Intelligent Design

The End of Reasonable Debate

Spread the love

From this 2005 interview:

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” – Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

By cleverly utilizing dishonest terms and phrases, we have been manipulated into conceding the debate to leftists/Marxists before it is begun simply because of words are redefined to frame the debate. “Corporate Tax Loophole” and “Legalized Tax Fraud” (see article here) are phrases used by liberals and socialists to make it seem like taking completely legal advantage of tax law is somehow immoral or unethical. Like anyone utilizing tax deductions or laws to pay as little tax as possible, corporations are demonized for doing the same, as if it is somehow their moral obligation not to find ways to pay as little tax as possible.  They are being demonized by the left by the lie of mischaracterization when they use a term to describe something that is not what that term means.

Take the term “hate”.  The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.  Using their domination of the major media and entertainment market, and employing rabid gangs of “Social Justice Warriors”, anyone that simply disagrees with them and states their disagreement publicly is attacked as a “hater” or a “bigot”.  If you call an illegal immigrant “illegal”, you’re a racist – it doesn’t even matter the race of the immigrants in question.  If you express concerns about public bathrooms becoming gender neutral, you can be fired, like Curt Schilling.  In this way, honest debate is avoided and supplanted by emotionally charged false terminology that frames the debate in an entirely dishonest way.

Such as “tax cuts” “budget cuts” [corrected thanks to hrun].  With baseline budgeting, “cutting taxes the budget” can only mean “reduction in the rate of tax budget increase”.  Thus the debate is lost before it begins; the debate is never about actually cutting taxes the budget, but only about reducing the amount of increase.  Your “rights” can mean anything a leftist/progressive thinks you should get for free from the government, or provide you with whatever protections they think one ought to have.  Requiring a photo ID to vote becomes “racism” and “disenfranchisement”.  Refusing to force the public to pay for women’s contraceptives and abortions becomes a hate-filled “war on women” or being “against women’s rights” (while the real war on women, being conducted by Islamists worldwide, goes on unnoticed by leftists).  Performers boycott North Carolina for it’s “anti-LGBT” bathroom law, while the same performers gleefully perform in Dubai where homosexuals are executed.  Those who simply doubt a particular view held by many scientists are framed as “anti-science”.  The term “skepticism” now only applies if one ridicules that which it is politically correct to ridicule and dismiss; if you are skeptical of the wrong things, you are no longer a skeptic, you are a “denier”.

We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, or simply voicing an opinion that contradicts it, is dangerous, because truthful terminology has been politically re-characterized by the leftists in media, politics and academia as hate speech.

“In times of deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell.

 

 

797 Replies to “The End of Reasonable Debate

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM, always important to hear from you. And, a sobering topic. Look up the spiral of silence concept, I have to run. KF

    PS: Cf Schein on Lewin’s ice cube change theory taken in a ruthlessly manipulative context and blend it with the spiral of silence: http://wayback.archive.org/web.....10006.html cf too on silencing: https://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/spiral-of-silence/ This agit-prop march of rage and folly attack survival guide is also worth a pause to ponder on its own merits never mind its source’s deep problems: http://www.voxday.net/mart/SJW....._Guide.pdf This bit of law of tort may help depending on jurisdiction: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tortious_interference as may public mischief laws: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca.....n-140.html cases: http://www.nrlawyers.com/Recen.....ders.shtml .

  2. 2
    hrun0815 says:

    Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your “truths” aren’t in fact hate speech after all. 😉 Just some food for thought.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    HR, truth is not determined by opinions or popularity. Truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Aristotle got that right in Metaphysics 1011b, 2300 years past. KF

  4. 4
    hrun0815 says:

    KF, did I suggest it was a matter of opinion? I’m not suggested everybody else voted on what is truth, I’m suggesting that WJM might erroneously believe something to simply be truth when in fact it is not.

    But don’t worry, judging both him and you, assuredly neither one of you will consider this option to be possible and rather assume there is a giant conspiracy including media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population to deny and obfuscate certain truth for some nebulous nefarious reasons.

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    Amen. This is so right about these times we live in. Future people can quote the author of this thread.
    How to fight and conquer it?
    The same way as the fathers left us tools to do it.
    The bad guys are not that clever.
    They use words to define the argument. like we all do with our parents, spouse, kids, friends.

    Its not to deny HATE accusations against those opposing something.
    I am against legal immigration as well as illegal. its an identity issue to me. they are foreigners i don’t want any more of or ever did.
    The accusation of hate is just a accusation. The accuser might be the hater actually. Probably.

    What must be done to fight and conquer is go back to the contract behind the whole civilization of truth, freedom, and getting your way.
    We have no excuses. its up to free men to defend freedom.

    The bad guys have lost credibility.
    We must accuse that truth on important matters is being interfered with. That from this truth comes important decisions in a nation and so this interference breaks the social contract of the governed with those who govern.
    truth must be expressed and so speech must be allowed without punishment from anyone.
    In short freedom of speech must not be interfered with by any power. government or mob.

    we must stop defending our character and motives.
    We must attack them as invaders of our nation(s) as long as they seek to punish, silence, or bring any judgement, without trial, on our speech.

    Back to the contract.
    its the absolute right of the people to the truth.
    So why is the source of truth, SPEECH, being attacked and punished!!
    Why is this allowed? I say because eVERYBODY has sinned and agreed to punish wrong speech. So a empire is built to control speech.

    back to the contract.
    Cease and desist on all punishment or interference on speech about important things or everything.
    i undetstand free speech is the law!!

  6. 6

    HR: [ “Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your “truths” aren’t in fact hate speech after all.” ]

    KF: [ HR, truth is not determined by opinions or popularity. Truth is that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Aristotle got that right in Metaphysics 1011b, 2300 years past. KF ]

    HR: [ KF, did I suggest it was a matter of opinion? I’m not suggested everybody else voted on what is truth, I’m suggesting that WJM might erroneously believe something to simply be truth when in fact it is not. ]

    Hmm. No, it seems you rather DID suggest that media, politics and academia, and a “sizable chunk of the population” (what size, you fail to articulate) are the rightful measures for truth in our society; and that we had better get in line, or we are guilty of hate crimes. IOW, truth is entirely subject to the will of the people. That seems to be what you ARE, in fact, suggesting.

  7. 7
    Indiana Effigy says:

    All of this argument over truth yet what we consider to be truth is different in different cultures and different religions. And over time within the same cultures.

  8. 8
    Andre says:

    Yes and a few like HR’s is nothing more than might makes right and one of the fundamental differences between a Christian and a materialist. The materialist is happy if something makes the majority happy the Christian on the other hand will say “Even if something might make the majority happy we can’t do it as it is unjust”

    That is the biggest difference in our worldview. For materialists it is about the group, or the nation for a Christian it is about the individual.

  9. 9

    hrun0815,

    Do you agree that in order to properly discuss what is true one must employ reason, facts and evidence? Do you agree that believing a position or action to be based on “hate” or “racism” or “bigotry” simply because figures of cultural authority characterize it as such is a poor policy? And that those who simply parrot and attempt to enforce those characterizations via intimidation, shaming, etc. are acting irrespoonsibly?

    Indiana Effigy,

    Just because different cultures believe different things are true doesn’t mean there is no truth to be found to discern between them. If you have given up on the idea that actual truth exists and humans can understand it as such, then you’ve abandoned reasoned debate for rhetoric and manipulation.

  10. 10

    Some Cultures Are Better Than Others

    (Fair warning: be careful who is in earshot while watching that video. NSFW or children.)

    Some things we know are wrong, whether it’s part of someone’s culture or not. Besides, if cultural relativism is true, then what exactly is the argument against patriarchy, imperialism, slavery, or theocracy based on?

  11. 11

    If I held the view that I do not want immigrants bringing the unacceptable aspects of their culture into the USA (like defecating in the street, or marrying underage child brides, or rape), then the SJW’s of cultural relativism will label me a bigot, or a racist, and claim I am operating from hate.

    How can cultural relativists proclaim my cultural perspective wrong in the first place? What does “justice” mean to economic, environmental or social justice “warriors”?

    “Justice” means, from Merriam Webster:

    a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : judge c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity

    2
    a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c : the quality of conforming to law

    3
    : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness

    But what part of shaming, attacking and ruining the lives of those with dissenting views without any fair hearing or reasonable debate conforms to any of those definitions?

    None. That’s because SJW’s do not fight for “justice” at all; nor can they be anything but hypocrites if they are cultural relativists. If one culture is not truthfully better than another, what truth-based ideal or law would the warriors be fighting to achieve? What truth-based principle would validate and authorize their shaming and intimidation?

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    HR,

    there are always conspiracies [massively plural], there is always manipulation, there are always ambitious agendas in a community.

    Too often, such amount to a march of blinded rage and folly of lemmings led by wolves in sheep’s or shepherd’s clothing, headed over the cliff.

    Hence Machiavelli’s hard bitten point that political disorders are like hectic fever; at the first easy to cure but hard to diagnose and so when at length for want of prompt diagnosis and proper treatment the course of the disease becomes manifest to all it is far too late to cure.

    And it is my dad who explicitly taught that to me, many years past, as a national and regional policy thinker and technical leader.

    Where also, in my faith tradition (which happens to be foundational to our civilisation . . . as in Pauline-Augustinian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome), there is a key historical example and warning of what can happen with democratic consensus under such influences, Ac 27.

    In contrast, we have soundness, soundness of reason, of knowledge, of morality. Where, a pivotal component of soundness is truth, correspondence of what is said or suggested with reality. Just so Aristotle — that redneck ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked Bible-thumping Right wing, theocratic Creationist and Fundy . . . NOT — in Metaphysics 1011b (2300 years ago) aptly defined truth: that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.

    I defy you to come up with a sounder precise, short and apt description . . . definition . . . of what truth is.

    Where, too, as the sound lessons of history were bought with blood and tears — a point literally written into my name and also inscribed in martyr’s blood over the door of my homeland’s parliament — those who dismiss, reject or neglect them doom themselves to pay the same price again and again, often at ruinous cost.

    I put it to you, sir, that our civilisation has begun to cut itself off from its roots. Instead, it has begun to listen to the long running siren song of evolutionary materialism (it was already old in Plato’s day) — latterly, dressed up in a lab coat, it used to wear philosopher’s robes — and it has dismissed the foundations of reason, truth and morality. Just as Plato warned us against 2350 years ago.

    The direct consequence of such, is that we are left in the hands of those who have largely usurped control of the commanding heights of community influence and are ruthlessly playing the nihilistic game: might and manipulation make ‘right’ and ‘truth’ and ‘consensus’ and ‘good strategy/policy’ etc.

    Our civilisation is becoming increasingly suicidally insane, out of touch with reality.

    Little Red Riding Hood, look at yourself in the deadly mirror of the wolf’s eye! (Never mind, he is dressed in Grandma’s clothes and is lying in her bed, that does not change the fact of wolfish nature.)

    Now, above, I have already pointed to the dynamics of change and silencing that can oh so easily be used by the ruthless to impose folly which seems to serve their agendas.

    (Let us just say that when I had to deal with rescuing victims of manipulative cults, Schein’s thought was a key insight. Notice his context of how the Chinese Communists tried to reprogram a whole society and what they did to achieve that goal. Not without some significant success, though in the aftermath of the so-called Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution of the Red Guards, the cost was ruinous. China has recovered after a generation of sounder policies, but that was at a cost of what 70 mn lives or more.)

    In further answer, I point out that in AD 59, mid October, it should have been plain to all on abundant experience and history that sailing out late in the year was ill advised.

    But Mr Moneybags was not happy with the port for his ship and cargo. His technico, the kubernete knew who buttered his bread. The passengers were unhappy with the rusticity of the nearby town and wanted a more comfortable port to winter in.

    So — never mind that IDiot in chains (who had by then survived three shipwrecks) saying that the risk was not reasonable to gain the rewards of an easy afternoon’s sailing — the democratic majority decision was, if a suitable wind comes up, we sail for the next port 40 miles away.

    Soon enough, a sweet little south wind came up.

    Technico was not about to say, this is often a precursor to a nor’easter.

    Playing the risky game.

    They set sail, and were maybe half way when just such a nor’easter hit them with typhonic force. And after a nightmare fortnight, they were glad to shipwreck on it seems the north side (possibly the east end) of Malta. Of course that same despised IDiot in chains was the one who had to spot the ruse the technical folks were taking to abandon the helpless passengers to their fate.

    That is the difference between manipulated march of folly driven pseudo-consensus and sound decision making, in a democratic context.

    A lesson of history.

    Coming from the most common book in our civilisation, from 2000 years ago.

    Will we wake up and heed it, or will we have to go over the cliff and break our backs before we will be willing to listen?

    On long track record of the stubbornness of such marches of folly, I doubt that we will listen to soundness until it is too late or almost too late.

    Hence, the bite of Machiavelli’s counsel.

    So, now, I suggest to you that appeal to the ‘consensus’ of a march of folly is trumped by the back-breaking force of foundational reality at the foot of the cliffs. (And I come from a country that broke its back through just such a mad march over a cliff in the heady days of socialist progressivism. And cultural marxism is little more than repackaging of the same.)

    I further suggest to you that our civilisation is headed for the cliffs.

    Again.

    KF

  13. 13
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #11:

    Oh what a great example. In fact it shows perfectly that you have a victimization complex and are just full of it. It turns out that even though numerous immigrants come from India where public defecation is an issue, here it is neither practiced nor tolerated. Also, it shows to everybody into what kinda pretzel you have to twist your world view just so you can stick with being the victim.

    And this is what you believe represents ‘truth’?

    And, to top it all off, this brilliant example comes on the heels of your own headline decrying the end of reasonable debate. The irony! 🙂

  14. 14

    Note that hrun0815 refuses to answer any of the questions I posed to him/her in #9 & #11, but instead attempts to characterize me negatively as suffering from some sort of “victimization status”.

    And that’s the whole point of marxist propaganda – to negatively characterize, to ridicule, to humiliate and to marginalize instead of actually engaging rational debate or civilized dialogue.

    There is no debating those who only seek to ridicule and humiliate.

    hrun said:

    It turns out that even though numerous immigrants come from India where public defecation is an issue, here it is neither practiced nor tolerated.

    Leftists outraged as European pools restrict migrants amid reports of rape, assault and public defecation

    The point I made, which you seem to have entirely ignore, is that if I express my view that such cultural habits are bad and should not be allowed, I will be attacked by leftists and ridiculed for that view … which is exactly what you did.

    Are you against allowing cultural immigrants to come to the west and practice Sharia law? Or to treat women as possessions without rights? Or to rape women out at night, or molest children? Are you against allowing public defecation? I assume you are indeed against those things; why then attack those who argue against allowing easy immigration into the west people from such cultures? Do you think those people are going to magically adopt our culture? Do you see that going on in Europe?

  15. 15
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Andre@8: “That is the biggest difference in our worldview. For materialists it is about the group, or the nation for a Christian it is about the individual.”

    An incorrect generalization on both parts, but let’s work with it. For the materialist, it is about the group and its ability to persist over time. To do so, it must establish rules (truths, if you will) that allow it to do so. And, with no surprise, not killing, not stealing, defending the young, etc. appear to be fairly universal as a result.

    Christianity is only about the individual as it pertains to how an individual should live his life. Things like don’t kill, don’t steal, defend the young, etc. Don’t you find it strange that they come up with many of the same “truths” as a materialist society would. Except for those silly restrictions on questioning the deity.

  16. 16
    hrun0815 says:

    There is no debating those who only seek to ridicule and humiliate.

    WJM, it was you, who as the first example of his post, brought forth that supposedly the opposition to defecation in publish would get you labeled as racist, bigot, or hater. The other examples are opposing underage marriage and rape. And you honestly believe that this is an attempt at honest debate?

    Why don’t you go ahead and find an example where the media, politics, or academia labels opposition to each one of those three example you listed in your post as racism, bigotry, or hate-speech? Go ahead, I’ll be right here waiting.

    And trust me, if you can’t bring up some actual cases for the three examples listed in your post #11 then it will be clear that there is no need for me to ridicule or humiliate you. You will have done so yourself.

    Leftists outraged as European pools restrict migrants amid reports of rape, assault and public defecation

    You know that this link doesn’t actually support your claims, right?

  17. 17

    Hrun0815 said:

    And you honestly believe that this is an attempt at honest debate?

    I asked you if you were also against those things, and if you agreed that attacking those with opposing views without any meaningful dialogue was irresponsible; you responded by attacking me and attempting to characterize me negatively.

    My attempt at honest debate was to ask you questions first to see what your position was; your response was to attempt to negatively characterize me and marginalize my views.

    Why don’t you go ahead and find an example where the media, politics, or academia labels opposition to each one of those three example you listed in your post as racism, bigotry, or hate-speech? Go ahead, I’ll be right here waiting.

    You just did this very thing – attempted to marginalized/negatively characterize me for expressing my view that such cultural habits should not be invited to the West.

    And that was not the point; the point is that an expressed opposition to illegal immigration or shipping in in middle-eastern refugees is immediately labeled as bigotry or racism by SJW’s without any debate about the particular issues I brought up.

    From here:

    Despite the obvious free speech concerns, UCLA’s undergraduate student government unanimously passed a resolution last week to declare that any use of the term “illegal immigrant” is now deemed racist and offensive.

    Gov. Terry McAuliffe called Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s comments about Muslims immigration [putting a temporary ban on muslim immigration from the middle east] “sad, hateful speech.” Why is it “sad” or “hateful” to consider at least temporarily halting the influx of immigrants from cultures that appear dedicated to infiltrating and destroying us and who appear to have no intention of adopting our culture or Western ideals?

    Do you not think it is wise to stem the flow of refugees or immigrants from cultures that are antagonistic towards our way of life, or are from cultures that embrace behaviors that are contrary to our own, at least to the point that we can more seriously and fully vet such immigrants?

    If you keep refusing to answer questions and instead insist on negatively characterizing me, or issuing ultimatums that if I don’t obey that will prove something about me, you’re only demonstrating my point – that rational debate is dead.

    Why won’t you answer my rather simple questions in #9? Here are some more: is it racist to use the term “illegal immigrant”? Is it wrong to call “Jihad” wrong? Is it wrong to bar muslims who believe in Jihad and Sharia Law from entering countries in the west? Should the west’s borders be entirely open to whomever wishes to cross them? Is it bigoted for a state to pass a law stating that you must use the restroom that corresponds to the gender of your birth?

  18. 18
    Indiana Effigy says:

    WJM@11: “But what part of shaming, attacking and ruining the lives of those with dissenting views without any fair hearing or reasonable debate conforms to any of those definitions?”

    You do realize that Rosa Parks used shaming of those with dissenting views. As did the black teens at the Woolworths counter. Don’t underestimate the role of shaming in getting the debate started. It is great at pointing to the irrationality of an existing law, or cultural norm.

    The recent examples (eg the county clerk who refused to issue a SSM licence, or the florists or bakers who refused to provide services because of the sexual orientation of the clients) used shaming to bring the rediculousness of these actions to the forefront and ensure that everyone was aware that religious freedoms do not extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation. This has not stopped or stifled debate on the subject. You just have to watch Fox or check the Internet. The debate on SSM and homosexual rights is very active and vibrant. What shaming does is ensure that illegal discrimination on these grounds is not tolerated. If you want to change the laws, you are well within your rights to make the attempt. But don’t cry “conspiracy” when you are unable to do so.

    The examples of people being fired for voicing their opinions on something is not always as black and white as you suggest. Many on-air personalities have contracts with their employer that cover what they say in public. In many cases, the celebrity Twitter and Facebook accounts are owned by the broadcaster and fall under their employment agreement. Whether they like it or not, on-air celebrities are legally bound to follow the code of conduct when they speak in public or use social media. What must be remembered is that they agreed to this in writing.

    Shame has always been part of the justice system. It may not be ideal, or even always just, but it is very effective.

  19. 19
    hrun0815 says:

    You just did this very thing – attempted to marginalized/negatively characterize me for expressing my view that such cultural habits should not be invited to the West.?

    You are simply deluded. Where did I do that? Not once did I attack you for opposing ‘public defecation’, ‘rape’, or ‘underage marriage’. If it makes you feel better, I am against all three things. Yet, you claim that because you hold this views I supposedly attempted to marginalize you and that you are being labeled a bigot, racist, or hater.

    If so, show me where I have done so!

    And show me where media, academia, or politics labeled people that oppose ‘public defecation’, ‘rape’, or ‘underage marriage’ a bigot, racist, or hater.

    Put up or admit that you are simply playing victim.

  20. 20

    Indiana Effigy:

    I said:

    But what part of shaming, attacking and ruining the lives of those with dissenting views without any fair hearing or reasonable debate conforms to any of those definitions?

    Do you agree it is irresponsible and detrimental to debate to shame or parrot shaming terminology and accusations without first having a fair hearing, reasonable debate and a good understanding of what it is one is attempting to shame?

    Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call a position “racist” if you want to build a border wall in order to better keep security threats out?

    Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone “anti-science” simply because they are skeptical of certain supposedly consensus science views?

    Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone a bigot if they disagree with the idea that biological men should be allowed into the ladies bathroom?

    ——————————–
    hrun0815:

    I said:

    You just did this very thing – attempted to marginalized/negatively characterize me for expressing my view that such cultural habits should not be invited to the West.

    hrun0815 asks:

    You are simply deluded. Where did I do that?

    In #13, where you said:

    Oh what a great example. In fact it shows perfectly that you have a victimization complex and are just full of it. It turns out that even though numerous immigrants come from India where public defecation is an issue, here it is neither practiced nor tolerated. Also, it shows to everybody into what kinda pretzel you have to twist your world view just so you can stick with being the victim.

    I expressed my view that I am against tolerating certain cultural norms being imported via refugees or immigrants, and even though you have now agreed that those behaviors should not be tolerated, you still had to negatively characterize me as having to “twist my world view like a pretzel so I see myself as a victim”.

    I don’t see myself as a “victim”; what I see is honest debate being destroyed by an increasingly intolerant leftist narrative that operates through intimidation tactics and deceitfully applied, emotionally charged labels.

  21. 21
    hrun0815 says:

    WJM, it looks like you forget to put up examples where media, politics, academia, or I labeled you racist, bigoted, or a hater because you oppose public defecation, rape, or underage marriage.

    I’m sure you’ll get to that any minute now, right? If not, I’m sure that everybody following the thread will take this as a clear indication who is actually sabotaging reasonable debate.

  22. 22
    hrun0815 says:

    No case my previous post is not clear enough: I am asserting that you are simply making random stuff up. Nobody is labeled racist, bigot, or hater for opposing public defecation, underage marriage, or rape. The reason why you make this stuff up is so you can paint yourself as a victim and others as the folks who are sabotaging reasonable debate. Yet, it is you, with your lies, who is sabotaging reasonable debate.

    Clear enough? You know what to do in order to show that you are not lying.

  23. 23
    Indiana Effigy says:

    WJM: “Do you agree it is irresponsible and detrimental to debate to shame or parrot shaming terminology and accusations without first having a fair hearing, reasonable debate and a good understanding of what it is one is attempting to shame?”

    Not always. Sometimes it speeds up the debate, or the enforcement of existing laws. We had the date over gay rights and SSM long ago. Just because the debate didn’t go your way doesn’t mean it was stifled. Shaming was the only way to stop people like the county clerk from violating someone’s legal rights.

    Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call a position “racist” if you want to build a border wall in order to better keep security threats out?”

    Yes. But do you think it is racist to pay illegal immigrants less than minimum wage, creating a huge demand for illegal immigrants, and then blame the problem on the illegal immigrants rather than the employers who are breaking the law?

    Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone “anti-science” simply because they are skeptical of certain supposedly consensus science views?”

    Depends on the circumstance. When someone misrepresents the science, as is common with many ID proponents and climate change opponents, then no, it is not irresponsible. But I prefer to deal with them on a case by case basis rather than paint all people who oppose my views with the same brush, as the title of your OP does.

    Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone a bigot if they disagree with the idea that biological men should be allowed into the ladies bathroom?”

    When they disagree because they think that transsexuals are deviants and put women at risk, no. They are bigots. If they can back it up with the hundreds of incidents of transsexuals abusing women in women’s washrooms, then they are not bigots. Unfortunately, there is no history of this. And don’t pretend that this is because transsexuals have not been using women’s bathrooms. They have been doing it for decades.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    IE and HR, I think it is very unwise in the long run for your side to so often (and frequently as a first resort) project base motivations and strawmannish constructions on those who differ or question. There is something called blowback after all. KF

  25. 25
    hrun0815 says:

    KF, then why don’t you put up examples where WJM or anybody else was maligned as bigot, racist, or hater for opposing public defecation, rape, or underage marriage. Either by me or by (as WJM claims) media, politics, or academia.

    If you can, then uou can soundly prove me wrong and maybe your post #24 is spot on. If not, then you are simply propping up WJM’s dishonest attempt to play the victim, malign the other side, and attempt to put an end to reasonable debate.

  26. 26
    StephenB says:

    Indiana Effigy

    Do you agree with me that a man should not be permitted to enter a restroom and use the urinal when a little girl is present? Or, do you, like the thought police, hold that anyone who holds such archaic views should be dafamed for being a “transphobe” and that a man should be permitted to expose himself to a child on the grounds that he identifies himself as a woman.

  27. 27
    Aleta says:

    What would a little girl be doing in a restroom with a urinal in it? Only men’s restrooms have urinals.

  28. 28
    Aleta says:

    If a trans woman with a penis goes into a women’s bathroom, she will use a stall, because that’s all there is.

    If a trans man with women’s genitals goes into a men’s restroom, he will use a stall cause he couldn’t pee standing up anyway.

    So it’s all going to be behind closed doors, and no one will ever know either way.

  29. 29
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #28: And it should be added that up till now transgender folks generally use the bathroom appropriate for their appearance. As you say, female-looking transgender who nevertheless have a penis were using stalls in the women’s room while male-appearing transgender with female anatomy were using stalls in the men’s room.

    So the only thing that the bathroom laws are changing is to (deep ding on the particulars of the law) force some transgender people into bathrooms that don’t match their outward appearance.

  30. 30
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    KF, then why don’t you put up examples where WJM or anybody else was maligned as bigot, racist, or hater for opposing public defecation, rape, or underage marriage.

    Why don’t you address the examples of injustice that have already been put on the table?

    What about those who are called racist for simply advocating a border wall?

    What about those who are targeted for a jail sentence because they persist as “climate skeptics.”

    What about those who are maligned as “transphobes” because they think a grown man should not expose himself to a little girl in the restroom on the grounds that he doesn’t identify with his own genitals?

  31. 31
    Aleta says:

    Stephen, you write that,

    a grown man should not expose himself to a little girl in the restroom on the grounds that he doesn’t identify with his own genitals.

    But I’ve pointed out that women’s restrooms only have stalls, not urinals, so that wouldn’t happen. Nobody exposes their genitals in a women’s restroom.

  32. 32
    StephenB says:

    Aleta:

    What would a little girl be doing in a restroom with a urinal in it? Only men’s restrooms have urinals.

    A one size fits all restroom may have urinals, and may not have stalls. Also, you are avoiding the other component of the argument. Why should I be maligned (or has some have been, fired–yes fired) as a “transphobe” for holding my point of view.

  33. 33
    Aleta says:

    But are those types of restrooms used by more than one person at a time?

    I have never seen a restroom where both men and women could go in and use multiple facilities at the same time. And if there were such a restroom, then the vast majority of people peeing in the urinal would be non-trans men, so if you took a little girl in there that’s what she would see.

    So, assuming the virtually all multiple people restrooms are either men’s or woman’s, I think my analysis in 28 is correct: no one will ever see.

  34. 34
    rhampton7 says:

    I think it helpful to remember that toilet usage has changed over time. From the Biblical Archaeology Society, An Expert’s Take on Toilet History and Customs from Antiquity to the Renaissance:

    The change in attitude with regard to the custom of going to the toilet in all privacy as we now know only happened after the decisions of the Council of Trent (1545–1563) were turned into regulation, which accounted for a lot of changes with regard to customs related to the body, but [these regulations] were not put into action overnight. Customs which had prevailed for thousands of years apparently do not change so easily. The Biblical passage you refer to [Judges 3:15–25] seems to me to fit into the Roman custom, which lasted well into the 16th century in Europe. Especially as the Romans adopted a lot of Greek customs and presumably they were not so different from other people living in the eastern Mediterranean area. And wasn’t Bathsheba bathing in full view to King David [2 Samuel 11:2], [and] Susanna watched by the Elders [Susanna (Chapter 13 of the Greek version of Daniel):7–8]? There was not such a difference between bathing and the toilet.

  35. 35
    StephenB says:

    And it should be added that up till now transgender folks generally use the bathroom appropriate for their appearance.

    Did it ever occur to you that there are perverse males who can claim to identify as women so that they can practice their perversity?

    Meanwhile, you have totally abandoned your argument. How about addressing my questions @30?

  36. 36
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    –“But I’ve pointed out that women’s restrooms only have stalls, not urinals, so that wouldn’t happen. Nobody exposes their genitals in a women’s restroom.”

    Irrelevant. We are discussing Men/Women restrooms, not Women’s restrooms.

    So, back to the theme. Should I be maligned as a “transphobe” for holding my point of view? If so, doesn’t that shut down any possibility of a good faith argument? Doesn’t that make persuasion impossible? Isn’t that the point of the name calling–to intimidate and avoid any semblance of a rational exchange of ideas.

  37. 37
    Aleta says:

    Stephen writes,

    We are discussing Men/Women restrooms, not Women’s restrooms.

    You mean restrooms that both men and women use at the same time?

    In that case, won’t it be the case that the men will be “exposing themselves” to the women whenever they use the urinals. There could be no trans people involved at all, and you’d have this problem.

    And WJM had written,

    Do you agree that it is irresponsible to call someone a bigot if they disagree with the idea that biological men should be allowed into the ladies bathroom?

    It was this remark about ladies bathroom that prompted my statement about there being no urinals.

  38. 38
    0812681 says:

    @ Indiana Effigy

    IE #7
    All of this argument over truth yet what we consider to be truth is different in different cultures and different religions. And over time within the same cultures.

    That’s funny, basically your are saying ”truth is relative” or ”there is no truth”.

    When somebody says ”truth is relative/there is no truth” I always ask that person “Is that true?”

    > If he answers ”yes”, then he is contradicting himself.
    > If he answers ”no”, then by default he is admitting that there is (absolute) truth.

    So, it’s a selfdefeating statement/argument.

    If you fail the see the logical consequences of your own fallacy, wich I just pointed out above, then there is no point in talking with you.

    Because then you could argue about the (non)truthfulness of anything. Like, the reality of you reading these words. Or, another example, like someone from Saudi Arabia could say, it is not true at your nickname here is Indiana Effigy, cause I consider it to be ygiffE anaidnI, because in arabic they write/read from right to left.

    People who apply your way of reasoning would create (or are already creating) dysfunctional societies and familes, because they ignore absolute truths.

    let’s apply your way of reasoning to mathematics. Let’s say, you are in Italy, you pay with a €100 bill to buy a €5 pizza, but you get don’t get €95 in return, because they have a different truth in Italy when it comes to mathematics. In a case like that, would you still say ”in my culture mathematical truth is different, but I don’t want to argue what we consider to be truth” ?

    I arrest my case. Anyway, it was nice doing business with you 😉

  39. 39
    StephenB says:

    Aleta: “You mean restrooms that both men and women use at the same time?”

    Well, no, I guess not. What I am objecting to is the proposition that a biological man should be allowed to use a women’s restroom (which, by definition, allows for multiple occupancy–and indecent exposure). A male predator can certainly abuse that environment for purposes of sexual harassment, and be covered by the law on the grounds that he identifies as something else.

    Also, I am suggesting that anyone who accuses me of being a “transphobe” for holding that position is out of order?

    Would you agree on both counts?

  40. 40
    Aleta says:

    Ok, thanks for clearing up the issue of multiple use restrooms for both sexes – I didn’t think that was something anyone was seriously proposing.

    So I think that my statement that no one see’s anyones genitals in a women’s restroom is accurate, so the issue of a little girl just being exposed to a penis as people go about their business in the restroom doesn’t seem to be a problem.

    Now there is a problem with the potential for adults in restrooms to sexually harass children, and I think that is a possible problem for non-transgender people also. I’ve certainly seen people in restrooms who made me uncomfortable, and I’d feel even more so, perhaps, about a boy going in there alone.

    But I think the chances are small that someone who is genitally male but appears as a woman is going to go into the women’s restroom because they are sexually interested in the women or children in there. In fact, it is much more likely that there are lesbian women in women’s restrooms than there are transgender women.

    So really the problem is sexual predation, and especially of children, which we need to guard against and prosecute irrespective of which gender and in which bathroom they are.

  41. 41
    Indiana Effigy says:

    StephenB@30:What about those who are maligned as “transphobes” because they think a grown man should not expose himself to a little girl in the restroom on the grounds that he doesn’t identify with his own genitals?”

    Provide me with an example where someone is called a transphobe because they think that a man shouldn’t expose himself to a young girl in a restroom and then I will answer your stupid hypothetical.

  42. 42
    Aleta says:

    Nobody should be exposing their genitals to someone who doesn’t welcome that exposure, and certainly not to a child. This doesn’t seem to me to be a specifically transgender issue: anyone who does expose their genitals to unwilling people is going to be breaking some sort of law.

    For what it’s worth, most men are pretty restrained about exposing their genitals to other men in the restroom, and of course women have stalls so the issue doesn’t even come up.

  43. 43
    Indiana Effigy says:

    StephenB@35:Did it ever occur to you that there are perverse males who can claim to identify as women so that they can practice their perversity?”

    What’s to stop them from doing that now? Oh yah! THE LAW!! Someone who enters a bathroom for the purpose of abusing children, or acting lewdly, regardless of their legal right to be there, is breaking the law.

    Transgendered have been using the bathrooms of the gender they associate with for decades. Can you provide me with any stats on the number of incidents that have been reported of them doing anything untoward other than using one of the stalls? No? Why do you think that is? Is it possible that this is because they do not pose any risk?

  44. 44
    0812681 says:

    Well, some threadjacking going on here. How about commenting on original subject of this thread?

  45. 45
    0812681 says:

    Looking at the content of their posts, it seems to me that hrun and Indiana Effigy have been living with heads up their asses last couple of years.

    They are acting like Theodore Dalrymple doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I wonder if they even bothered to check him out.

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

    ….who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple, is an English writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist.
    ……
    In his writing, Daniels frequently argues that the liberal and progressive views prevalent within Western intellectual circles minimise the responsibility of individuals for their own actions and undermine traditional mores, contributing to the formation within prosperous countries of an underclass afflicted by endemic violence, criminality, sexually transmitted diseases, welfare dependency, and drug abuse. Much of Dalrymple’s writing is based on his experience of working with criminals and the mentally ill.

    The writer has been described as a pessimist. In 2010, Daniel Hannan wrote that Dalrymple’s work “takes pessimism about human nature to a new level. Yet its tone is never patronising, shrill or hectoring. Once you get past the initial shock of reading about battered wives, petty crooks and junkies from a non-Left perspective, you find humanity and pathos”.

  46. 46
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #44: I did. I showed a clear example how WJM twists the truth, erects a straw man, maligns the ‘other side’, and this is actually the cause of shutting down reasonable discourse.

    He then had two reasonable ways to deal with this: admit this fact and try better or show how I am wrong. Of course he did neither. And KF jumped right in and also did neither.

    I say it again: It’s the people who lie and pretend they are being victimized who are shutting down reasonable debate.

  47. 47
    Aleta says:

    from http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/v.....nder-myth/

    On Sunday, Fox News’ own Chris Wallace blew up the premise behind the numerous Republican “Bathroom Bills” by pointing out the emperor had no clothes. After conservative columnist Ben Domenech spouted the ridiculous claim that men would pretend to be transgender women to peek at little girls in the bathroom, Wallace dropped an atomic truth bomb:

    We actually tried to find out whether it is a public safety issue,” the Fox News host explained. “Whether it is a problem with transgender people misusing bathrooms to prey on others.”

    Wallace noted that PolitiFact had looked into the issue and found that there was no known “instance of criminals convicted of using transgender protections as cover in the United States.”

    “This seems to be a solution in search of a problem,” he concluded.

  48. 48
    0812681 says:

    @ hrun # 16

    Why don’t you go ahead and find an example where the media, politics, or academia labels opposition to each one of those three example you listed in your post as racism, bigotry, or hate-speech? Go ahead, I’ll be right here waiting.

    Well, here you have a few, bro’! I suggest you pull your head out of your ass.

    Criticizing Islam Now a Thought Crime!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfBXxsxKbso

    Political party leader Paul Weston was arrested by police and faces up to two years in jail for criticizing the religion of Islam during a public speech in the United Kingdom. Weston’s “racially aggravated” hate crime consisted of him quoting Winston Churchill.

    Weston’s arrest reveals the chilling implementation of thought crime in Britain and how political correctness is being used as a weapon with which to destroy the edifice of freedom of speech across the western world.

    http://www.libertygb.org.uk/ne.....n-arrested

    WATCH – Geert Wilders’s Opening Statement To Court During ‘Hate Speech’ Trial

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g.....ech-trial/

    …..
    I did not say “All Moroccans must leave the country” or “Moroccans are no good,” but I advocated “fewer Moroccans”. Because that is my opinion, that is what I want, and what many millions of Dutch want together with me.

    The Public prosecutor is trying to catch me, but he is selectively shopping.

    If I would have advocated fewer Syrians, then I would not be standing here today. Or I would not stand here alone, but together with Prime Minister Rutte and almost all the government leaders in Europe. Because today they all want to get fewer Syrians.

    The Public Prosecution is also applying double standards. And there are many examples of this.

    How quiet was it when, earlier, politicians from the Labor Party spoke about Moroccan c*nts (Mr Oudkerk), about humiliating Moroccans (Mr Spekman) and about Moroccan boys who have an ethnic monopoly on nuisance (Mr. Samson). Why were they not being prosecuted?

    And how quiet was it when a Turkish member of the Dutch Parliament (Mr Öztürk) compared me with a tumor and said “One has to fight him,” and likened me to Hitler. Where were the mayors then who spoke shame of it and led processions of people going to press charges?
    ……

    Arab feminist defends writer accused of fueling Islamophobia with “sexual misery” Op-Ed

    http://nytlive.nytimes.com/wom.....ery-op-ed/

    Acclaimed Algerian writer Kamel Daoud provoked a global media firestorm earlier this year, when he described the Cologne New Year’s Eve assaults as evocative of the “sexual misery” of the Arab-Muslim world and its “sick relationship” with women and their bodies.

    In a collective column in Le Monde on February 11, what his supporters depicted as a “cabal” of 19 mostly Paris and western university-based academics condemned Daoud — raised Muslim and living in North Africa — for fueling what they termed “Islamophobia,” that played into the hands of anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe and the worst “Orientalist” and “culturalist clichés” about Muslims and Islam.

    School slams student for not professing Islam

    http://onenewsnow.com/legal-co.....sing-islam

    “[John and Melissa Wood] refuse[d] to allow their teenage daughter to be subjected to Islamic indoctrination and propaganda in her high school world history class,” the prosecuting attorneys state in their suit. “[The school’s] curriculum, practices, policies, actions, procedures, and customs promote the Islamic faith by requiring students to profess the five pillars if Islam. [Students were required to] write out and confess the shahada, the Islamic profession of faith.”
    …..
    “The school ultimately refused to allow the Woods’ daughter to opt-out of the assignments, forcing her to either violate her faith by pledging to Allah or receive zeros for the assignments,” they contest in the complaint. “Together, John Kevin Wood, Melissa Wood, and their daughter chose to remain faithful to God and refused to complete the assignments, even though failing grades would harm her future admission to college and her opportunities to obtain college scholarships.”

    Islam like Nazis is a no-no, but conservatives likened to ISIS OK

    http://onenewsnow.com/media/20.....to-isis-ok

    Dan Gainor, vice president for business and culture at the Media Research Center, says the sports network has a double standard when it comes to disciplining its personalities. He points to the recent conversation Tony Kornheiser had with Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman on a local ESPN sports radio show. They were talking about the tea party movement in the context of voting for the new speaker of the House, and an offensive remark from Kornheiser went without reprimand. “Tony Kornheiser responded and said, Are they like ISIS trying to establish a Caliphate here?” Gainor notes.

    “They suspended Kurt Schilling from ESPN for making what was a 100-percent accurate comparison of radical Islam to Nazis. And according to the New York Times, it is unlikely that Kurt Schilling is going to get his job back.”

    You want more?

  49. 49
    0812681 says:

    @ hrun0815 #46

    No, my guess is that they think you are (willingly) ignorant or applying ostrich policy, because most leftists/liberals do so, regardless of the facts (that are/might be presented to them).

    The video in the link underneath shows a pretty good example of such behaviour.

    Michael Moore and the “We Are All Muslim” Campaign

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O3aahmWSl4

    Documentary filmmaker and author Michael Moore recently began his “We Are All Muslim” campaign against Donald Trump. But is the claim that all people are Muslims consistent with the Qur’an? As David Wood demonstrates in this video, by insisting that we are all Muslim, Michael Moore has insulted both Allah and Muhammad. According to Islam, being a Muslim requires full submission.

    I think that WJM and KF do not realise how ignorant you are about these problems with leftist/liberals wich they have pointed out in their comments. Or maybe they are astonished by your ignorance, like I am.

    So, it could well be that they are tired of dealing with ignorant people like you, and don’t bother anymore to take time to enlighten them, because many ignorant people have come and gone here at UD through the years. It takes a lots of patience to deal with people who are (willingly) ignorant or who apply ostrich policy, you know 😉

  50. 50
    0812681 says:

    hrun0815 #46

    I did. I showed a clear example how WJM twists the truth, erects a straw man, maligns the ‘other side’, and this is actually the cause of shutting down reasonable discourse.

    He then had two reasonable ways to deal with this: admit this fact and try better or show how I am wrong. Of course he did neither. And KF jumped right in and also did neither.

    I say it again: It’s the people who lie and pretend they are being victimized who are shutting down reasonable debate.

    In my posts #48 and 49# I just showed you are are wrong. So, I did WJM’s and KF’s dirty work for them.

    For them you are just another internet troll of many that have come by here at UD. That’s just the way how it looks to me, but I cannot speak for WJM and KF, though.

    It’s rather because of you being (willingly) ignorant, that you don’t see the obvious they are trying to point out, and that’s why you falsely deem it to be strawmen or twisting of the truth on their part.

    To me it’s obvious what they are pointing out wrt leftist/liberals, because I have personnaly experienced these leftists/liberals-debate-tactics being used against me on mutiple occasions.

  51. 51
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #48-50: Where exactly does the media, academia, or politics (or I), as asserted by WJM (and now defended by also KF and you) label WJM or anybody else of being a bigot, racist, or hater because of their opposition of inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture???

    You said you did the dirt work for WJM and KF and you claimed that I am willfully ignorant, right? So don’t be afraid. Show your work! Or add yourself to the list of people who love to play victims by setting up srawmen, support them with lies, and this effectively attempt to shit down rational discourse– the very thing the ‘other side’ stands accused of.

    You may note, by the way, that I do not excuse either side of unfair debating techniques or attempting to shut down debate by cast over generalizations. It’s just funny that the guy who decried this state of affairs from one side gets IMMEDIATELY caught doing the very same thing and instead of owning up to it starts tap dancing around AND gets immediate support from his side in his dancing efforts. This is just absolutely classic.

  52. 52
    0812681 says:

    hrun0815 #51

    Where exactly does the media, academia, or politics (or I), as asserted by WJM (and now defended by also KF and you) label WJM or anybody else of being a bigot, racist, or hater because of their opposition of inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture???

    You don’t seem to understand that by inviting certain people into western culture, Europe is in fact inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture.

    So, when people like me, WJM and KF voiced their opposition of inviting muslims into western culture, we have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater.

    And yes, we would be making generalisations about muslims if we said that all muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage are okay, because this is obviously not true. We are well aware of that.

    But it is a fact, that certain muslims think these things are okay, because of their backward culture. When people like me, WJM and KF are trying to point this out, we have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater. Not for our opposition of inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture(I agree with you here) but but because of our opposition of inviting a backward culture that is the root cause of these things.

    So, what WJM and KF are trying to so say is that people have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater, by the media, academia and politicians, for voicing their opposition of inviting a backward culture that is the root cause of why certain muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage are okay. And that’s the very thing leftists/liberals in the media, academia and politics, consider to be racism, bigotry and hate-speech. Just as I pointed out in the examples I gave you in #48 and #49

    It’s because of political correctness that many people refuse to admit that the root cause of why certain muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage to be okay, lies in their backward culture. So, instead admitting this very fact, they are labeling people who disagree with them a racist, bigot or hater. And that’s very thing the orginal subject of this thread is about.

    In light of the facts presented to you (in #48 #49), it would be reasonable to change your viewpoint (see quote here underneath), that you voiced at the beginning of this discussion.

    #2 hrun0815

    Or, of course, if media, politics, academia, and a sizable chunk of the population agree, you may want to consider if your “truths” aren’t in fact hate speech after all. Just some food for thought.

    If you still refuse to change your viewpoint above, regardless of the facts presented to you, then your are being unreasonable. So, that would be the end of reasonable debate.

    My brother, I hope to have cleared this up enough for you. It’s not WJM or KF that I am helping, but I am in fact helping you by trying to enlighten you with facts. Don’t let yourself be indoctrinated by mainstream media or political correctness.

    Read this >>>>>> http://thefederalist.com/2015/.....-delusion/

    It will help you. Take care, bro.

    0812681

  53. 53
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #52:

    I get it now. According to you accepting Muslims into our society is equal to supporting public defecation, rape, and underage marriage.

    That’s why I said early on you should consider if your “truths” aren’t justifiably labeling you as racist, bigot or hater. I think it’s awesome though that you actually spelled out what you think.

    It remains funny that you (and KF/WJM) claim it is the ‘other side’ who is responsible for ending reasonable debate.

  54. 54
    Indiana Effigy says:

    0812681: My brother, I hope to have cleared this up enough for you. It’s not WJM or KF that I am helping, but I am in fact helping you by trying to enlighten you with facts. “

    I have still to discern what facts these are. Have any transgendered been charged with lewd behaviour in a women bathroom? Have any men passing themselves off as transgendered been charged with lewd behaviour in a women bathroom? Has anyone accused someone of being racists because they opposed public defecation, rape or polygamy?

    The validity of an argument is indirectly proportional to the ridiculousness of the slipper-slope fear mongering that they use. In the debate about SSM, some of those opposed would argue that it would lead to polygamy, incest and beastiality. It has been the law for over a decade in Canada and polygamy, incest and beastiality are still illegal.

    But what do you do when the bigot label is accurate? Should we avoid using it out of fear that it might stifle debate? Or should we use it to direct the debate to the subject that is at the root of the issue? I have no problem calling the bus operators who wanted Rosa Parks to sit at the back of the bus bigots. Or the operators of the Woolworths diner who refused to serve the black teens. Or the county clerk who refused to issue a marriage licence to a same sex couple. Labeling people under these types of circumstances does not stifle debate, it focuses it where the debate should be.

    And a little off-topic, but I was wondering what people thought of the county clerk wrapping herself in religion to justify being a bigot. Are there any theists here who see this as a problem? And if not, why not?

  55. 55
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    I showed a clear example how WJM twists the truth, erects a straw man, maligns the ‘other side’, and this is actually the cause of shutting down reasonable discourse.

    No, you showed only that one or two examples of the principle are not easily defended, but others (0812681, WJM, and KF) showed that many more examples of that same principle are easily defended.

    Thus, WJM’s theme is confirmed by the many examples that prove his point. Your decision to focus solely on the few, which you do not find persuasive, and ignore the many, which cannot be denied, indicate that you are not arguing in good faith.

    Indeed, your very behavior confirms WJM’s theme when you pin dual labels on him as a liar and one who has a victimization problem–all in an obvious effort to shut down the discussion.

    I say it again: It’s the people who lie and pretend they are being victimized who are shutting down reasonable debate.

    There you go again, calling someone a liar and claiming that he is playing the victimization card, even as you refuse to argue in good faith. Your behavior, especially your reckless attributions, confirm WJM’s thesis.

  56. 56
    Eugen says:

    hrun and effigy are like arsonists. They support destruction of the culture West built for centuries. What many wise and skillful people built over a long time, few can destroy in a blink. That doesn’t take any skill. Like any low level destructive types they cannot defend their actions or in this case their worldview by reason and logic but instead adopt social justice vocabulary and techniques. These techniques are predictable: shaming, politically correct language, social media campaigns etc… Nothing impressive, just a couple of boshevik agitators.

    “So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”

    — Malcolm Muggeridge

  57. 57

    0812681,

    hrun0815 apparently doesn’t understand certain conventions of speech. In my OP, I used general terms. In #11, I phrased my position thusly:

    If I held the view that I do not want immigrants bringing the unacceptable aspects of their culture into the USA (like defecating in the street, or marrying underage child brides, or rape), then the SJW’s of cultural relativism will label me a bigot, or a racist, and claim I am operating from hate.

    …. using the hypothetical … ‘If I…” as a substitute for a general statement about people/events in the news, as with Schilling, Trump and others. He has since focused on that particular phrasing as if I was making particular claims about my particular experience.

    Your assessment is correct WRT my participation here. It does not appear to me that either IE or hrun are arguing in good faith. For example, at 43 IE says:

    I have still to discern what facts these are. Have any transgendered been charged with lewd behaviour in a women bathroom? Have any men passing themselves off as transgendered been charged with lewd behaviour in a women bathroom? Has anyone accused someone of being racists because they opposed public defecation, rape or polygamy?

    This comment mischaracterizes the point of the OP; it is entirely irrelevant if any transgender has been criminally charged with restroom misbehavior, and it is entirely irrelevant if anyone has been called a racist for “opposing public defecation, rape or polygamy”.

    My original point was that if someone states an opposition to certain leftist agenda points, such as illegal immigrant amnesty, open borders, transgender use of opposite sex bathrooms, same-sex marriage, etc., that is the point where they are immediately attacked and vilified using negative-emotion charged words, like “hate”, “racist”, and “bigot”, and where SJW’s parrot those accusations and carry out their intimidation tactics en masse.

    If someone is states that they are against allowing certain refugee groups into the USA, rational debate begins with asking them why they oppose it, not to immediately insist they are racist or bigoted. They may oppose it on entirely reasonable grounds – that the particular groups carry with them cultural views and behaviors that are antithetical to western culture, even dangerous to our way of life.

    There are many religions in the world that I think the teachings of which are perfectly compatible with Western culture; Islam is not one of them. Does that mean that all Muslims are incapable of assimilating into Western culture? Certainly not, but facts of the world indicate that we need to be more careful when admitting Muslims into our countries, just as we should be very concerned about admitting neo-Nazis or anarchists or people from certain countries.

    As far as the transgender/bathroom issue, what have transgenders been doing up until now? Quietly and discreetly using the male or female bathroom that their physical appearance mostly corresponds to. There are stalls in both men’s and women’s bathrooms for discretion.

    Perverts of any sexual/appearance persuasion will still do whatever they do regardless of the law. When IE talks about transphobic or SSM “slippey-slope” views, he’s missing the point.

    What is the point of laws that give transgenders the right to use any bathroom they want? If we go by this:

    California’s School Success and Opportunity Act, a 2013 law — the first of its kind in the nation, it requires the state’s public schools to allow trans students to use the bathrooms and play on the sports teams that correspond with their gender identities.

    … then the answer is that such laws are intended to prevent bullying and the discomfort transsexuals feel when forced to use bathrooms they do not identify with, or prefent the sense of discomfort/exclusion when they are not allowed on teams that do not correspond to their physical sexual orientation.

    But what of the sense of discomfort and other problems felt by non-transgenders when someone who is physically the opposite sex enters an area reserved for that sex, such as bathrooms or sports teams? Are the girls in the girls bathroom not going to feel uncomfortable when a physical boy is allowed into their bathroom? Does the boy that identifies as a girl think he/she is not going to be teased or bullied by girls in the girls’ bathroom?

    How is it fair when a physical man or girl is not only allowed on an opposite-physical-sex team, but forced by law to be allowed to play? There are real, physical differences between the sexes.

    What about women who feel uncomfortable when what is clearly a man is free to enter the women’s public rest room? Is the discomfort of the tiny number of transgenders more important than the discomfort of the other 99.7% of the population? The law makes no sense; who is it protecting? What is it supposed to accomplish?

  58. 58
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Eugen@56: “hrun and effigy are like arsonists. They support destruction of the culture West built for centuries.”

    Are you referring to the culture that brought us institutional slavery? The culture that brought us two world wars? The culture that dropped two atomic bombs on thousands of innocent civilians? The culture that firebombed innocent civilians? The culture that dropped cluster bombs on civilians? The culture that jailed people for homosexuality?

    Now who is attempting to stifle debate by labelling the dissenters as world destroyers? Nice own goal.

  59. 59
    Eugen says:

    What?? Your negativity shows that you have some other problems. Perhaps your atheism doesn’t give you much purpose to live, enjoy and see positive. What reasonable debater would focus only on negative aspects of something especially when positive outnumber the negative at least ten to one. Western civilization benefited humanity so much it cannot be listed. OTOH your liberal atheist list is not that impressive: 58 genders so far and safe spaces in schools… but unfortunately you are still working on it, el destructo!

  60. 60
    Indiana Effigy says:

    WJM@57: “My original point was that if someone states an opposition to certain leftist agenda points, such as illegal immigrant amnesty, open borders, transgender use of opposite sex bathrooms, same-sex marriage, etc., that is the point where they are immediately attacked and vilified using negative-emotion charged words, like “hate”, “racist”, and “bigot”, and where SJW’s parrot those accusations and carry out their intimidation tactics en masse.”

    That depends on the rational used to oppose these issues. So far, the ones used to oppose SSM have been silly to say the least. They have included:
    !) it will lead to polygamy, incest and beastiality.
    2) It will devalue my heterosexual marriage.
    3) Same sex couples have no potential for reproduction.

    Every single one of these are so lame that a two year old could argue against them. The opposition, when it is distilled to its essence, is a religious one. And nobody was forcing churches to preside over SSM, or forcing any same sex couple to become married. If you want an argument to be taken seriously, don’t use unsubstantiated (and ridiculous) fear mongering.

    “If someone is states that they are against allowing certain refugee groups into the USA, rational debate begins with asking them why they oppose it, not to immediately insist they are racist or bigoted. They may oppose it on entirely reasonable grounds – that the particular groups carry with them cultural views and behaviors that are antithetical to western culture, even dangerous to our way of life.”

    You mean like the arguments used to keep a boat load of Jews from landing in Canada and the US and shipping them back to Europe to die? Any time someone characterizes a “group” as a whole, they are displaying a form of bigotry (Blacks are violent, Scots are cheap, Irish are drunks).

    But what of the sense of discomfort and other problems felt by non-transgenders when someone who is physically the opposite sex enters an area reserved for that sex, such as bathrooms or sports teams? Are the girls in the girls bathroom not going to feel uncomfortable when a physical boy is allowed into their bathroom? Does the boy that identifies as a girl think he/she is not going to be teased or bullied by girls in the girls’ bathroom?”

    Since when is “discomfort” legal grounds for discrimination? Many people are “uncomfortable” around people of different races. I, personally, feel uncomfortable around very effeminate men. But that I am smart and mature enough to realize that that is my problem, not theirs.

    With regard to the sports teams, have you been to kids hockey, baseball, basketball, football games lately. Women have been playing alongside men in these sports at a recreational level for decades.

  61. 61

    IE said:

    Are you referring to the culture that brought us institutional slavery?

    Institutionalized slavery was the way of the world and virtually every culture before the USA put an end to it.

  62. 62
    Indiana Effigy says:

    WJM@61: “Institutionalized slavery was the way of the world and virtually every culture before the USA put an end to it.”

    How does a country that was one of the last to ban it become the country that ended it?

    But regardless, my point was simply that the western culture is not as pure and civilized as it thinks it is. There is much to be proud of, and much to be ashamed of. The same applies to all cultures and all religions.

    Do we exclude muslims because of what some of them believe? How about Hindus? Are you opposed to their entry as well? Western culture is a culture of immigration and emigration. There is no such thing as a fixed “western culture”.

  63. 63
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #55: So one guy equates support for welcoming Muslim immigrants to supporting public defecation, underage marriage and rape while another guy equates being open to Muslim immigration to an arsonist in support to the destruction of Western culture, but it is I who derails reasonable debate?

    I see how this works now. Thanks for clarifying.

    By the way, this is the point I made earlier: if you get labeled a bigot, racist, or hater a lot you may want to consider if you aren’t a bigot, racist, or hater after all.

  64. 64
    Andre says:

    Truth is relative hahahahahaha…. Materialists are awesome entertainers.

  65. 65
    Andre says:

    And here is the avarage leftie bringing out his slavery examples..

    News Flash when a republican put an end to slavery it was democrats that formed the KKK and reigned with terror.

    Look it up the KKK was formed by Democrats and that is the truth.

  66. 66
    Andre says:

    HR

    When Islam finally takes over the world… and it will (the average Muslim family has 7 members, The Christian 2.5 and the materialists even less). Heed these words.

    You will be killed if you don’t convert. I am allowed to practice my religion but have to pay tax to do so. You won’t be given that benefit. Enjoy what is coming to you. Your wife and daughter will become slaves for your efforts. The materialist’s plead for tolarance has created all this intolerance. Don’t be surprised about this, it is coming and you asked for it.

  67. 67
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #66: And here we have guy number three who suggests in the context of allowing or opposing Muslim immigration that one will inevitably lead to forced conversion or killing.

    Again, if espousing a particular opinion regularly gets you labeled as hater, racist, or bigot you might want to consider if the opinion might not warrant those labels.

  68. 68
    goodusername says:

    News Flash when a republican put an end to slavery it was democrats that formed the KKK and reigned with terror.

    Look it up the KKK was formed by Democrats and that is the truth.

    Not sure why you’d think that that’s a news flash (or relevant to the discussion) but most people looked that up when doing their 5th grade homework.

  69. 69
    Andre says:

    This is not an opnion it is a fact that the worst human rights violations that occur on this planet comes from the middle east. Why don’t you go on holiday to Iran, Iraq, Syria, or any of those middle eastern countries and then come back and report on the paradise you uncovered.

  70. 70
    Andre says:

    And? Who loved slavery more than anyone else? The Democrats…. Matter of fact they do so even today… Black people are not elevated in democratic societies… No they are pushed into ghettos and are ignored and for convenience they have a planned parenthood on every corner. Democrats keep treating them as victims instead of treating them like fellow human beings.

  71. 71
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #69: Yes yes. Keep on going. Clearly I have taken a minor hypothetical point from WJM’s post and blown it up completely out of proportion. It’s not like people here are extremist enough to actually believe this, right?

  72. 72
    Andre says:

    Seriously would you like to go there with me so you can see with your own eyes what is going on? Can I buy you a ticket?

    http://www.theguardian.com/glo.....middleeast

  73. 73
    Andre says:

    Let me be clear

    It is not extremist, it is the truth and always know this, you’ve had a hand in it with your it’s all relative nonsense!

  74. 74
    Andre says:

    Here is more…

    https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/blog/modern-slavery-domestic-workers-middle-east-cannot-be-tolerated

    What exactly are you humanists doing to remedy the situation? Please do tell?

  75. 75
    Andre says:

    More

    Wifes, daughters sisters, sex slaves…..

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08......html?_r=0

  76. 76
  77. 77
    Andre says:

    How long will you ignore this are you really prepared for what’s coming? Do you even know whats coming? Perhaps you should put your ignorance aside and start learning the truth of the fate that awaits you for doing nothing.

  78. 78
    Aleta says:

    IE writes,

    The validity of an argument is indirectly proportional to the ridiculousness of the slippery-slope fear mongering that they use.

    That’s a very good line, and true.

    Slippery-slopeism is a symptom of dichotomous black-and-white thinking. As a friend of mine once put it (better than my paraphrase here), it’s thinking that the attractors of a spectrum strongly point to the end points, not towards the middle. Slippery-slopeism is the opposite of seeing nuance and balanced perspective.

  79. 79
    Eugen says:

    Say hrun and effigy attend social justice warriors meeting. After long and deep ten minutes discussion of screaming and shaming it is decided by the loudest whiner to demand a new right: it is a gender type and they want to name it trans alarm clock. We can add this gender to the list of great liberal achievements.

    Facebook will include it in their gender options. Media will talk about it for months because we don’t have more important issues. Obama will tweet praises. Hollywood drunks and drug addicts will make epic movie about it. So far great.

    Questions: am I obliged to accommodate this newly invented right? If I don’t will the brave social justice warriors hrun and effigy cry a Mississippi river and call me intolerant bigot? Should trans alarm clockers demand the right from government to free Energizer batteries (let’s not think where they install them)? Do they get their rainbow parade financed by corporations?

  80. 80
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Andre and his hate-filled rants from 65 to 77:

    Did you ever think that the reason people are trying to get to Canada and the US from these regions is because they despise the human rights abuses as much as you do?

    Food for thought.

  81. 81
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #79: Yes, awesome. That is another example how it is always the ‘other side’ who is blowing up reasonable debate. Your own dude only uses totally realistic and reasonable arguments.

    Just like how not opposing Muslim immigration is exactly the and as supporting public defecation, underage marriage, and rape.

  82. 82
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Eugen@79: “Say hrun and effigy attend social justice warriors meeting. After long and deep ten minutes discussion of screaming and shaming it is decided by the loudest whiner to demand a new right: it is a gender type and they want to name it trans alarm clock. We can add this gender to the list of great liberal achievements.”

    Thank you for providing another example of ridiculous and silly hypotheticals used to defend an indefensible position. I will add it to my collection.

  83. 83
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    Re #55? So one guy equates support for welcoming Muslim immigrants to supporting public defecation, underage marriage and rape while another guy equates being open to Muslim immigration to an arsonist in support to the destruction of Western culture, but it is I who derails reasonable debate?

    Yes, you derailed the debate by ignoring examples (well documented) and by maligning someone with whom you disagree (well documented). You have no answer so you keep changing the subject. Why you are reluctant to debate on the merits (well documented) is a mystery.

    By the way, this is the point I made earlier: if you get labeled a bigot, racist, or hater a lot you may want to consider if you aren’t a bigot, racist, or hater after all.

    The reverse situation is much more common. If you have a history of labeling your adversary as a bigot, racist, or hater, you might want to consider if you aren’t motive mongering in order to avoid debate.

    Example: Millions disagree with the dubious policies of the current president of the United States, who happens to be black. Does that make them all racists? Of course not. Yet leftist ideologues don’t hesitate to make that charge against any individual or group if it serves their purpose? There are many more charges of white on black racism than true examples of black on white racism. Otherwise, a black man could never have been elected to the highest office. Meanwhile, you don’t hear much about black on white racism.

  84. 84
    mike1962 says:

    Indiana Effigy: How does a country that was one of the last to ban it become the country that ended it?

    Abolition of slavery was a process, of course, with America, Britain and France leading the way.

    From Wikipedia:

    One of the first protests against slavery came from German and Dutch Quakers in Pennsylvania in 1688. One of the most significant milestones in the campaign to abolish slavery throughout the world occurred in England in 1772, with British judge Lord Mansfield, whose opinion in Somersett’s Case was widely taken to have held that slavery was illegal in England. This judgement also laid down the principle that slavery contracted in other jurisdictions could not be enforced in England. In 1777, Vermont, at the time an independent nation, became the first portion of what would become the United States to abolish slavery. France abolished slavery in 1794.

  85. 85
    StephenB says:

    IE

    Do we exclude muslims because of what some of them believe?

    .

    If we ever do exclude some of them, it will be because of what they do, not what they believe.

  86. 86
    Eugen says:

    For hruns and effigies every bandwagon is a good one. Why suddenly dislike of trans alarm clockers bandwagon? Ahead of time perhaps? After they are done burning, my silly scenario will be every day reality.
    BTW, hrun and effigy, don’t forget your feminist meeting tonight 😀

  87. 87
    Indiana Effigy says:

    StephenB:If we ever do exclude some of them, it will be because of what they do, not what they believe.”

    Then we are in agreement. We make the decision based on the individual and their actions, not on the religious group that they belong to.

  88. 88

    IE said:

    That depends on the rational used to oppose these issues.

    You’re not paying attention. My point is that prior to knowing anything further about the reasons of the person involved or making the statement, it is at best dishonest and irresponsible to make such egregious accusations or parrot them.

    IE continues:

    Since when is “discomfort” legal grounds for discrimination?

    When is “discomfort” legal grounds for a law in the first place? You do not have a right to not feel uncomfortable. Are we supposed to dismantle thousands of years of the fundamental aspect of social structure, fundamental social mores, and throw the most fundamental of social conventions into chaos and call people “bigots” and “haters” in order to prevent nothing more than the “discomfort” of 0.3% of the population’s feelings?

    If I, as a 57 year old man, self-identify as an 8 yr old girl, should society be forced to accommodate my feelings in every venue where I might feel excluded or discomfited via laws protecting my feelings? Where does one draw the line with such anti-conventional identification when it comes to forcing everyone else to accomodate such identifications?

    IE asks:

    How does a country that was one of the last to ban it become the country that ended it?

    One of the last? The US had only been a country for 87 years before it abolished slavery. A better question would be, how can one reasonably refer US culture as one that “brought us institutionalized slavery” when slavery had been the norm virtually throughout the world for most of recorded history before the US even existed?

    Also, BTW, you do know that slavery existed in Africa prior to the existence of America, don’t you? The West bought slaves from African slave owners. You seem to have a habit of particularly blaming the US or Western Culture for evils that have plagued mankind in every culture throughout recorded history.

    But regardless, my point was simply that the western culture is not as pure and civilized as it thinks it is. There is much to be proud of, and much to be ashamed of. The same applies to all cultures and all religions.

    Pure straw man. Western culture doesn’t think anything about itself. It is my opinion that it is better than any other culture I have knowledge of, not that it is pure or perfect. Am I a bigot for saying that?

    Do we exclude muslims because of what some of them believe? How about Hindus? Are you opposed to their entry as well? Western culture is a culture of immigration and emigration. There is no such thing as a fixed “western culture”.

    If our culture moves towards embracing Sharia law or a caste system due to the influx of immigrants and the proliferation of their ideas and offspring, are you okay with that? If culture is relative, from what principle or arbiter of values do you call the behavior of the county clerk who refused to sign the marriage license “ridiculous”? Isn’t that part of her particular culture? If, because of the influx of muslims, certain cities or areas of the USA become “no-go” zones for the LGBT community, is that perfectly okay with you?

    It seems you only draw the line at Christian or traditional western culture.

    Are you a cultural relativist? Do you not consider some cultural views and habits better than others?

    That the US has been a nation of immigrants doesn’t logically require that we allow anyone and everyone into the country. As you just said, cultures change. Perhaps it is time we stop being a pro-immigration country and instead become far more particular about who we let in.

  89. 89
    Indiana Effigy says:

    WJM@88:You’re not paying attention. My point is that prior to knowing anything further about the reasons of the person involved or making the statement, it is at best dishonest and irresponsible to make such egregious accusations or parrot them.”

    You are correct. That is why I said that it depends on the rationale given for the opposition. If there are no reasons given for the opposition to something, I generally ignore the person because an opinion with no reason to support it is of no value. But if someone tells me that they oppose Syrian refugees because they are Muslim, then I have no problem labeling them a bigot. They are generalizing to an an entire group because of information (or most likely misinformation) they know about some in the group.

    When is “discomfort” legal [g]rounds for a law in the first place?”

    Who said it was? We are not talking about someone’s comfort.

    Are we supposed to dismantle thousands of years of the fundamental aspect of social structure, fundamental social mores, and throw the most fundamental of social conventions into chaos and call people “bigots” and “haters” in order to prevent nothing more than the “discomfort” of 0.3% of the population’s feelings?”

    And nobody is asking you to do so. But if you reword your question as follows:

    Are we supposed to dismantle thousands of years of the fundamental aspect of social structure, fundamental social mores, and throw the most fundamental of social conventions into chaos in order to ensure nothing more than the safety and basic respect of 0.3% of the population?

    Then the answer is YES. That is what morality and justice is all about.

    “If I, as a 57 year old man, self-identify as an 8 yr old girl, should society be forced to accommodate my feelings in every venue where I might feel excluded or discomfited via laws protecting my feelings?”

    Why? Do you self-identify as an 8 year old girl.

    Where does one draw the line with such anti-conventional identification when it comes to forcing everyone else to accomodate such identifications?”

    Oh, the slippery slope argument again. Didn’t we already go over that? If not, refer to my comment above

    The validity of an argument is indirectly proportional to the ridiculousness of the slippery-slope fear mongering that they use.

    If our culture moves towards embracing Sharia law or a caste system due to the influx of immigrants and the proliferation of their ideas and offspring, are you okay with that?”

    Refer to my comment above.

    If, because of the influx of muslims, certain cities or areas of the USA become “no-go” zones for the LGBT community, is that perfectly okay with you?”

    Are you asking if I would be OK if we returned to the complete intolerance towards LGBT that we enjoyed for much of the history of our “Christian” countries? Absolutely not.

    Do you not consider some cultural views and habits better than others?”

    Not as a whole. But some aspects I believe to be better in some cultures than in others.

  90. 90
    Andre says:

    And you are aware that the countries they flee to in no time the shun that countries laws and adhere to sharia law right? Do you know those laws have you studied them? And please don’t call my post hate filled rants I don’t hate anyone or anybody… How can I hate the most beautiful engineered beings in the known universe and that includes atheists!

    Islam is not a religion of peace no matter what you hope or think.

  91. 91
    StephenB says:

    SB: “If we ever do exclude some of them, it will be because of what they do, not what they believe.”

    IE

    Then we are in agreement. We make the decision based on the individual and their actions, not on the religious group that they belong to.

    You are getting tangled up in two distinct, though related, issues. We should make the decision to exclude Muslims based on their actions. On the other hand, only believing Muslims commit terrorist acts. So to exclude terrorists, one must exclude some believing Muslims. That’s basic logic.

  92. 92
    Indiana Effigy says:

    StephenB@91:On the other hand, only believing Muslims commit terrorist acts.”

    The unibomber, the Oaklahoma bomber, Anders Brevek, Columbine, Sandyhook, etc. not withstanding. Unless you don’t think that mass killings are acts of terror.

  93. 93
    vividbleau says:

    WJM

    You are spot on. The left has hijacked our language by doing so they turn everything upside down. Telling the truth is indeed a revolutionary act and can get you fired all under the guise of tolerance. The tolerant left is anything but tolerant; they are the most intolerant people anyone can imagine, they are fascists ( this is not an ad hominim it is an accurate description) and want to impose totalitarianism. The fascism is most notable on our college campuses. Here is where language and Orwells “newspeak” really becomes evident. Terms such as hate speech, offensive speech and safe zones, are “newspeak” for intolerance, the silencing of free speech and any ideas that do not comport with leftist ideology. So Orwellian.

    I thought the whole country was a free speech zone? Memo to the left the 1st amendment is there to protect offensive speech!! Otherwise what is the point? As to safe zones? Come on man or woman…are we serious? The world does not care about your safe zone. Universities are supposed to be the place where ideas can be discussed and vigorously debated, even those ideas that do not comport to your views. Even those views that are offensive to you. The answer to offensive speech is more speech not less.

    Anyway about this bathroom issue. This just happened very recently. I get a text from one of my children, their sexual orientation will remain unknown for reasons I will delineate later.

    My child informs me that he or she had to attend what is euphemistically called “diversity training” which is “newspeak for “reeducation camp”. It was called LGBTQ safe zone training. He or she was “requested” newspeak for “if you don’t you will lose your job” to attend this day long “training” newspeak for “indoctrination”. Unlike Kurt Shilling who has enough money that he can afford to express a difference of opinion and get fired, my child has a family to support and cannot.

    My child starts off with a picture of “The Genderbread Person” There are all sorts of various drawings on the Genderbread person and beside it are four graphs which are supposed to measure exactly what Genderbread Person you are? Woman, Genderqueer, Man, Androgynous, Bisexual, Homosexual, etc, etc. Which one are you? Where do fall on the scale?

    My child then is presented with a form titled “Create Your Gender Person” My child is to draw the gender person they think they are. They are to take into account “Gender Identity” which can be as simple as “woman or as complicated as “butchqueer” My child was to make the “genderbread person” look like he or shes perceived oneself. Answer questions such as “Does your gender identity match your gender expression”

    What else did my child learn? Well that gender identity can change day to day, hour to hour or moment to moment. Gender is not about biology it is about “Identity” It is how one identifies that determines gender. This went on for a day.

    Now my child happens to think the preposterous notion that biological sex should be the determining factor that decides what bathroom one enters. Unfortunately this would be a thought crime and to do anything but sit all day and nod in agreement would cost her or him their job. So all day he or she nodded their head in agreement with the knowledge that to voice any dissent would earn a ticket to the unemployment line. This kind of stuff is happening each and every day and is coming to a theatre near every one of us soon.

    The saddest part of this was what happened yesterday. I was having breakfast with my siblings and my sister brought up one of her friends Facebook page. Now I hate Facebook and don’t have a Facebook page but it seems everyone else does. Anyway this person posted on their Facebook page a rant about Donald Trump and that anyone who supports him is a bigot, homophobe, transphobe, racist, fascist, you get the idea therefore to unfriend her ( whatever that means). I told her she should write her Facebook friend and tell her that even though you would not vote for Trump ( my sister is not a Trump fan and neither am I) that her behavior was worse and more dangerous than Trump could ever be, and unfriend her based on principle. Just because someone has a different political view than someone else does not make them an evil SOB.

    Once again I digressed, mea culpa. So one of my siblings asked if I would retext them my childs text sent to me and at that point I had a terribly un American realization and told her NO. I became incredibly sad because in that moment I realized that in present day America, if by some chance the identity of the person I have been talking about became known because that text got in the wrong hands, my child would be subject to the wrath of the left as well as loss of his or her job for the thought crime that sex is defined by biology not by identity. For this reason the sex of my child will be left unsaid for deniability purposes. Paranoid? No I don’t think so.

    Welcome to present day America.

    Thanks WJM for bringing up an incredibly important topic.

    Vivid

  94. 94

    IE said:

    The unibomber, the Oaklahoma bomber, Anders Brevek, Columbine, Sandyhook, etc. not withstanding. Unless you don’t think that mass killings are acts of terror.

    You and others of your ilk have an astounding inability to recognize various conventions of speech. Certainly, StephenB desn’t hold that “believing Muslims” are the only people at all that commit any terrorist acts, but rather was making a point that among muslims who commit terrorist acts, it is most like the ardent believers who do so (not that all, or even most, ardent muslim believers are terrorists).

    BTW, do you consider profiling inherently racist or bigoted?

  95. 95
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #83:

    Yes, you derailed the debate by ignoring examples (well documented) and by maligning…

    I did no such thing. I asked a question well within the context of the OP. WJM answered where he made ridiculous suggestions. I then pointed out these suggestions and asserted that they have absolutely no semblance with reality. And even though some wanted to backpedal claiming that this particular statement might not be true, but the general gist definitely is, very quickly multiple people came out of the woodwork spouting ever more racist, bigoted, and hateful opinions (well documented, if you will).

    What actually detailed the OP is that to the contrary of WJM’s post, it is not (or at least not alone) the ‘other side’ that details reasonable debate. It’s the fact that even here, within just a few comments, people post bigoted, racist, and hateful stuff.

  96. 96
    hrun0815 says:

    The reverse situation is much more common. …

    Sure, sure. If you say a lot of racist and bigoted stuff that gets you labeled a racist or bigot it surely must be because it’s others who are racist or bigots.

    Unassailable!

  97. 97
    Indiana Effigy says:

    WJM@94: Certainly, StephenB desn’t hold that “believing Muslims” are the only people at all that commit any terrorist acts,… “

    I don’t know how I would ever come to that conclusion:

    StephenB: On the other hand, only believing Muslims commit terrorist acts.

    He didn’t say “fundamentalist” Muslims. Or “bat-shit-crazy” muslims. He said “believing” Muslims. Surely all people who call themselves Muslims are believing Muslims. Are you a believing Christian?

    BTW, do you consider profiling inherently racist or bigoted?”

    Yes. Do you think it is OK for blacks driving expensive cars to be pulled over by police with no probable cause?

  98. 98

    IE reworded my question thusly:

    “Are we supposed to dismantle thousands of years of the fundamental aspect of social structure, fundamental social mores, and throw the most fundamental of social conventions into chaos in order to ensure nothing more than the safety and basic respect of 0.3% of the population?

    Then answers:

    Then the answer is YES. That is what morality and justice is all about.

    First of all, no law or change in social mores can ensure anyone’s safety, nor grant them any respect. Second, has there been a lot of cases of transgenders being being physically harmed in the opposite gender’s restrooms to warrant a law stating they have a legal right to be in those rest room?

    What “safety” or “respect” does is a law supposed to provide a transgendered when it forces the school to let physical males compete against or with physical females? Or physical females to compete against or with physical males? What exactly is the safety issue being addressed? I don’t see any.

    Do you think putting a physical male on a female team, or allowing the physical male to compete against the females, is going to garner that person some “respect” from anyone? Or is it more likely such an insertion is going to garner shame, ridicule, hard feelings and a sense that cheating is going on?

    You see, I don’t for a second buy it that this transgender issue and the laws it is encouraging has anything whatsoever to do with anyone’s safety or “respect”, because there is no argument for it that makes any sense.

    When you say:

    That is what morality and justice is all about.

    That’s the most troubling thing I’ve read all day. The sad thing is, I bet you really think you’re doing something good.

  99. 99

    IE said:

    Yes. Do you think it is OK for blacks driving expensive cars to be pulled over by police with no probable cause?

    No. I think there are kinds of profiling that are not okay, and other kinds that are necessary, like being suspicious of certain middle easterners in certain situations or whom are acting certain ways, and that not profiling them in those situations is not only stupid, it is dangerous.

    That’s the problem with your thinking – it’s far too extreme and simplisitic, and writ large or into policy or law, it puts people at risk for the sake of nothing more than not hurting someone’s feelings or inconveniencing them.

  100. 100
    Indiana Effigy says:

    WJM@99:First of all, no law or change in social mores can ensure anyone’s safety, nor grant them any respect.”

    Tell that to any homosexual who would have been jailed if they had been an adult before the 80s.

    Second, has there been a lot of cases of transgenders being being physically harmed in the opposite gender’s restrooms to warrant a law stating they have a legal right to be in those rest room?”

    Yes. You should do a little research before you ask a question like this.

    That’s the most troubling thing I’ve read all day. The sad thing is, I bet you really think you’re doing something good.”

    Really? You don’t think that the ultimate purpose of morality and justice is to protect the weakest amongst us? I am glad that you have made your view clear.

    No. I think there are kinds of profiling that are not okay, and other kinds that are necessary…”

    So, when you use a slippery slope argument, it is just intelligent rational reasoning. When I use it, I am being stupid and dangerous. Again, it is nice to know what your train of thought is.

  101. 101
    Origenes says:

    One tip:
    Allow only those into your country who explicitly and convincingly subscribe to essential American values. I say this as a European, where things are so politically correct and deteriorated that such preconditions cannot be discussed and where they have lost all effectiveness.
    Our ‘politicians’ and ‘media’ twist reality just like Indiana Effigy does. Fewer and fewer dissenting voices. No one feels safe, not without reason, especially our elderly and women. Everyone is a coward and looks the other way. “They” have this group mentality and always have each other’s back and we don’t. We are a broken people, timidly waiting for the moment when things “really” turn bad.

  102. 102
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #101: Oooooooooooooh, that’s a fabulous idea. Maybe take it a little further? How about kicking those out who do not subscribe to Amerivan values? Certainly don’t give the voting rights!

    I, by the way, totally volunteer defining what are the true American values we should test for. Everybody agree? Good.

  103. 103
    StephenB says:

    IE

    The unibomber, the Oaklahoma bomber, Anders Brevek, Columbine, Sandyhook, etc. not withstanding. Unless you don’t think that mass killings are acts of terror.

    We are discussing members of groups who can be profiled according to the probability that they are likely to commit a terrorist act–and the point that leftists will characterize that reasonable calculation as a bigoted or racist act. It is reasonable to profile Muslims from other nations because it is members of that group who are most likely to commit acts of violence against civilians. It is not reasonable to profile any other group for that reason.

  104. 104
    Eugen says:

    Thanks for the story Vividbleau….there you mention “Create Your Gender Person” from the mandatory indoctrination session. How interesting!
    In comment 79 I set up imaginary scenario for hrun and effigy so I can ask them few questions. It looks like my scenario was not so imaginary after all. They will be happy to see that future came early. Maybe their whining will stop for couple of days until they come up with new social issue. What’s next Bolsheviks? Zoophiles marriage? How was your feminist meeting,btw?

  105. 105
    StephenB says:

    Again, we are discussing members of a group who can be identified as being far more likely to commit a terrorist act than members of any other group–and the point that leftists often characterize that identification as an exercise in racism or bigotry.

    If, therefore, I argue that most terrorists are Muslims, and that Muslims should be profiled more than any other group, I am making a perfectly reasonable argument that is based solely on the facts in evidence. It has nothing to do with bigotry.

    On the other hand, if you claim that I am a bigot for making that argument, then you are maligning me without justification and are simply making things up in order to evade my argument.

    Do you understand the difference?

  106. 106
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Eugen@104:It is reasonable to profile Muslims from other nations because it is members of that group who are most likely to commit acts of violence against civilians.”

    Here is a quiz Mr. Bigot. Who have killed more Americans in terrorist attacks in the US, Muslims or Christians? Here’s a clue. It is not Muslims. But please don’t let preconceived prejudices get in the way of facts.

  107. 107
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Eugen, before you go off searching whether what I said was actually true, I will save you the time. It wasn’t. I made it up. But the fact that you (and probably others) bothered to google what you already assumed to be fact is very telling.

  108. 108
    Origenes says:

    hrun0815: I, by the way, totally volunteer defining what are the true American values we should test for.

    I understand your skepsis Hrun, but my advice is well intended. In fact, the values I have in mind may come across as rather unremarkable to you, but here (in Europe), sadly, they no longer are, such as: freedom of speech, freedom of religion (including the right of apostasy), equal rights for men and women, free press, no child mutilation and so forth.
    Our countries are flooded with people who have zero affinity with all of this and it changes everything.

  109. 109
    hrun0815 says:

    Origenes,

    turns out that you don’t actually understand the source of my skepticism. First off, ‘freedom of speech’ is in fact not a European value. It has been held in Europe for a long time that while in many cases speech should be free, this is not an absolute and other rights trump freedom of speech. And, you may not be aware of this, but here in the US there are numerous supreme court cases that also abridge freedom of speech.

    However, that is besides the point! The point is that countries and its citizens have a right to expect that people follow the law of the country. This does not mean that citizens, immigrants, or visitors have to share the same values.

    And that doesn’t even get into the practicality of your idea. How in the world would you verifiable judge if somebody’s values conform with ‘US values’? You have to fill out a questionnaire? Take a lie detector test? Or there’s the thought police who ascertain if somebody has acted in a manner inconsistent with ‘US values’ they get deported?

  110. 110
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    Sure, sure. If you say a lot of racist and bigoted stuff that gets you labeled a racist or bigot it surely must be because it’s others who are racist or bigots.

    Unassailable!

    No. The issue is whether or not the label is justified.

    Example: When you accuse WJM of lying and playing the victim card, you are spewing out mindless and slanderous assertions with no warrant whatsoever. It’s called making things up.

    On the other hand, when WJM uses the phrase “illegal immigrant” or “Jihadist,” his labels are based on the facts in evidence. Do you understand the difference?

  111. 111
    Origenes says:

    hrun0815,

    hrun0815: The point is that countries and its citizens have a right to expect that people follow the law of the country. This does not mean that citizens, immigrants, or visitors have to share the same values.

    Unfortunately, it turns out that it doesn’t work that way — sharia law in the UK.

    hrun0815: How in the world would you verifiable judge if somebody’s values conform with ‘US values’? You have to fill out a questionnaire?

    That would be uncomfortable to some people, so that’s not an option? Is that what you mean?
    It sure beats letting them in no questions asked … Why don’t you learn from our mistakes?

    hrun0815: Take a lie detector test?

    In quite a few cases that would not be a bad idea IMO.

  112. 112
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #111:

    What do you mean by ‘it doesn’t work that way’? People follow the law or they don’t. Police and the judicial system then make choice on whether or not to prosecute. At no point in time is there an evaluation of ‘sharing the values of the country’!

    And no, I don’t not mean that would be uncomfortable. I mean that it is impossible to reliably ascertain if somebody shares certain values.

    In quite a few cases that would not be a bad idea IMO.

    I give up.

  113. 113
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #111:

    You mean saying racist, bigoted stuff like when people equate ‘not opposing Muslim immigration’ with ‘supporting public defecation, underage marriage, and rape’?

    Or do you mean the racist, bigoted claim that ‘not opposing Muslim immigration’ is equal to being an arsonist who supports the destruction of western culture?

    Or you mean lying that opposing public defecation, underage marriage, or rape would get you labeled a racist, bigot, or hater by media, politics, or academia?

    Hmm, wait, I am confused. All of those things happened. So where is the slander? Where is stuff being made up?

  114. 114
    Andre says:

    Indian Effigy….

    How much do you know about the Columbine shootings and the two boys…. have you ever read Eric Harris’s diaries? I wonder….

    http://www.acolumbinesite.com/diary.html

    As for your defense of terror, enjoy what’s coming your way.

  115. 115
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    You mean saying racist, bigoted stuff like when people equate ‘not opposing Muslim immigration’ with ‘supporting public defecation, underage marriage, and rape’?

    I have not put forth such a ridiculous formulation or anything close to it. Please try to stay on topic and address what I say. I will give you one or two more chances to dialogue in good faith. After that, I will just have to assume that you are incapable of it.

  116. 116
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #115: I didn’t say that you said this. As far as I can tell your post #110 dealt with things WJM was saying. Maybe you want to read again what you wrote before you assume that my dialogue is in bad faith.

  117. 117
    Robert Byers says:

    It all still comes down to the people demading that to have justice and ones rights MEANS one must have truth as the objective of all conversation. Therefore one must be able to speak. therefore one must have this freedom and not be stopped.
    the law agrees with this concept of freedom.
    Therefore when someone trys to stop you from speaking BY ACCUSING motives etc, then all one needs do is demand the freedom to speak.
    Just keep demanding until they stop accusing.
    Just keep demanding. Don’t ask for their consent to freedom of speech.

    After freedom of speech is assured then make your case of truth.

    The bad guys are stopping our freedom of speech once again.

  118. 118
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #117:

    Robert, it’s great you bring up freedom of speech, but I think you don’t appreciate how it works. People have the freedom to say what they want. Just look it this thread: all sorts of nasty stuff has been said here, including the denigration of all followers of a certain religion based on the action of a few and the branding of people who support immigration as arsonist bent on destroying western culture. Nobody has attempted to keep people from voicing these opinions. On the contrary, I actively encourage people speak their mind so everybody knows who their dealing with

    The point about freedom in this country is that people are free to react, within the letter of the law, to what has been said. So a bigoted is allowed to spout bigoted stuff and I’m free to call him a bigot.

    In other words, there is freedom of speech in this country, but there is no right for speech free of consequences. Just look at Curt Schilling: He was free to say what he wanted and ESPN was free to fire him as a consequence and people here are free to bitch and moan about it.

  119. 119
    Eugen says:

    You and your liberal atheists friends are arsonist of the Western culture and civilization. That is why I’ll brand you as such. Arsonist doesn’t require much skill. He looks at the amazing intricate structure (with some imperfections) built over centuries of hard work. He doesn’t understand it and therefore doesn’t appreciate it. He is clueless of what it takes to build it and strikes a match.

    Are you now offended, arsonist? Are you triggered? Do you need a safe space? There’s help for your sensitivity. Go to twitter #tooemotional and complain.

  120. 120
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #119: Eugen, you apparently didn’t read my post #118: I encourage you to speak your mind. I don’t mind in the least that a person like you might call me an arsonist of Western culture and civilization.

    It’s just another example of just how wrongheaded WJM’s original post is.

  121. 121

    IE said:

    Tell that to any homosexual who would have been jailed if they had been an adult before the 80s.

    I’ll tell it to them now. I’ll tell it to anyone. Laws and social mores do not ensure anyone safety or respect, including white males. If you do not know this, I have no idea what world you are living in.

    Yes. You should do a little research before you ask a question like this.

    If this is not a bluff, feel free to provide links to cases where transgenders have been physically harmed in bathrooms – remember, you agreed that laws shouldn’t be based simply on protecting people from feeling uncomfortable, because then you have to account for the discomfort of those who do not want transgenders in opposite sex bathrooms.

    You see, I did research it, and couldn’t find any articles whatsoever about transgenders actually being harmed in bathrooms. That is when I found the California law that started all this that was entirely based on a single student being bullied in the male bathroom. Good grief, let me know when you find someone who HASN’T been bullied in the school bathroom, male or female or transgender.

    Really? You don’t think that the ultimate purpose of morality and justice is to protect the weakest amongst us? I am glad that you have made your view clear.

    No, I do not. Justice is about using laws to fairly punish criminals. It has only been redefined by leftist SJWs, in exactly manner I outlined in the OP, to make something appear to be a matter of “justice” when it really is nothing more than asserting some fascist, leftist agenda. Justice should equally protects the weak and the strong from crime. It is equally unjust if a dollar is stolen from the rich or the poor. Justice is not about protecting anyone from hurt feelings or from being poor or about protecting the planet.

    I would like to know what your “Morality” stems from, because it seems to me that if you are a cultural relativist, then you might also be a moral subjectivist, so your idea of what morality is “ultimately” about probably stems from nothing more than your personal, subjective feelings, and I don’t understand why you, if you are a moral subjectivist, would expect me (or anyone else) to share your personal, subjective idea of what morality is about.

    So, when you use a slippery slope argument, it is just intelligent rational reasoning. When I use it, I am being stupid and dangerous. Again, it is nice to know what your train of thought is.

    No, when I use it, it is because I agree that the slippery slope concept is indeed valid. I agree with you that is indeed a slippery slope to profile middle easterners and such profiling should only be used carefully and reluctantly when there is a serious, credible threat from a higly profilable group. However, when you use the slippery slope argument, since you consider it a non-valid argument, you’re just being a hypocrite.

  122. 122
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    I didn’t say that you said this. As far as I can tell your post #110 dealt with things WJM was saying. Maybe you want to read again what you wrote before you assume that my dialogue is in bad faith.

    WJM has put forth the following theme which I will describe in my own words: Leftists seek to shut down debate and rational discussion on most controversial topics by making sure that only one side of the debate is heard or even acknowledged to exist.

    The strategy is twofold.

    [a] Reframe the topic in misleading language so that the problem is defined solely in leftist terms. [b] Attack the character of those who seek to expose [a] by focusing on their perceived motives and ignoring the substance of what they are saying.

    In my judgement, WJM has more than made his case. Most of his examples are quite persuasive and verifiable, but a small few, it seems, do not persuade you. Your strategy, which is similar to the one we are criticizing, is to obsess over the small few and ignore the many that simply cannot be denied under any circumstances.

    Accordingly, you conveniently lose track of the main theme that is being argued for. Further, when we ask you to respond to any other example than the ones you single out, you refuse to engage. And, to tie it all down, you accuse WJM of lying and playing the victim card. In other words, you ignore his theme and resort to ad-hominem attacks.

    Without hesitation, I characterize these dubious strategies as a refusal to argue in good faith.

  123. 123
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #122: Ok, so you think I am nitpicking because I chose to focus on an example where WJM painted a large amount of the population as supporters of rape and underage marriage. And you think that was unfair and should let that one go because all the other stuff he wrote is so thoughtful.

    How about this then: “The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.”

    Do you think this is an accurate characterization or, maybe just like the public defecation-rape-underage marriage statement it is not actually true, but it COULD be true or it RINGS true to you, so you are willing to let it go and claim that WJM has ‘more than made his case’?

  124. 124
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #122: Or if the previous example (#123) is too hard to defend, how about we focus on the very next paragraph: “Such as “tax cuts”. With baseline budgeting, “cutting taxes” can only mean “reduction in the rate of tax increase”.”

    So the argument is that because of leftists “tax cuts” can only ever mean “reduction in the rate of tax increase”? That can be so easily shown to be false, that I don’t think it is even necessary to do so. JUst look at the marginal federal income tax rate over time– or look at a number of Obama’s programs that effective cut taxes and not simply slowed their increase.

    Is this one of WJM’s thoughtful arguments that convinced you that he is doing a bang-up job while I am acting in bad faith?

  125. 125

    Let’s deconstruct some of fhe false memes hrun0815 (and others of his ilk) use in order to frame any who disagree with his views as bigotry, hate, and racism. He says:

    People have the freedom to say what they want. Just look it this thread: all sorts of nasty stuff has been said here, including the denigration of all followers of a certain religion based on the action of a few..

    I don’t see where all followers of a certain religion have been “denegerated” based on the action of a few. In fact, over and over it has been painstakingly stated that it is a few that we are talking about. However, hrun and his ilk requires his opponents to be racists or bigots because he has no argument based on evidence, facts or reason, so he just makes up things about them so that they appear to be racist or bigoted.

    … and the branding of people who support immigration as arsonist bent on destroying western culture.

    Again, he is making up things out of whole cloth. I don’t think anyone here is against immigration. I support immigration. What I do not support skipping the due process of legal, qualified immigration where applicants are screened and tested for assimilation. I am also against HB1 visas that displace American workers for cheaper foreign temp workers and am for a more strenuous vetting of immigrants coming from ceratin anti-American cultures.

    So we see why the leftist agitators ignore the actual debate and only interact in terms of broad condemnations; they are not equipped to debate via reason and evidence, but rather wish only to win the fight by emotionally pleading and bullying.

  126. 126

    RE #124:

    Thank you for pointing out a mistake on my part in the O.P. Baseline budgeting has to do with budget cuts, not tax cuts. My use of the term “tax cut” was a mistake which I will correct.

  127. 127

    Totalitarian leftists want big government, and they want it in every part of our lives, which is why baseline budgeting was so important. It pretty much guarantees that the size and power of government can never be reduced and will continually increase.

    When politicians talk about “draconian cuts” or throw out all this fear about the government not being able to operate because of the cuts, or how so many people will lose their jobs because of budget cuts, what they fail to tell you is the only thing being “cut” is the amount of the increase in that program’s budget.

    When they say that X funding is being cut “by 50%”, you and I think that the entire budget is being cut in half. That’s not what it actually means. What it actually means is that the rate of increase might be cut from 6% to 3%.

    And, to be clear, most everyone in government is a leftist, whether they call themselves democrats or republicans. They stay in power and keep getting elected largely thorough the use of a deliberately deceitful lexicon that lets them fundamentally mischaracterize everything under the sun as something else entirely that plucks at the good nature and basically good values of the citizenry.

  128. 128
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    Ok, so you think I am nitpicking because I chose to focus on an example where WJM painted a large amount of the population as supporters of rape and underage marriage. And you think that was unfair and should let that one go because all the other stuff he wrote is so thoughtful.

    I am trying to help you understand the difference between a solely descriptive and unverifiable example of what could happen, and a historical and verifiable example of what has, in fact, happened. Under the circumstances, it is silly for you to allude to a hypothetical example, which is subject to being non-historical and say, in effect, “Oh yeah, when did that happen?”

    How about this then: “The left paints anyone that doesn’t agree with their social agenda as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.”
    Do you think this is an accurate [statement]

    Accurate but incomplete. There is nothing in your summary about the manipulation of language for purposes of excluding alternative points of view or ramrodding policy initiatives down the throats of unwilling citizens.

    or, maybe just like the public defecation-rape-underage marriage statement it is not actually true, but it COULD be true or it RINGS true to you, so you are willing to let it go and claim that WJM has ‘more than made his case’?

    I am afraid that you do not understand the relationship between context and language. A hypothetical statement cannot be historically true of false because it is not being presented as a historical fact. On the other hand, it can serve as a descriptive (and true) example of what a theme can mean.

    WJM has, indeed, made his case. You have provided no rational arguments against it. However, if you would care to try, I will be happy to respond.

  129. 129
    Origenes says:

    hrun0815:
    How in the world would you verifiable judge if somebody’s values conform with ‘US values’?
    (…) I mean that it is impossible to reliably ascertain if somebody shares certain values.

    If it is indeed impossible to ascertain someone’s values and therefor there are no such tools wrt the regulation of immigration, would you regret that state of affairs? If so, how much?

    hrun0815: Take a lie detector test?

    Origenes: In quite a few cases that would not be a bad idea IMO.

    hrun0815: I give up.

    Why? So soon?

  130. 130
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #128:

    So hypothetical examples can just be randomly made up stuff that, for example, suggests that a significant chunk of the population supports rape, underage marriage, or public defecation. Challenging this hypothetical is just silly because it means you don’t understand the difference between something that COULD happen and something that in fact HAS happened. So if I say, for example, the fact that 99% of all politicians are Christians means that atheists will be hunted down and killed like rabid dogs this should not be challenged as it is merely a “solely descriptive and unverifiable example of what could happen”. Got it.

    Now to the next: “The left (that means EVERY member of the left) paints anyone (that means EVERY person) that doesn’t agree with their social agenda (that means with EVERY item of the social agenda) as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.”

    Again. You feel that is careful use of language and a thoughtfully advanced argument set up to foster reasonable debate.

    And finally, the last example of WJM’s careful and thoughtful post are the ‘tax cuts’. Ah, yes, turns out that it took over a hundred posts to correct this whopper.

    So yes, maybe you honestly feel like you are helping me understand language, but I doubt it.

  131. 131

    hrun said:

    And finally, the last example of WJM’s careful and thoughtful post are the ‘tax cuts’. Ah, yes, turns out that it took over a hundred posts to correct this whopper.

    Because nobody was talking about the budget or tax part of my OP for 100 posts or so – or if they were, I missed it. I corrected it as soon as I saw you refer to it.

    Also, I assume that many here knew exactly what I was talking about (the baseline budgeting was a clear indicator), but I realize you have a real problem with the principle of charity in a debate, conventions of speech and abstract reasoning.

  132. 132
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #131: And you know, WJM, that even when you replace tax with budget your claim is still nonsense, right? Under Obama the inflation-adjusted federal budget actually decreased in comparison to Bush’s last budget. And if you want to look at past presidents then overall the federal budget has been increasing since Truman, under both D and R governance. Are you attributing this trend seriously to language branding of the left? THAT is in your eyes a reasonable argument, but it is the left that is destroying reasonable debate?

  133. 133
    Phinehas says:

    hr:

    Did you miss this?

    WJM: And, to be clear, most everyone in government is a leftist, whether they call themselves democrats or republicans. They stay in power and keep getting elected largely thorough the use of a deliberately deceitful lexicon that lets them fundamentally mischaracterize everything under the sun as something else entirely that plucks at the good nature and basically good values of the citizenry.

  134. 134
    StephenB says:

    hrun 0815

    So hypothetical examples can just be randomly made up stuff that, for example, suggests that a significant chunk of the population supports rape, underage marriage, or public defecation.

    Your confusion persists. Rape, underage marriage, and public defecation are not “made up” phenomena.

    So if I say, for example, the fact that 99% of all politicians are Christians means that atheists will be hunted down and killed like rabid dogs this should not be challenged as it is merely a “solely descriptive and unverifiable example of what could happen”. Got it.

    No, I am afraid that you do not have it. There is no logical connection between the percentage of Christians and the propensity to hunt down atheists like rabid dogs.

    “The left (that means EVERY member of the left) paints anyone (that means EVERY person) that doesn’t agree with their social agenda (that means with EVERY item of the social agenda) as espousing “hate”, or “violence”, against some protected group.”

    Yes, your formulation is somewhat sloppy, (as you meant it to be) but that problem could be solved by further dialogue. I could ask, for example, “Do you mean literally all leftists all the time?”- and you could say, -“What I really mean is that leftists “often” paint or “tend” to paint etc…. However, that kind of dialogue is impossible with you because you are afraid to answer questions, presumably because you don’t want to clarify or be held accountable. You just want others to clarify and be held accountable.

    And finally, the last example of WJM’s careful and thoughtful post are the ‘tax cuts’. Ah, yes, turns out that it took over a hundred posts to correct this whopper.

    That comment says a lot more about you than it does about WJM. Notice how he responds to the corrective: He admits his mistake (trivial under the circumstances), apologizes, and moves on.

    And notice also how you respond to his response. Rather than assume his mistake was unintentional, you imply that he knew he was promoting a falsehood all along—that he had told a “whopper.” Apparently, it didn’t occur to you that his error could have been unintentional and that his broader theme still holds. Once again—surprise, surprise–you impugn his character.

    The theme of the post is confirmed. We don’t need to provide hypothetical or historical examples to prove that leftists twist our words, mischaracterize our arguments, or call us names. We have you.

  135. 135

    hrun said:

    Re #131: And you know, WJM, that even when you replace tax with budget your claim is still nonsense, right? Under Obama the inflation-adjusted federal budget actually decreased in comparison to Bush’s last budget.

    That’s entirely irrelevant to the point, hrun. It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t understand this – as I said, you seem to have a problem with abstract thinking. Baseline budgeting is real – look it up. How I described what the terms “budget cuts” actually mean is a fact – it’s even been pointed out by a few brave politicians.

    From here:

    “baseline budgeting is one of the most sinister ways that politicians claim to cut spending when they are actually increasing spending. … Baseline, or current services, budgeting, therefore builds automatic, future spending increases into Congress’s budgetary forecasts.

    Baseline budgeting tilts the budget process in favor of increased spending and taxes. For example, if an agency’s budget is projected to grow by $100 million, but only grows by $75 million, according to baseline budgeting, that agency sustained a $25 million cut.

    Politicians often like to have it both ways. Baseline budgeting gives politicians an opportunity to deceive taxpayers by allowing them to claim that they are holding the line on spending while providing more services.

    hurn continues to demonstrate his debate failings:

    And if you want to look at past presidents then overall the federal budget has been increasing since Truman, under both D and R governance. Are you attributing this trend seriously to language branding of the left? THAT is in your eyes a reasonable argument, but it is the left that is destroying reasonable debate?

    I guess you cannot read, either. The republican party has only a handful of actual political conservatives or “rightists” (those who might be better described as a mixture of conservativism, federalism and libertarianism). The political spectrum has been so skewed to the left – again, by leftist framing and terminology – that what is called the “right wing” is really just a slightly less socialist version of leftists who are portrayed as being more war prone and corporate-friendly, but even that is a lie.

    It’s mostly a dog and pony show for the gullible.

  136. 136
    Eugen says:

    Hrun said :”I don’t mind in the least that a person like you might call me an arsonist”

    My pleasure.

    Well then you are more tolerant than I expected. Maybe you actually do practice tolerance just as the left wing preachers proclaim. If that’s the case you don’t mind if I call you arsonist trans alarm clock, do you?

  137. 137
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Eugen: “Well then you are more tolerant than I expected. Maybe you actually do practice tolerance just as the left wing preachers proclaim. If that’s the case you don’t mind if I call you arsonist trans alarm clock, do you?”

    I think you misunderstood Hrun’s comment. When I read a person’s criticism of me, I consider the source. If I have respect for the person criticizing me, I take it seriously. When I don’t…well, you get.

  138. 138
    hrun0815 says:

    There is no logical connection between the percentage of Christians and the propensity to hunt down atheists like rabid dogs.

    Huh? Purely hypothetical. Or are you claiming that there is indeed a logical connection between opposing public defecation, underage marriage, and rape and being labeled racist, bigot, or hater?

    You are just making it up as you go along.

  139. 139
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #135:

    WJM: Leftists redefined terms so that budget cuts can only mean reduction in budget increases.

    Hrun: Hang on, Obama actually decreased the budget.

    WJM: That’s entirely irrelevant to the point, hrun.

    Again, a perfect example of who is responsible for the end of reasonable debate. I’m just flabbergasted here.

  140. 140
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #136:

    Eugen, “Sticks and stones …”, remember?

    I enjoy when people are open and actually say what they mean. Much less guesswork. That way everybody knows who they are dealing with and they don’t hide. If you want to be known as the person who calls people arsonists hellbent on destroying western society, then so be it.

    I am perfectly happy being known as the person calling out WJM on his egregious twisting of the truth and his victim complex.

    And others or perfectly happy to be known as the people who suggest that there is a logical connection between opposing rape and being labeled a racist.

    And another still is perfectly happy to be known as the guy who thinks there should be a “value police” using lie detectors to think if an immigrant should be let into the country.

    To each their own.

  141. 141
    hrun0815 says:

    I guess you cannot read, either. The republican party has only a handful of actual political conservatives or “rightists” (those who might be better described as a mixture of conservativism, federalism and libertarianism). The political spectrum has been so skewed to the left – again, by leftist framing and terminology – that what is called the “right wing” is really just a slightly less socialist version of leftists who are portrayed as being more war prone and corporate-friendly, but even that is a lie.

    Add that to the long list of examples of ‘WJM-style thoughtful rational discourse’. Leftist reframed terminology so that now all except for a tiny few politicians are socialists.

  142. 142
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #129:

    If it is indeed impossible to ascertain someone’s values and therefor there are no such tools wrt the regulation of immigration, would you regret that state of affairs? If so, how much?

    Why would I? Neither here in the US nor in Europe can we ascertain reliably or legislate anybody’s values. I do not care if you follow the law grudgingly or willingly, I just want you to follow the law. And if you don’t, you’ll get punished (if the offense warrants prosecution). That’s how the western world works. I shudder at the thought it would be any other way.

    The places where ‘values’ play a role is in picking your friends, raising your children, or electing politicians (even though I would venture most of those professed values are phony).

    Again, if it was any other way, then I think the only reasonable thing for the US to do would be to chose me and me alone in deciding what are the ‘correct’ values. (Even though I’m pretty sure that would make a number of others quite unhappy.)

  143. 143
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #137: It’s not even that, IE, even though that is true as well, of course. Criticism is much more meaningful coming from somebody you respect and who knows you. Eugen calling me arsonist hellbent on destroying western civilization is ridiculous on the face of it and barely warrants noticing.

  144. 144
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Hrun: “Re #137: It’s not even that, IE, even though that is true as well, of course. Criticism is much more meaningful coming from somebody you respect and who knows you. Eugen calling me arsonist hellbent on destroying western civilization is ridiculous on the face of it and barely warrants noticing.”

    Very true. But you weren’t accused of vulgarity for the grave offence of using the word “brothel”, resulting in the comments in that thread being closed. Now, there is a comment so rediculous that it warrants notice. If for no other reason than to have a good laugh. 🙂

    I now concede WJM’s point. My use of the word “brothel” brought debate to a halt. And since I am left of centre…?

  145. 145
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #144: KF has his very own personal demons he has to struggle with. I try to stay out of his way lest any comment I make leads him to spending an hour writing yet another treatise on how this and that is the prelude to the end of civilization.

  146. 146
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Re #145: I suspect that he was looking for any reason to close off debate. He was getting his ass handed to him.

  147. 147
    drc466 says:

    hrun @132, 139:

    Under Obama the inflation-adjusted federal budget actually decreased in comparison to Bush’s last budget.

    And this is why argument is so often pointless. In 2008, Bush’s last year, Federal Expenditures (budget is what you plan to spend, expenditures are what you did spend) were $2.9T. In 2015, Federal Expenditures were approx $3.4T. Even factoring in “inflation-adjusted”, 3.4 > 2.9. However, using Twain-esque statistics, we could certainly say that expenditures rose less 2014-2015 than they did 2007-2008. Or perhaps you were referring to their relative % of GDP change year over year? But then we have to get into where the cuts came from – if Obama got his cuts from the military and defense while increasing social programs like transgender education, isn’t the conservative complaint (leftists love big government but hide their budget increases with deceptive language) still justified regardless of the overall direction of the budget? And should Obama get credit for a decrease in his increase from 2014-2015 when he cheated by skyrocketing the baseline with a $700B increase from 2008-2009? If I tell my wife, who increased her spending 2%/month from Jan to March, that I’m going to increase my spending 20% in April, then decrease it 1%/month in May and June, am I really managing our budget better than she did? Hmmm? After all, my “inflation-adjusted … budget actually decreased in comparison to [her] last budget.”

    I think any fair analysis of Federal Government budgeting and expenditures would easily support WJM’s assertion that Washington Democrats LOVE big government and have radically increased its size every presidential/congressional term they’ve had the opportunity to, while hiding the increases or declaring them decreases. As to his response that you object to, that Republicans in D.C. are almost as bad as Democrats, you yourself pointed out that federal spending increases regardless of the party in power – supporting his point, rather than negating it. A careful analysis of the causes of the spending increases and the framing language by each party is required to determine whether the larger point about the toxicity of leftist language (do leftists hide their tax increases while trumpeting their opponents’? GWHBush’s experience would argue yes) is a valid one.

    Overall, I’d rate your criticisms of WJM as semantically valid but logically irrelevant to his remarks regarding baseline budgeting. And, in some sense, your argument reinforces his larger point – by majoring in minors and waging war by semantics, you practice the debate-killing language he calls out.

  148. 148
    hrun0815 says:

    Overall, I’d rate your criticisms of WJM as semantically valid but logically irrelevant to his remarks regarding baseline budgeting. And, in some sense, your argument reinforces his larger point – by majoring in minors and waging war by semantics, you practice the debate-killing language he calls out.

    The details are all wrong and overblown, but overall he’s absolutely right. Got it.

    I think any fair analysis of Federal Government budgeting and expenditures would easily support WJM’s assertion that Washington Democrats LOVE big government and have radically increased its size every presidential/congressional term they’ve had the opportunity to, while hiding the increases or declaring them decreases.

    The federal budget has been increasing nearly linearly since the 1940ies. But clearly, any sober analysis would show that this is all the D’s fault… and of course because even since the forties the PC leftiest have redefined language so that budget decrease only can mean decrease in the rate of budget increase.

    Totally rational and sober analysis.

  149. 149
    Eugen says:

    efigy, hrun

    Look guys

    I don’t want respect from you neither I give you any. Let’s not dwell on it too much. This has nothing to do with the fact that you are destroyers of the Western civilization and culture. Low level soldiers of a much bigger machinery. I just picked the word arsonist because it sounds cool.

    Still there’s no hate against you. After all you’re also children of God but unfortunately even He makes a mistake sometimes.

    Never mind, this is getting too deep. What gender do you feel today?

  150. 150
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #149: Eugen, I encourage you to keep going. So far you included feminists and transgender in your mockery. I wonder what other group is in your repertoire? Maybe next you are going to tell us that we are totally gay and stuff?

  151. 151
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    Huh? Purely hypothetical.

    I have no idea what you mean. What does your comment have to do with the fact that leftists accuse their opponents of bad motives in order to avoid a discussion of the issues?

    –Do not the gay lobby leftists label opponents of gay marriage as bigots and haters in order to drown out the latter’s real reasons for their objections?

    What does your comment have to do with the fact that leftists misuse the language to reframe issues and mislead the public?

    –Do not the baby-killing leftists refer to an unborn child as a “blob of tissue” in order to convince young mothers that a fetus is not a human being?

  152. 152
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Hrun@150:Re #149: Eugen, I encourage you to keep going. So far you included feminists and transgender in your mockery. I wonder what other group is in your repertoire? Maybe next you are going to tell us that we are totally gay and stuff?”

    Nah. That is Mapou’s style, and he doesn’t post here.

  153. 153
    hrun0815 says:

    Of course you don’t know what I mean. Clearly it’s perfectly ok for you to claim that something is purely hypothetical so of course there no supporting evidence for the example can be given, but on the other hand decry a purely hypothetical because there is according to you no ‘logical connection’. You can’t have it both ways. Pick one.

    As for your examples, yes, the first one is correct. If you oppose gay marriage you are labeled a bigot, and rightly so. Depending on how you express your opposition, you may or may not be labeled a hater as well. Sorry, that’s just how it goes. And yes, if you oppose gay marriage you will also be compared to the people who supported the miscegenation laws– again for good reason. History will look at both groups in equal bewilderment.

    And no, that is not at all what happened. Those two terms mean something completely different. You can be an undocumented worker without being an illegal alien and you can be an illegal alien without being an undocumented worker. And the fact that the term undocumented worker exists has nothing to do with the support for immigration (legal or otherwise).

    And finally, I would ask you to look through a textbook. Human beings develop from a ‘blob of tissue’. How does citing this fact shut down rational discourse? And does it do this more or less effectively than calling people baby-killers?

  154. 154
    0812681 says:

    Folks,

    check this out…

    This is what I said in #52 in response to Hrun0815

    You don’t seem to understand that by inviting certain people into western culture, Europe is in fact inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture.

    So, when people like me, WJM and KF voiced their opposition of inviting muslims into western culture, we have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater.

    And yes, we would be making generalisations about muslims if we said that all muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage are okay, because this is obviously not true. We are well aware of that.

    But it is a fact, that certain muslims think these things are okay, because of their backward culture. When people like me, WJM and KF are trying to point this out, we have been labeled a bigot, racist, or hater. Not for our opposition of inviting public defecation, rape, or underage marriage into western culture(I agree with you here) but but because of our opposition of inviting a backward culture that is the root cause of these things.

    It’s because of political correctness that many people refuse to admit that the root cause of why certain muslims think public defecation, rape, or underage marriage to be okay, lies in their backward culture. So, instead admitting this very fact, they are labeling people who disagree with them a racist, bigot or hater. And that’s very thing the orginal subject of this thread is about.

    See how Hrun0815 twists it in #53

    According to you accepting Muslims into our society is equal to supporting public defecation, rape, and underage marriage.

    It should be obvious that this is a clear mischaracterization of what I said.
    Then Hrun0815 goes on to say in #53…

    …you should consider if your “truths” aren’t justifiably labeling you as racist, bigot or hater.

    There you have it people. It should be obvious that Hrun0815 clearly twisted my words to make it justifiable to label me as bigot, racist or hater.

    And with that he has proven the point of orginal post of this thread: ”They (=people who disagree with leftists) are being demonized by the left by the lie of mischaracterization.

    I also said in #52

    If you still refuse to change your viewpoint above, regardless of the facts presented to you, then your are being unreasonable. So, that would be the end of reasonable debate.

    Hrun0815’s answers to that in #53 with this..

    It remains funny that you (and KF/WJM) claim it is the ‘other side’ who is responsible for ending reasonable debate.

    You see that Hrun0815 refuses to change to his viewpoint regardless of the facts I presented him. Hrun0815 won’t admit any fact I presented to him, nor does he try to debate those facts, instead he has chosen to mis/re-characterize what I said.

    And with that he has proven the point of the orginal post of this thread once again: ”We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, … has been politically re-characterized by the leftists ..”

    Folks, we can all agree that people are being unreasonable if they resort to this kind of behavoir when facts/truths are presented to them. Because if their purpose really was to have a reasonable debate, they would not resort to this kind of behaviour when facts/truths are presented to them.

    By resorting to this kind of behaviour, Hrun0815 has proven the point of the original post of this thread yet a third time: ”Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate…”

    If Hrun0815’s purpose was to have a reasonable debate, he should NOT have twisted or mis/re-characterize what I said, he should NOT have tried to justify labeling people, and he should NOT he have resorted to this kind of behaviour when I presented facts to him. He certainly did NOT try to persuade /convince/inform me with facts.

    Hrun0815 could have chosen to debate the facts I presented, but He didn’t. So, to me, it seems that for Hrun0815, facts are of lesser priority, because his highest priorities were to twist, mis/re-characterize and justify a label.

    By his own choice, Hrun0815 has put an end (to what I would call) a reasonable debate. Reasonable debate ended when he chose to stop being reasonable.

    I am not looking for an unreasonable debate. I just wanted to help Hrun0815 understand WJM and KF better by trying to enlighten him with facts that he was/is clearly ignorant/unaware of.

    Thank you for reading my post(s)

    Take care

  155. 155
    Indiana Effigy says:

    StephenB@151: “Do not the gay lobby leftists label opponents of gay marriage as bigots …”

    Yes. But given that fifteen years of arguments made against SSM amount to nothing more that bigotry, I think the label is a well justified one.

  156. 156
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #133: Yes, dude. I had originally indeed missed this. But thanks to you I did pick it up and added it to the list of examples of ‘thoughtful and reasonable debate’ by WJM.

  157. 157
    Robert Byers says:

    hrun0815 118#
    I disagree with your point. lets think carefully.
    if someone gives a opinion and is called bigot and this does mean a reaction. by censoring or punishing THEN where is the free speech. to be free means free of punishment or censorship in order to say something and be FREE to say it again.
    BIGOT means bad. so the person is being told they are bad. NOT JUST WRONG.

    I don’t know the Shilling case.
    But it doesn’t matter. its classic rejection of the peoples freedom of speech.
    You can’t say he was free to speak and then gets fired is a fredom of reaction. NO! its old fashioned punishment of speech. freedom of speech exists to stop these firings.
    They can’t fire him.They could warn about ideas but not even that. its illegal to fire p[eople for what the nation doesn’t allow the government to do. The government can’t fire us for our speech because its a free nation.
    The comments here are right.
    We are living in a nation(s) where our natural right to truth and so speech is being attacked and denied.
    Its illegal. Take them court.

    The empire has is extending too far and more people are complaining
    There is a clear rejection of free thought and speech in America and canada.
    It must be ground to take back. Origin issues are just another trench in a long trench system.

    Slander and malice can be dealt with.

    Truth and freedom of speech to that end is a natural and legal right. Its impossible to reject that unless its coming from people in power.
    A establishment if you will. Probably a liberal ethnic/sex one.

    On origin blogs I find eVERYBODY struggles with free speech. Everybody resents so much being said.
    Yet free speech is a natural right and a political/legal right in our nations.
    We must struggle for it again.
    This thread shows a struggle.

    A deal. You can accuse BIGOT if you agree it doesn’t bring a punishment or stoppage of the accused repeating themselves as they like!!
    If bigot ends speech then they will call bigot on everything they want to end hearing.
    These days need strong men to fight the invasion of our natural and legal rights.
    Here we go again.

  158. 158
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #157: You disagree? This is just bizarre. You claim there is (or should be) freedom of speech AND freedom of the consequence of speech?

    And do you REALLY believe that ‘its illegal to fire people for what the nation doesn’t allow the government to do’?

    I can agree on your last point though. You say bigoted stuff, I will call you bigot, and we all agree that you can continue saying bigoted stuff and I will not punish you. Deal.

  159. 159
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Much of this argument seems to revolve around public defecation, rape and underage marriage. Let’s examine these, just for the record.

    Public defecation: Is this a cultural thing or more a result of poverty, homelessness and a scarcity of public bathrooms? To suggest that it is something that is particularly unique to Muslims is, let’s face it, a bigoted statement. How else can you characterize it?

    Rape: This was presented with no statistics to show that it is more prevalent in Muslim cultures than anywhere else. And the Koran, as does the bible, speaks out against rape. The rates of sexual assault amongst so called Christian cultures is nothing to be proud of, so those in glass houses…

    Underage marriage: Most countries, including Muslim countries, have a minimum marriage age between 16 and 21. But many allow marriage at a younger age with parental consent, including Canada and the US. In New Hampshire a 13 year old girl can legally be married.

    Aren’t biased stereotypes a wonderful thing? Bigotry by any other name…

  160. 160
    kairosfocus says:

    HR & IE (and others):

    The serial use of vulgarity on a civil public forum despite warning and correction are marks of disrespect for civility and reasonable, responsible discussion.

    And IE has willfully misrepresented facts — indeed in this very thread he has repeated the problem of feeling he can crack rotten words at will on a forum that needs to maintain a responsible, civil level of discussion to denigrate and dismiss those who have committed the thought crime of daring to differ with his preferred party line. This already plainly shows how he habitually speaks with disregard to truth in hope that what he says or suggests will be taken as true.

    No, HR, it is not personal demons it is watching too many discussions here and elsewhere go to a spiral to the gutter, it is watching cyber stalking, it is seeing hate and bigotry sites surrounding UD that indulge the very worst levels of animosity.

    It is seeing attempts to attack in the unrelated local press publishing on unrelated matters to create false impressions, it is seeing evidence of on the ground stalking of uninvolved relatives at degrees of remove. Of course, there is a pretence, all is okay on “our” side, it is those unwashed IDiots who we have a right to lie, project and double down on . . . as you should know and acknowledge then do something about, but plainly refuse to.

    That FYI, is classic enabling behaviour.

    FYI, the good cop bad cop tactic only means the so called good cop is an enabler of evil and has become a part of a corrupt system.

    Indeed there is every sign shown through the recent behaviour of how evolutionary materialism leads to might and manipulation make ‘right’ and ‘truth’ etc cultural marxist style nihilism — precisely one of the civil society destroying ‘features’ of evolutionary materialism exposed and warned against by Plato in The Laws 2350 years ago . . . its utter want of foundation for morality leading to destructive factionism.

    And that is precisely what this thread discusses, breakdown of responsible, reasonable discussion.

    It is high time for the circle of design objectors to wake up and fix some serious problems.

    Before they reap the consequences of their behaviour.

    KF

    PS: Onlookers, kindly again note IE’s further use of vulgarities here, showing the truth he sought to twist and mislead about. Also, it would not be advisable to take thinking points from the talking points of such an objector. [On the substantial matter he has tried to drag down into the gutter and has tried to drag over into another unrelated thread, you will see the case that needs to be faced — but predictably (years ago, I faced the Marxists after all and saw what ideological indoctrination does to thinking level . . . ) will not honestly and seriously face until there is a painful institutional collapse here.]

  161. 161
    kairosfocus says:

    0812681

    Pardon, but I have had little time to follow debates in this thread. I spotted something about me objecting to Muslim immigration.

    I have said nothing on this topic or on several other points in this thread.

    I would suggest that IslamISM, a minority in Islam but one with sobering roots in foundational Islamic history, Quran and Hadiths, is a menace to the world and is known to have a 100 year global subjugation plan, termed by the Muslim Brotherhood The Project. (English begins p 15.)

    A copy was captured in Switzerland from a Muslim financier by Swiss Financial Police shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, on 9/11 I took time to search the Internet and found two key things. Plans — detailed — for nuke weapons and a 100 year world subjugation plan that just on what is claimed today imposes global conflict.

    The form of that conflict is 4th generation warfare in which non state actors using terrorist and piratical tactics are a major feature along with integral lawfare (which BTW is what — coming from radical factions of various allied types — has been corrupting the law all over our civilisation for decades)and cultural marxist style agit prop. Those in denial refuse to acknowledge this and insist they see only a manageable law enforcement problem.

    Likewise,shortly after 9/11 an IslamIST leader’s family in Virginia was spotted casing a bridge in Virginia USA by an alert police officer. (Of course, the fifth columnists’ lawfare and agit prop seek to characterise such as racist profiling. And yes, I directly imply sustained calculated treasonous conduct, for which it is increasingly likely millions will die through nuke terrorism or germ warfare . . . anthrax most likely.)

    Search of the sub basement revealed 70 bankers boxes of files including The Explanatory Memorandum addressed to the Egyptian leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood by the North American operation, with dozens of false front operations identified. English begins, p. 15.

    (Muslim terrorists were trained by Moscow for decades and use stratagems that are instantly recognisable to someone like me who faced similar Moscow trained treasonous activists and their manipulated dupes. Similarly, ex Nazi propagandists were used. Of course, part of the red herring led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere tactic is meant to drown out the warnings of people like me who speak from direct experience and knowledge. Oh, he has personal demons, you need not listen to him. Classic agit prop tactic of shooting at the messenger bearing unwelcome news. And don’t get me started on mass brainwashing tactics a la Plato’s cave of shadow shows. Read: TV and similar manipulation-prone media.)

    This document was publicly released in the context of the Holyland Foundation terrorism financing trial.

    It reveals a strategy of civilisation undermining jihad, settlement jihad. Which in Europe has reached to no go areas by the hundreds that are serving as terrorism bases.

    Where, mass uncontrolled migrations of “refugees” from source zones for IslamIST terrorism have to be challenged as invitations to settlement jihad tactics.

    There are genuine refugees, but isn’t it strange that Christians and Yazidis (victims of outright genocide) are utterly under-represented and there is a persistently reported disproportion of men of military age? Where, source zones plural points out that we are not dealing just with displaced persons from the Syrian civil war and its overflow into invasion of Iraq. (During which invasion, I was muttering to myself, where are the A10’s hitting those columns of invading pickups. That alone should tell us something is rotten in Washington, DC.)

    I think it is clear that the long time solution to displaced persons is to deal with the problem at or near the source, with very selective settlement elsewhere for cases that are special. The proper move is to resettle in the same areas or nearby ones with the same culture that minimises dislocation and long term polarisation.

    All this is known, fully documented, easily available and repeatedly tested and successful.

    If it is being systematically ignored in a pattern that all too chillingly echoes the barbarian settlements in the late western Roman Empire or the post Roman evacuation invitation of the Britons to the Saxons to come help defend them, then we are looking at an agenda that seeks to profit from creating intractable conflicts. Including by at minimum gross dereliction of sworn duty of defence, opening the door to settlement jihad.

    But then, our civilisation is increasingly suicidal, undermined and eaten out by the rise of evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers.

    KF

  162. 162
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Plato’s warning, written c 360 BC, in the aftermath of Athenian collapse through the Peloponnesian war a generation or two earlier:

    Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.

    Note, this is consistently ignored or brushed aside by the sort of objectors we have to deal with. Those who refuse to heed lessons of history bought with blood and tears doom themselves to experiencing much the same lessons over and over again. In an age at the threshold of nuke and germ warfare terrorism that is directly suicidal.

  163. 163
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM:

    I am too busy to go into this thread and its discussion, but a few themes need some remarks.

    First it seems insanitary personal habits has been a major focus.

    This reflects that in part we are dealing with classes of people who lack adequate public health education. That is something that can be reasonably remedied, and used to be remedied through basic public health education and training as part of immigration and acquiring new citizenship. I am sure that people of middle and upper class background in many of these societies, have much more western patterns of behaviour in such regard.

    The issue of sexual harassment and rape is different, this is a warfare tactic not just young men out of control.

    The jihad by bands terrorist message to women and children is, you are prey species and your men and government cannot defend you so you have to reckon with us.

    Your new masters, imposing a shame-honour culture where the women and children of the conquered are prey for enslavement and sexual abuse or murder etc at will.

    Such has to be treated as a form of terrorism and handled drastically before there is de facto state breakdown and reversion to warlordism and the ancient wars of annihilation of the clans through irreconcilable feuds. Or, the rise of real Nazism, grand warlordism joined to socialist statism mobilised for war, and using the arguments of needing a Neitzschean Superman amoral law unto himself political messiah above law to handle the unprecedented crisis now upon us the key victim class.

    Those who dismissed my earlier response to the San Bernardino case in which I called for an organised, trained, armed civilian marshal corps based in and protective of targets, will refuse to acknowledge and address this also.

    Mass rape and sexual enslavement of women is a war crime and it should be severely punished as such.

    The slave trade is a crime against humanity, and should be treated as such.

    And yes, if you have not recognised that ISIS has restored slavery, blame the media who refuse to tell the unvarnished truth that does not fit the progressivist narrative.

    Fifth columnist traitors in Journalists’ clothing.

    And, Americans, how on earth have you tolerated a Secretary of State and now leading presidential candidate — likely, your next president — who obviously refused to keep basic cyber security laws and exposed secrets through using a home server? All history shows that such high handed lawlessness in high places has sobering consequences. But then, as an onlooker I simply say the current US Election campaign cycle is a strong sign of the decay of our civilisation, and a portent of avoidable disasters ahead. (And do not fool yourself that Mr Trump has shown himself fit for high office; your nation has painted itself into a terrible corner. I speak so frankly as the whole world will suffer the consequences of this ongoing march of folly of an election cycle.)

    Now, illegal, non state combattants and terrorists should face updated piracy law, and those who host or enable them should face the same law. Yes, pirates and pirate nests should be viewed as enemies of humanity and should be eliminated by concerted efforts. I am confident that after a few such nests have been eliminated, the others in the line will get the message very fast and will change their ways. Notice, how Libya surrendered its offshore Iraq-based WMD programme after the Iraq invasion of 2003 . . . something that is of course conveniently utterly “forgotten” by the baying media hounds. The same who do not discuss how Syria, the other Baathist state, had its nuke programme knocked out by Israel. (Do not get me started on George Sana’s warnings on what happened to the Iraq WMD programme. That is a former top level officer of Iraq’s Air Force under Hussein.)

    Pirates’ nests should be eliminated, and the ideology that supports them should be publicly shamed to the point where it has nothing to say.

    Rioting and attacking innocents in response to exposure of IslamISM should be treated as acts of war, terrorism and piracy as appropriate.

    ISIS is a Pirate state.

    Boko Haram is a Pirate army.

    And so forth.

    Coming back to the main topic, it is indeed obvious that for years we have been seeing factions that have utterly no interest in civil discussion, they aim to impose amoral evolutionary materialist scientism and the things it opens the gateway to. They have resorted to cultural marxist, Alinsky style agit prop tactics, and have utterly undermined civil discussion, reflecting their view that the human mind is like a computer, needing to be purged of programming they don’t like and reprogrammed with their agenda. They refuse to see the irretrevble self referential incohderence in tehir evolutionary materialism and on any flimsy excuse will dismiss warnings based on admissions against interest straight from the horse’s mouth.

    As we saw just above.

    I bet naive onlookers would never believe that something like a dozen from the horse’s mouth examples of the self referential incoherence of evolutionary materialism and its dynamics of reduction of mind to matter under blind chance and mechanical necessity were on the table and were never cogently responded to by the sort of objectors who above resorted to vulgar disrespectful dismissiveness.

    Useful idiots involved in a march of folly they do not understand, to use Lenin’s terms.

    That is why civil discussion on origins issues, evolutionary materialism, evidence pointing to design, linked morality and policy issues etc almost always breaks down through ruthless agit prop tactics coming from the party of Darwin.

    Misanthropes.

    And lemmings parroting the evo mat party line talking points while not understanding that they are caught up in a march of folly headed over a cliff.

    Well did Plato warn us 2350 years ago.

    KF

  164. 164
  165. 165
    Eugen says:

    Hrun

    Now you lie that I mocked transgenders and feminists. No, I was mocking you. I would  offer help and compassion to transgenders not parade them around and worship them like your side. That’s mockery of their difficult situation. What else is expected from liberal atheists but to jump on a new bandwagon and worship anything.

    Will you finally make an argument instead of nitpicking?

    How are your feelings today, are you triggered? Are you satisfied with a new role of Effigy as your sidekick, your little Robin?

  166. 166
    kairosfocus says:

    I see on passing by the principled objection to the twisting of marriage through cultural marxist lawfare is deemed bigotry (thus to be subjected to hate speech thought police laws as has already begun to happen . . . ), so I suggest that we may read some of what is being tagged and smeared, here: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp.....eFinal.pdf — just for record. I defy any responsible person to find this paper to be bigotry. KF

  167. 167
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #165: Read, man. I didn’t say you mocked them. I said you used them in your mockery. Equally as bad.

    You see, if you say “Hrun, you are a as whiny as a feminist.” then you are attempted to both insult me and feminists. So it is telling what groups you include when you mock people. It’s all there for people to see.

    ETA: And I see that you, as I suggested, just keep on going. Thank you.

  168. 168
    Eugen says:

    “you are a as whiny as a feminist”

    Yes you are.

    Now I realized that you and other social justice warriors generously use term bigot. I know the definition of that word but I would like to know what rules you use when you call someone a bigot? What is criteria or general rules you apply when you name opponent a bigot?

  169. 169
    Zachriel says:

    drc466: In 2008, Bush’s last year, Federal Expenditures (budget is what you plan to spend, expenditures are what you did spend) were $2.9T.

    Bush’s last budget is FY2009, proposed in June 2008. Spending was $3.5 trillion. The very high expenditures were primarily due to the financial meltdown and ensuing recession.

    drc466: I think any fair analysis of Federal Government budgeting and expenditures would easily support WJM’s assertion that Washington Democrats LOVE big government and have radically increased its size every presidential/congressional term they’ve had the opportunity to, while hiding the increases or declaring them decreases.

    The size of government as a percentage of GDP decreased during the Clinton and Obama administrations, and increased during the Bush administration.
    http://www.truthfulpolitics.co.....sident.jpg

  170. 170
    StephenB says:

    Hrun0815

    As for your examples, yes, the first one is correct. If you oppose gay marriage you are labeled a bigot, and rightly so.

    This is your fundamental error. There are very good reasons for opposing gay marriage, historical cultural, logical, and moral—none of which have anything to do with hate or bigoted instincts. It is this discussion that you and your leftist comrades do not want to have because you will lose the debate. So, in order to avoid the debate you malign those who would dare to correct the record.

    Depending on how you express your opposition, you may or may not be labeled a hater as well.

    Incorrect. The gay lobby (and you) will malign me as a hater and a bigot no matter how I express my points or whatever reasons I provide in defense of my position. You just did it above when you said that those who oppose gay marriage are, by definition bigots. So you have contradicted yourself.

    And finally, I would ask you to look through a textbook. Human beings develop from a ‘blob of tissue’.

    I have read the textbooks. Apparently, you have not. A fetus is a developing human being. It is never just a blob of tissue. A fetus does not develop INTO a human being. A fetus develops AS a human being. Even a zygote has full human DNA. Thus, it is a human being. It’s basic logic. Still, leftists call it a mere “blob of tissue” to mislead the public–and the soon-to-be mother.

  171. 171
    StephenB says:

    SB@151: “Do not the gay lobby leftists label opponents of gay marriage as bigots …”

    IE: “Yes. But given that fifteen years of arguments made against SSM amount to nothing more that bigotry, I think the label is a well justified one.”

    Which arguments did you have in mind. What makes you think that they were the product of bigotry rather than sound reasoning and historical experience?

  172. 172
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #170:

    Yet again an example of thoughtful, reasonable debate.

    I write that human beings develop from a blob of tissue. You counter that a fetus is a human being (and at the same time you claim to have read the textbooks). How about you go back and look up what a fetus is?

  173. 173
    Indiana Effigy says:

    KF@160:The serial use of vulgarity on a civil public forum despite warning and correction are marks of disrespect for civility and reasonable, responsible discussion.”

    Get over yourself KF. The word I used was “brothel;”, and not in a vulgar context. You were asked what Follytricks were. I jokingly responded that it was a Monserrat brothel. With a big yellow happy face at the end of the sentence.

    Let’s be honest here. Your self-referential incoherence claim wa being soundly beaten by a couple evo-mats, and you didn’t like that. So you found a lame excuse to end the discussions on the thread that you had started.

  174. 174
    Indiana Effigy says:

    KF@163:The issue of sexual harassment and rape is different, this is a warfare tactic not just young men out of control.

    The jihad by bands terrorist message to women and children is, you are prey species and your men and government cannot defend you so you have to reckon with us.”

    If you had time to read more of the comments you would note that the issue of rape was not in the context of terrorist tactics. It was in the context of general cultural tolerance of it. The suggestion was that it was more tolerated in muslim cultures, which is definitely not the case.

    Your new masters, imposing a shame-honour culture where the women and children of the conquered are prey for enslavement and sexual abuse or murder etc at will.”

    The bible isn’t exactly innocent in this respect.

    Those who dismissed my earlier response to the San Bernardino case in which I called for an organised, trained, armed civilian marshal corps based in and protective of targets, will refuse to acknowledge and address this also.”

    You are going way off-topic, bordering on threadjacking. The subject here is the supposed tactics used by leftists to stifle debate (e.g., label anyone who opposes SSM as being bigots or homophobes).

    And lemmings parroting the evo mat party line talking points while not understanding that they are caught up in a march of folly headed over a cliff.”

    You do realize that lemmings don’t really jump off cliffs, don’t you?

  175. 175
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Eugen@168:I know the definition of that word but I would like to know what rules you use when you call someone a bigot? What is criteria or general rules you apply when you name opponent a bigot?”

    The definitions I use (and I admit that they may not be completely accurate, but they make sense to me) is as such:

    Prejudice: A belief, or stereotype, based on lack of knowledge. If I call someone prejudiced, I don’t intend it as a moral judgement. We all display prejudice at some level of another. And it can be corrected with knowledge.

    Bigot: Someone who persists in a belief in spite of contradictory knowledge, evidence and facts. If I call someone a bigot, I do intend it as a moral judgement.

  176. 176
    Indiana Effigy says:

    StephenB@171: “Which arguments did you have in mind. What makes you think that they were the product of bigotry rather than sound reasoning and historical experience?”

    I think that my definitions above explain part of it.

    You mention that the opposition to SSM may have been based on “sound reasoning and historical experience.” We can certainly debate the sound reasoning that you suggest, but there is little in the way of historical experience that can be used to oppose SSM. Historical experience, if anything, supports it. It has been legal for over a decade in Canada, and none of the dire consequences that the sound reasoning of those opposing it had predicted have come to pass.

  177. 177
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    I write that human beings develop from a blob of tissue.

    And I explained that humans do not develop into human beings. They develop as human beings. This is a biological fact that you will discover if you choose to read the biological textbooks.

    The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. That means that all later stages, including fetus (defined as an embryo at 8 weeks), also have human DNA. That means that all abortions kill a human being.

    How about you go back and look up what a fetus is?

    From a medical perspective, a fetus is an embryo after about 8 weeks. On the other hand, some believe that an embryo from conception onward should be labeled as a fetus. Either way, a “blob of tissue” does not morph into a human. Humanity is present at the moment of conception.

  178. 178
    vividbleau says:

    IE “You are going way off-topic, bordering on threadjacking. The subject here is the supposed tactics used by leftists to stifle debate (e.g., label anyone who opposes SSM as being bigots or homophobes).”

    Supposed tactic?

    IE “Yes. But given that fifteen years of arguments made against SSM amount to nothing more than bigotry, I think the label is a well justified one”

    Sheesh

    Vivid

  179. 179
    Origenes says:

    StephenB: The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. That means that all later stages, including fetus (defined as an embryo at 8 weeks), also have human DNA. That means that all abortions kill a human being.

    One would expect that the argument — it has human DNA so it is a human being — should be compelling to materialists. It may be a far less compelling argument for those theists who hold that a human being is an eternal spiritual being.
    It’s rather odd that it doesn’t work that way.

  180. 180
    StephenB says:

    IE

    You mention that the opposition to SSM may have been based on “sound reasoning and historical experience.”

    Yes.

    We can certainly debate the sound reasoning that you suggest…

    [a] If those reasons lead me (and others) to believe that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is bad for individuals and society, even though I also believe that homosexuals deserve our respect and kindness, would that mean that I am a still bigot for coming to those well-reasoned conclusions?

    [b] Or, is it the case that I would be a bigot only if I hate homosexuals for what they are and am just making up reasons to marginalize or persecute them?

    If there is a difference between [a] and [b], then arguing against homosexual marriage is not necessarily an act of bigotry, is it?

    , but there is little in the way of historical experience that can be used to oppose SSM.

    Are you aware that there are plenty of good arguments on behalf of the proposition that homosexuality destroys whole cultures (not in 10 years, for heaven’s sake) If I agree with those arguments, that is, if they are based on sound reasoning and historical experience, does that fact alone make me a hater and a bigot, even if I have nothing personal against homosexuals? If not, then if follows that arguing against homosexuality and homosexual marriage is not a hateful act of bigotry.

    , but there is little in the way of historical experience that can be used to oppose SSM.

    Are you aware that there are plenty of good arguments on behalf of the proposition that homosexuality destroys whole cultures? If I agree with those arguments, that is, if they are based on sound reasoning and historical experience, does that fact alone make me a hater and a bigot, even if I have nothing personal against homosexuals?

    I will explain in even simpler terms:

    In this context, I define Bigotry as, among other things, the refusal to tolerate another human being because of who or what he/she is.

    I define Disagreement as the refusal to tolerate a bad idea. It has nothing to do with the person who promotes it.

    The former is immoral; the latter is not only moral, but preferable. Human beings deserve our respect and consideration regardless of their social group. Bad ideas do not deserve any respect at all. All people should be loved. Bad ideas should be hated. Thus, if a human being promotes a bad idea, I am morally obliged to tolerate him and his person, but I am not morally obligated to tolerate his terrible ideas.

  181. 181
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Vividbleu@1478: “Sheesh.”

    My conclusion is based on 15 years of listening to the arguments against SSM, not one decided before the discussion began.

    There were plenty of arguments against inter-racial marriage and desegregation, but through the benefit of history, I think that we can conclude that most of those can be distilled down to racism. Or do you disagree?

  182. 182
    vividbleau says:

    RE 181

    I do not disagree. Indeed most of the arguments against inter-racial marriage and desegregation was about race. Personally I think to equate SSM to the civil rights struggle is offensive but that’s just me. Here is the difference between you and me, if someone disagrees with that view I don’t consider a difference of opinion warrant to demonize.

    You do not find the arguments you have heard against SSM as compelling, fair enough. Does that make you an immoral degenerate? Your position boils down to this….”I don’t find the arguments against SSM compelling therefore anyone who does not agree with me on this issue is a bigot” Which is exactly the subject of this thread.

    Vivid

  183. 183
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Vividbleu@182:You do not find the arguments you have heard against SSM as compelling, fair enough. Does that make you an immoral degenerate?”

    KF would probably agree with that characterization.

    Your position boils down to this….”I don’t find the arguments against SSM compelling therefore anyone who does not agree with me on this issue is a bigot” Which is exactly the subject of this thread.”

    Not exactly. I believe that I said that I haven’t heard an argument against SSM that doesn’t boil down to bigotry or religious beliefs. And by my definition of bigotry (sticking to a belief in spite of the evidence) I don’t see much difference between the two. On this subject any way.

    My memory isn’t what it used to be, but I don’t believe that I have resorted to labelling people as bigots or homophobes or racists, even if I think that may be the case. But that doesn’t mean that those labels should be avoided at all cost. If a person’s bigotry, racism, whatever, is blatantly obvious, I would probably call them out on it. But it would never be my first choice.

  184. 184
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: IE continues, pretending that drumbeat dissmissive assertions trumpeting a self-awarded rhetorical triumph (instead, cf. here) and brazenness in vulgarity etc suffice to replace soundness and civility. He thus shows the precise problem of might and manipulation substituting for truth and right warned against by Plato 2350 years past and abundantly shown in our day including in this thread. Let us understand what we are dealing with. KF

    PS: The well understood metaphor of the march of lemmings is all that is needed to make the point (similar to the talking wolf lying in Grandma’s bed faced by Little Red Riding Hood . . . ), or perhaps the historical warning in Ac 27 may have somewhat to instruct us on manipulated marches of folly. (So does Schein’s sobering analysis here.)

  185. 185
    Phinehas says:

    IE: And by my definition of bigotry (sticking to a belief in spite of the evidence)…

    WJM in OP: By cleverly utilizing dishonest terms and phrases, we have been manipulated into conceding the debate to leftists/Marxists before it is begun simply because of words are redefined to frame the debate.

    Yep.

  186. 186
    Eugen says:

    Effigy

    You just gave me definition of bigot.

    Labeling someone bigot is rather emotional response and not very impressive, it doesn’t mean much.I hear it on Facebook from pimply young basement dwelling social justice warriors. People use it when arguments are lacking or in case of you and hrun, non existent. Proper way would be to present valid counter argument. No wonder I call you whiners – as adults you should use reason and logic instead of emotions.

    Still I’m interested what would be the line of reasoning that leads you to it? What standards you use to determine someone is bigot? You were not clear about it.

  187. 187
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, IE’s attention has routinely been drawn to Girgis et al here; he has studiously ignored this or used a dismissive strawman accusation of religion (he routinely substitutes religion for philosophy etc to advance a rhetorical agenda and refuses to be corrected) to continue in his confident manner accusations and projections. KF

  188. 188
    Indiana Effigy says:

    kF@184:IE continues, pretending that drumbeat dissmissive assertions trumpeting a self-awarded rhetorical triumph (instead, cf. here) and brazenness in vulgarity etc suffice to replace soundness and civility…blah, blah, blah.”

    I get it. You don’t like me. But I would rather discuss issues with people like Eugen who would rather have a civil discussion than accuse someone of vulgarity for using the word “brothel”. besides, aren’t you too busy saving Monserrat to comment here? Other than the 2800 words you posted above.

  189. 189
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Eugen@186: “Still I’m interested what would be the line of reasoning that leads you to it? What standards you use to determine someone is bigot? You were not clear about it.”

    It is obviously not always a black and white issue. But here is an example. If someone opposes SSM because of higher STD rates, frequent sexual partners, suicide rates, etc. of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals, that is bigoted. It is applying a group statistic against an individual. Which, in my mind, is bigotry.

  190. 190
    kairosfocus says:

    Eugen

    Merriam Webster:

    Full Definition of bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    The import is irrational obstinacy, unfairness, hate and prejudice targetting some disdained other. Thus to be called a bigot is a serious accusation, especially in a day with hate speech laws.

    It becomes especially abusive and falsely projective on IE’s part when in context of dismissing all as bigotry, he has repeatedly refused to address Girgis et al on its merits as a principled objection to the lawfare campaign now ongoing to twist marriage into something utterly alien to its natural foundations.

    Principled, carefully articulated objection to an ill advised, divisive and socially corrosive agenda resting on wrenching the principles of right in service to radical and ill advised social engineering is not prejudice, and ironically the dismissive accusation oh it’s all bigotry only succeeds in letting the thoughtful person see where the real bigotry and intimidation lie amidst the lawfare and cultural marxist style agit prop.

    IE’s now plainly habitual resort to speaking with disregard to truth and fairness in hope of what he has said or suggested will be taken as truth speaks volumes and none of it in his favour or that of the fashionable agendas he would enable.

    KF

  191. 191
    Indiana Effigy says:

    KF@188:Vivid, IE’s attention has routinely been drawn to Girgis et al here; he has studiously ignored this or used a dismissive strawman accusation of religion (he routinely substitutes religion for philosophy etc to advance a rhetorical agenda and refuses to be corrected) to continue in his confident manner accusations and projections. KF

    I read this article the first time you pointed it out. And I responded to it. But you refused to listen and resorted to ad-hominems and accusations rather than address my comments. Why would I want to repeat that nonsense.

    Btw. Brothel.

  192. 192
    kairosfocus says:

    IE, did you notice how you have again twisted a listing of demonstrable fallacies on your part into projecting an accusation of motivation by groundless, empty animosity on my part? Do you not see what this sort of further fallacy — yet another ad hominem — reveals about your unfortunately persistent behaviour? I suggest you take a time out and read this IEP reference article on fallacies slowly, carefully and with an eye to making amends. KF

    PS: Instead of a cogent response you tagged Girgis et al as “religious” and dismissed it, refusing to acknowledge that regardless of agreement or disagreement on your part it presents a principled and sober examination of a current radical agenda. Further, in this thread you have broad brush dismissed all objections to the radical agenda as bigotry, an extremely serious accusation and in this case a manifestly tendentious one. I will only note here your previous insistence on repeatedly cracking rotten words and raising irrelevant vulgarities of term and reference to push the tone of a discussion thread down to the gutter despite corrections and warnings.

  193. 193
    Indiana Effigy says:

    KF@190:Webster: Full Definition of bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

    Thank you KF. You have shown that my definition agrees well with yours. Maybe we have some common ground we can work on.

    Now, maybe you can explain to me why your opposition to SSM doesn’t meet this definition.

  194. 194
    kairosfocus says:

    IE, I simply state that I strongly endorse Girgis et al and find that I have on that strength no need to defend myself from an accusation presuming guilt on my part in the face of a tribunal of one who has already announced closure of the mind by dismissing all objections to this radical cultural marxist lawfare agenda as bigotry. The mere invention of a radical notion and its attempted imposition under false colours of law that flies in the teeth of the manifest facts of the nature of maleness, femaleness and linked requisites of child nurture and linked social stability do not suffice to change marriage into what it is not and cannot be. It can be mocked, willfully caricatured and twisted, but that has not changed the facts of nature. So-called same sex marriage is and will ever remain an oxymoron; one that if imposed and enforced will lead to social devastation and to the alienation, marginalisation and persecution of people of principled conscience under false colour of law — as is already happening. The harm to our civilisation will be beyond calculation. Unfortunately, ruthlessly manipulative agendas insist on the experiment. KF

  195. 195
    Indiana Effigy says:

    KF, I addressed this previously. I have no desire to do it again. If you are willing to use your own arguments (not Plato’s, or whoever’s) I will respond to them. But I refuse to respond to someone who is patronisizing, sermonizing and pompous. If you can’t follow those very simple conditions, I hope that you enjoy your own company. Because nobody else will.

  196. 196
    kairosfocus says:

    IE, you continue the same rhetorical tactics of accusation and projection rather than engaging substantially on the merits. FYI, the presentation of a case through classical, benchmark statements and summaries is an entirely legitimate approach and the flimsy excuse of suggesting that such is an improper appeal to authority is duly noted and dismissed as fallacious. Similarly, provision of telling admissions against interest by relevant sources (especially when there are significant numbers of cases) is of very high value in an argument, per the principle of embarrassment — material to the point that evolutionary materialism is inescapably self referentially incoherent. The reasonably inferred conclusion is plain, you have no cogent answer than abuse, fallacy and accusation. If this is false, simply show it so by answering cogently on the merits. KF

    PS: This goes directly to the point of the title and OP.

  197. 197
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I again draw attention to the onward linked plans and declarations of intent of the Islam-ISTS to pursue global subjugation across this century and in particular through settlement jihad, as was brought out in 161 above. KF

  198. 198
    vividbleau says:

    RE 183
    “Your position boils down to this….”I don’t find the arguments against SSM compelling therefore anyone who does not agree with me on this issue is a bigot” Which is exactly the subject of this thread.”

    IE ” Not exactly. I believe that I said that I haven’t heard an argument against SSM that doesn’t boil down to bigotry or religious beliefs. And by my definition of bigotry (sticking to a belief in spite of the evidence) I don’t see much difference between the two. On this subject any way.”

    What was bigoted about the Girgis paper?

    Vivid

  199. 199
    Indiana Effigy says:

    KF@196:IE, you continue the same rhetorical tactics of accusation and projection rather than engaging substantially on the merits.”

    I have been asking you to engage substantially on the merits but you insist on accusations. By all means, lets engage on the merits. Provide me, in your own words (preferably less than 2800 of them) why you are opposed to SSM, without resorting to any religious arguments (or Plato, or any other long dead philosopher). Your own words. And please refrain from sermonizing.

  200. 200
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Vividbleu: “What was bigoted about the Gergis paper?”

    Are you willing to flip this around a bit? What from the Gergis paper do you find most compelling?

  201. 201
    vividbleau says:

    RE 200

    No I’m not willing to flip it around since I am not calling anyone a bigot because they don’t agree with me. You say you call those who do not agree with SSM bigots based on 15 years of hearing arguments against SSM. As I stated fair enough. Girgis, Anderson and Ryan presented their argument. I am asking you to point out the bigotry.

    Vivid

  202. 202
    vividbleau says:

    IE The subject of the thread is not whether an argument is compelling it is about bigotry being attributed to anyone that disagrees with SSM.I recognize that Girgis is not compelling to you but where is the bigotry?

    Vivid

  203. 203
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Vividbleu, have it your way. If you are unwilling to identify the most compelling argument against SSM from the paper, I will just start with the first thing that jumped out at me when I read the paper.

    It was presented as a fair and logical examination of the issue but this pretense didn’t survive the first few pages. At the very beginning, the paper described the two sides. That which dealt with Conjugal Marriage, and that which dealt with Revisionist Marriage. That was my first clue that this paper was not about giving a fair treatment to both sides of the debate. Actually, an excellent example of WJM’s OP subject. When people hear the word “revisionist” it always has a bad connotation associated with it. Unless you think that revisionist history is a good thing to believe.

    From that point on, the authors always use the word “they” when referring to SSM. They argue blah, blah, blah. They would have you believe blah, blah, blah.

    I started. Now if you want to present one of their unassailable arguments against SSM, I will do my best to address it. Who knows, maybe you will present one of their arguments that is sound. I will try to respond without using the word “brothel”.

  204. 204
    vividbleau says:

    RE 203
    I did not ask whether you found the argument to be compelling or “unsound”. You think it is “unsound” but you have yet to point out where it is bigoted even according to your definition. Once again where is the bigotry?

    Vivid

  205. 205
    CLAVDIVS says:

    bigot — a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own.

    The George, Girgis and Anderson paper is bigoted because its irrational:

    – It attempts to derive an ought from an is – namely, they argue that because marriage has an essential function of procreation, this function ought never to be revised. That is simply an irrational non-sequitur.

    – It argues in a circle: they claim reforming marriage will deny people the right to have a true, traditional marriage. This simply assumes its conclusion that opposite sex marriage is superior to same sex marriage.

    – It presupposes that marriage has an inviolable platonic essence that includes procreation etc. But it is irrational to claim a social institution has some inherent, unchangeable nature – like gravity or the periodic table. Social institutions are exactly the sort of things we can change.

  206. 206
    Eugen says:

    Kairos

    Thanks for your comments. Same to William, StephenB, Vivid and others. Very interesting input. I read couple of pages from the article but I prefer to print it so I’ll do it tomorrow.

  207. 207
    Eugen says:

    Effigy

    You say ” If someone opposes SSM because of higher STD rates, frequent sexual partners, suicide rates, etc. of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals, that is bigoted”

    I don’t like to be dragged into homosexual “marriage” discussion which seems your favorite topic. I’m not sure what to say about such nonsense. It’s like talking about square circle.

    So you set the parameters and if someone goes past them they are labeled. What is then allowed to be used as opposition in this case? You want to be in full control of discussion even if opponent want to use facts against your cause. Judge and a jury. That’s not fair or tolerant. We here of course don’t care about your wants or needs but discuss freely as adults should.

    To illustrate, I imagine walking down the street and meeting group of people banging their heads against the wall. I open my mouth to warn them how harmful their action is but they shut me up and say that I’m not allowed to mention it’s harmful else it’s bigoted. I’m allowed to come up with some other reason which they’ll consider and may or may not declare bigoted. In this case to this group I would suggest to come over to a rough spot on the wall with some metal sticking out and carry on.

  208. 208
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Eugen

    You’re bigoted if your reason for telling them not to bash their heads is irrational. Clearly in this scenario your reason is rational (they will suffer injury), so you’re not a bigot.

  209. 209
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Eugen@207: “So you set the parameters and if someone goes past them they are labeled. What is then allowed to be used as opposition in this case?

    It’s very simple. All you have to do is provide a rational and sane reason why SSM is bad for society. How it weakens your marriage (assuming you are married). How it is inherently bad for the two people involved. Why it is in the country’s best interest to prevent SSM.

    Present a good argument for any of these and you are not a bigot. However, I have yet to hear anything that comes close to any of these. So far, all I have heard is nonsense about the potential for reproduction, raising a family, STDs, suicide, promiscuity, polygamy, incest and beastiality. In my experience, the more rediculous the argument, the more likely it is that it is being used to mask some pathology (eg., bigotry, homophobia or religious fundamentalism).

  210. 210
    vividbleau says:

    RE 205

    Clad your definition does not define a bigot as one who is irrational or one who makes an irrational argument. It has to do with tolerance of other people’s ideas and opinions.

    Vivid

  211. 211
    CLAVDIVS says:

    vividbleau

    @205 “bigot — a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own.”

    Are you denying that George, Girgis and Anderson are intolerant of same-sex marriage?

  212. 212
    Indiana Effigy says:

    An argument that is rational, but almost never used, is that SSM would have a negative financial impact on spousal health and pension plans. Probably because it would appear too crass and insensitive. Rather, those who oppose SSM tend to fixate on the rediculous slippery slope argument, the things that can never be measured (eg. Weakening traditional marriage), or KF’s favourite, hastening the downfall of society into a never ending spiral of depravity (followed by 2800 words with indecipherable meaning). Doing this only makes the opposition appear more pathetic and bigoted, or religiously fanatic.

  213. 213
    vividbleau says:

    RE 211

    Only if disagreement and the reasons for that disagreement equates to intolerance. Is this your position?

    Vivid

  214. 214
    CLAVDIVS says:

    vividbleau

    intolerance — unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.

    Intolerance and disagreement are synonyms.

    So disagreeing with someone’s ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs for irrational reasons is bigotry.

  215. 215
    vividbleau says:

    RE 214

    Let me get this straight. Anyone who is unwilling to accept views, beliefs or behaviors that is different from their own is intolerant?

    To disagree is intolerance?

    Vivid

  216. 216
    CLAVDIVS says:

    vividbleau

    Yes – in the context of this discussion about what counts as bigotry.

  217. 217
    vividbleau says:

    RE 215

    Clad I’m not trying to be deceptive.

    Vivid

  218. 218
    CLAVDIVS says:

    vividbleau – That was my mistake since edited, as I misread your post 215.

  219. 219
    vividbleau says:

    RE 216

    Does your answer mean that in the context of another discussIon your answer might be no? If not why the qualifier?

    Vivid

  220. 220
    vividbleau says:

    RE 218

    Yeh when I reread what I posted I saw that I did not accurately state what you had written. You must have read it before my edit went through. Sorry

    Vivid

  221. 221
    CLAVDIVS says:

    vividbleau

    I’m really not interested in debating the meaning of ‘intolerant’ vs ‘disagreement’.

    What is relevant to this discussion is the meaning of ‘bigotry’.

    I’m defending this definition: “obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs”

    In this context intolerance can mean objects to, disagrees with, oppresses, tries to do away with, argues against etc. Whatever you like. The key point is that bigotry is irrational.

  222. 222
    vividbleau says:

    RE 221

    Clad your the one that brought it up don’t put it on me. Is to disagree intolerance?

    Goodnight Clad off to bed.

    Vivid

  223. 223
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid,

    it is clear IE wants to drag this thread away to a topic where agit prop and lawfare have so tilted the playing field in recent times that he can taint those who differ as “bigoted” and “religious.” It is necessary to speak to this and what it signifies.

    The tactic is delegitimisation, marginalisation and dismissal rather than facing why many principled and moral people have serious concerns with his favourite fashionable bit of social engineering under false colour of law.

    (So dominant is this that we are now seeing silencing behaviour so that it is those out of reach of point and shriek, disemployment tactics and other ugly devices that echo the Red Guards all too tellingly, who can speak freely. That is part of why the Girgis paper is so pivotal, it says in an undeniably peer reviewed academic and legal context what needs to be heard but which is utterly unwelcome.)

    IE, refuses to recognise and acknowledge that philosophy is a general and foundational — the foundational — analytic discipline and that one of its major foci is ethics (and linked, broader axiology which ties in with aesthetics), along with metaphysics, logic and epistemology.

    He relabels whatever does not fit with his favoured evolutionary materialism — which is inherently self-referentially incoherent (thus absurd) and amoral thus . . . as Plato warned against 2350 years ago . . . necessarily false and socio-culturaly destructive as well as domineering — as “religious” and seeks to smear it as bigoted.

    Which of course then feeds into the lawfare agenda under the topic hate speech laws.

    (Where, we must not forget Clausewitz’s dictum: war on battlefields is a continuation of politics/policy agendas by other means — war is a spectrum, not a discrete state of affairs . . . action by any means deemed necessary up to and including force of arms to impose an agenda. That is, in a 4th Generation War context, non state ideologically motivated implacable transnational actors and key cultural institutions all become part of the agenda of ruthless or even sadistic imposition so that battlespaces, tactics, techniques and weapons mutate into unfamiliar emergent forms: cyberwar, media manipulation, social engineering and frankly brainwashing [cf. Schein here], indoctrination as the counterfeit of education, perversion of law and law enforcement to impose agendas, financial attack, general cultural civil war and more. And of course because the forms are unfamiliar, the public and policymakers often fail to realise what is going on until it is too late strategically.)

    Responsible, principled freedom of expression and informed conscience as well as serious concerns on consequences are to be steamrollered as the juggernaut advances. Predictably, down the slippery slope leading to a cliff.

    (Such despise Kant’s Categorical Imperative in the forms that

    1: the immoral will violate the intrinsic worth of the other who is as one is (turning him/her into a tool, toy, obstacle or instrument towards one’s ends or wishes), or equivalently

    2: that the immoral cannot be socially universalised without destruction or utter absurdity but must instead parasite off the fact that predominantly we do not, cannot, live like that . . .

    If 100% of Cretans are lying 100% of the time, Crete is not a viable community. [And the answer to the liar paradox swims into view: Cretans will habitually take advantage if deception seems advantageous.])

    Underlying all is the dismissal of responsible, rational freedom that lies at the heart of evolutionary materialism, which forces it to view our intellectual capacities as though they are like a PC: to be flushed and reprogrammed at will of those who dominate.

    For these, to disagree with the politically correct agenda being pushed by the dominant cluster of factions is to be intolerant, bigoted and immoral. For, to them might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth’ and more.

    Shipwreck lies down that line of sailing.

    In the storm, let us at least try to put out a sea-anchor to drag us away from the deadly sand bars of Syrtis.

    KF

  224. 224
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs:

    Intolerance and disagreement are synonyms. So disagreeing with someone’s ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs for irrational reasons is bigotry

    Do you not see how loaded this is in a context where many — influenced by evolutionary materialist scientism and radical cultural marxist progressivism — operate by the premise might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘reasonableness,’ etc instead of being open to civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc?

    Notice, IE’s tag, namecall and dismiss tactics in reply to a peer reviewed landmark paper in a major academic context. Realise, this sort of subtle aggression is increasingly commonplace, is tied to lawfare, and targets principled people of conscience who adhere to our civilisation’s foundational Judaeo-Christian ethical, worldview and faith tradition.

    I say to such,

    he who would rob me of my means of daily bread,
    would rob me of my life;

    he who would rob me of my children,
    would rob me of my future;

    he who would rob me of my conscience,
    would rob me of — and would damn* — my soul.

    Do we really, really, really want our civilisation to go down this line of sailing, with the sandbars of Syrtis ahead?

    KF

    *F/N: I use this term in its legitimate theological sense, to condemn to Hell.

  225. 225
    kairosfocus says:

    IE,

    We understand your intent to denigrate, strawmannise and dismiss rather than responsibly engage.

    We recognise that in that context it serves your interest to dismiss philosophy and linked concerns.

    We recognise that you find it convenient to pretend that others are bigoted, incomprehensible, are only saying blah blah etc.

    We recognise that you refuse to accept that Machiavelli was right about slippery slopes: political disorders are like hectic fever — at first they are easy to cure but hard to diagnose; but when at length the course of the disease is obvious to all, it is then far too late to cure. (Hence, onlookers, the value of sound history, bought with blood and tears. Those who ignore, neglect or dismiss such doom themselves to the same lessons and price over and over again. The slipperiness, slope and sudden end at a precipice are warning signs and indicators that things can rapidly spin out of control. It is even possible that the slope is crumbling and may suddenly collapse under our weight short of the obvious precipice . . . that is a typical fact of life of cliffs. So, it is generally advisable to avoid such zones, and if we have no option to do that we need to take due and responsible precautions, maintaining vigilance in case things begin to slide or collapse. Recklessness is ill-advised in the vicinity of such danger zones, and those who mockingly deride and dismiss caution show that they do not have our best interests at heart. Whether they are foolish, naively enabling or wicked makes but little difference.)

    All of these serve to indicate your interest is manipulative message dominance and silencing of those who question your agit prop agenda i/l/o increasing signs that we are headed towards a cliff-edge like proverbial lemmings*.

    All of this fits precisely into the theme identified by WJM, the end of responsible, reasonable discussion.

    KF

    * PS: And yes, we know the questions on Disney’s film. The proverb still obtains, much as the lesson of the talking wolf lying in Grandma’s bed in Little Red Riding Hood.

  226. 226
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus

    C: … disagreeing with someone’s ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs for irrational reasons is bigotry

    K: Do you not see how loaded this is in a context where many — influenced by evolutionary materialist scientism and radical cultural marxist progressivism — operate by the premise might and manipulation make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘reasonableness,’ etc instead of being open to civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc?

    Yes, its loaded against irrationality.

    Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational.

    Don’t you agree?

  227. 227
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs

    Nope, you are falling under no true scotsman.

    In effect, assuming that evo mat scientism has cornered the market on rationality instead of recognising its self-referential incoherence, radical relativism and amorality leading to might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘reason’ and ‘truth’ tactics.

    Necessarily false.

    Ex falso quodlibet then kicks in, and you are measuring truth by a yardstick that embeds falsity.

    Truth as that which accurately describes and corresponds to reality will differ from such a flawed yardstick but if the yardstick is imposed truth will seem false and false true at least until one is falling over the cliff.

    Instead, start from the premise that any A is there because B is acceppted (often implicitly) thence, C, D etc. Infinite regress is impossible and question begging circularity is futile. We face finitely remote first plausibles at world roots level.

    Thence, worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork).

    In this context, responsible dialogue would start by recognising that the Judaeo-Christian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome is foundational to our civilisation.

    It would on this topic recognise that marriage has been a global pattern across civilisations and time, with inferior variants and wrenchings such as Nero being obvious by contrast. Further, it would recognise that committed heterosexual conjugal bonding creates a stable context for child nurture and social stability. Especially, by restraining and guiding society’s built-in ticking time bomb: young men.

    Instead of worshipping fashionable social engineering, it would recognise that it is possible to destructively monkey with things that are foundational. And, that slippery, crumbling slopes next to cliffs are real.

    In this context, a principled discussion is on the table.

    It begins as follows:

    What is marriage? 

    Consider two competing views:
     
    Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman 
    who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other 
    of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing  children  together.  The  spouses  seal  (consummate)and renew their union by conjugal acts
    —acts that constitute the be?havioral part of the pro
    cess of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reprodu
    ctive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its in?her
    ent  orientation  to  the  bearing  and  rearing  of
      children  con?tributes  to  its  distinctive
      structure,  including  norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the wel
    fare of children also helps explain why marriage is i
    mportant to the common good 
    and why the state should recognize and regulate it.
    1
      
    Revisionist  View:  Marriage  is  the  union  of  two
    people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to 
    romantically  loving  and  caring  for  each  other  and  to  sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It 
    is essentially a un?ion of hearts and minds, enhance
    d by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state sho
    uld recog?nize and regulate marriage because it has
     an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in th
    e concrete needs of spouses and any children they
     may choose to rear. 2
      
    It  has  sometimes  been  suggested  that  the  conjugal  understanding of marriage is based only on religious
     beliefs. This is false. Although the world’s major reli
    gious traditions have his?torically understood marria
    ge as a union of man and woman 
    that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing
    , 3  this sug?gests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common hum
    an nature have shaped (however imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recogni
    ze this natu?ral  institution.  As  such,  marriage  is
      the  type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerne
    d by our common human reason,  whatever  our  religious  background.We argue in this Article for legally enshr
    ining the conjugal view of marriage, us?ing argumen
    ts that require no appeal to religious authority. 4  

    Kindly, explain to us how this and what follows can be responsibly blanket smeared as irrational, religiously motivated bigotry and dismissed without serious consideration. As has been going on in this thread.

    KF

  228. 228

    IE said:

    My conclusion is based on 15 years of listening to the arguments against SSM, not one decided before the discussion began.

    If your conclusion is based on 15 years of prior debate, then it is indeed decided before this discussion began, and before any current/new discusssion on the topic begins.

    It is irrational to call an unknown person/public figure a bigot or racist for saying he/she is against SSM, or wants to build a border wall, or wants to curtail Muslim immigration, before you hear that person’s argument/reasoning. To assert that a person is a bigot or racist based on other people’s prior views and arguments is irresponsible.

    IOW, you are saying that because you have never heard an argument for X that you didn’t find to be rooted in bigotry or racism, you will judge everyone who advocates X a bigot or a racist without even hearing their argument/reasoning.

    How does calling anyone a bigot or a racist help the cause of reasoned debate? Further, even if that person is a bigot or a racist, how is reasoned debated furthered by calling them such? How is reasoned debate furthered by employing an army of SJW’s to parrot those accusations? Isn’t that indeed the end of reasoned debate, when the mob begins their attack based upon such character attacks?

    Surely you must agree that reasoned debate is harmed or ended by the use of such accusations, even if they are true?

  229. 229
    Eugen says:

    Effigy

    You really are adamant to talk about homosexuals and their “marriage” nonsense. Why is that? Are you insecure about it? Isn’t it a settled matter? I think you and your atheist liberal circle very well know it’s nonsense so you are trying to find validation outside that group.

    You are constantly putting conditions on what oposing side can say to avoid being called bigot yet you are the most bigoted, hateful and intolerant here. Go figure.

    Main point is when you say

    “It’s very simple. All you have to do is provide a rational and sane reason why SSM is bad for society”

    You are using general principle: if something isn’t bad for society it should be allowed.

    Following your principle a group of people standing naked on the sidewalk in front of your house isn’t bad for society therefore should be allowed. See it’s very simple.

    (I have feeling those are the head bangers from my previous comment. They survived wall banging, another activity that isn’t bad for society and want to say good morning to you )

  230. 230
    hrun0815 says:

    Oh boy. You go away for a day or to and the examples of one side promoting thoughtful reasonable debate while the other shuts it down by redefining words goes on unabated.

    I will pick just one whopper that I came along. For the rest, sorry: TL,DR.

    Re #177:

    The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. That means that all later stages, including fetus (defined as an embryo at 8 weeks), also have human DNA. That means that all abortions kill a human being.

    You seriously just said something is human because it has human DNA. That’s just priceless. I suggest you never ever ever look into what is going on in labs all around the world every single day. In comparison to that all abortions will start looking like a hipster love-fest to you.

    And whatever you do, don’t google HeLa. You will curl up into a whimpering catatonic ball from all the evil torture and killing of humans. Oh, but you ‘read the text books’ so you must know all about it. 😉

  231. 231
    Eugen says:

    Oh hrun the batman is back!

    Your little Robin is not doing well here. He has no good arguments and his intolerance and hatefulness is showing. You are not doing any better. Now you are ignoring science, something you atheist bigots swear by.

    “The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus.”

    http://www.embryology.ch/angla.....ote03.html

  232. 232
    kairosfocus says:

    Hrun

    The actual track record above gives a colour to your dismissive talking point that likely you do not intend, starting with a radical attempted redefinition of marriage under false colour of law joined to accusations of bigotry against those who dare to question such.

    Next, the embryo from conception is a genetically distinct human organism different from his or her mother and father. The reasonable, responsible presumption — given the quasi-infinite value of the individual person — is that this is a human being in earliest stages of life. Accordingly, such should be respected and protected with a particular view to the first right: life. Absent overwhelming proof to the contrary, that is our plain ethical duty.

    The imposed forfeiture of that protection under false colour of law speaks volumes about our civilisation, and none of it good.

    KF

  233. 233
    News says:

    Based on comment173, Indiana Effigy will have to be effigious somewhere else. He is banned for practising psychiatry without a licence. – News

  234. 234
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus

    C: Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Don’t you agree?

    K: Nope …

    Hilarious!

    K:… you are falling under no true scotsman.

    I showed @ 205 how the George, Girgis and Anderson paper is irrational because of its logical fallacies:
    – It derives an ought from an is – the naturalistic fallacy
    – It begs the question
    – It reifies the ‘essence’ of marriage – a fallacy of ambiguity, specifically the pathetic fallacy

    These fallacies derive from the rules of right reason. You cannot deny these are irrational without falling into self-refuting absurdity.

    You do agree these fallacies are irrational, don’t you?

  235. 235
    Eugen says:

    Effigy finally burned out! We used to burn them for Mardi Gras when I lived in Europe. This one lasted almost into May 🙂

    Too bad he cannot reply to 229. Perhaps hrun? Claudius?

  236. 236
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: Girgis et al

    Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people … who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable

    That’s pretty much most people’s understanding of marriage, straight or otherwise. See Romeo et al. 1597.

  237. 237

    CLAVDIVS said:

    Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Don’t you agree?

    Civil discussion is possible whether one is rational or not; all it takes is being polite and refraining from using incendiary language. Civility doesn’t require, nor is it equal to, rationality.

  238. 238
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Eugen

    The principle should be that we assign rights and responsibilities to each other under our legal and political systems on a rational basis.

    Standing naked in the street is not right anyone has or is even seeking, and in any case there are rational grounds to discourage it e.g. because it shows a lack of dignity and self-respect.

  239. 239
    Eugen says:

    Claudius

    that’s different from Efiigy’s (may he RIP) position. I agree that standing on the street naked or banging head on the wall is irrational and nonsense. Is it rational and sensible to marry two men?
    (Sad little Effigy(may he RIP) left us legacy of talking about homosexuals, my least favorite topic)

  240. 240
    CLAVDIVS says:

    William J Murray

    Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational.

    Presumably one can refrain from shouting or swearing.

    But there can be no meaningful discussion with a party that denies the foundational laws of thought — after all, they have chosen to cling to absurdity rather than acknowledge the self-evident principles of reason.

  241. 241
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Eugen

    Is it rational and sensible to marry two men?

    Most people seem to think so.

    And there is a dearth of rational argument against it.

  242. 242
    StephenB says:

    SB: The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA. That means that all later stages, including fetus (defined as an embryo at 8 weeks), also have human DNA. That means that all abortions kill a human being.

    hrun0815

    You seriously just said something is human because it has human DNA. That’s just priceless.

    It’s obvious that any living being with human DNA is a human being. What is your argument against such an obvious point? Obviously, you don’t have one. If the abortionist kills a fetus, he is killing a human being. We can, without any difficulty, rule out the prospect of a developing bear, giraffe, or chimpanzee, can we not? You have not addressed the point: A human being develops AS a human being, not INTO a human being. Hence, we have another example of a leftist manipulating the language to present a false idea. The embryo is never just a “blob of tissue.”

    I suggest you never ever ever look into what is going on in labs all around the world every single day. In comparison to that all abortions will start looking like a hipster love-fest to you.

    Your comment is irrational. Whatever else goes on in laboratories has nothing at all to do with the fact abortionists murder innocent human beings. Please stay on topic.

    And whatever you do, don’t google HeLa. You will curl up into a whimpering catatonic ball from all the evil torture and killing of humans. Oh, but you ‘read the text books’ so you must know all about it. ????

    Well I did read the appropriate textbooks and I do know about the subject. Each time I refute your argument, you respond by saying, “Oh yeah, well what about this.” Just so that you will know, it’s not a good argument.

    That fact remains that leftists misuse the language to create a false impression and to dishonestly frame social issues, just as WJM has demonstrated.

  243. 243
    Eugen says:

    Klaudije, you seem to be less emotional than Effigy(may he RIP) and hrun, that’s a positive thing.
    How do you come to conclusion that it is rational and sensible to marry two men? What are the basic principles you use for that?

  244. 244
    hrun0815 says:

    Re #231: Eugen, again you didn’t read carefully or actually think about the argument you are making.

  245. 245
    Eugen says:

    Hrun go bang your head against the wall while I wait for Klaudije

  246. 246
    StephenB says:

    CLAVDIVS, take note:

    Bigotry is a state of mind where a person views other groups with fear, distrust, prejudice or hatred solely on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

    The emphasis is on the person or group, not their ideas.

    Notice the scaled down version of the definition:

    –intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

    So, it is not an act of bigotry to argue against same-sex marriage, which is a very bad idea and should be severely criticized. If rejecting a bad idea qualified one as a bigot, then you would be a bigot for rejecting Nazism. It is an act of love to tolerate other people, but it is an act of stupidity to tolerate their bad ideas.

  247. 247
    Zachriel says:

    StephenB: The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA.

    So do the hair roots found on your hair brush. Or the myriad cells discharged in a woman’s period. Or epithelial cells that humans regularly shed. Or a fertilized egg that is often expelled during menstruation.

    This isn’t to minimize the far greater value most people place in a zygote, but it shows the limitations of your argument.

  248. 248
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs,

    It is interesting to see how you snipped and cited my actual comment in 227 above:

    C: Civil discussion in light of fundamental principles, history, ethics, concerns etc is impossible unless the disputants are both rational. Don’t you agree?

    K: Nope …

    Hilarious!

    The actual remark at 227 above:

    Nope, you are falling under no true scotsman.

    In effect, assuming that evo mat scientism has cornered the market on rationality instead of recognising its self-referential incoherence, radical relativism and amorality leading to might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘reason’ and ‘truth’ tactics.

    Necessarily false.

    Ex falso quodlibet then kicks in, and you are measuring truth by a yardstick that embeds falsity.

    Truth as that which accurately describes and corresponds to reality will differ from such a flawed yardstick but if the yardstick is imposed truth will seem false and false true at least until one is falling over the cliff.

    Instead, start from the premise that any A is there because B is acceppted (often implicitly) thence, C, D etc. Infinite regress is impossible and question begging circularity is futile. We face finitely remote first plausibles at world roots level.

    Thence, worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork).

    In this context, responsible dialogue would start by recognising that the Judaeo-Christian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome is foundational to our civilisation.

    It would on this topic recognise that marriage has been a global pattern across civilisations and time, with inferior variants and wrenchings such as Nero being obvious by contrast. Further, it would recognise that committed heterosexual conjugal bonding creates a stable context for child nurture and social stability. Especially, by restraining and guiding society’s built-in ticking time bomb: young men.

    Instead of worshipping fashionable social engineering, it would recognise that it is possible to destructively monkey with things that are foundational. And, that slippery, crumbling slopes next to cliffs are real.

    In this context, a principled discussion is on the table.

    Now, you tried to categorise Girgis et al under several fallacies:

    >>K:… you are falling under no true scotsman.

    I {C] showed @ 205 how the George, Girgis and Anderson paper is irrational because of its logical fallacies:

    – It derives an ought from an is – the naturalistic fallacy>>

    a: Nope, of course you first here that the evolutionary materialistic worldview has no IS capable of grounding ought, i.e. that it is inherently amoral; thus, a menace to a race that is necessarily governed by ought.

    b: Actually, Girgis et al start from prior moral precepts, such as that human stability and committed family structures that foster same are vital to human thriving, and that such thriving of humans in society across time is an inherent value.

    c: For instance in their opening words they describe the conjugal view:

    Marriage is the union of a man and a woman
    who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate)and renew their union by conjugal acts —acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive
    structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it
    .

    d: Thus we see principles of commitment to permanent union that serves the welfare of children and the advancement of stable, sustainable society. Those are norms that are historic and generally accepted, so if you find them questionable and dubious to the point of your next objection . . . alleged question begging, that is quite informative about the consequences of the agenda you advocate.

    >>– It begs the question>>

    e: That is, you imply but do not wish to openly state rejection of the above norms, showing the antisocial, nihilistic character of the alternatives you evidently support.

    f: It is thus a very relevant point for serious questions to be asked on underlying principles, this is not at all irrational.

    >>– It reifies the ‘essence’ of marriage – a fallacy of ambiguity, specifically the pathetic fallacy>>

    g: Reification is one of those fashionabledismissive assertionss that is usually dubious, boiling down to an implied commitment to extreme nominalism, often rooted in evolutionary materialism where the only actual natures are those of core particles.

    h: Instead, we can infer, you reject stability of the heterosexual bond and the stable environment it provides for children, promoting in its stead an inherently unstable emotional bond, and relationships that are so diverse relative to fidelity and commitment of union that they are of alien character. (Of course the easy divorce game which went through in a previous generation set the stage for such and this shows just how unwise it was.)

    >>These fallacies derive from the rules of right reason. You cannot deny these are irrational without falling into self-refuting absurdity.>>

    i: The issues here neither hinge on identity nor assertion of contradictions, instead they pivot on rejection of fundamental values hidden behind the rhetoric of selective hyperskepticism and an implicit evolutionary materialism.

    >>You do agree these fallacies are irrational, don’t you?>>

    j: C, you have asserted fallacy where in fact the problem is you disagree with core principles of commitment, conjugality, stable child nurture and the thriving of people in society, due to a combination of naturalism and ill advised excessive individualism.

    k: The issue now pivots on the key values at the root of the conjugal view of marriage, and it is quite evident that the open rejection of such would instantly red fag the dangers, so instead a rhetoric of bigoted religiously motivated exclusion from “rights” and a redefinition of marriage based on nominalism [it is only a word, unconnected to anything essential to being human so can be redefined at will] has been used to manipulate law to the detriment of all.

    KF

  249. 249

    CLAVDIVS said:

    But there can be no meaningful discussion with a party that denies the foundational laws of thought — after all, they have chosen to cling to absurdity rather than acknowledge the self-evident principles of reason.

    Maybe I don’t understand how you are defining “meaningful.” If I use polite, civil rhetoric and polite emotional pleading (which doesn’t attack anyone) to convince someone to change their views on a thing, in what sense has that civil discussion not been “meaningful” if it has changed someone’s mind and their behavior?

  250. 250
    bb says:

    “So do the hair roots found on your hair brush. Or the myriad cells discharged in a woman’s period. Or epithelial cells that humans regularly shed.”

    Have any of those matured into an adult human being? Maybe rotten meat turns into flies too.

  251. 251

    A whole new topic might be how leftists attempt to fool themselves and assuage their consciences through clever uses of re-defined terms and phrases. If you cannot even admit abortion is killing human life, what hope is there for reasoned debate? There are situations where taking human life is legal; abortion is one of them.

    It reminds me of how some materialists refuse to grant that even humans employ intelligent design. They think if they avoid some terms and use others instead, semantics will win an argument that logic and facts cannot defend.

    Unfortunately, in public discourse, they are often right.

  252. 252
    StephenB says:

    StephenB: The zygote, which is the earliest stage of development, has human DNA.

    Zachriel

    So do the hair roots found on your hair brush. Or the myriad cells discharged in a woman’s period. Or epithelial cells that humans regularly shed. Or a fertilized egg that is often expelled during menstruation.

    In each case, the presence of DNA proves the presence of human traits. In like fashion, the presence of human DNA proves the presence of a human embryo.

    In order to understand the importance of the point, it is necessary to know which claims have been made and refuted. A human embryo develops AS a human, not INTO a human. Thus, when abortionists (and hrun0815) claim that a mere “blob of tissue,” is being extracted, they are misusing the language to mislead the listener away from the facts of science, the purpose of which is to rationalize the murder of an innocent human fetus.

    This isn’t to minimize the far greater value most people place in a zygote, but it shows the limitations of your argument.

    The value of the fetus (or zygote, for that matter) is not determined by the value people place on it, but by what it is. The argument is not “limited” because it cannot be refuted. An embryo develops as a human being, not into a human being. There is no question about it.

  253. 253
    Zachriel says:

    StephenB: In each case, the presence of DNA proves the presence of human traits. In like fashion, the presence of human DNA proves the presence of a human embryo.

    Or a human head of hair.

    StephenB: The value of the fetus (or zygote, for that matter) is not determined by the value people place on it, but by what it is.

    The value of something depends on who is making the evaluation. Humans usually value humans, especially their own children.

  254. 254
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Eugen

    Klaudije, you seem to be less emotional than Effigy(may he RIP) and hrun, that’s a positive thing.

    I’m not particularly for or against gay marriage but I am against bigotry.

    How do you come to conclusion that it is rational and sensible to marry two men? What are the basic principles you use for that?

    Probably the most important principle at play is fairness and equality. Please read the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger for a detailed exposition of the rational basis for supporting gay marriage.

  255. 255
    CLAVDIVS says:

    William J Murray

    If I use polite, civil rhetoric and polite emotional pleading (which doesn’t attack anyone) to convince someone to change their views on a thing, in what sense has that civil discussion not been “meaningful” if it has changed someone’s mind and their behavior?

    I am not really interested in discussing that topic; I intend to respect this site’s policy on rational discourse.

  256. 256
    CLAVDIVS says:

    StephenB

    Bigotry is a state of mind where a person views other groups with fear, distrust, prejudice or hatred solely on the basis of ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.

    I disagree with this definition because it does not mention rationality. For example, if one distrusts Scientologists for rational reasons, that is not bigotry.

    The definition of bigotry I am defending is: obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own.

    So, it is not an act of bigotry to argue against same-sex marriage …

    Yes it is if the reasons given are irrational.

  257. 257
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs:

    StephenB: The value of the fetus (or zygote, for that matter) is not determined by the value people place on it, but by what it is.

    [Cl] The value of something depends on who is making the evaluation. Humans usually value humans, especially their own children.

    Do you understand where such radical subjectivism points when mixed with evolutionary materialism?

    Might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘worth’ ‘rationality’ and ‘truth’ etc. The door to nihilism yawns open.

    I suggest instead that recognising that we are under moral government and that others are as ourselves, including the weakest, most dependent, most vulnerable members of our race — including the unborn child — is a start point for sound moral understanding, praxis, policy and law.

    KF

    PS: The nihilism includes your arrogating to yourself the power to decree that those who differ with you on principle concerning the fashionable twisting of marriage under false colour of law must be ‘irrational’ and ‘bigoted’ . . . thus, ‘hateful’ and fit subjects for thought police hate speech laws.

  258. 258
    bb says:

    “The value of something depends on who is making the evaluation.”

    So Zach denies that human life has intrinsic value. Western civilization is truly on the chopping block because many hold Zach’s opinion.

    Amazing that those supporting traditional values are accused of intolerance and bigotry while the left deny that obvious humanity is human and sentence these children to death daily for the sake of convenience. To paraphrase Zach’s false comparison: “Like losing a piece of hair or flake of skin.”

    This is where Roe v. Wade = Dred Scott where obvious humans were relegated to sub-human in order to justify their categorization as property. The left has much in common with the old slave holders.

    “When we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mystifying as the obvious. ”
    – Irving Kristol

    When does human life begin Zach?

  259. 259
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus

    1. Lay off the hypocritical ad hominems, if you please. I am attacking bigotry and defending rationality. I am not “supporting antisocial, nihilistic” options. I do not “reject the stability of the heterosexual bond”. I do not “disagree with core principles of commitment, conjugality, stable child nurture and the thriving of people in society”. I will ignore any future comments of yours that indulge in such incivility.

    2. The evolutionary materialistic worldview is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. I am not a materialist; you are not a materialist; and its safe to assume George, Girgis and Anderson and not materialists. So stop bringing it up as a rhetorical distraction.

    3. Naturalistic fallacy – Nothing you said refutes the fact that George, Girgis and Anderson attempt to derive an ought from an is. “Marriage is traditionally focussed on child-bearing, therefore it ought to always be so.” This is a logical fallacy, and thus irrational.

    4. Begging the question –

    … you imply but do not wish to openly state rejection of the above norms, showing the antisocial, nihilistic character of the alternatives you evidently support. … It is thus a very relevant point for serious questions to be asked on underlying principles, this is not at all irrational.

    George, Girgis and Anderson do not demonstrate the same-sex marriage violates any rationally justified principles; they simply assume it, and then use that assumption to argue that allowing same-sex marriage “deprives” society of the assumed benefits of opposite-sex marriage. Classic petitio principii – QED. Nothing you said refutes this.

    5. Reification – Nothing you said refutes the fact that George, Girgis and Anderson treat the nature of marriage as an unchangeable fact of nature, rather than a social convention that can and has varied across time and culture – classic pathetic fallacy.

    Regardless of anyone’s agreement or disagreement with principles, these arguments are simply logical fallacies and thus irrational and bigoted.

  260. 260
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus @ 257

    You are responding to something I never said.

    Please pay attention.

  261. 261
    StephenB says:

    StephenB: In each case, the presence of DNA proves the presence of human traits. In like fashion, the presence of human DNA proves the presence of a human embryo.

    Or a human head of hair.

    Of course, but that hardly affects my argument. That DNA reflects other human attributes doesn’t change the fact that it also proves the presence of a human embryo that is developing as an embryo.

    StephenB: The value of the fetus (or zygote, for that matter) is not determined by the value people place on it, but by what it is.

    The value of something depends on who is making the evaluation. Humans usually value humans, especially their own children.

    Many values are intrinsic, that is, they have value in themselves. Examples would be life, truth, unity, and health. Whether one values them or not is irrelevant. A drug addict may not value his health, but that doesn’t diminish its value. A Darwinist may not value truth, but that doesn’t detract from its worth.

  262. 262
    kairosfocus says:

    bb, oops, it is Z not C. KF

  263. 263
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs, now you are adding that might and manipulation make the judgement ‘hypocrisy’ too. I know it is painful for me to be so stark, but you have to see the force of what you have been doing on the worldviews platform you have implicitly adopted. Yes, all of this is inherent in the import of evolutionary materialism, its self referential incoherence, radical relativisation of truth and morality, and utter want of an IS that can ground OUGHT. That is why I reject it as self-falsifying and absurd, root and branch. KF

  264. 264
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus

    I am not a materialist; you are not a materialist; and its safe to assume George, Girgis and Anderson and not materialists. So stop bringing it up as a rhetorical distraction.

  265. 265
    Eugen says:

    Klaudije

    Please don’t give me 138 pages of legal document to read. English is my second language. Is the idea so convoluted that it needs 138 pages to explain.

    I wanted to talk to you, why don’t you give the core idea in your own words.

  266. 266
    StephenB says:

    CLAVDIVS

    The definition of bigotry I am defending is: obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own.

    Even with that definition, you are no closer to your goal. Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage are eminently reasonable. There is nothing unfair about them. For one thing, same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law (not a religious argument). For another, it militates against a well-ordered society and elevates diversity over unity. For another, it destroys the special privileges afforded heterosexual marriage and the capacity of the nuclear family to serve as the primary institution, which would reduce the institution of the state to secondary status and check its power to assume tyrannical control. I could go on and on.

    Yes it is if the reasons given are irrational.

    I could provide at least a dozen reasons why same-sex marriage is an evil and destructive idea. All are rational; none are the product of disdain for any social group.

  267. 267
    goodusername says:

    bb

    So Zach denies that human life has intrinsic value. Western civilization is truly on the chopping block because many hold Zach’s opinion.

    What exactly does “intrinsic value” mean in this case?

    To paraphrase Zach’s false comparison: “Like losing a piece of hair or flake of skin.”

    If the reason that a zygote is valued is because of the dna, then it’s not a false comparison.

  268. 268
    Zachriel says:

    bb: So Zach denies that human life has intrinsic value.

    We’re rather fond of Homo loquens, but you may consider that a peccadillo, if you like.

    bb: When does human life begin

    It never ends. Life begats life.

    StephenB: Of course, but that hardly affects my argument. That DNA reflects other human attributes doesn’t change the fact that it also proves the presence of a human embryo that is developing as an embryo.

    Of course it’s a human embryo.

    StephenB: Many values are intrinsic, that is, they have value in themselves. Examples would be life, truth, unity, and health.

    You can say it, but can’t show it. What you can do is find common ground with those who also find those things to have value.

  269. 269
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs, being an enabling fellow traveller makes no practical difference. Let us hear you put up a substantial framework that can recognise that there are principled reasons to question or reject the ongoing lawfare with marriage. KF

  270. 270
    StephenB says:

    Zach: “Of course it’s a human embryo.”

    Please pass that information along to hrun0815.

    StephenB: Many values are intrinsic, that is, they have value in themselves. Examples would be life, truth, unity, and health.

    You can say it, but can’t show it. What you can do is find common ground with those who also find those things to have value.

    If you don’t know that health is an intrinsically good thing, I cannot help you.

  271. 271
    kairosfocus says:

    GUN:

    [bb] So Zach denies that human life has intrinsic value. Western civilization is truly on the chopping block because many hold Zach’s opinion.

    [gun] What exactly does “intrinsic value” mean in this case?

    Do you really want to go down that road to might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘worth’ ‘truth’ etc nihilism?

    Do you begin to see what flows from evolutionary materialism due to utter want of an IS that grounds OUGHT, and particularly from its import that the only essential realities are core particles, all else is built up by blind chance and mechanical necessity? Do you want to put a new form of the infamous dialectical and historical materialisms on the table?

    KF

  272. 272
    goodusername says:

    KF,

    Do you really want to go down that road to might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘worth’ ‘truth’ etc nihilism?

    No, is there a reason you ask?

    Do you begin to see what flows from evolutionary materialism due to utter want of an IS that grounds OUGHT, and particularly from its import that the only essential realities are core particles, all else is built up by blind chance and mechanical necessity?

    “Ought” only comes from goals. That’s true regardless of worldview.

  273. 273
    bb says:

    What exactly does ‘intrinsic value’ mean in this case?

    “Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.”
    Of course, if you have to ask, maybe the concept of human rights escapes you.

    If the reason that a zygote is valued is because of the dna, then it’s not a false comparison.

    The zygote is valued because it is a developing human being. Unlike hair or a flake of skin, barring malfunction or violence, it will one day grow into an adult. Maybe get married and raise children.

    Zach: “It never ends. Life begats life. ”

    Let repeat the question in a way you might understand: If you weren’t always human, when did you become one?

  274. 274
    kairosfocus says:

    GUN,

    ought comes from respect for worth, which as SB just pointed out can be self-evident and intrinsic. Such as — I add — by my inherent nature I have rights to life, liberty, fruit of my labour, property, innocent reputation, conscience, etc. And yes, rights are in the scales here.

    But that then raises the issue of adequate worldviews grounding in a context where the only level where IS and OUGHT can be soundly bridged is world root level.

    A world of blind force, chance and necessity acting on particles that just are there and just combine without purpose or rhyme or reason, ends in utter de-valuation and nihilism.

    Dawkins in his magazine excerpt in Sci Am, God’s Utility Function, admitted but refused to draw out the true import:

    Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose . . . .

    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 and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 – 85.]

    Ponder, soberly, where that leads before deciding to go there at all.

    KF

  275. 275
    goodusername says:

    bb,

    “Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.”

    Obviously the reason we value something is because of something about the thing. We value some things and not others things. What is it about something that would give it value despite us not valuing it? How do we know if something has intrinsic value?

    The zygote is valued because it is a developing human being. Unlike hair or a flake of skin, barring malfunction or violence, it will one day grow into an adult. Maybe get married and raise children.

    Agreed

  276. 276
    goodusername says:

    KF,

    ought comes from respect for worth, which as SB just pointed out can be self-evident and intrinsic. Such as — I add — by my inherent nature I have rights to life, liberty, fruit of my labour, property, innocent reputation, conscience, etc. And yes, rights are in the scales here.

    “respect for worth”, “self-evident”, “intrinsic”, “inherent”, and countless other empty modifiers can be used as well. When all that’s really meant is – those are things we care about. My life, freedom, etc have value to me because I care about them.
    To repeat my question from #275: How do we know if something has intrinsic value?

  277. 277
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Eugen

    If you can’t be bothered to educate yourself on the issue then why should I be bothered to do it for you?

    In kindergarten terms:
    – Marriage is permitted for straights but not gays
    – The basis of this discrimination is not rational

    All the arguments pro- and con- were ventilated thoroughly in Perry v Schwarzenegger. Gay marriage proponents won, bigtime. The judge was totally unimpressed with the anti-gay-marriage side:
    – Their “evidentiary presentation was dwarfed” by the pro-gay-marriage side
    – They presented only 2 witnesses, one of whom was totally ignored by the judge as “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight”, and the other was only accepted as an expert in a limited area
    – They “failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest.”
    – The ban on same-sex marriage did not pass even the most minimal scrutiny under equal protection law, because it denied a fundamental right—the right to marry the person one chose—without a “legitimate (much less compelling) reason.”
    – The anti-gay-marriage side “presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage.”
    – The judge found a ban on gay marriage must “find at least some support in evidence. … Conjecture, speculation, and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that share that view.”

  278. 278
    bb says:

    “How do we know if something has intrinsic value?”

    In the traditional view of Western Civilization, humans have intrinsic value because God conferred it on them. He made mankind in His image.

    To those outside Western Civ, and even contrary to it, like most on the left, humanity has intrinsic value to humans. But because they are now building on shifting sand (relativism, subjectivism, public opinion), I don’t have faith that the concept of human rights can continue. See abortion. The growing number of westerners engaged in human trafficking (slavery) at home and overseas.

    When one dismisses the Creator, “All men are created equal…” doesn’t make much sense. And Western Civilization crumbles. Call KF’s modifiers empty at your own peril.

  279. 279
    Eugen says:

    Klaudije

    kindergarten terms:
    – Marriage is permitted for straights but not gays
    – The basis of this discrimination is not rational

    That’s the core? I didn’t need the babbling below that, it’s useless. What the hell is the 138 pages for? Thanks for education, you’ll be educated tomorrow.

  280. 280
    kairosfocus says:

    GUN:

    Do you realise the implications of your:

    “respect for worth”, “self-evident”, “intrinsic”, “inherent”, and countless other empty modifiers can be used as well. When all that’s really meant is – those are things we care about. My life, freedom, etc have value to me because I care about them.

    So, if yon Gruppenfuhrer is lining up the Jews in Lidice or Babi Yar or Minsk or wherever c 1939 – 42, and holds the guns and says, your lives have no value to me, that is okay because might makes right?

    Do you see the plain manifestation of radical relativism, amorality and nihilism coming out? As utterly chaotic and destructive absurdity?

    I suggest, you do some very serious thinking.

    KF

  281. 281
    kairosfocus says:

    Eugen: It seems, more accurately, anyone of age and with a suitable partner of the appropriate — opposite — sex may marry. But what is being demanded is to twist marriage under false colour of law into what it can never be, and to impose same mocking caricature under abuse of policing power so that if you dare to question the emperor’s fine new clothes, it’s you’re fired or fined into bankruptcy and forced to sit through brainwashing sessions, and soon off to gaol with you. If you are who I think, maybe you need to share a few words with us on life under Communist dictatorship. KF

  282. 282
    Robert Byers says:

    hrun0815
    i’ getting lost in the list of posts.
    anyways.
    Agreed. Bigot can be accused. ONLY if there is no punishment and censorship of the bigot. BIGOT usually follows with punishment/censorship.
    actually it is to discredit a argument for some point also.
    In short the accused is denying they are acting out of bigotry and so the bigot charge is just a accusation.
    In all ways it must not stop speech.

    to your first point.
    NO there must not be consequences to free speech. Otherwise its not free.
    Free means free from punishment/censoring.
    All humanity always had free speech if your standard for frre is just saying something.
    Only a little of humanity had FREE SPEECH. Where you speak and are not stopped or punished.
    Thats only free speech.
    This is under attack these days.
    However everyone has sinned and then complains.

  283. 283
    goodusername says:

    bb,

    In the traditional view of Western Civilization, humans have intrinsic value because God conferred it on them. He made mankind in His image.

    Hmm, I already described “intrinsic” in this context as being an empty modifier. But, if it had any meaning at all, I would say that it must mean that it’s a value that’s “not conferred”. In many places, that’s the very definition given for intrinsic.

    But anyway, putting that aside, all you did was describe why you value humans.

    To those outside Western Civ, and even contrary to it, like most on the left, humanity has intrinsic value to humans.

    Is the word “intrinsic” adding anything there? Why not just “humanity has value to humans.”?

    KF

    So, if yon Gruppenfuhrer is lining up the Jews in Lidice or Babi Yar or Minsk or wherever c 1939 – 42, and holds the guns and says, your lives have no value to me, that is okay because might makes right?

    I don’t believe might makes right. No amount of might will make 2 + 2 = 3.

    Do you see the plain manifestation of radical relativism, amorality and nihilism coming out? As utterly chaotic and destructive absurdity?

    No

    I suggest, you do some very serious thinking.

    ok

  284. 284
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Eugen

    kindergarten terms:
    – Marriage is permitted for straights but not gays
    – The basis of this discrimination is not rational
    That’s the core? I didn’t need the babbling below that, it’s useless. What the hell is the 138 pages for?

    I kindly summarised the 138 pages for you @ 277 – don’t blame me for your sticking your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes to the wealth of expert evidence contained in the judgement.

    You should consider that the value of your opinion on this subject is proportional to the effort you have put in to educate yourself on it.

  285. 285
    Eugen says:

    I curse ashes of Effigy for dragging me into this bs …Klaudije, value of my opinion is based on logic and reasoning not absorbing propaganda written by some Liberal atheist lawyer. I’ll have my answer tomorrow, no time now

  286. 286
    CLAVDIVS says:

    StephenB

    Many of the arguments against same-sex marriage are eminently reasonable. There is nothing unfair about them.

    For one thing, same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law (not a religious argument)

    I disagree same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law, and so do a majority of the US population and US christians. Prove this majority is wrong.

    For another, it militates against a well-ordered society and elevates diversity over unity. For another, it destroys the special privileges afforded heterosexual marriage and the capacity of the nuclear family to serve as the primary institution, which would reduce the institution of the state to secondary status and check its power to assume tyrannical control. I could go on and on.

    Preposterous. After spending millions of dollars and years preparing for their day in court, same-sex marriage opponents “presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage.”

    None.

  287. 287
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Eugen

    Effigy finally burned out! … Too bad he cannot reply to 229. Perhaps hrun? Claudius?

    You asked for it 🙂

  288. 288
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus

    Clavdivs, being an enabling fellow traveller makes no practical difference.

    Another hypocritical ad hominem.

    Let us hear you put up a substantial framework that can recognise that there are principled reasons to question or reject the ongoing lawfare with marriage. KF

    Hilarious!

    You can’t make your own case so you want me to make it for you? No thanks.

  289. 289
    StephenB says:

    CLAVDIVS

    After spending millions of dollars and years preparing for their day in court, same-sex marriage opponents “presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage.”

    According to whom? Am I supposed to guess? I just presented a rational argument against same sex marriage, and I did you the courtesy of summing it up in one paragraph. Without addressing it or even understanding it, you say it is “preposterous” and provide an irrelevant quote without a source.” Is that what you call “rational” behavior?

    So, back to my argument. Explain why undermining the special nature of heterosexual marriage will not give unprecedented power to the state. It is, by no means, a new idea. Address even one of my reason-based arguments, and I will provide more of them. However, there is no point in putting them out there of you are going to sail over them without a modicum of intellectual exertion.

    Also, the burden of proof is on you to show that my conclusions are the product of a bigoted mind. You have not even begun to approach that issue. On the contrary, it appears that all the bias and prejudice is coming from your side. You assume, without warrant, that those who hold my position are bigots, even though all my arguments are reason-based and are without any disdain for members of the homosexual community, who I genuinely fear for.

  290. 290
    StephenB says:

    SB: For one thing, same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law (not a religious argument)

    ClAVDIVS

    I disagree same-sex marriage violates the natural moral law, and so do a majority of the US population and US christians. Prove this majority is wrong.

    Clearly, you don’t understand anything about the Natural Moral law, which has absolutely nothing to do with majority opinion. When Martin Luther King argued for civil rights on behalf of blacks, he argued on the basis of the Natural Moral Law against the majority view, which was for segregation. If the majority view had prevailed, blacks would still be sitting at the back of a bus and drinking from separate water fountains.

  291. 291
    Aleta says:

    And just exactly how does one know this Natural Moral law? More specifically, how does one know with certainty that what one believes is the Natural Moral law really is? How is one who thinks they know what a Natural Moral law is somehow different – more privileged with knowledge, than others whose beliefs are dismissed as subjective opinions/

  292. 292
  293. 293
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    And just exactly how does one know this Natural Moral law? More specifically, how does one know with certainty that what one believes is the Natural Moral law really is? How is one who thinks they know what a Natural Moral law is somehow different – more privileged with knowledge, than others whose beliefs are dismissed as subjective opinions.

    The same way you know with certainty that hate and bigotry are wrong–through your conscience informed by reason.

  294. 294
  295. 295
    Andre says:

    I have a question.

    I am utterly in love with a Goat we have, should I marry the goat and seal our union of love?

  296. 296
    Andre says:

    goodusername…..

    For the last time, Wikipedia is not a good source for information……

    From Havard;

    http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/.....page346376

  297. 297
    Andre says:

    CAVDIVS

    Probably the most important principle at play is fairness and equality. Please read the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger for a detailed exposition of the rational basis for supporting gay marriage.

    A homosexual marriage will never be equal and here is why, a male and a male can never have Offspring naturally, and a female and female can’t either, you see males and females in marriage complete each other and thus continue the cycle of life. you must remember this from a Christian point of view, homosexual marriage is a taboo, from a natural law point of view it is a taboo and even from a Darwinian point of view it’s a taboo and here is why, here is why!

    “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

    This is really important, a male and a male can’t give life, neither can a female and a female….. ONLY a MALE and a FEMALE can do that.

  298. 298
    StephenB says:

    CLAVDIVS

    Probably the most important principle at play is fairness and equality. Please read the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger for a detailed exposition of the rational basis for supporting gay marriage.

    The ninth circuit court of appeals in California is infamous for being biased against traditional social values. Also, I have read the most important parts of Judge Walker’s decision. His arguments are laughable and easily refuted.

    For all that, the best arguments against gay marriage were not even presented and the attorneys, themselves, were hapless and unprepared. They couldn’t even explain how heterosexual marriage is different from so-called “same-sex” marriage.

    Not only that, but your argument is that the hapless attorneys, themselves, are bigots for even making their pitiful attempt, since, as we know, you understand all arguments against same-sex marriage to be grounded in bigotry.

  299. 299
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs,

    I am sorry to have had to stir your displeasure, but at every stage we have seen more of projection, accusation and dismissal than of substance.

    For instance, when you accuse us of immoral conduct, ask yourself on what basis you make the determination of immoral conduct, apart from projections driven by might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘value’ ‘truth, etc.

    Do the same for dismissals such as the naturalistic fallacy and circularity objections made above given the principles that are in Girgis et al, starting from its opening words. But recall a much more extensive discussion is there.

    Similarly, examine your interactions with SB.

    I suggest you will find that there is consistently little or no daylight between your views and those that flow from inherently amoral evolutionary materialism; with worrying onward implications or concerns.

    I suggest you think again about where our civilisation is heading, why and how and why many people of principle are deeply concerned.

    In so doing, examine the context of what lawfare is, in further light of principles of 4th generation warfare and agit prop in ruthless radical hands. Not to mention what the indoctrination and manipulation techniques exposed by Schein can do in ruthless hands, as well as the spiral of silence.

    KF

  300. 300
    kairosfocus says:

    GUN: Kindly explain your grounds for saying you do not believe in might makes right and the implied claim that such is self evidently absurd ( 2 + 2 = 3 ) beyond personal preference, given the subjectivist assertions of the nature of value etc you made and to which I responded by pointing to cases of what happens when self evident, conscience sensed intelligible moral first principles manifesting the natural moral law or the law of [intrinsically valuable and morally governed human] nature are dismissed and discarded. As a sampler, consider whether “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [= fulfillment of personal calling/purpose under the Creator], that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .” are empty, religious platitudes or assertions no more powerful in basis than individual or community preferences. In so doing kindly reflect on moral self-evidence. KF

  301. 301
    goodusername says:

    KF,

    GUN: Kindly explain your grounds for saying you do not believe in might makes right and the implied claim that such is self evidently absurd ( 2 + 2 = 3 ) beyond personal preference, given the subjectivist assertions of the nature of value etc you made and to which I responded by pointing to cases of what happens when self evident, conscience sensed moral first principles are dismissed and discarded. KF

    What has “might” got to do with what I value?

  302. 302
    kairosfocus says:

    GUN, we already went over the ground re might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘value’ ‘worth’ ‘truth’ etc based on your early remarks based on unfortunately real world examples. Subjective preferences and community views in a context of radical relativism or subjectivism come down to often manipulative persuasion, or to intimidation or worse. Rights to life etc are not in the same category as oh I hate prunes. KF

  303. 303
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Kairosfocus @ 299

    Yet more hypocritical argumenta ad hominem.

    *Ignore*

  304. 304
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs, You now are saying, as you bigots and hypocrites — you dare to differ with ‘right thinking people’ — will not surrender to “us” so having hurled epithets and played the turnaround accusation card, the next step is to terminate discussion with many how dare you question us loaded accusations left on the table. This is an ending of reasoned discussion by you in a context where you and your side from outset have had a fixed conclusion and agenda which you think you have successfully imposed on our civilisation. That is sad, but not unexpected. Indeed, it is the focus of the OP. And, to date there is no cogent response to Girgis et al. Where, no, the projected fallacies talking points were not cogent, though I have no doubt they will be trotted out for years to come. KF

  305. 305
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus

    You indulged in the most vicious, offensive and unprovoked character attacks on me. I turned the other cheek and politely but firmly told you I would ignore future posts of that kind.

    But you did it again, and yet again.

    Thus it is your gross incivility and irrationality that terminated discussion. Yes – argumenta ad hominem are logically fallacious and irrational. You know that. So stop doing it.

  306. 306
    Eugen says:

    Claudio

    Yes I took a bait from Effigy, curse his digital ashes. In his insecurity he kept pestering this and other threads about homosexuals, totally of topic.

    Based on your kindergarten version here is the reasoning.

    1. Allowing  marriage to unconventional group is rational
    2. All unconventional groups can claim right to 1. based on equality and fairness
    3. Allowing marriage to all unconventional groups promotes disorder in society
    4. Promoting disorder in society  is irrational

    Your idea leads society to unfavorable situation. To avoid the situation you must practice bigotry in 2. contrary to what you preach. Practicing bigotry and fairness/equality  at the same time is nonsense.

    If you have something better than kindergarten version come again. Just don’t bother with multiple pages of liberal indoctrination material.

  307. 307
    CLAVDIVS says:

    StephenB @ 289

    If you bothered to read the testimony and judgement in Perry v Schwarzenegger you would see that your arguments have already been raised and refuted by sworn, expert testimony in adversarial proceedings.

    You would also see my previous quote was from the judgement which I thought was obvious from the context.

    [Same-sex marriage] militates against a well-ordered society and elevates diversity over unity. For another, it destroys the special privileges afforded heterosexual marriage and the capacity of the nuclear family to serve as the primary institution, which would reduce the institution of the state to secondary status and check its power to assume tyrannical control.

    All quotes below from the judgement’s summary of testimony.

    “Social epidemiologist Ilan Meyer testified about the harm gays and lesbians have experienced because of Proposition 8 [outlawing gay marriage]. … According to Meyer, Proposition 8 increases the likelihood of negative mental and physical health outcomes for gays and lesbians.”

    “Economist Lee Badgett provided evidence that same-sex couples would benefit economically if they were able to marry and that same-sex marriage would have no adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on opposite-sex couples.”

    “Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships.”

    “Egan explained that Proposition 8 decreases the number of married couples in San Francisco, who tend to be wealthier than single people because of their ability to specialize their labor, pool resources and access state and employer-provided benefits. Proposition 8 also increases the costs associated with discrimination against gays and lesbians. … Badgett explained that municipalities throughout California and the state government face economic disadvantages similar to those Egan identified for San Francisco.”

    “Psychologist Letitia Anne Peplau testified that couples benefit both physically and economically when they are married. Peplau testified that those benefits would accrue to same-sex as well as opposite-sex married couples. To Peplau, the desire of same-sex couples to marry illustrates the health of the institution of marriage and not, as Blankenhorn testified, the weakening of marriage.”

    “Peplau pointed to research showing that, despite stereotypes suggesting gays and lesbians are unable to form stable relationships, same-sex couples are in fact indistinguishable from opposite-sex couples in terms of relationship quality and stability.”

    “Historian Nancy Cott testified about the public institution of marriage and the state’s interest in
    recognizing and regulating marriages. … The state’s primary purpose in regulating marriage is to create stable households. … Cott testified that the state would benefit from recognizing same-sex marriage because such marriages would provide “another resource for stability and social order.”

    “Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent.”

    The anti-gay-marriage side in the case failed to produce any expert testimony to rebut the evidence summarised above.

  308. 308
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Hi Euegen 🙂

    Please see my post @ 307 – your point 3 is not justified by any evidence or reasoning.

  309. 309
    Eugen says:

    Claudio

    Please say it ain’t so. If you’re OK with 3 that means it is rational to marry your lama? Yes or no? 307 can wait. I’m afraid this won’t end up good.

  310. 310
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs,

    First, you already served notice that you are playing the ignore and push the narrative talking points game, so I mostly speak for record.

    Second, we can all see the thread and recognise that you are utterly blind to dismissing anyone who does not toe the latest progressivist lawfare partyline as a bigot, irrational and worse in the teeth of this Girgis paper as the designated endorsed example of informed principled questioning of the agenda narrative. You and your ilk knew this is a controversial and polarising issue but you insisted on it as you imagined you and those who would hasten to join you held the rhetorical high cards, here and elsewhere.

    This, you did in a day of hate speech and the like laws being abused to get people fired, fine businesses into bankruptcy or inability to operate, subjecting people to agenda indoctrination in the name of sensitivity and tolerance training, and soon outright criminalisation of Christians. (Yes, the end game is that obvious.)

    You adopted a line of talking points with little or no daylight between you and self-referentially incoherent, intrinsically amoral evolutionary materialism. Then you issued a bland statement no you are not one of these. That fits with being an enabling fellow traveller, I am afraid.

    To date, you and ilk have yet to show that you have seriously engaged issues, the list of alleged fallacies starting with naturalistic fallacy revealing only the most superficial reading to dismiss.

    Your latest tactic is projective ad hominems, running in the circle that only bigots and hypocrites object to wrenching marriage under false colour of law into a mocking parody that plays with the fire of destabilising further a pivotal social-moral-legal institution that is the foundation of stable decent community.

    You find it offensive that I use direct language to describe what is going on: lawfare and destructive, cultural marxist [oops, we are only supposed to say “critical theory”] agit prop by radicals targetting our civilisation, their enablers, fellow travellers and useful naifs in front groups. Already, they have had astonishing success in triggering a march of folly across our civilisation.

    FYI, when I speak in these terms, you need to recognise that I had to deal with these tactics decades ago, and so all of this is so very familiar.

    Likewise, I had to deal with brainwashing cults — and yes, ruthless effective manipulation on the grand scale is real especially in the hands of ruthless agenda driven activists and their overlords. (I keep calling attention to Edgar Schein, whose work provided the key insights decades ago. This on the spiral of silence will also help; including in understanding why I refuse to be silenced despite namecalling and the like.)

    I will give a few pointers to a more sound view:

    1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities.

    2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding.

    3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience.

    4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds.

    5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges.

    6 –> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy):

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature.

    8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature.

    9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked.

    10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.

    11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.

    In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly.

    It seems, yet again, plain that we inhabit a civilisation hell bent on cultural suicide by march of folly.

    KF

  311. 311
    Silver Asiatic says:

    StephenB: Many values are intrinsic, that is, they have value in themselves. Examples would be life, truth, unity, and health.

    Zach: You can say it, but can’t show it. What you can do is find common ground with those who also find those things to have value.

    I’m afraid you guys are going to let Zachriel get away with this.

    Zachriel is on record saying he can’t show the intrinsic value of truth. Got that?

    I can prove the intrinsic value of truth by simply making an affirmation. For example, I just posted something here on UD.

    It is impossible to respond to me, in any way at all, without demonstrating the intrinsic value of truth.

    Think about it. Did a new post appear here or not? To respond to the question is to prove the intrinsic value of truth. Then of course, if truth has no intrinsic, demonstrable value, then you can’t explain anything.

    What do we call people who think there is no intrinsic value-difference between truth and falsehood? I mean, besides psychotic?

    It’s not only, as Stephen rightly says, we can’t help him, but a person who gives equal value to lies and fantasies as to truth statements has removed himself from intelligent discourse.

    Knowing Zachriel, he won’t back away from this. I’m afraid some of us also will cut him some slack. “Well, he just meant that what is true for you might not be true for me.”

    No – if you can’t recognize that any, even the most trivial and simplistic, evaluations of reality (“I just posted a statement on UD”), require and Prove, the intrinsic value of truth, then there is nothing further that can be said.

    If truth is intrinsically equivalent to lies then there is no way to evaluate anything. There’s no way to even affirm that there is “common ground with those who also find those things to have value”.

    Affirmative statements are statements of truth. Proof?

    It is logically impossible to affirm “I will always speak (to myself or others) think and affirm what is false”. This is too obvious. It can’t be done. There’s nothing subjective about it. The intrinsic value of truth is demonstrated (to demonstrate anything requires the same).

    Truth is a Necessary component of rational thought. It’s not concept that is given value by the subjective agent.

    When the intrinsic, non-subjective value of truth is denied, then rationality is not possible.

    But as others have said, giving Zach some credit, that’s materialism. It’s beyond idiotic.

  312. 312
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus @ 310

    More argumenta ad hominem.

    As if whatever happened to you years ago excuses your rudeness today. Hilarious!

    *Ignore*

  313. 313
    Zachriel says:

    bb: The zygote is valued because it is a developing human being. Unlike hair or a flake of skin, barring malfunction or violence, it will one day grow into an adult. Maybe get married and raise children.

    That’s a better and truer argument than what StephenB made. You don’t have to know anything about DNA to value a developing human being. Indeed, it’s a typical trait among mammals to value their young.

    bb: In the traditional view of Western Civilization, humans have intrinsic value because God conferred it on them.

    That’s all well and good, but that doesn’t constitute an argument unless you already accept the traditional view, in which case it’s tautological.

  314. 314
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Eugen

    Lets not play word games. I like you.

    Your point three was unconditional:

    3. Allowing marriage to all unconventional groups promotes disorder in society

    I misread “all” as “any”.

    My point is, allowing marriage to a particular unconventional group may be both rational and also not lead to social disorder, hence no conflict.

    Such is the case with gay marriage.

  315. 315
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection in the teeth of a point by point exposition of relevant principles (of course you are just picking up odd points you are ignoring substance) shows, inadvertently why you can only see bigotry etc in those who question you. You are not listening, you are full of an agenda and have sacrificed principle in its pursuit. Just how the communists operated. Those who refuse to learn form history doom themselves to repeat its worst chapters. Over a hundred million ghosts of victims of communism join me in that warning. KF

  316. 316
    kairosfocus says:

    SA, excellent, thanks. I confess, I am still under the press of local events that continue to unfold so can only give a little attention and much less focus. Your point is dead on right. KF

  317. 317
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus

    Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection …

    Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

  318. 318
    kairosfocus says:

    Clavdivs, the attack the man dodge the issue agit prop game continues. Sadly revealing, given what is on the table. KF

  319. 319
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF, with all due respect, I think that you are doing exactly what the article is complaining about. rather than discuss issues with Clavdivs, you use phrases such as:

    Clavdivs, your broken record attack the man projection in the teeth of a point by point exposition of relevant principles (of course you are just picking up odd points you are ignoring substance) shows, inadvertently why you can only see bigotry etc in those who question you.

    First, you already served notice that you are playing the ignore and push the narrative talking points game, so I mostly speak for record.

    Clavdivs, You now are saying, as you bigots and hypocrites — you dare to differ with ‘right thinking people’

    I think that your responses are far out of proportion to Clavdivs’ comments. He appears to be able to discuss fairly with Eugen and others. I saw a similar thing with your interactions with Indiana Effigy. He was able to have a civil discussion with others but not with you. As far as I can tell, there is only one common factor in this behaviour. If you can’t discuss without being abusive, dismissive and hypocritical, it might be better if you took a break from commenting until you have calmed down.

    Just some friendly advice from a lady who has seen far too much ugliness than she would care to admit.

  320. 320
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL,

    I can only pause a moment.

    Please look closer at what I have actually done, which includes first reluctantly pointing to a source that gives a principled discussion and endorsing it. I knew that a controversial issue would receive attack rather than serious engagement. Such is why I normally refuse to discuss this matter beyond the level of pointing to a key source.

    That is what happened, a major peer reviewed paper rooted in principle and law was blanket dismissed as bigotry and fallacies. I took time to clip how it opened and to outline the key elements of a case, responding to the assertion, fallacies.

    All along the tune was, oh you are bigots, which is a loaded accusation in a day of hate speech law and lawfare. I pointed out the patterns of agit prop at work, and that enabling behaviour for such is dangerous and destructive. FYI, that is a major problem of long standing, agit prop works because those who know better do not expose it and it takes in the naive. Often we then move to the point where the spiral of silencing sets in, reinforcing the march of folly through message dominance.

    And you will find Barbara Tuchman on that issue significant.

    Note, I took further time to outline the framework of natural law morality and its connexion to law, justice, rights and genuine liberty. Ignored, the better to indulge in accusation.

    The pivot of this, is that I have pointed out a characteristic pattern in discussions of issues too often indulged by progressivists and fellow trvellers: red herring distractors led away from the focal issue, to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and rhetorically ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating serious discussion.

    You will see that his same agenda was used to attack the thread owner when he pointed out the same pattern.

    I now point to some principles from Alinsky that may further help you interpret what is going on and has long been going on:

    RFR

    5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

    Now, I have to go.

    G’day

    KF

  321. 321
    Eugen says:

    Hi Effigy, (ahem) Ziggy, look what you have done

    Klaudius

    What word games?
    I think “any” is as bad as “all”….but whatever. I used your own simplified principle to come to conclusion that human society may end up in disarray. I’m not trying to be psychohistorian but looking at progression of events, my guesstimate is 70% chance over next few generations.

    I understand your point which is to keep things limited to one particular group – homosexuals. Before I stop talking about this topic I would like you to understand my point: when you let one group have something you cannot deny it to the other group, otherwise you will be called a bigot.

  322. 322
    Origenes says:

    I agree with WJM when he states that:

    We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, or simply voicing an opinion that contradicts it, is dangerous, because truthful terminology has been politically re-characterized by the leftists in media, politics and academia as hate speech.

    And I disagree with CLAVDIVS when he argues that irrationality equates with bigotry. A bigot can produce rational and irrational arguments and the same goes for a non-bigot.
    However I do agree with CLAVDIVS that no convincing arguments have been put forward against SSM. And surely the ad hominem attacks on his person are uncalled for.

  323. 323
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Sorry KF, I have no intention of getting into a debate about your behaviour with you. I made a friendly suggestion. Whether or not you take heed of it is entirely up to you.

  324. 324
    kairosfocus says:

    Origines, I was closing down and noticed. Pardon, but an ad hominem fallacy is an attack tot he man in evasion of the message. Above, the articular issue has been engaged, what has also been engaged is the thread’s focus, that there is an agenda out there that uses ruthless lawfare and agit prop tactics in pursuit of an agenda that is suicidal for our civilisation. It is fair comment to draw on the analysis of the techniques of such agit prop, though undfortunately, it will not be welcome to those who are involved through enabling behaviour. As for the line there are no arguments against wrenching marriage into what is against nature, I suspect that this will be perceived as so because a major art of the agit prop and lawfare at work is to improperly discredit and smear those who would raise arguments, and the imposition of strawman caricatures on the arguments. I suggest a reassessment of the balance on the merits and a reading of the strategies of cultural warfare at work is indicated. KF

    PS: As it is at risk of being buried under further comments, here is the summary I gave earlier this morning, on some of the issues we need to look at:

    1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities.

    2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding.

    3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience.

    4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds.

    5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges.

    6 –> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy):

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature.

    8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature.

    9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked.

    10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.

    11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.

    In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly.

    It seems, yet again, plain that we inhabit a civilisation hell bent on cultural suicide by march of folly.

  325. 325
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Eugen — “Hi Effigy, (ahem) Ziggy, look what you have done.”

    Nice guess, but wrong. Maybe if I tell you my view on SSM, you might better understand my position.

    I am opposed to SSM but agree with some the arguments that EI and Clavdivs have made. Specifically that the arguments used against SSM have been, for the most part, supercilious. I prefer to be honest about my opposition to it. I oppose it for purely religious reasons.

  326. 326
    Origenes says:

    Kairosfocus,
    In a thread titled “The End of Reasonable Debate” you accuse CLAVDIVS of being on a cultural suicide agenda:

    you are full of an agenda and have sacrificed principle in its pursuit. Just how the communists operated. Those who refuse to learn form history doom themselves to repeat its worst chapters. Over a hundred million ghosts of victims of communism join me in that warning.

    You are speculating on CLAVDIV’s motives in a manner that breaches the borders of ad hominem attack and does not further debate.

  327. 327
    StephenB says:

    CLAVDIVS

    If you bothered to read the testimony and judgement in Perry v Schwarzenegger you would see that your arguments have already been raised and refuted by sworn, expert testimony in adversarial proceedings.

    As I explained, the Judge is biased against traditional social values, and his reasoning (and that of his “expert” witnesses) is laughable. I will just pick the low hanging fruit.

    “Social epidemiologist Ilan Meyer testified about the harm gays and lesbians have experienced because of Proposition 8 [outlawing gay marriage]. … According to Meyer, Proposition 8 increases the likelihood of negative mental and physical health outcomes for gays and lesbians.”

    So what? Christians experience those same problems time every time some stupid judge rules against their religious freedom. Unjust lawsuits abound.

    “Economist Lee Badgett provided evidence that same-sex couples would benefit economically if they were able to marry and that same-sex marriage would have no adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on opposite-sex couples

    In fact, gay marriage does have an adverse effect on opposite sex couples by eliminating the status of heterosexual marriage as the special and preferred institution. If heterosexual marriage is not preferred by the state, then the family loses its status as the primary institution. If the family is not the primary institution, it can no longer promote family values and a culture of life, which means that a tyrannical state becomes the primary institution, promoting anti-family values and a culture of death.

    “Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships.”

    So what? That doesn’t mean society is not harmed by changing the definition of marriage. It just means that, predictably, some people benefit economically

    “Peplau pointed to research showing that, despite stereotypes suggesting gays and lesbians are unable to form stable relationships, same-sex couples are in fact indistinguishable from opposite-sex couples in terms of relationship quality and stability.

    Nonsense. 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” If a few of them manage to settle down, that hardly means that gays have no trouble forming stable relationships. Obviously, they do.

    “Historian Nancy Cott testified about the public institution of marriage and the state’s interest in recognizing and regulating marriages. … The state’s primary purpose in regulating marriage is to create stable households. … Cott testified that the state would benefit from recognizing same-sex marriage because such marriages would provide “another resource for stability and social order.”

    Bad logic. Just because the state has an interest in regulating heterosexual marriage doesn’t mean that it should redefine marriage, which is a totally different thing. Stability is a function of shared values among citizens. If half the population resents having gay values forced down their throat and is destabilized in the process, it is not much of a consolation that the people who did the shoving and destabilizing are, themselves, relatively stable.

    “Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent.”

    The children tell a different story. B.N. Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz, and Katy Faust all grew up with homosexual parents. All four argued that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would harm children by depriving them of a mother or father. In her brief, Dawn Stefanowicz described her experience living in a same-sex household.

    “I wasn’t surrounded by average heterosexual couples,” she says in her court brief. “Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. I was exposed to overt sexual activities like sodomy, nudity, pornography, group sex, sadomasochism and the ilk.”
    “There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and innocence were violated.”

    Don’t expect to get the truth from the whacked-out ninth circuit court of appeals. Ideologues like Judge Walker have already made up their minds by claiming things to be facts that are not facts. He writes,

    —“Individuals do not generally chose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.”

    On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation. I can back up that claim all day long. Judge Walker has bought the lie that gays are born that way because of some “gay gene.” Such a gene doesn’t exist. It was made up. All the evidence suggests that same-sex attraction occurs in the early years and, in many cases, can be reversed. One can choose to participate in that process.

    —“Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples.”

    Hardly. It is the first amendment that is the focus for battles in several states over the alleged rights of gays to impose their values on Christians or the constitutional right of Christians to act on their religious beliefs.

    Meanwhile, you are still evading the question that relates to this post. Am I a bigot for presenting these reasoned arguments? What evidence can you produce that would suggest that my reasoned arguments are the product of a bigoted mind?

    So far, you have not addressed my arguments against same-sex marriage. Perhaps you don’t understand why undermining the power of the nuclear family as a special institution and the primary institution of society leads to tyranny and a loss of freedom. It is happening all around us as I write. Or, perhaps you don’t care since you have not engaged the argument

  328. 328
    Eugen says:

    Ziggy (you should pick Stardust)

    There’s nothing new here to talk about, I’ll finish it up

    Arguments for homosexual “marriage” appear to be emotional. I show using my line of reasoning (#306) how this exposes human race to risks of disarray in the long run.

    Same form of emotional argument could be used for other demands. For ex. nudist activists could come forward today and say: dressed up people are permitted to walk the streets and we nudists are not. Show me how are walking nudists hurting dressed up people. If we don’t get the right to walk naked you are irrationally discriminating against us. And you are a bigot. And hater. And intolerant. And hurtful. And you make us cry. And trigger us. Did we mention you are a bigot? (yes snowflakes, you did 55 times).

    This could sound like sci-fi but in the distant future humans may regress to some weird society because of laws based on shallow emotions. It would make a cool sci fi story. Humans may walk around naked, copulate in the open, marry other humans, groups of humans, objects, animals, software or even ideas. You may be able to get married to “beauty” or “love”! Why not, how does it hurt anyone?

  329. 329
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Eugen — “Ziggy (you should pick Stardust)”

    Actually, my first name is Isabelle, but I have been called Ziggy since I was a teen in the 70s. Probably because I was a huge Bowie fan.

    As I mentioned, I am not in favour of same sex marriage (for purely religious reasons) but I simply cannot get as emotionally wrapped up in the issue as KF appears to be. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that whether or not it is legal will have very little impact on the future of society. I can’t see it becoming a slippery slope towards anything. Positive or negative.

    Like it or not, homosexuality exists, always has, and always will. Homosexuals have lived together all throughout history. Again, that will not change. If they want to call their union a marriage, I can’t get too emotional about it. It has no impact on my marriage, or anyone else’s as far as I can tell.

  330. 330
    Aleta says:

    Your attitude is refreshing, ziggy.

  331. 331
    vividbleau says:

    Clad,
    Curse you Clad 🙂

    Being the obsessive compulsive that I am you have forced me, well not forced, to read and reread the 43 pages of the Girgis article. Yes I am not one of those people that just dismiss peoples observations even though I may not agree with their conclusions, yet I recognize that no matter how opened minded I might be I get the sense that I will be labeled a closed minded bigot just the same.

    First to the paper… I want to touch on credibility. It is 43 pages long, 120 footnotes, authored by a PHD candidate in Philosophy at Princeton, a McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton and a PHD candidate in Poli Sci at Notre Dame.

    My understanding is that this is a peer reviewed paper. If it is I am wondering why whoever did the reviewing did not pick up on the irrationality of their arguments. That’s doesn’t sound right to me but maybe I misunderstand the peer review process. Thus I find the paper credible.

    However to dismiss your critique based on the above would be fallacious. Your stance that their arguments are irrational and therefore they are intolerant and thus bigoted is not refuted by an appeal to authority. You seem to be a very intelligent person and its possible you recognized fallacies that those doing the review overlooked or perhaps that was not their responsibility to do so.

    Honestly I do not see the fallacies that you do. You say they derive an ought from an is. What exactly is the “is” you are referring to? Marriage? Something else?

    I found the paper to be couched in very tolerant language. “Consider two views” “What is marriage” “Part one begins by defending…” There are a lot of “ifs” “If there is some connection between children and marriage…” If the conjugal view of marriage is correct…”

    Clad I just don’t see the irrationality you speak of, doesn’t mean I cant be wrong but I have endeavored to give you a fair hearing.

    Vivid

  332. 332
    StephenB says:

    On children from same sex unions.

    Previous studies from both pro-gay think tanks and pro-family institutions are flawed and have produced conflicting outcomes. In each case, the researchers did not use a population-based sample from which reliable conclusions could be drawn. Among other things, there was not enough time to determine the effects in adulthood.

    A new study has overcome much of the methodological limitations and self-serving motives that were tied to the old research. [Mark Regnerus,”How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770]
    .
    When compared with outcomes for children raised by an “intact biological family” (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures.

    “Compared with children raised by their married biological parents, children of homosexual parents

    • Are much more likely to receive welfare benefits
    • Have lower educational attainment
    • Report less safety and security in their family of origin
    • Report more ongoing “negative impact” from their family of origin
    • Are more likely to suffer from depression
    • Have been arrested more often
    • If they are female, have had more sexual partners–both male and female
    Children of lesbian mothers:
    • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
    • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
    • Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
    • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
    • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
    • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
    • Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”
    • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will
    • Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others
    • Use marijuana more frequently
    • Smoke more frequently
    • Watch TV for long periods more frequently
    • Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

    Further, the study found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship.

    The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents.
    Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have “ever been physically forced” to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).”

    So, my question for CLAVDIS persists: Are these scientifically-researched conclusions the product of a reasoned-based analysis or, as you argue, a bigoted mind.

  333. 333
    Phinehas says:

    ziggy:

    If they want to call their union a marriage, I can’t get too emotional about it. It has no impact on my marriage, or anyone else’s as far as I can tell.

    I agree. But is the issue at hand really about homosexuals calling their union a marriage? Or is it about the government calling their union a marriage? The two are very different, are they not?

    What power does the government have to define what God instituted? Especially in a country that values religious freedom?

    Does the government also have the power to define salvation? Sanctification? Church membership?

  334. 334
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Aleta — “Your attitude is refreshing, ziggy.”

    Thank you.

    Phinehas — “I agree. But is the issue at hand really about homosexuals calling their union a marriage? Or is it about the government calling their union a marriage? The two are very different, are they not?”

    It is my understanding that a marriage, in addition to being a sacrament is also a legal contract. Marriages presided over by a religious leader (priest, minister, imam, rabbi, etc) carry the full weight of both. Marriages presided over by civil authorities (government, if you will) only carry the full weight of law.

    Phinehas — “What power does the government have to define what God instituted? Especially in a country that values religious freedom?”

    Whether or not God instituted marriage is certainly open for debate. I happen to think so, but that is not the legal stance on the matter. As such, government can decide what marriage is under civil marriages.

    Phinehas — “Does the government also have the power to define salvation? Sanctification? Church membership?”

    No. Why do you ask?

  335. 335
    vividbleau says:

    Phin

    I would add further that the thread is not about SSM it just has become the focal point of the larger issue of trying to shut down any discussion the left seems incorrect through the use of terms such as bigot,racist,and all the various phobes.

    Would also point out that it is impossible to not be affected by social and cultural changes.

    Vivid

  336. 336
    Phinehas says:

    ziggy:

    Phin: Does the government also have the power to define salvation? Sanctification? Church membership?

    No. Why do you ask?

    Whether or not God instituted [salvation] is certainly open for debate. I happen to think so, but that is not the legal stance on the matter. As such, government can decide what [salvation] is under civil [salvation].

    My position is this: If the government wants to create entities that it recognizes for certain legal benefits, I don’t really have an issue with that. They already do this with things like incorporated, LLC, etc. If the government wants to have civil unions, I don’t think this violates the separation of church and state. (I don’t think it is a good idea either, for religious reasons, societal health reasons, etc.) I just don’t think the government ought to be defining marriage.

    In my experience, most proponents of SSM are not content to label civil unions as such, though. This makes me wonder whether the next step isn’t to require churches to recognize what the government has defined a marriage to be. Else why not call it what it is: a civil union?

    vivid:

    Good points. The question in the OP is about whether my considered position on SSM means I can be justly dismissed as a homophobe. I suspect those who attempt to do so are more interested in silencing dissent than in rational discourse.

  337. 337

    For those that argue that arguments against SSM (or open borders, or gender-neutralizing existing bathrooms, etc.) are based on bigotry, racism, and hate, please answer the following:

    So what? So what if all the above SSM arguments stem from bigotry? How does it further the cause of rational, civil debate to call them bigots? Or to call others racists, or homophobes, or haters?

    What exactly is the piont of publicly identifying a person as “a bigot” or “a racist” if it is not to shut down their argument without rational debate? Even if they cannot debate rationally, so what? Can’t you?

    Is it not the principle of charity for us to assume that those we debate against are not bigots, racists, etc., and is it not incumbent upon us to ourselves present rational argument regardless of the quality of their own speech? Is it not folly to attempt to prove that someone’s argument is rooted in the motivations of bigotry, racism or hatred?

    It’s difficult enough to know the hearts and minds of others without throwing around such inflammatory accusations.

  338. 338
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Phinehas — “This makes me wonder whether the next step isn’t to require churches to recognize what the government has defined a marriage to be. Else why not call it what it is: a civil union?”

    Governments don’t require churches to marry all opposite sex couples. Why do you think that they would make them marry same sex couples?

    As I said earlier, I just can’t force myself to get all worked up about the subject. A gay couple getting married is not harming me. They are not weakening my marriage. As far as I can tell, they are not doing any harm to society. I think it is wrong. But I also think that drinking and smoking are wrong. But it is all personal choice. After all, God did give us free will. What we do with that free will is the ultimate test. I chose to use my free will to not judge others unless they are doing harm to others.

  339. 339
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “So what? So what if all the above SSM arguments stem from bigotry? How does it further the cause of rational, civil debate to call them bigots? Or to call others racists, or homophobes, or haters?”

    In general, I agree with you. But do you consider this an absolute, or does it depend on the issue? For example, what if there was a move to make all Jews where a Star of David patch on their coats? Or Christians to wear a a big cross? What if there were people lobbying government to segregate all blacks, or Hispanics? Should we justify their arguments by trying to engage in civil debate, or should we call them out for what they most certainly are? I think of myself as a very tolerant person, but there are boundaries.

  340. 340
    Phinehas says:

    ziggy:

    Phinehas — “This makes me wonder whether the next step isn’t to require churches to recognize what the government has defined a marriage to be. Else why not call it what it is: a civil union?”

    ziggy: Governments don’t require churches to marry all opposite sex couples. Why do you think that they would make them marry same sex couples?

    Because same sex couples will be able to claim protected status. I believe that at some point in the future, not marrying same sex couples will be subject to discrimination laws. Otherwise, why not just call them civil unions and keep the church and state concepts totally separate?

    As far as I can tell, [same sex couples] are not doing any harm to society. I think it is wrong.

    Thinking it is wrong is enough to get you branded as a homophobe in much of society already. It isn’t such a big step from this to a claim of discrimination. There is a reason the word “bigot” is getting thrown around as much as it is. The left’s strategy is to control the message, get buy-in from the masses, and then push forward its agenda. All that’s required from those like you who think something is wrong is to not get worked up enough about it to do anything.

  341. 341
    bb says:

    #283
    ” But, if it had any meaning at all, I would say that it must mean that it’s a value that’s ‘not conferred’.”

    But that depends on who confers. If it is as that species first came into being, according to traditional Western Civilization, it’s perfectly consistent because it is from the outset and remains.

    This long discussion brought C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man to mind.

    The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.

  342. 342
    kairosfocus says:

    Origines,

    Please note, an agenda is operating, one that set out to redefine law and language alike to create the perception that marriage is not keyed to the heterosexual bond, reproductive biology and the requisites of child nurture and stable society.

    In material part they have succeeded to a point where a great many people now imagine that sexual intercourse includes all sorts of acts that are unnatural, that those who object on principle to the attempted redefinition are bigots — thus, by definition hateful (which is warping perceptions including in this thread), and are willing to go along with robbing such people of their means of daily bread. And, law has been bent to fit this agenda in many territories.

    This clearly reflects the impact of radical secular humanist, lab coat clad evolutionary materialism, which has no root level entity IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. And so many imagine is and ought is unbridgeable with the “scientific” is taking precedence. Where as a direct consequence moral government is reduced to views and values, taken to be subjective entities. Consequently, there is a rising tide of manipulation and might making ‘truth’ ‘right’ ‘value’ and more.

    In short we are now increasingly in amorality and nihilism without realising it.

    Where, as we are inescapably morally governed beings, such a path manifestly heads for the cliffs.

    Yes, it is very unpalatable to say our civilisation is pursuing a suicidal path in many ways, but that is a serious assessment. The in progress demographic collapse is just one of many signs. So is the ongoing abortion holocaust.

    Now, people can be filled with the relevant agendas in many ways and to many degrees. Some, are simply going with the flow, are involved in grand group think and are ill equipped to question or dispute. Others, are enablers, part of the apparatus of manipulation, indoctrination and intimidation to varying degrees. Others are knowingly involved as activists. Others, are strategists who bear deep and primary responsibility for what has been going on.

    Please, read Havel: http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtran.....8;typ=HTML

    I put it to you, that what has been labelled same sex marriage and demanded in the name of marriage equality is nothing of the nature of marriage. This is patent, but part of the game going on is an extreme nominalism where the only natures are those of basic particles, all else is flux and chaos with no significance. As Schaeffer said long ago, on such views man is a zero. Morality, thus justice and law, are mere matters of power struggle, manipulation and intimidation.

    Where, because of the dominance of radical secularism, many have become entangled in compromises to go along and get along. This boils down to eat me last, please Mr Wolf. Little Red Riding Hood had no business naively approaching the strange beast in Granny’s clothes and in her bed.

    Now, these things doubtless sound hard and unwelcome, even how can you accuse or question the motives of so many nice people, you nasty bigot.

    The answer is, I am not in your cultural setting and can look on and see the trends in ways you cannot. I can see the consequences as major geostrategic trends and threats build up. I can see lawfare for what it is, and what it means: weaponising of law to target, marginalise and even criminalise Christians in our civilisation. Fourth Generation Warfare in action, in which imposition of will by manipulation, intimidation, threat or use of force is just a spectrum of dominance.

    And yes, I am pointing to the elephant in the midst of the room.

    A great many people are caught up at one or more levels, and it is time to wake up before it is too late.

    But then, in the 1930’s Churchill as that voice in the wilderness old dinosaur and war monger who failed in the Great War, so why bother listen to his silly accusations about that man we could do business with who had pulled Germany out of the doldrums. Besides, the Rhinelands were German.

    I suggest that we need to pause and ask, are we in a Plato’s Cave confusing shadow shows for reality? (And do you know how the denizens reacted to the one who was set free and allowed to see the apparatus of manipulation and the world outside the cave?)

    I put it to you that those who came to UD for weeks and months and have pushed the accusation that anyone who disagrees with the latest politically correct partyline is a hateful bigot in a day with hate speech laws, is making a very serious accusation and is accountable for willful false accusations.

    I put it to you that for weeks and months, I and others have tried to avoid having a confrontation over the same sex marriage push, precisely because it is a nasty and toxic issue loaded with all sorts of very dangerous points and is not a significant part of the purpose of this blog.

    We did not throw the first punch, but we will finish the fight that started with a serious below the belt blow, a willful, sustained false accusation of hate.

    Backed up by refusal to entertain principled discussion.

    Which, I notice, is not being seriously dealt with as a material factor in the thread’s tone.

    Further to this, there is in fact a longstanding habitual practice of many objectors to design thought in and around UD that is an extremely toxic and abusive rhetorical pattern.

    Namely distracting tangents led to loaded distortions used to accuse. And if that pattern is pointed out, the classic Nazi turnabout accusation tactic is brought into play usually using he hit back first rhetoric.

    I suggest that a glance above will show this pattern in abundant evidence, with some spillover from previous threads.

    Moreover, you will find that, consistently, there has been a refusal to seriously and cogently engage the principle and foundation of morality and rights issues on the part of the same circles. Where, the amorality of evolutionary materialism is one of its most dangerous features, as Plato pointed out 2350 years ago. But of course, no cogent engagement, just a demand not to bring such a longstanding painful lesson of history to the table.

    There was no need whatsoever for accusations of bigotry, but that has been a key tactic.

    Finally, I owe no apology whatsoever for pointing out the historic sources of key agit prop tactics, and that I have a bit of awareness of how the game goes down because I had to deal with it on a daily basis through attending a Marxism dominated university. Nor the price in blood and tears paid to deal with those tactics and their consequences, not only in my homeland — which had a mini civil war — but across the world.

    In short, much more, and of a sobering import, is going on than at first appears.

    Anyway, time to close off playing Cassandra for now.

    KF

  343. 343
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KairosFocus — “This clearly reflects the impact of radical secular humanist, lab coat clad evolutionary materialism, which has no root level entity IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. And so many imagine is and ought is unbridgeable with the “scientific” is taking precedence. Where as a direct consequence moral government is reduced to views and values, taken to be subjective entities. Consequently, there is a rising tide of manipulation and might making ‘truth’ ‘right’ ‘value’ and more.

    In short we are now increasingly in amorality and nihilism without realising it.”

    I tried reading your words but I couldn’t make sense of them. What are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of organized, secular, humanist, materialist, Darwinist conspiracy at play here?

  344. 344
    vividbleau says:

    RE 343

    Ziggy it’s pretty clear what he is saying…ideas have consequences. In light of some of your comments I especially liked “….. eat me last, please Mr Wolf”

    Vivid

  345. 345
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL,

    Vivid is right in his citation of Francis Schaeffer, ideas have consequences. Consequences that easily become socio-cultural and policy agendas.

    If I said instead:

    — the money-grubbing, war mongering military-industrial complex, or

    — Neo-Cons acting to protect their foreign or racial national interest (Israel), or

    — Bush-Hitler lied and people died through blood for oil, or

    — lobbyists for the National Rifle Association blocking common sense gun control, or

    — or Climate change DENIERS (an echo of Holocaust deniers), or

    — those Right-Wing Fundy Christo-fascist Creationist IDiots and whackos who are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked and are trying to impose their morality on us, etc.

    . . . many heads would nod but it’s obvious, those are special interest agendas that are up to no good. (I hardly need to say, that I have here cited characterisations from popular forms of opposed interests that have become entrenched talking points in the media and on the ground, and as well — in too many hearts and minds — unquestioned, lodestar thought points of dismissal and even scapegoating hostility. True bigotry, as opposed to principled, civil opposition or disagreement.)

    Instead, I am pointing to a globally influential agenda that has dominated first the academy then has increasingly shaped spheres of influence constituting the commanding heights of a culture until it is now seeking to radically redefine sexual identity, law, marriage and family in ways that will patently criminalise Christianity. (Already we see many going along happily as Christians are being driven out of employment and businesses on claimed grounds of their bigotry and discrimination.)

    The heart of that agenda is radically secularist, lab coat clad evolutionary materialism. This functions as an ideology and worldview that sanctions the undermining of respect for the responsible, rational freedom of individuals, reducing us to more or less biological robots with brain-box computer controllers programmed or conditioned by genetic and/or sociocultural and/or socio-psychological factors.

    From this perspective, listen again to Dawkins in that Sci Am article clipped from IIRC River out of Eden:

    Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose . . . .

    In a universe of electrons [–> particles as ultimate, essential reality, seen to have been shaped by blind chance and mechanical necessity across time into all things] and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication [–> notice what is viewed as shaping reality], 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 [–> rationality, justice and morality are dead]. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good [–> utter amorality as the consequence of evolutionary materialism], nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 – 85.]

    Then plug that into Provine in his notorious 1998 U. of Tenn Darwin Day address:

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .

    The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will [–> without responsible freedom, mind, reason and morality alike disintegrate into grand delusion, hence self-referential incoherence and self-refutation. But that does not make such fallacies any less effective in the hands of clever manipulators] . . . [1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address, U of Tenn — and yes, that is significant i/l/o the Scopes Trial, 1925]

    Note, Rosenberg:

    Ever since Newton physics has ruled out purposes in the physical realm. If the physical facts fix all the facts, however, then in doing so, it rules out purposes altogether, in biology, in human affairs, and in human thought-processes. [–> mindedness reduced to grand and self referentially incoherent delusion, with particular reference to purposeful intentionality] Showing how it could do so was a tall order. Until Darwin came along things looked pretty good for Kant’s pithy observation that there never would be a Newton for the blade of grass—that physics could not explain living things, human or otherwise, because it couldn’t invoke purpose. But the process that Darwin discovered–random, or rather blind variation, and natural selection, or rather passive environmental filtration–does all the work of explaining the means/ends economy of biological nature that shouts out ‘purpose’ or ‘design’ at us [–> all living things including us are programmed and controlled by blind chance and mechanical necessity in a world where responsible, rational freedom is a grand delusion] . What Darwin showed was that all of the beautiful suitability of living things to their environment, every case of fit between organism and niche, and all of the intricate meshing of parts into wholes, is just the result of blind causal processes. It’s all just the foresightless play of fermions and bosons producing, in us conspiracy-theorists, the illusion of purpose. Of course, that is no surprise to scientism; if physics fixes all the facts, it could not have turned out any other way [–> think through implications for rationality, warrant and knowledge, much less morality]. In fact, the mechanism Darwin discovered for building adaptations is the only game in town. [from: “The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality”
    by Alex Rosenberg here at Wayback Machine. For responses at length cf Feser here on ]

    Of course, one of the new talking points is to suggest that it is improper to cite telling admissions against interest and/or that somehow such are “quote-mined.” Nope, these are all significant citations that mean just what they say and fit in with the known broader views of these spokesmen for evolutionary materialist scientism.

    Let me go on, with John Gray highlighting where this all ends up in his 2002 Straw Dogs:

    Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth – and so be free. But if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth. To think otherwise is to resurrect the pre-Darwinian error that humans are different from all other animals.

    and:

    [O]nly someone miraculously ignorant of history could believe that competition among ideas could result in the triumph of truth. Certainly ideas compete with one another but the winners are normally those with power and human folly on their side. Truth has no systematic evolutionary advantage over error.

    Crick is the final nail in the coffin:

    . . . 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.

    Agendas driven by dominant ideologies are real, and have all too real consequences. In this case, evolutionary materialist scientism utterly undermines mind, rationality, responsible freedom and morality. It is utterly amoral, having in it no foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT.

    Haldane’s longstanding warning about sawing off the branch on which we all must sit is still apt:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [[“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]

    This thread is in large part about the moral side, and so let me again put forth the cluster of step by step points that have been largely brushed aside twice already by way of utter contrast with what has ended in the shipwreck of self-refuting self-referential absurdity and nihilistic amorality:

    1 –> inescapably, we are morally governed as individuals and as communities.

    2 –> on pain of immediate, patent absurdities, core moral principles are evident to conscience guided reason to certainty and are binding.

    3 –> systems of thought that reduce morality to subjectivity, relativism or to illusion end in implying grand delusion and utter unreliability of our intelligence and conscience.

    4 –> likewise, for things that undermine the premise that we have responsible, rational freedom and quasi-infinite worth and dignity; aptly captured in the traditional Judaeo Christan premise that we are equally created in the image of the good God and just Lord of all worlds.

    5 –> Right to life, to liberty, to conscience and responsible expression, to innocent reputation, to the fruit of our labour and more flow from this, as say the US DoI of 1776 epochally acknowledges.

    6 –> That document sums up this view in terms of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It has far deeper idea roots and a centuries deep history behind it. Its legacy of liberty speaks for itself. Let me clip its first two paragraphs, noting the right of reformation and if necessary revolution in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations (where the ballot box provides a peaceful instrument of audit, replacement, reformation and revolution but is critically dependent on an informed, responsible public cf the Ac 27 case here . . . a sobering lesson on the perils of manipulated democracy):

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature.

    8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature.

    9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked.

    10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.

    11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.

    In short, there are principled bases for objection to currently fashionable agendas imposed through agit prop and lawfare, but the spiral of silencing is well underway backed up by the attempt to induce massive “thought reform” in interests of a march of folly.

    It seems, yet again, plain that we inhabit a civilisation hell bent on cultural suicide by march of folly.

    In this context, we must ponder to what extent we have become caught up in the flow, to what extent we have become activists and enablers, and who are the strategic agenda shapers — where do they want to take us, why? Do they see the cliff ahead on the slippery slope?

    Have we passed the point of no return on that slope?

    KF

    PS: Of course, evolutionary materialism begs the big question of demonstrating empirically that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is produced by blind watchmaker chance and necessity, from cells to brains and the neural network programming in brains. Dismissive rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, empirical observation (on a trillion member base) only supports that such FSCO/I comes from design. As does the blind chance and necessity challenge to find islands of function in configuration spaces for complexity beyond 500 – 1000 bits when the possible search scope is as one straw to an astronomically large haystack.

  346. 346
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Let us again pause and cf Girgis et al in this light, of starting from intelligible, conscience guided first principles of morality tied to the imperatives of human thriving: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp.....eFinal.pdf

  347. 347
    Origenes says:

    Kairosfocus: Please note, an agenda is operating, one that set out to redefine law and language alike to create the perception that marriage is not keyed to the heterosexual bond, reproductive biology and the requisites of child nurture and stable society.

    Maybe so, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Unlike you, I hold that people are not defined by their bodies, but by the fact that they are free eternal spiritual beings. In my book if two adult persons want to marry, then this is their business and no one else’s. Their right to freedom and love transcends all objections by others — this is a self evident moral truth. Even if it is wrong, people are perfectly free to make such a mistake.
    If my view on SSM happen to coincide with some global communist agenda aimed at the destruction of civilization, then so be it.
    Note that I’m a 56 year old man who is married to a woman and who neither had nor intended to have homosexual relationships. I may even be a bigot because the thought of homosexuality repulses me. However oppressing people repulses me much much more.

  348. 348
    kairosfocus says:

    Origines, you are free to hold views. The issue is, the intersection with rights, justice, law and the thriving of people in community. The tampering with marriage and family that is ongoing is — whether we want to face it or not — sliding our civilisation down a slippery slope towards a cliff. With implications of domination of ideologies rooted in incoherence and amorality at the core of the problem, including the sort of extreme nominalism that has led many to imagine just because one can wrench the word marriage one can manipulate law, morality, social consensus and governance to suit a favoured and well connected agenda without serious, damaging consequences. Coming from a community that fell over a cliff and broke its back (by way of economic collapse and mini civil war tied to societal destabilisation), and living in another that has done so in a different way (mismanaging the warning signs and implications of an explosive volcano) I suggest it is a lot better to avoid going over the cliff. But I suspect a critical mass of the power classes are hell bent on a course of action that will lead our civilisation as a whole over the cliff. And, the degree of ruthless message dominance manipulation at work is in my experience only paralleled by what the Communists did (and uses many of the same agit prop techniques; multiplied now by lawfare). KF

    PS: Principled objection and even frank challenging of questionable or manifestly wrongful behaviours is not bigotry. Similarly, two men or two women or a human and an animal or whatever may be dreamed up next are not capable of being married, given the nature of marriage and its centrality to human thriving in family and community. Nor is it bigotry to be repulsed by bizarre and self destructive behaviours; that may well be a felt response to a fundamentally sound judgement about what is involved. We must not allow that corruption of language and law to proceed unchecked.

  349. 349
    Eugen says:

    Kairos

    I don’t think ziggy and others understand or care. I think some opponents here lack common sense (=healthy reasoning in my first language ). When they want something it turns into a need and even a right. I think generations growing up and living in big urban centers removed them from exposure to nature, it’s harshness, cycles of life and death, beauty and generally from hard reality. I’m not saying let’s live back in caves but lucky are those who were exposed to some form of traditional life, farming, fishing,hunting etc

    Exposure to reality of nature develops strong common sense. Nature is well equipped to generate many problems for us and we quickly have to learn how to solve them. Problem solving in modern urban centers may be different:

    Hipster gets his Starbucks Double Ristretto Venti Half-Soy Nonfat Decaf Organic Chocolate Brownie Iced Vanilla Double-Shot Gingerbread Frappuccino Extra Hot With Foam Whipped Cream Upside Down Double Blended, but lid doesn’t fit properly. He cannot walk around like that and risk the drink dripping on his new Steve Madden booties, serious problem. He gets ready: he puts his massive iDance headphones on, reaches for his iPhone6, gently taps through tabs and finds Mumford and Sons album. He taps the play button….ahh great sound, he cannot imagine life before Apple Lossless audio format. His eyes catch the Twitter notification on the screen. #marryyourlama is trending strong. Good! Finally he grabs the lid, plays with it for like whole 2.5 seconds to make it fit. Problem solved 🙂

    Edit to add: I lived Communism. Communist brainwashing techniques seem childish comparing to what we are exposed to now. The sophistication, spectrum and depth of new indoctrination is staggering! Coordination between government, corporations, entertainment and media is fantastic!

  350. 350
    kairosfocus says:

    Eugen, that is another serious problem, the wold of marketing manipulation in so many layers that too many are living in a Plato’s cave shadow show world. As I type there are three screens in front of me, the PC the 2-1 tablet, the smartphone, but I do not confuse such with reality. Information is not equivalent to truth or knowledge, which is a worldviews level issue. KF

    PS: Notice how the IslamISM front has gone very quiet now that there are links to plans for global subjugation and to the settlement jihad strategy? Spiral of silencing in the face of the thought police, I fear. Let me add:

    The Project of the Muslim Brotherhood, 100 yr global conquest intent:

    http://www.investigativeprojec.....roject.pdf

    Explanatory Memo outlining facets of settlement jihad as a strategy of takeover and inducing collapse of the targetted “rotten” civilisation — yes, the vultures sense a feast ahead:

    https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf

    Scroll to about p 15 in each.

    Then ask yourselves why these did not get wall to wall 24/7 coverage for about a month each.

    Then ask yourself what else is not in the news that should have been save that it does not fit the partyline narrative?

    Plato’s Cave world shadow shows.

  351. 351
    kairosfocus says:

    Eugen, the same principles, with the technology on steroids. But then Plato had the principles right 2350 years ago, only he had to come up with fires, parapets, puppets and shadow shows. The real innovation is in the lawfare, which is perverting law to ruthless ends. KF

  352. 352
    Zachriel says:

    Phinehas: Because same sex couples will be able to claim protected status. I believe that at some point in the future, not marrying same sex couples will be subject to discrimination laws.

    In the U.S., churches are not under anti-discrimination laws unless they are running a public accommodation. For instance, a church can discriminate on the basis of race, adultery, or whether they have been married before.

    Phinehas: Thinking it is wrong is enough to get you branded as a homophobe in much of society already.

    If a church were to refuse to marry a racially mixed couple, they would probably be branded racist, but they are still free to not perform the ceremony, or even to let the mixed race couple join their church. So?

  353. 353
    daveS says:

    Origenes,

    Maybe so, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Unlike you, I hold that people are not defined by their bodies, but by the fact that they are free eternal spiritual beings. In my book if two adult persons want to marry, then this is their business and no one else’s. Their right to freedom and love transcends all objections by others — this is a self evident moral truth. Even if it is wrong, people are perfectly free to make such a mistake.
    If my view on SSM happen to coincide with some global communist agenda aimed at the destruction of civilization, then so be it.
    Note that I’m a 56 year old man who is married to a woman and who neither had nor intended to have homosexual relationships. I may even be a bigot because the thought of homosexuality repulses me. However oppressing people repulses me much much more.

    If I may jump in, very nice post. When my (now) wife met, we knew almost immediately that we would eventually marry, but we had to overcome several obstacles first. That took several very trying years, during which we had to live many thousands of miles apart. That’s one reason I would be extremely reluctant to get in the way of two consenting adults who wish to share a married life together.

  354. 354
    Aleta says:

    Origenes writes,

    I may even be a bigot because the thought of homosexuality repulses me.

    No, not a bit. Your personal feelings about homosexuality are very different than how you treat others. Bigotry is making blanket condemnations of others based on some trait, and that is exactly what you are not doing. So I, like dave, appreciate your position on this subject.

  355. 355
    Eugen says:

    Kairos

    ” Information is not equivalent to truth or knowledge …” I understand. May add it’s not equivalent to wisdom either.

    I agree with what your ideas but I don’t know what the solution is. Looks like there isn’t much reasonable people can do but watch. Sometimes I wish I was hipster focused on a coffee cup lid 🙂 but that’s impossible…

    One thing I see in these discussions is when opponents lack in logic or reason they replace it with whining or mockery. (I gladly return mockery back)

    Thanks for the links and other good information…

  356. 356
    kairosfocus says:

    Eugen, we are on that slope with the train in full runaway mode. Likely outcome, crash, broken back — maybe by way of an Iranian nuke emp hit, I don’t know — and snap to oligarchy with ruthless utterly manipulative Nietzschean superman messianic political leader. The Trump spell and the Obama spell look to me like early rehearsals for what is coming. Fire deh pon mus mus [=mouse] tail but him tink seh cool breeze de dere. Fire on the mouse’s tail but the confused little beastie imagines it is a cool breeze. KF

    PS: Take a look at one of the most insightful folks I know of, Edgar Schein, on the key process, building on a great, Kurt Lewin: http://wayback.archive.org/web.....10006.html Sobering lessons.

  357. 357

    At 339 Ziggy said:

    In general, I agree with you. But do you consider this an absolute, or does it depend on the issue? For example, what if there was a move to make all Jews where a Star of David patch on their coats? Or Christians to wear a a big cross? What if there were people lobbying government to segregate all blacks, or Hispanics? Should we justify their arguments by trying to engage in civil debate, or should we call them out for what they most certainly are? I think of myself as a very tolerant person, but there are boundaries.

    What would you be trying to accomplish by calling them bigots or racists?

  358. 358
    Zachriel says:

    William J Murray: What would you be trying to accomplish by calling them bigots or racists?

    Dr. King’s adversaries called him a communist agitator. He called them his brothers and sisters.

  359. 359
    kairosfocus says:

    Eugen, that sequence again:

    data –>

    information –>

    knowledge –>

    expertise –>

    wisdom

    Wisdom, wha’s dat?

    Can I get it in my app store?

    KF

  360. 360
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM,

    what is being cleverly sidestepped in all this:

    7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature.

    8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature.

    9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked.

    10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.

    Where of course this is deemed beyond the politically correct pale,

    11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.

    The agenda is on the triumphal march, so there, no need to even bother to answer we have the might and can effect manipulation through message dominance and that makes the right, the truth etc.

    I suspect only a crash over the cliff leading to a broken back will wake us up.

    Suicidal.

    KF

  361. 361
    Silver Asiatic says:

    @316 – thanks KF. You’re doing a great job and that as a criticism although in hindsight I see that I made it sound that way.

    Materialism and relativism are extremely destructive to society. Proponents of cultural marxism intend it that way. Destroy everything first, then supposedly build the ideal society on the rubble left behind.

  362. 362
    Eugen says:

    Wisdom,Can I get it in my app store?
    😀

    This week only! $.99 – two “wisdoms” for the price of one at the App Store

  363. 363
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “Instead, I am pointing to a globally influential agenda that has dominated first the academy then has increasingly shaped spheres of influence constituting the commanding heights of a culture until it is now seeking to radically redefine sexual identity, law, marriage and family in ways that will patently criminalise Christianity. (Already we see many going along happily as Christians are being driven out of employment and businesses on claimed grounds of their bigotry and discrimination.)”

    Thank you for your response. But I can’t discern between what you said and a claim that there is a global conspiracy. As such, I look on your words with extreme scepticism as they are more often the result of some paranoid pathology than of rational thought.

    With regard to your claim of Christians losing their jobs on claims of bigotry, can you provide me with some examples of this that weren’t the result of:

    1– failure to abide by an employment code of conduct;
    2– breaking a law; or
    3– the result of customers not patronizing a business because of the actions and behaviour of the owner/operators.

    as much as I may sympathize with anyone losing their job, the above are the result of intentional actions that either broke the rules or that drove customers away. Not the result of being Christian.

    KF– “…ideas have consequences.”

    Agreed. As do speech and actions. Free speech is alive and well. Consequence free speech has never been a right, nor should it be. An employer has the right to impose codes of conduct and behaviour on his employees. In some cases, as with celebrities, these codes can be binding on behaviour and actions outside of the work place (just ask Charlie Sheen). If someone disagrees with these codes they do not have to accept employment.

    We have an excellent example in Canada. Charles McVety is an evangelical minister who had a weekly show on a Christian broadcasting station. A complaint was lodged against the broadcaster about one of his shows claiming that his words violated the CBSC standard that member broadcaster agree to follow. The clause of the standard at play states that a broadcaster may not intentionally use false information to support a view (don’t lie).

    The investigation concluded that McVety had lied and required the broadcaster to make an announcement on air to that effect. That was all that was required of the broadcaster. McVety subsequently went on air and claimed that the CBSC was censoring him (another lie) and that they were forcing the broadcaster to review his broadcasts before they aired (another lie). In short, the broadcaster cancelled his show.

    McVety then went to the media announcing that he was being persecuted because he was a Christian. Throughout all of this, his freedom of speech was never hindered. He just learned a lesson about consequence free speech.

  364. 364
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “What would you be trying to accomplish by calling them bigots or racists?”

    What would you accomplish by trying to debate them on an equal footing? Doing so just gives credence to their views. I like Dr. King’s response, but even his response was an insult to those opposed to him. It had the benefit of pointing out the racism of those opposing him without calling them racists.

  365. 365

    Ziggy asks:

    What would you accomplish by trying to debate them on an equal footing?

    What do you mean by “equal footing”? Submitting to logic, facts and evidence gives all arguments an equal framework from which an argument can either succeed or fail.

    Doing so just gives credence to their views.

    I don’t see how it is possible that a viewpoint is given any credence by limiting one’s own responses in an argument the rational and civil without resort to name-calling or use of incendiary labeling or implications. Perhaps you can explain? It seems to me that the one using such tactics is the one whose “credence” will suffer.

    KF @360:

    I’m prparing another post about just that very thing 🙂

  366. 366
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL,

    There are always ever so many conspiracies in our dark world. Last I saw him, Adam Smith was muttering about what happens when merchants get together. Conspiracism is not the issue, a large scale movement of civilisational decline is — and that has long been so.

    Here is Heine in one of the most stunning literary prophecies, c 1831:

    Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered [–> the Swastika, visually, is a twisted, broken cross . . .], the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. …

    The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …

    … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. …

    At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead [–> cf. air warfare, symbol of the USA], and lions in farthest Africa [–> the lion is a key symbol of Britain, cf. also the North African campaigns] will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.

    It’s been going on a long time.

    If the people of Germany would have heeded this warning c 1913 or 1931, it would have saved us rivers of blood and tears.

    But it seems we refuse to learn lessons from history.

    Young bird doan know hurricane.*

    KF

    * The young bird has not seen a hurricane.

  367. 367
    kairosfocus says:

    Eugen

    Maybe they don’t know there is a Book for it:

    Prov 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel:

    2
    To know wisdom and instruction,
    to understand words of insight,
    3
    to receive instruction in wise dealing,
    in righteousness, justice, and equity;
    4
    to give prudence to the simple,
    knowledge and discretion to the youth—
    5
    Let the wise hear and increase in learning,
    and the one who understands obtain guidance,
    6
    to understand a proverb and a saying,
    the words of the wise and their riddles.

    7
    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
    fools despise wisdom and instruction. [ESV]

    Eeek!

    Not THAAAAAAAAAT . . . . No, no, NOOOOOO . . . !

  368. 368
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray, I am not suggesting that it is OK to name call of use incendiary labels as a matter of course. If I were to call someone a racist or a bigot (and I can’t recall that I ever have) it would be under conditions where the racism or bigotry is indisputable. For example, I would never try to debate a committed white supremacist on the flaws in his beliefs. What would be the point? I would probably just ignore him. But calling him a racist is neither name calling nor inflammatory. It would simply be a statement of fact.

    Another example. Do you think that the motivation behind the actions of the Westborro Baptist church is bigotry (or hatred, or homophobia, or whatever label you would like)?

    All of these “inflammatory” words have very clear definitions. When the definition clearly fits, avoiding its use is political correctness.

    Another example. Someone above talked about the persecution of Christians. Is not the use of the word “persecution” used in this context just as inflammatory and intended to stifle discussion as the use of words like bigot, racist, homophobic, etc.?

  369. 369
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “Young bird doan know hurricane.*”

    I have seen far more in my life than you can imagine. So please stop trying to lecture. A lecture, as you have demonstrated a tendency for, is as much an effort to control the message and stifle discussion as Mr. Murray is warning about in his article.

  370. 370
    Eugen says:

    Kairos , I think
    7
    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
    fools despise wisdom and instruction

    explains a lot. It’s far easier for some to jump on the latest bandwagon than strive to be wise. Wisdom comes from knowledge which comes from learning which comes from humbling yourself and saying “I don’t know but I want to learn”

    Ziggy can in a meantime buy himself “wisdoms” at the app store 2 4 1 all week. Buy plenty 🙂

  371. 371

    Ziggy said:

    Mr. Murray, I am not suggesting that it is OK to name call of use incendiary labels as a matter of course. If I were to call someone a racist or a bigot (and I can’t recall that I ever have) it would be under conditions where the racism or bigotry is indisputable.

    Yes, I’ve accepted this. The question before you is, why? Even if the racism or bigotry is indisputable, what is gained in discourse by usi9ng those terms? What are you trying to accomplish?

    For example, I would never try to debate a committed white supremacist on the flaws in his beliefs. What would be the point? I would probably just ignore him. But calling him a racist is neither name calling nor inflammatory. It would simply be a statement of fact.

    Again: what do you hope to accomplish or gain were you to call a bigot a bigot, or call a racist a racist?

    Another example. Do you think that the motivation behind the actions of the Westborro Baptist church is bigotry (or hatred, or homophobia, or whatever label you would like)?

    I don’t know anything about them outside of headlines so I’m not qualified to comment. But, once again, even if I believed them to bigots, what’s the point of calling them such?

    All of these “inflammatory” words have very clear definitions. When the definition clearly fits, avoiding its use is political correctness.

    I guess that depends on why one is avioding using the terms, right? If I avoid such terms because I find them detrimental to civil, rational debate, then it is hardly due to my wishing to be “politically correct”.

    Another example. Someone above talked about the persecution of Christians. Is not the use of the word “persecution” used in this context just as inflammatory and intended to stifle discussion as the use of words like bigot, racist, homophobic, etc.?

    Well it could be, depending on how it is used. However, you seem to be avoiding my questions on the subject and appear to want to deflect attention to other phrases, uses and examples. Once again: even if true, what is the point of accusing others of being a bigot or a racist? What is to be gained by it?

  372. 372
    StephenB says:

    Ziggy, the loss of free speech for Christians in North America has become a cultural phenomenon. It’s all over the place.

    Don Jones, a player in the National Football league, expressed his displeasure when a gay player hugged, held hands with, and kissed his boyfriend on national TV. He was rebuked, suspended, and sent to a thought police “training camp.”

    The CEO from an American corporation was fired for expressing his personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Curt Shilling a sports broadcaster, was fired for expressing the opinion that men and women should use bathrooms appropriate to their biological gender.

    Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio personality in history, was realeased from ESPN for expressing the opinion that a black football player was overrated.

    If an academic expresses doubts about Darwin’s theory of evolution, he is “expelled.” No questions, no appeals, no controversy.

    If a meteorologist entertains doubts about “climate change,” US congressmen will (and have) argued that the offender should be put in jail. The so-called defenders of free speech are silent.

    I could go on and on.

    Here, though, is the predictable irony. The other side is free to say anything—and I mean anything. The truthfulness of the statement doesn’t even matter.

    If liberal atheists say that black hoodlums deserve to live and police officers deserve to die, they say it. No problem.

    If a movie icon feels like calling his adversary a “God-soaked Christian” that is “lying for Jesus, he just turns it loose. That’s just fine.

    If Ted Turner decides to claim that “Christianity is a religion for losers,” he doesn’t hesitate. No one cares.

    The take home point is this: One side is silenced while the other side enjoys unfettered free speech.

    Hopefully, the pattern is obvious.

    Ziggy

    I would never try to debate a committed white supremacist on the flaws in his beliefs. What would be the point? I would probably just ignore him. But calling him a racist is neither name calling nor inflammatory. It would simply be a statement of fact.

    Very true. Racists and bigots do exist. That is why it is so important that the word should not be used dishonestly and recklessly as a weapon.

  373. 373
    ziggy lorenc says:

    StephenB, you forgot to mention Jimmy the Greek being fired for calling a female black teen athlete a I knappy headed ___.

    Almost all of your examples pertain to employees being suspended or let go for violating an agreed to code of conduct. You can certainly argue about the content of a code of conduct, but if you sign it, you abide by it or suffer the consequences.

    StephenB — “Very true. Racists and bigots do exist. That is why it is so important that the word should not be used dishonestly and recklessly as a weapon.”

    Agreed. I have not suggested otherwise.

  374. 374
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “ even if true, what is the point of accusing others of being a bigot or a racist? What is to be gained by it?”

    But, if true, you are not making an accusation, you are stating a fact. But I think we mostly agree. Where we differ is that in very clear and in circumstances that are beyond dispute, is it always wrong to use such words.

    For example, we have no qualms about calling ISIL a terrorist organization. Does this fall into the same category as calling a white supremacist a racist? What is gained by calling them terrorists? Should we apply your logic to all circumstances?

  375. 375
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL, I should note in addition, that there is a major and dangerous, obvious shift in our civilisation tracing to the embracing of systems that undermine reason and morality; something which too many people who should know better seem to be doing their best to obfuscate or fail to reckon with soberly even when they lay out the dynamics that are at work — Dawkins and Provine, Gray, Crick and others I am looking at you. A lot of people who have had more than enough education to realise the problem, you too. To in that context object on principle to the blatant slide of our civilisation towards the cliff is not paranoia. To identify that — as has happened in more recent history at a cost north of 100 million lives — the rise of such schemes involves manipulation of masses, enabling behaviour of activists and strategic level actors who bear primary responsibility is reasonable assessment on horrific history. Havel and Schein have somewhat to say that you and others at minimum in denial and at worst aiding and abetting need to heed:

    http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtran.....8;typ=HTML

    http://wayback.archive.org/web.....10006.html

    A reminder, over 100 millions, coming on a billion if we count in the abortion holocaust still in progress, have paid with their lives for what too many have become benumbed to. Irrationality and amorality are let loose, dressed up in the lab coat in a time when millions are taught to worship at the altar of science, unquestioningly. We had better wake up . . . and I am not sure I can say before it is too late, for it is clear our civilisation is past a watershed and forces are wedging the rift of separation wider and wider. KF

  376. 376
    Aleta says:

    When Stephen wrotes, ‘Ziggy, the loss of free speech for Christians in North America has become a cultural phenomenon. It’s all over the place.”

    ziggy replied,

    Almost all of your examples pertain to employees being suspended or let go for violating an agreed to code of conduct. You can certainly argue about the content of a code of conduct, but if you sign it, you abide by it or suffer the consequences

    This is an important point. “Free speech” isn’t a blanket right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want without be subjected to any consequences or reactions from others. You have the right to call homosexuals “@#%$%@ faggots” if you wish. I have the right to judge you harshly and shun your company for it, and your employer has the right to fire you if you say that to one of your customers.

    In general, the right to free speech is the right to say what you want in the public arena without being subject to any laws restricting what you can say: the First amendment says “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech.”

    I’m wondering if Stephen can provide examples of Christians having lost this genuine legal right to free speech, as opposed to just having people react negatively to what they say, or having companies respond within their rights as employees. I’m skeptical that such examples exist.

  377. 377
    Eugen says:

    “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”

    – Dresden James

  378. 378
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “ZL, I should note in addition, that there is a major and dangerous, obvious shift in our civilisation tracing to the embracing of systems that undermine reason and morality…”

    You saying it is obvious doesn’t make it so. I have seen many changes over my lifetime, and I think that most of them are for the better. I disagree with some but that is the cost of living in a civilization.

    Early in my life I lived in a society where segregation still existed, inter-racial marriages were illegal in many states, homosexuality was grounds for jail and dismissal from jobs, husbands were legally allowed to physically discipline their wives, sexual harassment in the work place was the norm, sexual abuse of children was covered up, as was spousal abuse. So please, tell me again why we are heading for the cliff.

    I am not in favour of SSM, but I think that the government is well within its rights to allow it. It does no harm to me or my marriage, or the marriage of my children. In short, I am indifferent to the idea.

  379. 379
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL, remember the Emperor’s new clothes. KF

  380. 380
    StephenB says:

    Ziggy

    Almost all of your examples pertain to employees being suspended or let go for violating an agreed to code of conduct. You can certainly argue about the content of a code of conduct, but if you sign it, you abide by it or suffer the consequences

    Your analysis is both inaccurate and unfair. When and where did any academic agree to remain silent about the flaws in evolutionary theory? When and where did any meteorologist agree to remain silent about his opinions on “climate change?” When and where did any CEO agree to remain silent about the special status of heterosexual marriage?

    And, again, where is the parallel code of conduct to protect the other side from making statements that really are outrageously bigoted?

  381. 381
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    “Free speech” isn’t a blanket right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want without be subjected to any consequences or reactions from others. You have the right to call homosexuals “@#%$%@ faggots” if you wish.

    Very unfair and strawmanish. No one is suggesting anything like that.

    I’m wondering if Stephen can provide examples of Christians having lost this genuine legal right to free speech, as opposed to just having people react negatively to what they say, or having companies respond within their rights as employees. I’m skeptical that such examples exist.

    I have already provided such examples–Christians have lost their jobs for doing nothing more than defending the special status of heterosexual marriage or the novel proposition that men and women ought to use their own restrooms. Of course, you can always argue that the right to free speech protects the speaker only from governmental intrusion, but that doesn’t change the point. Christians who express traditional social views are unfairly penalized, and anti-Christian bigots can say anything they like.

  382. 382
    Aleta says:

    But free speech doesn’t apply to those situations: free speech refers to government restrictions. One doesn’t have free speech protection wth/from one’s employers.

  383. 383
    kairosfocus says:

    Aleta, SB is pointing to something very important, the reason why there is normally law on unfair dismissal. (Would you be so glibly dismissive about say blacklisting of leftists in the 50’s in Hollywood?) Further to this, I put it to you that he who would rob me of the means of daily bread would rob me of my life, and he who would rob me of conscience would poison and damn my soul. Note, rob — a morally freighted term, we are dealing with what undermines morality. Our civilisation is playing with extremely dangerous matches at instigation of agendas that are showing extremely dangerous signs. The lack of willingness to acknowledge that canaries are choking in the mines and the tendency to scapegoat and blame then almost gloat over the fate of victims SHOULD ring major warning bells, but the silence is itself a warning of how far down the slippery slope we have already slid. I fear, the wake-up is only going to happen after we are lying, brokenbacked, at the foot of a cliff. By then, it will be too late. Maybe, it is already too late. KF

  384. 384
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “ZL, remember the Emperor’s new clothes. KF”

    Yes, are you suggesting that desegregation, legalization inter-racial marriage, removing homosexuality as s criminal (and firing) offence, making it against the law to physically discipline your wife, making sexual harassment unacceptable, and no longer sweeping child sexual abuse under the rug, are all window-dressing to a more nefarious plot?

    You really should get out and smell the roses. The world is a better place than it was 60 years ago, and a much better place than it was 150 years ago. Change is not always bad.

  385. 385
    Aleta says:

    kf writes,

    Aleta, SB is pointing to something very important, the reason why there is normally law on unfair dismissal.

    and then follows that with another typical screed that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. I appreciate ziggy responding to that.

    Yes, I support laws that protect people from unfair dismissal. I assume that if any of the people that Stephen has in mind have such legal protection, they will make use of it, and I would support that.

    We can think up lots of hypothetical situations, across a spectrum of types and levels of offenses, but discussing hypotheticals is seldom productive.

    Stephen listed a bunch of simplified situations, without much detail. For instance, Curt Schilling had been warned and disciplined in the past about his remarks, and he’s a public figure representing ESPN. His latest actions were the last straw, as far as EXSPN was concerned.

    I think Stephen is exaggerating the extent to which people (whether they are Christians or not) are summarily dismissed from their job for exercising legitimate free speech rights, but it would take some digging into any particular case to see enough details for me to feel that I could make a judgment about the case.

    With that said, sometimes people overreact to something somebody said and act in a way that is not legally justifiable, and then laws come into play.

    For instance, sometimes an administrator of a public school restricts religious or political free speech of students when in fact the students have the right to do what they are doing: read the Bible, pray at lunch, wear a political slogan, etc. In that case, someone (often the ACLU) steps in to protect the rights of the students.

    So, as with most things in life, there is an interplay and balance to keep things from going too far in either direction: people can’t just say anything on the job, no matter what or how often, and expect that there can’t be consequences, but on the other hand there are also there are legal protections they can expect to be in place.

  386. 386
    Eugen says:

    Aleta you write OK sometimes but 385 was demagoguery

  387. 387
    daveS says:

    Aleta,

    Stephen listed a bunch of simplified situations, without much detail. For instance, Curt Schilling had been warned and disciplined in the past about his remarks, and he’s a public figure representing ESPN. His latest actions were the last straw, as far as EXSPN was concerned.

    Yeah, it’s hard to feel too sorry for Curt Schilling. When you’re working for a company that sells eyeballs to advertisers, and you turn yourself into a liability, you can’t blame ESPN for making a business decision.

  388. 388
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    But free speech doesn’t apply to those situations: free speech refers to government restrictions. One doesn’t have free speech protection wth/from one’s employers.

    We are not discussing the Free Speech amendment or free speech laws. We are discussing unfair penalties and arbitrary rules that anti-Christian ideologues impose on Christians who act on their religious beliefs, while exempting themselves from the same standard. I could provide many more examples, but you have already made it clear that you will dismiss them.

    Let’s try it another way.

    Bruce Springsteen denied entertainment services to Christians (and everyone else) in North Carolina because he disagrees with the pro-Christian, anti-gay world view. He was not sued.

    A baker cannot deny cake baking services to a homosexual couple even though he disagrees with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view. If he dares to try it, he will be sued.

    Is that fair?

  389. 389
    ziggy lorenc says:

    StephenB — “Bruce Springsteen denied entertainment services to Christians (and everyone else) in North Carolina because he disagrees with the pro-Christian, anti-gay world view. He was not sued.”

    He didn’t break any law.

    StephenB — “A baker cannot deny cake baking services to a homosexual couple even though he disagrees with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view. If he dares to try it, he will be sued.”

    He broke a law.

  390. 390
    Aleta says:

    Stephen, I was responding to what you wrote in 372:

    Ziggy, the loss of free speech for Christians in North America has become a cultural phenomenon.

    I took this to mean free speech in respect to the law. Now you say,

    We are not discussing the Free Speech amendment or free speech laws. We are discussing unfair penalties and arbitrary rules that anti-Christian ideologues impose on Christians who act on their religious beliefs, while exempting themselves from the same standard.

    If you were not referring to free speech laws in your original statement, then some or all of what I wrote was not relevant, but I’m not quite sure that I should have known that from context.

    You write,

    Bruce Springsteen denied entertainment services to Christians (and everyone else) in North Carolina because he disagrees with the pro-Christian, anti-gay world view. He was not sued.

    A baker cannot deny cake baking services to a homosexual couple even though he disagrees with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view. If he dares to try it, he will be sued.

    Is that fair?

    These are certainly different situations. Bruce Springsteen is under no legal obligation to hold a concert. He as an individual can choose to do what he wants. I can’t imagine upon what grounds you could sue him.

    Similarly, people who are calling for a boycott of Target have every right to do so – no one can make someone go to Target.

    The baker, on the other hand, has some legal obligations by virtue of being a licensed business subject to ant-discrimination laws. This is not very comparable to the Bruce Springsteen scenario.

  391. 391
    StephenB says:

    Ziggy

    He broke a law.

    What law? According to the constitution, a baker has the right to act on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him.

    Also, you are getting ahead of yourself. What happened to your response to my other questions?

    When and where did any academic agree to remain silent about the flaws in evolutionary theory? When and where did any meteorologist agree to remain silent about his opinions on “climate change?” When and where did any CEO agree to remain silent about the special status of heterosexual marriage?

    And, again, where is the parallel code of conduct to protect the other side from making statements that really are outrageously bigoted?

  392. 392
    Aleta says:

    Hi Eugen. I looked back over my post at 385, and I don’t see why you think it is demagoguery. Here’s a definition:

    Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people.

    Can you point to a particular part of 385 that seems objectionable to you. I know you may not agree with what I said, but what part seemed like demagoguery?

  393. 393
    kairosfocus says:

    ZL, you know you are misrepresenting what I have said all along during the thread [and in an EXTREMELY offensive way], and that speaks volumes on your motives. I note to you that race is an inherent characteristic, not a morally freighted behaviour or the wrenching of laws; you and others of your agenda might find this discussion helpful, if you were interested. The signs of what is going wrong are ever more blatant. Looks like the nice south breeze is blowing. KF

  394. 394
    Aleta says:

    Stephen writes,

    When and where did any academic agree to remain silent about the flaws in evolutionary theory? When and where did any meteorologist agree to remain silent about his opinions on “climate change?” When and where did any CEO agree to remain silent about the special status of heterosexual marriage?

    Could you point us to some information about which situations you have in mind here? I think details would be important in order to think about these cases.

  395. 395
    kairosfocus says:

    Aleta, a baker is not providing the only source of food or drink in a desert nor is he issuing blanket refusals of custom. What is being demanded is the sort of extorted, conscience sapping conformity that Havel discusses in the case of a greengrocer: http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtran.....8;typ=HTML . . . itself a pretty serious warning.KF

  396. 396
    CLAVDIVS says:

    StephenB

    What law?

    Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014

  397. 397
    kairosfocus says:

    CLAVDIVS, I assume you know the difference between what is imposed under colour of law and what is in accord with the law of nature. In particular, I point to you that he who would rob me of my means of daily bread would rob me of my life; he who would rob me of my conscience would taint and damn my soul. I suggest you ponder very carefully the fire you are playing with here under colours of false accusations of bigotry and discrimination and violation of rights. As a right is a moral claim on others, you cannot properly claim a right to force others into wrong against sound conscience . . . one of the worst impacts of schemes that imply that might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘truth’ etc. KF

  398. 398
    Aleta says:

    Stephen writes,

    According to the constitution, a baker has the right to act on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him.

    Does the constitution say that someone has the right to break a law, without any legal consequences, based on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him?

    And if you believe this is so, do you uniformly support this right for all religious beliefs?

  399. 399
    Eugen says:

    Aleta, It was more like a sleazy politician than dictator. Something like Obama or our Canadian Trudeau. You smoothed, minimized and even dismissed some of our serious concerns. Our worries are valid and are based on reasonable assessment of the situation and events in society.

  400. 400
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    Could you point us to some information about which situations you have in mind here? I think details would be important in order to think about these cases.

    It isn’t my burden to prove your claims. You said that code’s were agreed upon an signed. I am asking you when and where that happened. Of course, there are no such “agreed-upon” codes for the categories that I mentioned. You just made it up to rationalize the fact that those who hold traditional values are unfairly maligned or worse.

  401. 401
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    Does the constitution say that someone has the right to break a law,

    Where has anyone suggested that it does?

  402. 402
    ziggy lorenc says:

    KF — “zL, you know you are misrepresenting what I have said all along during the thread [and in an EXTREMELY offensive way], and that speaks volumes on your motives.”

    If I have misrepresented what you have said, I apologize. But if it was so, it was due to your often obscure and rambling way of writing, not something intentional.

    This being said, I don’t see what the differences between race and sexual orientation have to do with anything I have said. I have said from the start that I am not in favour of homosexuality and same sex marriage. But that I am honest enough to admit that this is for purely religious. And that in spite of my beliefs, I can’t force myself to get worked up over the issue. Is that what has got you upset with me?

  403. 403
    StephenB says:

    CLAVDIVSColorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014

    How does acting on ones religious convictions with respect to baking a cake violate the CADA.

  404. 404
    ziggy lorenc says:

    StephenB — “It isn’t my burden to prove your claims.”

    Just a small correction, it was me that originally made that claim, not Aleta. However, I said “most”, not “all” of your examples had signed codes of conduct.

    I think Aleta’s request for examples of the academics who were dismissed is a fair one. You provided specific names for the celebrities who were fired and then made a blanket statement about meteorologists and academics. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you, not Aleta.

  405. 405
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    The baker, on the other hand, has some legal obligations by virtue of being a licensed business subject to ant-discrimination laws. This is not very comparable to the Bruce Springsteen scenario.

    Discrimination is not the act of refusing service. It is the act of unjustly refusing service. It is not unjust if it is based on sincere religious convictions. Springsteen refused service because his conscience bade him to do so. The cake baker, who refuses to decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple, is also acting according to his conscience. It breaks the law only if the cake baker refuses unjustly, that is, because he disdains homosexuals as a group, which is not a legitimate reason.

    Even if it was illegal, which it is not, that wouldn’t change the ethical component. If it is fair for Springsteen to withhold services because he disagrees with the Christian world view, then it is also fair for Christians to withhold services from because they disagree with the gay world view. From an ethical point of view, the parallel is exactly the same.

  406. 406
    StephenB says:

    Discrimination

    : the UNJUST or PREJUDICIAL treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. (Acting on religious beliefs is neither unjust nor prejudicial)

  407. 407
    Aleta says:

    1. Stephen, you wrote,

    According to the constitution, a baker has the right to act on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him.

    Then, when I asked, “Does the constitution say that someone has the right to break a law, ” you replied, “Where has anyone suggested that it does?”

    Well, it seems to me that you suggested it did in the sentence quoted above.

    If the baker has the constitutional right “to act on his religious convictions if his conscience so leads him”, does this give him the right to break the law without any legal consequences?

    I am unclear where you stand here. What is your answer to the above question?

    2. You write,

    If it is fair for Springsteen to withhold services because he disagrees with the Christian world view, then it is also fair for Christians to withhold services from because they disagree with the gay world view. From an ethical point of view, the parallel is exactly the same.

    These may be parallel from an ethical point of view, but they are not parallel from a legal point of view. Among other reasons, this is why we have laws — because we need some way of adjudicating between people who maybe have differing views about what is ethically or morally right.

    3. You write,

    Discrimination is not the act of refusing service. It is the act of unjustly refusing service. It is not unjust if it is based on sincere religious convictions.

    Is this position supported by the law? This goes back to the first question: can someone decide on their own that their religious convictions excusing them from following the law?

    And I’m sure the law does not leave the decision to the individual as to whether a refusal to provide service is just or unjust. Again, that is why we have laws: they spell out the specifics of what is and is not permitted.

    Leaving judgments as to whether laws should be followed or not based to individuals based on their own notions as to what is just or unjust would lead to a breakdown of the social order. I can’t imagine that we could adopt that as a general principle.

  408. 408
    StephenB says:

    ziggy

    Just a small correction, it was me that originally made that claim, not Aleta.

    Thank you. Apologies to Aleta.

    However, I said “most”, not “all” of your examples had signed codes of conduct.

    That is why I made my request more precise.

    I think Aleta’s request for examples of the academics who were dismissed is a fair one.

    Thinking back, I cannot provide solid evidence of anyone who was “fired.” I can only provide evidence for those who were, maligned, blacklisted, persecuted, or unjustly refused a tenure track. Examples would be Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Michael Egnor, Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzale.

    So, my question persists: When or when did any of these people sign an agreement to refrain from criticizing Darwin’s theory.

    It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you, not Aleta.

    Hopefully, you will now agree that the burden is on you.

    Also, several politicians and professors have indicated that scientists who deny climate change should be put in jail. I don’t need to provide names here since the directive is aimed at all who dare question the establishment. So, my question persists: Where or when did these scientists agree to remain silent about their evidence-based convictions.

    Before I go to other categories, I will let you address those on the table.

  409. 409
    Aleta says:

    At 403 Stephen asked,

    How does acting on ones religious convictions with respect to baking a cake violate the CADA.

    Here’s what the judge said in the Colorado case,

    “Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage. However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation,” Judge Daniel Taubman wrote.

    That’s how.

  410. 410
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    What is your answer to the above question?

    Religious convictions do not give people the right to break the law without consequences.

    ;These may be parallel from an ethical point of view, but they are not parallel from a legal point of view.

    So, putting the law aside, you agree that it isn’t fair that Bruce Sprinsteen should be able to act on his convictions while Christians may not. That is the original question I asked you. I said nothing about the law. Under the circumstances, then, you must surely agree that our culture is hostile toward Christians’ who express or act on their views. Of course, that doesn’t mean that laws are not also being crafted to persecute Christians, but that is not exactly the same thing.

  411. 411
    StephenB says:

    ziggy

    Just a small correction, it was me that originally made that claim, not Aleta.

    Thank you. Apologies to Aleta.

    However, I said “most”, not “all” of your examples had signed codes of conduct.

    That is why I made my request more precise.

    I think Aleta’s request for examples of the academics who were dismissed is a fair one.

    Thinking back, I cannot provide solid evidence of anyone who was “fired.” I can only provide evidence for those who were, maligned, blacklisted, persecuted, or unjustly refused a tenure track. Examples would be Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Michael Egnor, Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzale.

    So, my question persists: When did any of these people sign an agreement to refrain from criticizing Darwin’s theory.her

    It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you, not Aleta.

    Hopefully, you will now agree that the burden is on you.

    Also, several politicians and professors have indicated that scientists who deny climate change should be put in jail. I don’t need to provide names here since the directive is aimed at all who dare question the establishment. So, my question persists: Where did these scientists agree to remain silent about their evidence-based convictions.

  412. 412
    Aleta says:

    You ask,

    So, putting the law aside, you agree that it isn’t fair that Bruce Sprinsteen should be able to act on his convictions while Christians may not.

    The problem with this question is that “fair” is not clearly defined the way the law is.

    As I said before, I think these are not comparable situations.

    Springsteen has every right to not play in N.C. if he doesn’t want to. I don’t see that there is very much that is fair or unfair about that (unless you feel it is unfair to his fans.)

    The baker has a legal obligation to not refuse service to people based on sexual orientation, so the fact that it is illegal to do makes it unfair in the eyes of the law. If he was not in business, he can refuse to interact with same-sex couples all he wants.

    You say “putting the law aside”, but if we put the law aside (or, more accurately, consider situations where the law doesn’t apply), each of them can decide for themselves what is fair: we all get to make decisions about how to live our lives within the limits of the law.

  413. 413
    StephenB says:

    “Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage. However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation,” Judge Daniel Taubman wrote.

    That’s how.

    Inappropriate example. According to the Judge, the reason Masterpiece refused service was because of the customer’s sexual orientation, not because of the proprietor’s religious convictions. Remember my question: What does the CACA have to do with acting on one’s religious convictions, which is both legal and constitutional.

    The legal question with respect to discrimination is not, what did you do? The legal question is, Why did you do it?

    Discrimination

    : the UNJUST or PREJUDICIAL treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. (Acting on religious beliefs is neither unjust nor prejudicial)

  414. 414
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    The problem with this question is that “fair” is not clearly defined the way the law is.

    So you will not answer my question on the grounds that you don’t know what fair means? Assume that fair means just. Is it just that those who have gay values (Springsteen) should be able to refuse service to Christians, but those who have Christian values (the baker) should not be able to refuse service to gays.

  415. 415
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    The baker has a legal obligation to not refuse service to people based on sexual orientation, so the fact that it is illegal to do makes it unfair in the eyes of the law,

    True. But the baker does NOT have a legal obligation to provide service if his reasons are just, that is, if they are based on his own religious convictions (as opposed to the customer’s sexual orientation, which is an unjust reason). How do you know which motive is in play (without presuming to read the mind of the proprietor)? How do you know that his religious convictions are not, as he insists, his true reasons?

  416. 416
    Aleta says:

    Response to 414: These are not comparable situations, and that should be clear. Springsteen is not “denying service” to anyone in the same way the baker is. Springsteen is choosing not to have a concert, but the baker is running a business that has certain legal obligations. If Springsteen ran a club open to the public, as the baker has a business open to the public, then the situations would be comparable.

    Also, you say fair means just, but that doesn’t really explain anything. I think it is unjust to deny two people who love each other the opportunity to be married in the eyes of the law because they are of the same sex.

    Do you agree with me? I’m pretty sure you don’t.

    So how do we decide whose notion of justice is correct?

  417. 417
    Aleta says:

    Response to 413: Stephen, you write, in respect to the Colorado case

    Inappropriate example. According to the Judge, the reason Masterpiece refused service was because of the customer’s sexual orientation, not because of the proprietor’s religious convictions.

    and then you say,

    The legal question with respect to discrimination is not, what did you do? The legal question is, Why did you do it?

    These are contradictory statements. The law is concerned with what you do, not why you do it. Therefore, you are correct that in the Colorado case it was the refusal to serve the couple that broke the law. But the baker offered as a reason that his religious convictions should allow him to be able to do that, and the judge disagreed: the law was broken, and the motivation as to why the law was broken was irrelevent.

  418. 418
    Aleta says:

    In response to 415, you write,

    But the baker does NOT have a legal obligation to provide service if his reasons are just

    Really? Earlier you said, “Religious convictions do not give people the right to break the law without consequences.”

    Now you are saying you can break the law if your reasons are just.

    Is there a difference here between reasons based on religious beliefs and reason which are just?

    And, again, who is to decide what is just if we abandon the details of justice that are built into the laws that underlie our society, and let each person decide for themselves?

  419. 419
  420. 420
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    Really? Earlier you said, “Religious convictions do not give people the right to break the law without consequences.”

    Now you are saying you can break the law if your reasons are just.

    I didn’t say that at all. Please read the entire sentence for content and don’t cut if off in the middle to give the reader the wrong impression. I said that it is Lawful for him to refuse service if his reason is based on his religious convictions as opposed to being based on his customer’s sexual orientation. The former reason is just, the latter reason is unjust. I wish you could learn the difference so that a rational discussion is possible.

  421. 421
    StephenB says:

    And, again, who is to decide what is just if we abandon the details of justice that are built into the laws that underlie our society, and let each person decide for themselves?

    Are you cuckoo? The law is supposed to be based on the principles of justice. You have to know what justice is before you can establish a just law. Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Or, do you labor under the illusion that all laws are just simply because they are laws?

  422. 422
    StephenB says:

    The legal question with respect to discrimination is not, what did you do? The legal question is, Why did you do it?

    These are contradictory statements. The law is concerned with what you do, not why you do it.

    No, you don’t understand. When you refuse to give service to someone, it matters why you say no. If you say no because you don’t like gays, that is unlawful. If you say no because you cannot compromise your religious principles, that is lawful. The difference is in why you do it.

    Therefore, you are correct that in the Colorado case it was the refusal to serve the couple that broke the law. But the baker offered as a reason that his religious convictions should allow him to be able to do that, and the judge disagreed: the law was broken, and the motivation as to why the law was broken was irrelevent.

    No, you still don’t understand. The proprietor said it was his own religious convictions that prompted him to say no. The judge said, no it wasn’t. It was because of the customer’s sexual orientation. In other words, the judge decided that he knew better than the proprietor what the proprietors true motives were. Having decided that the proprietor’s true motive was his disapproval of the customer’s sexual orientation, as opposed to the proprietor’s commitment to his own religious convictions, the judge ruled against him. Everything turned on why the proprietor did what he did.

  423. 423
    kairosfocus says:

    Aleta,

    First, I note on orientations and behaviour that we need to acquaint ourselves with some evidence and argument that is — as now seems usual — not in the public debate.

    For instance, there are three different identified major patterns of male same-sex oriented sexual conduct that are observed to be changeable in the course of decades and centuries, such conduct is often observed to shift drastically across a few years in individual cases, and in the case of females is typically an additional pattern, where also the frequencies, times of onset and the like are too variable and/or of the wrong order of magnitudes for genetic behaviours; i.e. these are credibly not genetically stamped patterns but instead socio-cultural and socio-psychological ones that can indeed be deeply habituating and entrenched (hence the significance of 12 step type approaches and the principle that if one does not bite one cannot be hooked . . . ); genes determine one’s sex, circumstances and behaviours and habits formed affect how that is expressed. Likewise, for heterosexual patterns. (Start with the First chapter here, noting especially the pattern of the samba, the evolution of western patterns, and the observation on Orthodox.)

    Moreover, “sexual orientation” is a terribly vague and broad term, one that opens some very dangerous and destructive doors, as we are now seeing with the next items on the agenda, transvestism etc. Remember, law sets precedents that then can go into some very strange places through cumulative pushes — especially with activist judges sitting on the bench. This is one case of the much broader slippery slope concern, and one that is particularly dangerous.

    Next, the issue is not “orientation” but the moral evaluation and regulation of behaviour.

    To put in simple terms, to fall in love with an attractive and seemingly pleasant woman is a heady experience, but to fall in love with one’s sister or step mother or one’s neighbour’s wife or someone like that is to face a major moral challenge that calls for strenuous effort to deal with the behaviour and the underlying attitude. Human behaviour, I repeat, is inescapably morally governed.

    In this context it is no accident that one of the key examples of falling in love provided in the Judaeo-Christian scriptural tradition is a case of a prince falling in love with his half-sister. At that time and place, incestuous marriages among royalty were commonplace, starting with Egypt. This case ended in rape, revenge-driven murder of the rapist by the victim’s full brother, and then exile, return and in the context of the king’s own lustful misbehaviour which did huge damage to his credibility, civil war.

    Likewise, the tradition later speaks of behaviour driven by out of control lust as motivating unnatural and improper sexual behavior. It firmly stipulates that such behaviour is immoral and wrongful, incompatible with a life that seeks to be morally pure and upright. It calls for profound change of attitude through turning from wrong, and speaks in terms of lists of behaviours that were and must remain in one’s personal past if one is to be a Christian.

    Notice, the focus on lusts, improper and immorally directed often out of control desires, and behaviours that act out lusts and other improper motivations. The implication is that we are responsibly free and rational, and have a duty to act towards the right, as well as to support others in the right. Not, to uphold or enable them in wrong.

    I again draw attention to a series of points I have highlighted above:

    7 –> In this context, a core basic right is a binding moral expectation to be respected in regards to key aspects of our nature. That is, it is the mirror image and dual of mutually binding obligations imposed by our nature and its inherent dignity. That is rights are inherently matters of moral law connected to our nature.

    8 –> As a consequence, a rights claim is a claim to be in the right and to be owed duties of care by others of like morally freighted nature.

    9 –> You cannot have a right to the wrong, you cannot demand that others enable and support you in the wrong, such is to poison other souls with the taint of compulsion to do and to support the wrong. Such is monstrous and wicked.

    10 –> Likewise, there are no rights to twist key institutions crucial to human thriving as individuals, families and communities. For the blessings of the civil peace of justice and liberty under legitimate law are key requisites of human thriving.

    11 –> This holds for demanding that marriage be perverted through lawfare and agit prop, and the linked demand that sexual perversion be acknowledged on equal terms with the manifest order of nature stamped into our genes, organs, biology of reproduction and social- psychological- relational requisites of sound child nurture.

    In our civilisation, we seem to be losing sight of this crucial insight and the implications of failure of the community at large to support sound moral governance of our behaviours, including through just law. Instead, driven by the rise of irrationality and amorality dressed in the lab coats of evolutionary materialistic scientism, we are increasingly playing with the destructive nihilistic principle, might and manipulation make ‘right’ and ‘truth’ etc.

    In this context, law is now being used to attack and marginalise and outright persecute dissidents, those who take the former position seriously.

    Now, I am not going to go into a long exposition of the ins and outs of these cases, but a key pattern is that we have people who have served homosexual customers in the normal course of business, but draw the line at behaviour that implies or manifests support for a morally deeply questionable pattern of behaviour and for the perversion of law in support for it. Sometimes, with the same customers.

    Where, as I noted above, we are not dealing with the only source of food and water in a desert, such that to refuse service is to threaten life or the like.

    Not at all, we are talking of circumstances where there are significant alternatives readily available. But, instead — because of an aggressive lawfare agenda — Christians are being targetted due to their moral convictions about the destructive and wrongful nature of certain sexual behaviours.

    It is being demanded — on pain of robbing us of the means of daily bread, and at the expense of acting in contradiction to principled, conscience based convictions — that Christians support and uphold and even celebrate morally questionable behaviour and the ongoing twisting of marriage in highly questionable ways under false colour of law.

    Perhaps, you are unfamiliar with this foundational Christian teaching:

    Rev 13:16 Also it [the second beast] causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[e] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.[ESV]

    In context, 666 or the alternative 616 are veiled references to Nero Caesar and thus to the Nero returns legend. The stamping is a demand for loyalty in defiance of loyalty to God such that the one who takes that infamous number — and so licences himself to buy and sell in the community as a member deemed to be in good standing, having declared loyalty to the beast over God — has tainted his soul to damnation.

    We may compare and contrast this with a pivotal teaching of Jesus, when he was challenged on payment of taxes to an oppressive, unpopular and hated colonial state:

    Matt 22:15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. 16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances.[b] 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.[c] 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” [ESV]

    That is, the state has a legitimate role under God, even an oppressive state, one that should be respected and funded through taxation. But the implication is also plain: the state may not legitimately demand of us what belongs to God.

    And that is the line which has been crossed in our civilisation and is being crossed with defiant willfulness in the teeth of warning and remonstrance.

    This sets in motion a long train of abuses and usurpations that destroys the legitimacy of the state, and is grounds for calling for reforms, and for reformation or replacement of unjust and failed government. The principle here is the ballot box is a peaceful means to make such changes, but there further problem is that we often deal with a manipulation of the ill informed and foolishly self willed public.

    Acts 27 as I have several times drawn attention to (but where this has been studiously ignored in the thread — I know the flimsy excuse, oh I only skim what you say . . . ) gives a clear warning by historical example of marches of manipulated folly that abuse the ballot box to insist on doing the ill advised thing, and where they predictably end up.

    I began my remarks:

    Entrenched highly ideological orthodoxies — and this includes successful revolutionaries, whether on institutional or community scale — that control resource flows to their benefit and which exert enormous power in institutions and society [I was speaking here about today’s evolutionary materialism dominated science], tend to be very resistant to what is new and unsettling to their comfort zones and interests. Where there has been indoctrination and polarisation, we can see this multiplied by the problem of lack of logical thinking ability and sheer lack of awareness of the true state of the balance of warrant on the merits of facts and evidence.

    The perceived heretic, then is a threat to be fought off, marginalised, discredited and if necessary destroyed. By any and all means, fair or foul.

    (I find the obsession with suggestions of a threat of religious subversion of [scientific, political, education, media and cultural] institutions long since subverted by radical secularists slightly amusing but quite sad in the end. The key threat is unaccountable, out of control power in the hands of elites prone to corruption, not that this once happened with religious elites. In the past 100 years, we saw major secularist movements and neopagan movements of political messianism that did much the same to horrific cost. And the welfare state of the past generation has not been a whole lot better. [Just ask the ghosts of the dozens of millions who have been aborted for convenience.])

    Where is there a solution?

    I went on:

    Frankly, at this stage, I think things are going to have to crash so badly and some elites are going to have to be so discredited by the associated spreading failure, that media propaganda tactics cannot cover it up anymore.

    My model for that comes from one of the red-flag sources that will give some of the objectors [to the design theory movement in science] the vapours.

    Acts 27.

    What, how dare you cite that, that . . . that . . . textbook for theocratic tyranny by the ignorant, insane, stupid and/or wicked followers of that bronze age misogynistic homophobic genocidal racist war god!

    (Do you hear how your agit-prop talking points are enmeshing you in the classic trap of believing your own propaganda?)

    Let’s start with, Paul of Tarsus, c. AD 59, was not in the Bronze Age but was an appellate prisoner in chains on early Imperial era grain ships having a hard time making way from the Levant and Asia Minor to Rome, in the second case ending up in a bay on Crete. What followed is a classic exercise in the follies of manipulated democracy, a case study that will well repay study in our time.

    It was late in the sailing season, and the merchant-owner was worried about his ship in an open bay at Fair Havens, given what winter storms can do.

    The passengers were not too impressed by the nearby settlements as a wintering place. (Sailing stopped in Autumn and opened back up in Spring.)

    The key technico, the kubernete — steersman, more or less like a pilot of an airliner — knew where his bread was buttered, and by whom.

    In the middle was a Centurion of the elite messenger corps.

    We are at ship’s council, and Paul, in chains, is suggesting that the suggestion to venture our with a favourable wind to try to make it to a more commodious port down-coast was excessively risky not only to boat but life.

    The financial and technical talking heads and the appeal of comfort allowed him to be easily marginalised and dismissed.

    Then we saw a gentle south breeze, that would have allowed a reach down the coast. (The technicos probably knew this could be a precursor to a storm, but were not going to cut across the dominant view.)

    They sailed out.

    Bang, an early winter noreaster hit them and sprang the boat’s timbers (why they tried to hold together with ropes [–> called frapping]) so the ship was in a sinking condition from the beginning.

    Worse, they were heading for sandbars off the coast of today’s Libya.

    For two weeks all they could do was use a sea anchor to control drift and try to steer vaguely WNW.

    Forget, eating.

    That is when Paul stood forth as a good man in a storm, and encouraged them with a vision from God. By this time, hope was to be shipwrecked on a coast. (Turned out, [probably] north coast of Malta [possibly, east end].)

    While the ship was at risk of being driven aground and set out four anchors by the stern from midnight on, the sailors tried to abandon the passengers on a ruse, spotted by Paul and/or Luke his travelling companion.

    By this time, the Centurion knew who to take seriously and the ship’s boat was cut away. He then took the decision to save Paul and refused the soldiers’ request to kill the prisoners to prevent escape (for which their lives would have been forfeit).

    So, they made it to a beach on Malta, having lost the ship in any case AND nearly their own lives.

    All of which is full of lessons from history for us in our own decaying democratic polities today, and in the face of polarised voices and all sorts of hidden agenda, half- truth- at- best counsels.

    It is going to take a noreaster to sort out the mess, and there is going to be a lot of serious loss to those beguiled by the bewitching counsels of those inclined to tickle itching ears with what they calculate we want to hear.

    Fire deh pon mus muss [= mouse] tail but him think seh a cool breeze deh dere.

    The sweet south wind is blowing.

    Never mind that silly doom and gloom Cassandra off there in the corner, all is well and the voyage will be easy and beneficial.

    Oh, sure.

    KF

  424. 424
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: I should add that in an age where an inherently self referentially incoherent and amoral ideology dressed in a lab coat — what we may descriptively term evolutionary materialism — becomes a yardstick of what is deemed acceptable knowledge, we will increasingly see the manipulation of science, scientific “consensus” [that’s a red warning flag, science proceeds on quality of evidence and analysis not quantity of votes], logic and mathematics, especially statistics (which then becomes little more than “statistricks”) as that is used in so many investigations.

    PPS: It is worth amplifying the just linked:

    though materialists will often try to pointedly ignore or angrily brush aside the issue, we may freely argue: if such evolutionary materialism is true, then (i) our consciousness, (ii) the “thoughts” we have, (iii) the conceptualised beliefs we hold, (iv) the reasonings we attempt based on such and (v) the “conclusions” and “choices” (a.k.a. “decisions”) we reach — without residue — must be produced and controlled by blind forces of chance happenstance and mechanical necessity that are irrelevant to “mere” ill-defined abstractions such as: purpose or truth, or even logical validity.

    (NB: The conclusions of such “arguments” may still happen to be true, by astonishingly lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” or “warranted” them. It seems that rationality itself has thus been undermined fatally on evolutionary materialistic premises. Including that of Crick et al. Through, self-reference leading to incoherence and utter inability to provide a cogent explanation of our commonplace, first-person experience of reasoning and rational warrant for beliefs, conclusions and chosen paths of action. Reduction to absurdity and explanatory failure in short.)

    k: And, if materialists then object: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must immediately note that — as the fate of Newtonian Dynamics between 1880 and 1930 shows — empirical support is not equivalent to establishing the truth of a scientific theory. For, at any time, one newly discovered countering fact can in principle overturn the hitherto most reliable of theories. (And as well, we must not lose sight of this: in science, one is relying on the legitimacy of the reasoning process to make the case that scientific evidence provides reasonable albeit provisional warrant for one’s beliefs etc. Scientific reasoning is not independent of reasoning.)

    l: Worse, in the case of origins science theories, we simply were not there to directly observe the facts of the remote past, so origins sciences are even more strongly controlled by assumptions and inferences than are operational scientific theories. So, we contrast the way that direct observations of falling apples and orbiting planets allow us to test our theories of gravity.

    PPPS: As well as pointing out the import for morality by way of a point argued by Will Hawthorne, But first Ruse and Wilson on ethics as grand delusion:

    The time has come to take seriously the fact [[–> This is a gross error at the outset, as macro-evolution is a theory (an explanation) about the unobserved past of origins and so cannot be a fact on the level of the observed roundness of the earth or the orbiting of planets around the sun etc.] that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day . . . We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will … In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.

    [[Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991. ]

    Hawthorne:

    Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [[the ‘is’ being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions. [Of course, ethical theism holds by contrast that the IS and OUGHT fuse in the root of reality, the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and service by doing the good in accord with our evident nature including as morally governed as opposed to mechanically compelled or chance driven beings.])

    Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.

    Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’.

    For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.

    Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit.

    Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from [[a material] ‘is’.

    . . . we have clutched an asp to our chests.

  425. 425

    Ziggy said:

    But, if true, you are not making an accusation, you are stating a fact. But I think we mostly agree. Where we differ is that in very clear and in circumstances that are beyond dispute, is it always wrong to use such words.

    Why will you not answer my question? I’ve asked you several times now. What purpose does it serve to call someone a bigot or a racist, whether or not it is true?

    For example, we have no qualms about calling ISIL a terrorist organization. Does this fall into the same category as calling a white supremacist a racist? What is gained by calling them terrorists? Should we apply your logic to all circumstances?

    What logic are you talking about? Yes, calling some group terrorists might fall into the same category as calling someone a bigot or a racist. Now will you answer my question?

  426. 426
    Zachriel says:

    StephenB: A baker cannot deny cake baking services to a homosexual couple even though he disagrees with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view. If he dares to try it, he will be sued. Is that fair?

    If a baker refuses to sell a cake to a black citing religion, is that fair?

    StephenB: Is it just that those who have gay values (Springsteen) should be able to refuse service to Christians

    Springsteen didn’t refuse service to Christians, but to all residents of the state because of what he sees as legalized discrimination.

    William J Murray: What purpose does it serve to call someone a bigot or a racist, whether or not it is true?

    We’ll venture an answer. Because it’s true. Because it puts the person on notice. Because it warns others.

  427. 427

    A question for Aleta: If a law was passed criminalizing homosexuality and required the reporting of anyone you suspect might be engaging in homosexual activity, would you obey the law?

    If not, why not?

  428. 428
    Aleta says:

    I am trying to sort out the issues here, Stephen.

    You say,

    If you say no because you cannot compromise your religious principles, that is lawful.

    No, it’s not. You don’t have the right fo break the law because it conflicts with your religious convictions. Is this really what you are saying?

    You write,

    You have to know what justice is before you can establish a just law. Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Or, do you labor under the illusion that all laws are just simply because they are laws?

    Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Please tell me how you do that

    I think a law allowing the baker to refuse service to the same-sex couple would be unjust. You think, perhaps, that a law requiring the baker the provide service is unjust. We obviously differ. How do we decide who’s right?

    And no, I don’t believe all laws are just simply because they are laws. But I do believe that laws are the foundation of what our society as a whole believes best represents justice, and if one believes we have unjust laws then one should work to change the laws.

    I’ve also said several times in theses discussion, for the record, that there is always the possibility that there will be a law that one feels is so wrong that one chooses to not obey it, despite the consequences. We have a moral responsibility to ourself to consider that possibility, but we also have the moral responsibility to support the structure of society by following the law. Balancing moral responsibilities is something everyone is faced with at times, and at least in some occasions not following the law will be one’s choice.

    But having a moral objection to a law, for whatever reason, doesn’t give one a legal right to break a law.

    You write,

    Having decided that the proprietor’s true motive was his disapproval of the customer’s sexual orientation, as opposed to the proprietor’s commitment to his own religious convictions, the judge ruled against him. Everything turned on why the proprietor did what he did.

    So are you saying that if the judge had decided that the baker’s true motive was to follow his commitment to his religious convictions, it would have been legal to refuse service?

  429. 429

    Zachriel said:

    We’ll venture an answer. Because it’s true.

    Do you point out all truths, then, like hair color, age, etc? Unless you do, this part of your answer is irrelevant.

    Because it puts the person on notice.

    On notice about what? This is pretty vague. What is the purpose of putting them “on notice”? What does that achieve?

    Because it warns others.

    What is the purpose of “warning” others that someone is a bigot or a racist?

  430. 430
    Origenes says:

    WJM: What purpose does it serve to call someone a bigot or a racist, whether or not it is true?

    The answer is, I suppose, that it serves the purpose to end debate, as in, there is no sense in debating a bigot or a racist.
    During this debate, here at UD, a similar attempt has been made by the usage of terms like “nihilist”, “communist”, “nazi”, “unnatural”, “on an agenda” and so forth.
    Or am I mistaken and is that something entirely different?

  431. 431
    Aleta says:

    to William, 427: No.

    Criminalizing homosexual activity would take us back to the way things were some decades ago. I would object to that law, although it wouldn’t directly affect me because I’m not homosexual. I would work to repeal the law, though, and would care about the effect on my friends who are homosexual.

    I certainly wouldn’t turn people in, although that would be a hard law to enforce.

    And any society that expected people to turn others in would be on a scary path to fascism, and would probably objectionable for more than that reason.

    As I just wrote, “Balancing moral responsibilities is something everyone is faced with at times, and at least in some occasions not following the law will be one’s choice.”

  432. 432

    Aleta,

    If laws do not decide what is just and moral, what does?

  433. 433
    Zachriel says:

    William J Murray: Do you point out all truths

    No, but it’s often appropriate to point out salient truths.

    William J Murray: On notice about what?

    Believe it or not, some bigots don’t think they’re bigots.
    http://luimbe.com/wp-content/u.....rtAlan.png

    William J Murray: What is the purpose of “warning” others that someone is a bigot or a racist?

    So they can avoid the bad aspects of interacting with a bigot. Also, perhaps so that the bigot can be encouraged to change.

    Origenes: The answer is, I suppose, that it serves the purpose to end debate, as in, there is no sense in debating a bigot or a racist.

    That can happen also.

  434. 434

    Origenes,

    Well done! A direct, good answer!

    The answer is, I suppose, that it serves the purpose to end debate, as in, there is no sense in debating a bigot or a racist.

    I don’t think that’s the whole answer, because public labeling serves another purpose. I mean, one can just end their personal debate after they realize or come to believe the other person is a racist or a bigot by just walking away from the debate. One certainly doesn’t need to announce the other person’s bigotry or racism in order to end their personal debate with that person.

    During this debate, here at UD, a similar attempt has been made by the usage of terms like “nihilist”, “communist”, “nazi”, “unnatural”, “on an agenda” and so forth.
    Or am I mistaken and is that something entirely different?

    Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by “warning” others”) where rational debate is avoided altogether?

    I’ve seen many people through the years here at UD on both sides abandon reason for such tactics, but I don’t see either side doing that right now in this thread. It’s not the use of rhetoric and emotional pleading and demagoguery and polemic that are in themselves necessarily bad things, but when they are used instead of rational debate altogether to advance or attack unexamined positions and views that it has become the lamentable end of rational discourse.

  435. 435
    Aleta says:

    wjm asks,

    If laws do not decide what is just and moral, what does?

    Laws codify the collective judgment of the members of society about a subset of issues in respect to morality and justice, although there are lots of moral issues to which laws do not apply.

    What is your answer to that question, William?

  436. 436

    Zachriel:

    No, but it’s often appropriate to point out salient truths.

    And the question is, why point out that (presumed arguendo) truth? Saying that it is a truth is non-responsive. Saying that it is a “salient” truth doesn’t express what that salience is.

    Believe it or not, some bigots don’t think they’re bigots.

    And they will after you have notified them?

    So they can avoid the bad aspects of interacting with a bigot. Also, perhaps so that the bigot can be encouraged to change.

    How will they avoid the bad aspects of interacting with a bigot other than by not interacting with him at all? How does warning others about a person’s bigotry encourage that person to change?

  437. 437

    Aleta said:

    Laws codify the collective judgment of the members of society about a subset of issues in respect to morality and justice, although there are lots of moral issues to which laws do not apply.

    Non-responsive to my question. I didn’t ask how laws came to exist or what they reflected. You have pointed out that even if such a law reflects the collective judgment and you don’t agree with it, you will not obey it because you find that law unjust or immoral regardless of what the collective judgement says. So my (somewhat rhetorical) question is, for you, what or who decides what is just and moral, since it is obviously not the law or the collective judgement of the people?

    What is your answer to that question, William?

    The innate, absolute, universal nature of God.

  438. 438
    Origenes says:

    William J Murray,

    WJM: Well done! A direct, good answer!

    Thank you. However, I am already with you on many points. I have stated (#322) that I do agree with you when you state that:

    We live in a time where telling truths against the politically correct narrative, or simply voicing an opinion that contradicts it, is dangerous, because truthful terminology has been politically re-characterized by the leftists in media, politics and academia as hate speech.

    Surely, you are addressing a very important point. It’s an outrage that skepticism towards evolutionary theory, climate change and Islam is being criminalized. Indeed we live in dangerous times. However, to me, opposition towards SSM is something else entirely (see #347), and so is a baker who refuses service to homosexual customers.

    WJM:

    Origenes: During this debate, here at UD, a similar attempt has been made by the usage of terms like “nihilist”, “communist”, “nazi”, “unnatural”, “on an agenda” and so forth.
    Or am I mistaken and is that something entirely different?

    Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by “warning” others”) where rational debate is avoided altogether?

    So, it’s okay to use terms like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ as long as there is a proper mix with rational arguments?

    WJM: It’s not the use of rhetoric and emotional pleading and demagoguery and polemic that are in themselves necessarily bad things, but when they are used instead of rational debate altogether to advance or attack unexamined positions and views that it has become they lamentable end of rational discourse.

    Okay. So, why exactly do you question the use of terms like bigot or racist? Or is your objection solely aimed at the lack of proper mix with rational arguments?

  439. 439
    Zachriel says:

    William J Murray: And the question is, why point out that (presumed arguendo) truth? Saying that it is a truth is non-responsive. Saying that it is a “salient” truth doesn’t express what that salience is.

    It’s in the dictionary.

    salient, of notable significance

    William J Murray: And they will after you have notified them?

    Some of the time, certainly.

    William J Murray: How will they avoid the bad aspects of interacting with a bigot other than by not interacting with him at all?

    It’s called human interaction. It is complex, and if you are not familiar with it (perhaps you are from elsewhere), then it can be confusing at first. But with practice, people do learn to communicate.

    Are you trying to say that no one should have pointed out that George Wallace was a bigot?

  440. 440
    Zachriel says:

    Origenes: so is a baker who refuses service to homosexual customers.

    If a baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to someone because of their race, is that fair? You do understand that it is illegal in the U.S?

  441. 441
    Origenes says:

    Zachriel:

    Origenes: so is a baker who refuses service to homosexual customers.

    If a baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to someone because of their race, is that fair?

    No, that is not fair. And it is equally unfair if a baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to a homosexual. I never meant to suggest otherwise.

  442. 442
    Zachriel says:

    Origenes: No, not fair. And it is equally unfair if a baker doesn’t want to sell a cake to a homosexual. I never meant to suggest otherwise.

    Which is why there are laws against racial discrimination in public accommodations, and why there is a movement to enact similar laws against LGBT discrimination.

  443. 443
    Aleta says:

    William, you say morality and justice comes from the innate nature of God. I disagree.

    However, for the sake of this discussion, that is irrelevant. Our society, and our law, recognize each person as an equal moral agent irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever. We all have different ideas about where our moral natures come from, but as members of society no one perspective as any special privilege over the others.

  444. 444
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “What purpose does it serve to call someone a bigot or a racist, whether or not it is true?”

    It could direct people to look at a person’s motivations with regard to an opinion. For example, arguments to justify slavery and subsequent segregation and laws against inter-racial marriages were many. Some used scripture, some argued that blacks were inherently less intelligent and that it was our responsibility to look after them, etc. And many people using these arguments were sincere about their arguments. But if you argue that their arguments are based in racism (or bigotry), you force them, and others, to view their views through a different lens. If racism or bigotry was not one of the motivations then they will be easily defended. If not, their arguments are suspect.

    Another example. As a little girl we used to refer to liquorice candies as n__ babies, and Brazil nuts as n__ toes. Although we did not use those terms with any malice, they were definitely motivated by racism. When this was pointed out, we stopped using the terms.

  445. 445
    Origenes says:

    Zachriel: Which is why there are laws against racial discrimination in public accommodations, and why there is a movement to enact similar laws against LGBT discrimination.

    Excellent. Why are you telling me this?

  446. 446
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “
    Depends on how they were used. Are they being used to end or prevent rational discourse and to stoke a mob mentality (by “warning” others”) where rational debate is avoided altogether?

    I’ve seen many people through the years here at UD on both sides abandon reason for such tactics, but I don’t see either side doing that right now in this thread.”

    You have obviously never tried to have a discussion with KairosFocus when you disagree with him. But regardless. It took a few exchanges with him for me to realize that the best course of action for those who disagree with him is to just ignore him.

  447. 447
    Eugen says:

    Word bigot doesn’t mean much to me at least. It’s used to supplement weak logic or reasoning. That’s why our side is not using it while the atheist Liberals are using it frequently. When someone on Facebook or here calls me bigot I shrug and say ” your reasoning and logic still suck”.

    OTOH when I call Aleta, Zachriel, Ziggy etc intolerant haters because they hate Christians and are intolerant of our views I’m just describing the reality. They should appreciate that.

  448. 448
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    No, it’s not. You don’t have the right to break the law because it conflicts with your religious convictions. Is this really what you are saying?

    State laws are varied, but the broader and constitutional principle is this: The law does not forbid e us to refuse service to gays in an absolute sense. It says that we may not refuse service for unjust or prejudicial reasons. If we refuse service for reasons that are not prejudicial or unjust, then we are within the law.

    If the law was absolute, then I could not refuse service to a gay couple even if they walked into my establishment naked and singing show tunes. To refuse routine service to a gay because he is a member of a social group is unjust and prejudicial. To refuse special service to a gay because my religious convictions forbid me to participate in a same-sex wedding, directly or indirectly, is not unjust and prejudicial.

    Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Please tell me how you do that,

    A law is just if it conforms to the natural moral law. It is unjust if it doesn’t.

    Again, I ask you. How do you distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Or, do you hold that all laws are just simply because they are laws? Please answer.

  449. 449
    StephenB says:

    Zach

    If a baker refuses to sell a cake to a black citing religion, is that fair?

    It is if the black asks me to to order or decorate a cake with Nazi-like symbols.

  450. 450
    StephenB says:

    ziggy, you have been silent on my questions.

    Caroline Crocker, Richard Sternberg, Michael Egnor, Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzalles were, maligned, blacklisted, persecuted, or unjustly refused a tenure track because they dared to question Darwin’s theory.

    Where or when did any of these people sign an agreement to refrain from making this criticism?

    Also, several politicians and professors have indicated that scientists who deny climate change should be put in jail. I don’t need to provide names here since the directive is aimed at all who dare question the establishment.

    Where or when did these scientists agree to remain silent about their evidence-based convictions?

  451. 451

    Ziggy said:

    It could direct people to look at a person’s motivations with regard to an opinion.

    Why would you want to direct them to look at their motivations? Isn’t what really matters the logic, evidence and facts of the argument, regardless of the motivation? Doesn’t looking at the motivation prevent or distract one from examining the argument on its own merits?

    For example, arguments to justify slavery and subsequent segregation and laws against inter-racial marriages were many. Some used scripture, some argued that blacks were inherently less intelligent and that it was our responsibility to look after them, etc. And many people using these arguments were sincere about their arguments. But if you argue that their arguments are based in racism (or bigotry), you force them, and others, to view their views through a different lens.

    Is logic, facts and evidence not the lens through which one should evaluate an argument? How does calling someone a racist change anyone’s ability to rationally assess the merit of he argumet? How does thinking someone might be a racist because someone else called that person a racist affect one’s ability to rationally assess that person’s argument on the merits? It seems to me that hearing someone else call a person a racist, or claiming that the argument is racist, can only serve to undermine the capacity of third parties to objectively evaluate the argument in question.

    But then, isn’t that really the point, Ziggy? To undermine rational discourse and instead utilize virtue-signalling and political correct mob mentality to shut down debate by utilizing such terminology to categorize people and their views as racist or bigoted before one even enters the court of rational debate?

    If racism or bigotry was not one of the motivations then they will be easily defended. If not, their arguments are suspect.

    Their arguments can either be defended or or cannot whether they are bigoted or not. Just because the person is a bigot doesn’t mean their argument fails; however, refusing to debate a bigot or give their argument any credence before even hearing because they are a bigot, or because you believe they are or might be a bigot, is a failure on your part and a fallacy.

    Another example. As a little girl we used to refer to liquorice candies as n__ babies, and Brazil nuts as n__ toes. Although we did not use those terms with any malice, they were definitely motivated by racism. When this was pointed out, we stopped using the terms.

    This is where you are just wrong and your logic flawed; if you were a racist, it wouldn’t have mattered to you when you discovered the terms were racist – you would have gleefully kept using them, at least in private with your racist friends. I suggest you used the terms because everyone did, not because you were racist, and when the racist nature of the term was pointed out, you stopped using the term because you were not a racist to begin with.

    Or are you admitting here that you are a racist, and only stopped using the term because you don’t want other people to know you’re a racist?

  452. 452
    Aleta says:

    Stephen, you write,

    The broader and constitutional principle is this: The law does not forbid us to refuse service to gays in an absolute sense. It says that we may not refuse service for unjust or prejudicial reasons. If we refuse service for reasons that are not prejudicial or unjust, then we are within the law.

    The law has declared that refusing service because someone is gay is a prejudicial reason, and therefore discriminatory and illegal, at least in Colorado. In other states, sexual orientation may not be a category protected by anti-discrimination laws. I don’t think there is any federal judgement on this issue, but IANAL.

    You write,

    To refuse special service to a gay because my religious convictions forbid me to participate in a same-sex wedding, directly or indirectly, is not unjust and prejudicial.

    I don’t believe the law supports that interpretation, nor do I. Again, just because your actions are based on your religious conviction that it is not unjust or prejudicial to refuse service does not excuse you from following the law. The law says your action is unjust and prejudicial, and your religious convictions don’t excuse from the law.

    Also, when I wrote, “Do you know how to distinguish a just law from an unjust law? Please tell me how you do that”, you answered

    A law is just if it conforms to the natural moral law. It is unjust if it doesn’t.

    And how does one know what this “natural moral law” is? I know you believe strongly that such exists, but I don’t think I’ve seen you offer details as to how this is ascertained.

    Again, my belief is that it is unjust to deny the legal status of marriage to two people because they are the same sex. Why is this not the natural moral law?

    I know it is not a status that has historically been accepted, but then neither was the abolition of slavery or women’s suffrage at one time. Those things, slavery and no voting privileges for women, were morally wrong but widely accepted at one time, and my position is that our denial of same-sex marriage rights falls in the same category.

    So how do you propose that we decide what the natural moral law is?

    Last time I asked you this question you mentioned something about using our conscience and our reason, but that didn’t really answer the question, because we return to the question of how to decide if my conscience and reason disagrees with yours.

  453. 453
    StephenB says:

    ziggy and Aleta,

    both of you have evaded my question:

    If it is fair for Bruce Springsteen to withhold services because he disagrees with the pro-Christian, anti-gay world view, then why is it not fair for Christians to withhold services because they disagree with the pro-gay, anti-Christian world view?

    Please do not, as in the past, answer by alluding to the law. My question has nothing to do with the law. Also, please do not, as in the past, answer that you don’t know what the word “fair” means?

  454. 454

    Origenes said:

    So, it’s okay to use terms like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ as long as there is a proper mix with rational arguments?

    Depends on what you mean by “okay”. It’s certainly “okay” and even necessary to use the terms in certain situations, depending on what you trying to do and the context. The context of this thread and my OP is that of using certain terms as signals that shut down rational debate and instead move towards PC condemnation and a mob mentality through various media/cultural outlets before a reasoned, fact-based debate is even had on the subject.

    Okay. So, why exactly do you question the use of terms like bigot or racist? Or is your objection solely aimed at the lack of proper mix with rational arguments?

    My point is about the end of rational debate, as made clear in the OP. I”m not “objecting” to the use of rhetoric and term-signalling, I’m pointing out that it puts an end to rational debate when such terms are used to avoid or derail reasoned debate and when they are used to deter personal investigation or poison the views of others before those people have any real understanding of the subject.

    When those terms are used by the PC police or SJWs or some right-wing Evangelical group or the NAS or one of the political parties to rhetorically sway public opinion against a thing without due rational consideration of facts and on merits, we have reached the end of logical debate.

  455. 455
    Zachriel says:

    Eugen: when I call Aleta, Zachriel, Ziggy etc intolerant haters because they hate Christians and are intolerant of our views I’m just describing the reality.

    That would be inaccurate. We neither hate Christians, nor are we generally intolerant of Christian views, though we do reject some views of some Christians.

    StephenB: It is if the black asks me to to order or decorate a cake with Nazi-like symbols.

    But that wasn’t the question, was it? Political speech and obscene speech are not protected.

    Do you think there should be laws against racial and religious discrimination in public accommodations?

  456. 456
    kairosfocus says:

    Origines,

    did you notice how unresponsive you have been to the context that points out exactly how:

    a: a very specific ideology, descriptively called evolutionary materialism (with linked scientism),

    b: because it is rooted in matter-energy acted on by blind chance and necessity
    ____________________________

    c: THEREFORE has in it no root-level IS that can ground OUGHT, as well as

    d: reducing responsible rational freedom of the individual to blind cause and effect driven by chance and necessity?

    That,

    e: as a consequence this view is self-referentially incoherent and amoral, thus

    f: opening the door to nihilism? (Where there is in fact a long and bloody history costing in the past 100 years over 100 million lives tracing to precisely this worldviews frame.)

    If you or others have a cogent answer on the facts and merits (instead of the strawman caricature, the how dare you call some things by their right — and admittedly painfully ugly — names) you could quite easily do so, and that would suffice to refute the arguments that have been presented.

    And such would be responsive on the merits.

    So, patently the attempt to project, you are cutting off discussion by tossing verbal grenades fails.

    Not at all, I am giving a warning on reasons that if you disagree needs to be answered on reasons.

    Otherwise, you are simply indulging the same habitual pattern . . . distract, distort, denigrate . . . that when I have pointed it out by stringing together the names for three fallacies involved, has been ever so often responded to with a fourth (and one which actually moves beyond fallacy to propaganda technique), turn-speech accusation joined to a fifth tactic that exploits lack of imagination on the part of those who are standing by as to what can be done by the sufficiently nihilistically ruthlesss — before things move to the much more menacing dimension of stalking [and FYI in my case that has included remote family].

    You would not like it at all if I were to name and give examples of the specific historical antecedents.

    Let’s just say that the typical effect of the tactic is to confuse the naive onlooker and to taint the attacked with the false blame of attacker. He hit back first.

    Instead of going there why not simply show us how evolutionary materialism grounds responsible, rational freedom. Apart from on might and manipulation make ‘right’ truth’ ‘consensus’ ‘values’ etc.

    Which, is the core principle of nihilism.

    Where, too, justice is a moral issue, rights are moral issues and marriage, sexuality and family are heavily freighted with moral issues.

    And no, I am not speaking from hate and irrationality, I am speaking from deep concern for a civilisation that may already be past the point of no return on a slippery slope, heading straight for a cliff. (Remember, I have seen two countries go over cliffs.)

    And, if you don’t like the language, march of folly, why not take it up with Barbara Tuchman? Or, St Luke in Ac 27? Try out Schein on China in the run up to the Great Leap Forward and by extension the cultural revolution . . . ponder the price paid in lives.

    Or even Plato in his parable of the cave looked at from the perspective of propagandistic manipulation of the public?

    Yeah, Plato’s Republic.

    First point of departure for my thinking on both Phil and political forces and influences.

    KF

  457. 457

    Aleta said:

    William, you say morality and justice comes from the innate nature of God. I disagree.

    That’s fine, but you failed to answer the same question when I asked you.

    However, for the sake of this discussion, that is irrelevant. Our society, and our law, recognize each person as an equal moral agent irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever.

    Where do you get this from? Can you show me where “the law” recognizes each person as an “equal moral agent” irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever”? Can you explain how you came to the understanding that our society “recognizes” this?

    We all have different ideas about where our moral natures come from, but as members of society no one perspective as any special privilege over the others.

    You still didn’t answer my question. Do you just not want to answer my question? You have said that you will disobey laws and even public opinion if you do not consider those things just or moral.

    If laws and public opinion do not decide what is just and moral, what does?

    Additionally, what gives you the right to disobey laws when you consider them immoral or unjust?

    I answered the question when you turned it back on me, even though you did not. Will you answer the question now?

  458. 458
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: What Plato had to say about evolutionary materialism 2350 years ago in The Laws Bk X (reflecting on the fall of Athens through the Peloponnesian War and its aftermath, with Alcibiades as implied exhibit A and with the ghost of Socrates at his shoulder) — yeah, it’s not just me as some ignoramus IDiot out there on a soapbox:

    Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.

    See why I speak about lemmings proverbially caught up in a march over the cliff [and no the image works even if Disney did something awful], about activists and useful idiots — Lenin’s word — caught up in agit prop and front operations (boy did I get my fill of seeing this in action and Eugen lived under established dictatorships), and the primary people involved at strategic level? And yes, I know this closely follows the assessment of Germans post 1945. Go look up that pic of a march of shame through Buchenwald camp to understand where I am coming from.

  459. 459

    Zachriel said:

    Are you trying to say that no one should have pointed out that George Wallace was a bigot?

    I haven’t argued anything about how anyone “should” behave in any circumstance or situation. The point I’m making is that using those terms in ways I described in the OP and have elaborated upon later ends or circumvents or is a detriment to rational debate and discussion, and are used deliberately to signal certain groups into a mob-like mentality to attack certain people or ideas/positions AS inherently racist or bigoted.

    Since then, I’ve asked pointed questions to people here about what they consider to be fair use of the terms in order to let them describe for themselves why the would use the terms in the context they themselves offer in order to find out what they are hoping to accomplish by using the terms in that context. I’m asking them what their reasoning is in their own terms.

  460. 460
    Aleta says:

    Stephen, I answered your question about Springsteen and the baker in 412 and 416: they are not comparable situations. Springsteen is not “withholding services” in the same way the baker is.

    You say,

    Please do not, as in the past, answer by alluding to the law. My question has nothing to do with the law. Also, please do not, as in the past, answer that you don’t know what the word “fair” means?

    Well, if I don’t think it is fair to let someone break the law because they think it is wrong, how am I to answer your question? One of the ways in which fairness comes into play is through equal treatment under the law.

    I think it is fair for Springsteen to not hold a concert, just as I think it is fair for someone to boycott Target, because those are personal actions that someone has the complete right to make.

    It is not fair for the baker to withhold services for reasons of legal discrimination. There is no way to discuss the fairness of that without reference to the baker’s legal obligations. If I just bake cakes at home for friends, and someone asks me to bake a ckae for a friend of theirs for a same-sex marriage, it is perfectly fair for me to say no thank you, I don’t approve. But if I have a business, laws apply.

    I’ve said all this before, by the way.

    And my question to you is, “So how do you propose that we decide what the natural moral law is?”

  461. 461
    Zachriel says:

    William J Murray: The point I’m making is that using those terms in ways I described in the OP and have elaborated upon later ends or circumvents or is a detriment to rational debate and discussion, and are used deliberately to signal certain groups into a mob-like mentality to attack certain people or ideas/positions

    You mean like, “By cleverly utilizing dishonest terms and phrases, we have been manipulated into conceding the debate to leftists/Marxists …”

  462. 462
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: A reminder, from Pastor (and before that WW 1 U Boat Captain_ Martin Niemoller, a leader of the Confessing Church and of the Barmen Declaration of 1934 . . . then, a Concentration Camp inmate:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

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

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

  463. 463
    Aleta says:

    When I wrote, “William, you say morality and justice comes from the innate nature of God. I disagree,” you answered,

    That’s fine, but you failed to answer the same question when I asked you.

    That’s because this discussion is about the rights and responsibilities of people in American society, not about the topic of where moral values come from. Ive been there and done that at times, and am not interested in this becoming a discussion of that right now, at least for me.

    My position is “Our society, and our law, recognize each person as an equal moral agent irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever.”

    You replied,

    Where do you get this from? Can you show me where “the law” recognizes each person as an “equal moral agent” irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever”? Can you explain how you came to the understanding that our society “recognizes” this?

    All people are equal under the law. There is no place where the law is going to distinguish its actions based on a person’s religion or lack thereof. We all have equal rights and responsibilities as citizens. You may have a different rationale as to why you think something is right or wrong, but we have an equal right to make moral judgments for ourselves.

    You write,

    You still didn’t answer my question. Do you just not want to answer my question? You have said that you will disobey laws and even public opinion if you do not consider those things just or moral. … If laws and public opinion do not decide what is just and moral, what does?

    Actually, I have said that I would balance the extent to which I think something is unjust with the consequences of disobeying. I think some of the things that my tax dollars come to support are unjust, but I still pay taxes: it, like most things in life, is a matter of balancing priorities and perspectives.

    And I’ve explained above why I’m not interested in taking this discussion out of the realm of political science and into the realm of metaphysics.

    You write,

    Additionally, what gives you the right to disobey laws when you consider them immoral or unjust?

    Nothing external to me gives me that right, but it is a right I’m willing to give myself if circumstances are extreme enough. I’m free to do that, if I chose. Ultimately, each one of us is responsible for every action. Same for you.

  464. 464
    StephenB says:

    Aleta.

    Again, my belief is that it is unjust to deny the legal status of marriage to two people because they are the same sex.

    Fine. Make your case. The Supreme Court sure couldn’t make it, and they recognized that fact. It was a totally arbitrary decision based on leftist ideology and whim.

    I know it is not a status that has historically been accepted, but then neither was the abolition of slavery or women’s suffrage at one time. Those things, slavery and no voting privileges for women, were morally wrong but widely accepted at one time, and my position is that our denial of same-sex marriage rights falls in the same category

    .

    Last time I asked you this question you mentioned something about using our conscience and our reason, but that didn’t really answer the question, because we return to the question of how to decide if my conscience and reason disagrees with yours.

    You answered your own question above when you rightly said that policies such as slavery and no voting privileges for women are morally wrong. Notice that you didn’t say they are wrong “in your opinion.” You know they are wrong. They violate your conscience as informed by reason, “laws of nature,” and “Nature’s God” (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence). That is where moral truth comes from—God and nature.

    Rights do not come from the state or from consensus opinion. Both of those sources provide standards that change daily and are, therefore, unreliable. Consensus decisions will promote slavery at one time and anti-slavery another time, depending on the public mood. Interestingly, slavery was abolished only when Martin Luther King Jr. asserted, rightly, that slavery violates the natural moral law and that the majority opinion is irrelevant.

    As you progress in your analysis, other natural truths will become clear to you—unless you are so emotionally invested in secularism that reason cannot surface, or unless your conscience has not been informed by reason. Informed consciences are rare these days. That is why so few recognize that there are no rational arguments for gay marriage. The whole idea of a rational argument eludes them.

  465. 465
    kairosfocus says:

    Aleta, WJM is asking you for your worldview level first principles that ground morally freighted positions such as equality and worth of individuals, justice, and more. Glance just above at Plato on The Laws to see the contexts of cultural relativism. KF

  466. 466
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Eugen — “OTOH when I call Aleta, Zachriel, Ziggy etc intolerant haters because they hate Christians and are intolerant of our views I’m just describing the reality.”

    Then you are incorrect. I am a Christian. I am not a supporter of homosexuality or SSM. I have said this repeatedly. Where I differ from you and a couple others here is that I can’t force myself to get all worked up about it. If the government wants to legalize it, I fail to see how that is going to have any impact on my marriage or anyone else’s marriage. A marriage is only as strong as the commitment of the two people involved.

    In fact, there are many Christians who actively support SSM, and some churches that will preside over SSM. Does that mean that they are no longer Christian? And who are you to make that judge. I know that I certainly won’t make that judgement.

  467. 467
    Aleta says:

    Stephen, I also say it is wrong to deny marriage to same-sex couples. I don’t say “in my opinion, it is wrong ….”

    Why am I right about slavery, but wrong and same-sex marriage?

    You write,

    As you progress in your analysis, other natural truths will become clear to you—unless you are so emotionally invested in secularism that reason cannot surface, or unless your conscience has not been informed by reason

    Arrogant, condescending self-righteousness is not a rational argument.

  468. 468
    ziggy lorenc says:

    StephenB — “Where or when did any of these people sign an agreement to refrain from making this criticism?”

    Caroline Crocker had a contract to teach to a curriculum, and didn’t. She was warned and persisted to deviate from the curriculum. Her contract wasn’t renewed. Did she not sign a contract?

    Sternberg is a he said, she said issue and nobody has all the answers. The little that I have read sounds like a shady deal. Egnor is a respected surgeon and full professor. His career has not suffered. He has been severely criticized for his beliefs, but what is wrong with that. I haven’t read anything on the others, but I will.

  469. 469
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr. Murray — “But then, isn’t that really the point, Ziggy? To undermine rational discourse and instead utilize virtue-signalling and political correct mob mentality to shut down debate by utilizing such terminology to categorize people and their views as racist or bigoted before one even enters the court of rational debate?”

    No. The goal would be to focus rational debate. Do you really think that the civil rights debates would have proceeded at the speed they did if racism wasn’t put on the table? Or should we have completely avoided the term and allow rational debate to be taken off on several tangents and take generations to arrive at the rational and correct conclusion? What do you tell the black kid in the early sixties? Just accept your inferior position in society because things will be better for your grandchildren?

    I have made my point very clear. These terms should not be used on a routine basis. But I can see circumstances when they should be used.

    With regard to your question about whether motivation should be taken into account. Of course it should. I believe many things because of my religious beliefs. But if I am going to argue for one of these in order to enact a new law, of course my motivation should be taken into account. I have no right to impose my religious beliefs on others.

    For example, when I was young, all businesses were closed on Sundays. The only trucks allowed on the road were those that carried perishable goods. When Sunday opening was allowed, I was not in favour of it. But my opposition to it was religiously based. So, of course the motivation for my disagreement should be taken into account.

  470. 470

    Aleta said:

    That’s because this discussion is about the rights and responsibilities of people in American society, not about the topic of where moral values come from.

    What discussion is about “the rights and responsibilties in American society”? The one you and Stephen are having in my thread? That’s not what the OP is about. Apparently you are not opposed to discussing what are at best tangential ideas relating to the OP, so why refuse to answer a simple question?

    BTW, I’m not complaining. I’m just calling you out on what appears to be a rather convenient desire to not go ‘off topic”, especially since you asked me exactly the same question.

    Ive been there and done that at times, and am not interested in this becoming a discussion of that right now, at least for me.

    So you wish to argue about justice and ethics and morality and fairness, but avoid discussing the basis for such arguments? It seems to me that you wish to:

    1. Invoke the law as if it is an answer to how people should behave when it comes to justice, fairness and ethics;

    2. Reserve some superior, a priori right to defy the law if you personally disagree that the law is moral, just or fair;

    3. Refuse to explain what informs your sense of justice, fairness or morality if not the law and why, if you reserve the right to ignore the law if you see fit, you should not also champion those who disobey the law because they find the law unjust, unfair or immoral.

    IOW, if you are not willing to argue what morality, justice, and fairness are and where they come from and what informs your view on them, you really have no footing for engaging in any debate on the matter at all.

    You say something isn’t fair – fair by what standard? You refer to the law, but obviously the law doesn’t set the standard, so why refer to it at all? You refer to what is just, but just by what standard? You refer to the law, but do not hold the law as the standard. So, it seems, you use the law when it suits you, but abandon it when it does not.

    My position is “Our society, and our law, recognize each person as an equal moral agent irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever.”

    “Your position is…?” So, you have no argument, evidence, or facts to support your assertion that society and the law “recognizes” what you claim, you are only asserting that it it is your position that it does so. IOW, a bald assertion, without any evidence or facts provided to back it up.

    Perhaps what you meant to say is that in your view this society and our law should “recognize each person as an “equal moral agent” irrespective of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, atheist, or whatever”?

    Nothing external to me gives me that right, but it is a right I’m willing to give myself if circumstances are extreme enough. I’m free to do that, if I chose. Ultimately, each one of us is responsible for every action. Same for you.

    There we go – your final arbiter of what is moral, ethical, just and fair is you. When you refer to some form of fairness found in the law, it is a diversion because that is not the final arbiter of fairness in your worldview; you are. All this reference to the law and public opinion is a diversion because when it comes right down to it, what decides what is fair, moral, right or just is Aleta.

    Correct? That really wasn’t so hard. A thing is fair, in your worldview, if you consider it fair; moral if you consider it moral; just if you consider it just. If you change your mind, then what is just or moral changes.

  471. 471

    So, here again is the end of reasonable (read: rational) debate: when fairness, justice and morality means nothing more than how any particular individual feels about those things. Thus, there can be no rational argument about what is fair, or just, or moral because the values for those concepts is informed subjectively, individually.

    Aleta cannot argue about what is fair, or what is just, or what is moral; because for her those things are not objective commodities that lie external to her and inform her rights and obligations on those matters. They are, apparently, subjective notions, feelings, proclivities.

    How can one rationally argue that one’s subjective behavior preference is more just or fair than another, when all of those things are entirely subjective commodities? The answer is that they cannot.

  472. 472
    StephenB says:

    ziggy

    Caroline Crocker had a contract to teach to a curriculum

    I have no reason to believe that Caroline Crocker “deviated” from the curriculum. To simply utter the words “Intelligent design” in abbreviated fashion is not to teach intelligent design. However, you must surely be suspicious of any such code or rule that would forbid an expert om any subject to remain silent about her relevant and evidence-based convictions on matters of substance.

    Sternberg is a he said, she said issue and nobody has all the answers. The little that I have read sounds like a shady deal. Egnor is a respected surgeon and full professor. His career has not suffered. He has been severely criticized for his beliefs, but what is wrong with that.

    Let’s not lose track of the argument. Steinberg did not sign any agreement or agree to any code that would forbid him from publishing a well-researched scientific paper of this kind. Clearly, he was persecuted. That he survived hardly justifies the actions taken toward him.

    Meanwhile, what about the other four. And what about the war to put dissenting meteorologists in jail? Where did any of these people agree in advance to refrain from expressing their views? The fact is that anyone who holds traditional values, or any scientific, social, religious, or philosophical paradigm in support of them, is unjustly persecuted, while those who militate against those values in the name of postmodernist ideology, are given a free pass. Politically-correct thought police use institutional power to curb free expression, and are beginning to pass laws to that effect. That dynamic plays out every day when the subject of gay marriage is brought up. If you are against it, even for good reason, you are branded as a hateful bigot; if you are for it, even without any semblance of an argument in its support, you are celebrated as a tolerant, loving human being.

  473. 473

    Ziggy said:

    No. The goal would be to focus rational debate.

    You cannot focus rational debate by bringing in something irrelevant, like motivation.

    Do you really think that the civil rights debates would have proceeded at the speed they did if racism wasn’t put on the table?

    I have no idea how that would have turned out if public figures were not accused of being racists or bigots. Neither do you. Faster proceedings doesn’t mean better conclusions.

    should we have completely avoided the term and allow rational debate to be taken off on several tangents and take generations to arrive at the rational and correct conclusion?

    Tangential to what? It seems to me that the quickest way to get a debate off on a tangent is to start making assertions about the character of those involved in the debate.

    What do you tell the black kid in the early sixties? Just accept your inferior position in society because things will be better for your grandchildren?

    Why would I tell them that?

    These terms should not be used on a routine basis. But I can see circumstances when they should be used.

    So do I. And I appreciate your answers to these questions.

    With regard to your question about whether motivation should be taken into account. Of course it should. I believe many things because of my religious beliefs. But if I am going to argue for one of these in order to enact a new law, of course my motivation should be taken into account. I have no right to impose my religious beliefs on others.

    What do you mean, “you have no right”? Do you mean legally? Of course you do, legally. You can advocate for laws that reflect your religious beliefs and get them passed if you can.

    Do you mean morally? If you are in the middle east and you see a child or woman being or about to be legally raped, and in their culture it is completely acceptable, do you have no moral right to impose your religious beliefs on them by intervening? Or do you have a moral obligation to do so?

    For example, when I was young, all businesses were closed on Sundays. The only trucks allowed on the road were those that carried perishable goods. When Sunday opening was allowed, I was not in favour of it. But my opposition to it was religiously based. So, of course the motivation for my disagreement should be taken into account.

    Your logic here is flawed. Your motivation was irrelevant. What mattered – and what ultimately matters (in terms of rational debate) – is the reason and evidence-based argument one presents for or against a proposition. Bringing motivation into the mix can only move attention away from the merits of the argument. The motivation you have for a law makes no difference when it comes to assessing the rational, factual merits of the proposal.

  474. 474
    Origenes says:

    Kairosfocus #456,

    I agree with you that materialism cannot ground morality, personhood, rationality, life and what have you. Materialism is totally self-referentially incoherent. I honestly don’t see how we could agree more on this.

    However, in my view, that fact has absolutely no bearing on issues like SSM. None. Zip.

  475. 475
    Zachriel says:

    StephenB: The Supreme Court sure couldn’t make it, and they recognized that fact. It was a totally arbitrary decision based on leftist ideology and whim.

    That is incorrect. The decision determined that bans on same sex marriage violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  476. 476
  477. 477
    ziggy lorenc says:

    StephenB — “To simply utter the words “Intelligent design” in abbreviated fashion is not to teach intelligent design…”

    From the little reading that I did on this, she did not just utter the words “Intelligent Design” in a classroom, contrary to what is projected in the “documentary” that you pulled the names from. She went into great detail. But the issue is that she was told by her employer not to do that again. And she did. Disobeying your employer, the last time I looked, is grounds for dismissal.

    StephenB — “Steinberg did not sign any agreement or agree to any code that would forbid him from publishing a well-researched scientific paper of this kind.”

    My understanding is there is a disagreement as to whether or not he followed the procedures for selecting the reviewers. If he did not, then he failed to follow the terms that he agreed to. But, I admit. There is enough uncertainty here to make me question it.

    StephenB — “Meanwhile, what about the other four.”

    You had better brush up on your math skills 🙂 there were only two others named: Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzale.

    Gonzale did not obtain any major grants during his seven years at ISU, had published no significant papers and only had one student complete a dissertation. No academic is going to get tenure with a record like that.

    Robert Marks posted a web page on the universities website in violation of the university rules. Again, a case of not following the rules of the employer.

    Look, I am not saying that there have never been any unethical actions taken in academia. I was there for a few years and their are politics and back stabbing just as you find in any large organization. But to claim that this is some type of global conspiracy is just preposterous.

  478. 478
    ziggy lorenc says:

    Mr l. Murray — “What do you mean, “you have no right”? Do you mean legally?”

    Yes, I mean legally. That doesn’t mean that I can’t lobby to have it enacted, but I would have to convince the majority of ministers that it is the right thing for everyone. To not inform them of my motivation would be dishonest. My Sunday closing example is a good example. I could argue that everyone should have a day off with their family, but how could I argue that it should be Sunday without bringing up my religious reason? How could I argue that Jews would also have to follow this law? Or atheists?

  479. 479
    kairosfocus says:

    Origines (Attn Aleta), It is the environment dominated by evolutionary materialist scientism and linked radical secularism which set up the extreme nominalism and subjectivism or relativism that are the key steps to what has been done in the teeth of the patent law of our moral nature as it relates to our sexuality and the needs of children. To imagine that you can look at an institution rooted in our morally governed — a key modifier — biological nature as complementary sexes whose children require prolonged nurture in a stable committed environment supportive of their own sexual identities and with the most profound moral, psychological and social connexions and then imagine we can overturn all of that with clever word games and agit prop moves under false colour of law and in the name of imagined rights . . . a term deeply rooted in moral obligations such that to properly claim a right one must be clearly in the right . . . speaks saddening volumes. Instead, I put it to you that two men or two women or a human and an animal, or whatever bizarre onward combination will be dreamed up, simply cannot be married due to the nature of what is implied and bound up in that word. Instead, we are indulging an exercise that subverts or even mocks what marriage is, and that such will not end well for our civilisation, precisely because of the foundational nature of marriage and family. If “marriage” means any and every thing, in the end it means nothing . . . reflecting the utter might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘truth’ worth’ etc incoherence of what is going on. I of course can here only give pointers, I suggest that you work through Girgis et al, here to begin the process of recovering what is being swept away. KF

    PS: We should all note the power of cognitive dissonance, social pressure and the spiral of silencing to induce us to act as though something is true then find ourselves internally destabilised and moving to a point where we come to believe it is so to restore internal equilibrium.

  480. 480
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Bill Muehlenberg gives us pause to understand how the sort of manipulation I have discussed can be (and has been) carried forward, through the dynamics of desensitising to what was objectionable, jamming out of those who dare to object, and conversion to embracing or enabling what the strategic planners — corporate or ideological — want. In his review of Kupelian’s The Marketing of Evil, we find:

    . . . with such activist marketing of evil taking place, a much stronger response is required than is presently being offered.

    Now those who are familiar with the culture wars will not find too much new material here, as much of it has been presented elsewhere. But the angle which the author takes is well worth considering. That is, there is an agenda being pushed, and there are those actively working to foist their tarnished vision of society on the rest of us . . . .

    [For one instance,] We do not just have millions of young people who seem to have all descended upon common clothing, entertainment, and consumer culture. They have been carefully studied, marketed to and manipulated by vast entertainment conglomerations. These international corporations are making multi-millions by actively targeting our young people, creating in them a demand for their products.

    Take just one small example. Are we really to believe that overnight millions of teens decided they wanted to mutilate their flesh with body piercing? Hardly. Kids are being sold the idea that such things are cool, and they need to have the ‘look’. They are being programmed – duped into thinking – that they must go to such extremes to be with it. And big bucks are being made along the way.

    Peer pressure has always had an enormous influence on young people, but when the pressure is effectively created and manipulated by multinational corporations lining their pockets, then the pressure becomes a form of brainwashing. And millions of our kids today are little more than walking, talking zombies, slavishly following the latest trends and fashions created by these big firms.

    Other meaty chapters in this book deal with the media, the abortion industry, the sexualization of our young people, the assault on marriage, and the secularist attempt to de-Christianize America.

    While the topics discussed here are in the context of the US, they are of relevance to the West in general. There is a war going on, and the marketers of evil seem to be making big inroads. Being aware of their strategy and tactics is an important part of how we can resist these attacks . . . . And as Kupelian reminds us, every transaction has two parties: a buyer and a seller. While this book mainly focuses on the sellers and advertisers of evil, he reminds us that too many of us have been willing buyers of these transactions, or have been complicit bystanders.

    That is just a small sampler of what is going on.

    Remember, with much less advanced techniques, generations were sold on the notion that wrapping shredded leaves in a paper tube, lighting same and inhaling the smoke was the adult, sophisticated, relaxing etc thing to do. And that for something that often makes the new smoker sick while his body adjusts to nicotine poisoning. Something that has huge destructive health consequences.

    And yet, I recall my 6th form general studies teacher, puffing away and challenging us to overturn his views. (It was quite a lesson in the challenges of persuasion and warrant. Including, addressing, I have been smoking for many years with no significant ill-effects.)

    We need to do some serious re-thinking.

    That sweet south wind is blowing.

    KF

  481. 481
    StephenB says:

    ziggy

    From the little reading that I did on this, she did not just utter the words “Intelligent Design” in a classroom, contrary to what is projected in the “documentary”

    This is all very mysterious. What else is she alleged to have done? When and where did she promise not to do it? What makes you think it was not part of the curriculum if the information is relevant? Since you chose not to accept her account and rely solely on the report of her adversaries, why not give me your account?

    Meanwhile, why do you ignore all the other examples? When and where did any of them sign on to a code and then go back on it? You have not even come close to making your case.

    I would be a little more impressed with your sincerity and willingness to argue in good faith if you did, at least, acknowledge the obvious: Politically correct thought police seek to compromise the free speech of those climate scientists whose evidence-based opinions are different from theirs by threatening them with jail time. Show your good faith by conceding the obvious point.

  482. 482
    PaV says:

    Rosa Parks, motivated by her religious sentiments, refused to give up her seat in a bus to a white bus rider. She was breaking the “law.” Was she wrong?

  483. 483
    Aleta says:

    She was legally wrong, and morally right. She suffered some negative consequences, but also helped make a difference in making our world a better place.

  484. 484
    Origenes says:

    Kairosfocus, my view on SSM is neither shaped by evolutionary materialism, nor communism, nor by the wish to end civilization.
    I have explained my position in #347.

  485. 485
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    Stephen, I also say it is wrong to deny marriage to same-sex couples. I don’t say “in my opinion, it is wrong ….”

    Why am I right about slavery, but wrong and same-sex marriage?

    Because your knowledge of slavery is reasonably complete while your knowledge of the role of marriage is incomplete. Thus, your conscience is not sufficiently informed by reason to make moral judgments on the matter.

    So-called “gay marriage cannot be marriage. It isn’t real. Marriage, by definition, is a covenant between a man and a woman that is ordered to the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. This covenant is a product of the laws of God and nature. A homosexual union simply cannot qualify as that kind of institution.

    Heterosexual marriage promotes the common good because it elevates the nuclear family as the primary institution of society. Accordingly, it reflects the proper purpose of sex and establishes the limits of how it ought to be used. The so-called union of “gay marriage” cannot play that role at all. It simply trivializes and perverts the real thing. Accordingly, it harms society in many ways:

    First, it denies a child either a mother or a father. I have already provided the scientific evidence of the harm it does to children @342.. No one has refuted that study. Thus, there can be no principle of “equality” at stake because there can be no second or third kind of marriage. There can be only one kind of marriage.

    Worse, gay marriage celebrates and justifies the homosexual lifestyle. When the secular state promotes this perversity, especially when it brainwashes children to accept it at an early age and pushes them to become a part of this perverse movement. In fact, gay marriage violates the common good of all members of society by frustrating the states purpose for benefiting heterosexual marriage. If the latter is just one among many, then there is no reason why the state cannot marginalize parents by usurping their role to raise children.

    To grant a right to one person is take away the right of another. This is true in all cases. To grant one man the right to a free college education is to take away another man’s right to keep some of his tax money. Similarly, to grant homosexuals the right to marry is to take away societies right to give heterosexual marriage a special place.

    There is no question of equality here becasue something that is unreal does not deserve the same consideration as something that is real. Gay marriage cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage because it isn’t real. Thus, the question of equal protection under the law is not even relevant.

  486. 486
    StephenB says:

    StephenB: The Supreme Court sure couldn’t make it, and they recognized that fact. It was a totally arbitrary decision based on leftist ideology and whim.

    Zach

    That is incorrect. The decision determined that bans on same sex marriage violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The fourteenth amendment has absolutely nothing to say about equality for gay marriage. It was established solely to confirm the point that blacks are fully American and deserve equal protection under the laws–nothing more. If the Fourteenth Amendment, as written, had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and therefore still doesn’t, that should end the discussion. Unfortunately, activist judges are always trying to create new rights that do not exist.

  487. 487
    StephenB says:

    Correction, the science on the negative effects of same sex marriage on children is summarized @332 not @342

  488. 488
    Seversky says:

    StephenB @ 485

    First, it denies a child either a mother or a father. I have already provided the scientific evidence of the harm it does to children @342. No one has refuted that study…

    Yes, they have. There has been a re-analysis of Regnerus’s findings reported here. A couple of choice morsels:

    Regnerus does not check for, or apparently even consider the possibility of, inconsistent, uncertain, and unreliable cases in his data—even though some other items in the NFSS offer some limited means to assess this possibility. For example, Regnerus (2012c) acknowledges that, according to the aforementioned calendar data, over half of the respondents never lived with a parent’s same-sex partner, but fails to mention that many respondents—approximately one-third—also never lived with their same-sex parents or lived with them very briefly. [emphasis original]

    The most blatant example of highly suspicious responses is the case of a 25 year-old man who reports that his father had a romantic relationship with another man, but also reports that he (the respondent) was 7-feet 8-inches tall, weighed 88 pounds, was married 8 times and had 8 children. Other examples include a respondent who claims to have been arrested at age 1 and another who spent an implausibly short amount of time (less than 10 minutes) to complete the survey.

  489. 489
    Aleta says:

    Stephen,

    Because your knowledge of slavery is reasonably complete while your knowledge of the role of marriage is incomplete. Thus, your conscience is not sufficiently informed by reason to make moral judgments on the matter.

    Hah. What an arrogant, self-righteous thing to say. There is no way to discuss this any further with you. My conscience is just fine. I can accept us disagreeing with each other, but for you to think that you have a superior view of the subject is laughable.

  490. 490
    kairosfocus says:

    Origines, I suggest you look at 485 just above, and that you look onward at Girgis et al. We all know the history of this push to create a redefinition of marriage under colour of law. The idea roots that made such even remotely plausible are clear and are rooted in evolutionary materialist scientism, associated radical secularism, and its wider influence. The sweet-seeming south wind is blowing. KF

    PS: Seversky, raising children with confusion about sexuality, identity, family and marriage as well as wider morality and society does neither the children nor the society good. But of course when might and manipulation make ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘value’ etc, and seem to be successful, the sweet south wind is blowing.

  491. 491
    CLAVDIVS says:

    kairosfocus

    Seversky, raising children with confusion about sexuality, identity, family and marriage as well as wider morality and society does neither the children nor the society good.

    False.

    All quotes below from the judgement’s summary in Perry v Schwarzenegger and represent the unrebutted testimony of leading scholarly experts:

    “Social epidemiologist Ilan Meyer testified about the harm gays and lesbians have experienced because of Proposition 8 [outlawing gay marriage]. … According to Meyer, Proposition 8 increases the likelihood of negative mental and physical health outcomes for gays and lesbians.”

    “Economist Lee Badgett provided evidence that same-sex couples would benefit economically if they were able to marry and that same-sex marriage would have no adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on opposite-sex couples.”

    “Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships.”

    “Egan explained that Proposition 8 decreases the number of married couples in San Francisco, who tend to be wealthier than single people because of their ability to specialize their labor, pool resources and access state and employer-provided benefits. Proposition 8 also increases the costs associated with discrimination against gays and lesbians. … Badgett explained that municipalities throughout California and the state government face economic disadvantages similar to those Egan identified for San Francisco.”

    “Psychologist Letitia Anne Peplau testified that couples benefit both physically and economically when they are married. Peplau testified that those benefits would accrue to same-sex as well as opposite-sex married couples. To Peplau, the desire of same-sex couples to marry illustrates the health of the institution of marriage and not, as Blankenhorn testified, the weakening of marriage.”

    “Peplau pointed to research showing that, despite stereotypes suggesting gays and lesbians are unable to form stable relationships, same-sex couples are in fact indistinguishable from opposite-sex couples in terms of relationship quality and stability.”

    “Historian Nancy Cott testified about the public institution of marriage and the state’s interest in
    recognizing and regulating marriages. … The state’s primary purpose in regulating marriage is to create stable households. … Cott testified that the state would benefit from recognizing same-sex marriage because such marriages would provide “another resource for stability and social order.”

    “Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial to whether an adult is a good parent.”

  492. 492
    PaV says:

    Aleta:

    So, since Rosa Parks was morally right, and laws were subsequently changed, then do you favor the changing of the law on same-sex marriage?

  493. 493
    StephenB says:

    Aleta

    Hah. What an arrogant, self-righteous thing to say. There is no way to discuss this any further with you. My conscience is just fine. I can accept us disagreeing with each other, but for you to think that you have a superior view of the subject is laughable

    You asked me a direct question, so I provided a direct answer. Your knowledge base is incomplete. That is the answer to your specific question. Do you have a substantive response to my comments?

  494. 494
    CLAVDIVS says:

    StephenB

    I have already provided the scientific evidence of the harm it does to children [@332].. No one has refuted that study.

    Nonsense. That study is a joke.

    – The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Assocation and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among other august institutions, unanimously reject the validity of Regnerus’ data and his conclusions because, unlike previous studies, his sample size was both tiny and selected in a statistically flawed manner — noting “… the Regnerus study sheds no light on the parenting of stable, committed same-sex couples – as Regnerus himself acknowledges“.

    – 200 social scientists published a letter in the same journal pointing out severe methodological flaws in the paper and raising serious questions about its peer review.

    – A member of the journal’s editorial board subsequently conducted an audit of the paper’s review process and concluded it should never have been published because – and I quote the auditor – “It’s bulls**t.”

    – Regnerus attempted to use his research when giving expert evidence in the Michigan Marriage Amendment case. The judge completely lambasted Regnerus’ study and testimony, finding it was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration“, biased by its funding sources to give the result paid for (i.e. anti-gay-marriage), not a scholarly effort at all and “flawed on its face” as it purported to study children raised in different family environments “but in fact did not study this at all.”

  495. 495
    StephenB says:

    Seversky

    There has been a re-analysis of Regnerus’s findings reported here. A couple of choice morsels:

    Regnerus does not check for, or apparently even consider the possibility of, inconsistent, uncertain, and unreliable cases in his data—even though some other items in the NFSS offer some limited means to assess this possibility. For example, Regnerus (2012c) acknowledges that, according to the aforementioned calendar data, over half of the respondents never lived with a parent’s same-sex partner, but fails to mention that many respondents—approximately one-third—also never lived with their same-sex parents or lived with them very briefly. [emphasis original]

    Regnerus has analyzed this criticism and found it wanting. He said the results of his study hold true. I agree.

    -The parental same-sex relationships reported by adult children are not, on average, long-term ones.

    –The longer those parental relationships lasted, the better—on average—were the outcomes for adult children.

    –Very few same-sex relationships lasted the entirety of the respondents’ childhood. Critics cried foul. I cried, “Reality!”

    -The stability afforded by continuously intact mom-and-dad families pays benefits, on average, well into adulthood. They remain the standard against which all other forms ought to be compared.

    Regnerus says, “These conclusions hold true, whether you read my original study, its follow-up, Simon Cheng and Brian Powell’s new analyses, or crunch the numbers yourself.” Apparently, his critics didn’t do that. They didn’t crunch the numbers.

    “The most blatant example of highly suspicious responses is the case of a 25 year-old man who reports that his father had a romantic relationship with another man, but also reports that he (the respondent) was 7-feet 8-inches tall, weighed 88 pounds, was married 8 times and had 8 children. Other examples include a respondent who claims to have been arrested at age 1 and another who spent an implausibly short amount of time (less than 10 minutes) to complete the survey.”

    I have done this kind of research myself, so I am qualified to comment on it. There are at least four ways to bring methodology in to assess these kinds of issues: surveys, interviews, reports, and observations. Surveys provide quantitative results and interviews provide qualitative results. Usually, both are needed. With respect to the qualitative component, it is important to let the subject describe his experiences without leading him in the direction of an outcome that you would prefer. The very fact that this one response was exceedingly strange is an indication that the researcher allowed it to stand as it happened without trying to dress it up. If the sample size is large, as this one was, there will be many dubious responses. That the critics of this study didn’t take that fact into account, leads me to believe that they, not the researcher, were trying to achieve a result that was inconsistent with the data.

  496. 496
    Aleta says:

    Stephen writes,

    Your knowledge base is incomplete. That is the answer to your specific question. Do you have a substantive response to my comments?

    I have had adequate knowledge – as good as yours, about the subject and very different reasoned judgements than you do. But there is no sense in discussing with you, and I’ve explained why.

  497. 497
    StephenB says:

    CLAVDIVS

    Nonsense. That study is a joke.

    Send me to the website that provided this summary. Which of these organizations, if any, are not pro-gay marriage.

  498. 498
    CLAVDIVS says:

    StephenB

    I have done this kind of research myself, so I am qualified to comment on it.

    I have a degree in statistics and I am qualified to say Regnerus’ study is garbage.

    And the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Assocation, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Sociological Association agree with me. So does a judge in Michican who heard Regnerus in person and, I repeat, found his study and testimony to be “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration”.

  499. 499
    CLAVDIVS says:

    StephenB

    Send me to the website that provided this summary.

    @494 is my summary of the resources that I provided links to in the post — please pay attention.

  500. 500
    ziggy lorenc says:

    StephenB — “I would be a little more impressed with your sincerity and willingness to argue in good faith if you did, at least, acknowledge the obvious:”

    it is what you consider to be obvious that we are debating.

  501. 501
    StephenB says:

    ziggy

    it is what you consider to be obvious that we are debating.

    Does this mean that you will never answer my question about the attempt to put dissenting climate scientists in jail or the prospect that they had agreed to a code by which they would remain silent on the matter? Does this mean that you will never answer my question about how five evolutionary critics are supposed to have signed and agreed to a code such that they would not critique evolutionary theory? Does this mean that you do not intend to defend your thesis?

  502. 502
    ziggy lorenc says:

    StephenB — “Does this mean that you will never answer my question about how five evolutionary critics are supposed to have signed and agreed to a code such that they would not critique evolutionary theory? Does this mean that you do not intend to defend your thesis?”

    My thesis was that there was no global conspiracy to silence anti-evolution speech. You are the one who is insisting that I said that all people fired or denied advancement signed a code of conduct.

    With regard to the threats of jail for people who deny climate change, we are talking about a small number of people. If this ever becomes a serious concern, you can ask me again. Until then, I suggest that you put another layer on that tinfoil hat of yours.

  503. 503
    StephenB says:

    CLAVDIV

    @494 is my summary of the resources that I provided links to in the post

    All you have provided me is a series of complaints from organizations that were already committed to pro-same sex marriage. What would you expect them to do, congratulate the author who draws conclusions that offend their gay-friendly sensibilities? I find noting objective in the whole lot.

    I have examined the Cheng study, which provides more detai, and the authors response to it, which I find credible. Indeed, the hysterical language of your sources prompts one to say, “Me thnketh you protest to much.”

    You say that you are competent in statistics and that the sample size was too small. In your judgment, what is a appropriate sample size for this kind of study, what was the sample size for this particular study, and what was the rationale for using it? Was that rationale justified. If not, why not?

  504. 504
    velikovskys says:

    Stephen :
    The very fact that th