequent or inductive cogency, thus drawing responsible conclusions. Freedom is governed by ought freely chosen (or rejected) not by the force of a dynamic-stochastic is. Where, thirdly, as Math is the study of the logic of structure and quantity, without the seven listed first duties, we cannot do math either. So, it behooves us to study them and to assess their import for the nature of reality including ourselves and our cosmic context. KF

  319. 319
    john_a_designer says:

    KF,

    Why are you associating me with RP? I have not been engaging him. I have no interest in engaging him. I only engage people who are able to use logic and reason to make logically valid arguments. What he said @ 315 is not an argument, it’s a contemptuous cheap shot. If this was my blog it would have been deleted. There should be no place for disdainful and disruptive behavior.

    I have said this before: please stop enabling bad behavior. It’s unfair to people who are here in good faith.

  320. 320
    daveS says:

    JAD,

    You are one of the more level-headed people here, IMHO. Have you considered putting up some OPs of your own?

Leave a Reply