Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The End of Reasonable Debate

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

 

 

Comments
Silver Asiatic: Is this the same as saying you do not value truth? No, we value truth over falsity. Silver Asiatic: In a rational argument, citing evidence that exists is not intrinsically more valuable than evidence that does not exist? Evidence is not just something that exists, but something that exists that supports a claim. In other words, the value is contingent. Bubonic plague exists, but has little value for most people. Silver Asiatic: Would I be correct in stating that you deny the value of truth? No, you would not be correct. Silver Asiatic: That would explain a number of arguments where an equality is given to “an object” and “exists”. Or, “an event” and “was observed”. Equality is a logical concept, and there are conventions concerning the use of equality which the vast majority of people understand. Indeed, equality has different uses in different areas of mathematics.Zachriel
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
StephenB -- "ziggy @733, as I mentioned earlier, I am not going to waste any more time providing abundant evidence of free-speech violations, (and other outrages that stem from same-sex marriage”) while you carefully sift through the bunch to find one that you feel is easier than the others to rationalize and misrepresent, while ignoring everything else. I am not going to continue playing that stupid game." Have I not addressed all of your examples? I have not denied that there have been abuses, but to characterize a few examples as a wholesale degradation of free speech caused by SSM is just an extrapolation that is not supported by the evidence. StephenB -- "You disingenuity surpasses that bar by a country mile. Early and often, you characterized my statements of incontestable fact as b*** s*** and my motives as “hateful.”" I do not recall repeatedly calling your incontestable facts as b*** s***. I just disagree with the claim that they are incontestable. In many cases they are stories told from one side, he said she said, or examples where their rights of free speech were upheld. When I said "if the shoe fits", I intended it as a smart-ass comment, not to seriously imply that you are hateful. I do apologize if it came across in that way.ziggy lorenc
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
ziggy @733, as I mentioned earlier, I am not going to waste any more time providing abundant evidence of free-speech violations, (and other outrages that stem from same-sex marriage") while you carefully sift through the bunch to find one that you feel is easier than the others to rationalize and misrepresent, while ignoring everything else. I am not going to continue playing that stupid game. Under the circumstances, I am being very generous to characterize your behavior as a refusal to argue in good faith. You disingenuity surpasses that bar by a country mile. Early and often, you characterized my statements of incontestable fact as b*** s*** and my motives as "hateful." Have you, as the psychologists describe it, been "projecting" your own faults on to me?StephenB
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
William J. Murray
(I think some of SB’s arguments take the form of adopting arguendo that morality is about relieving or preventing suffering in order to make a case for those who have that view of morality. Correct me if I’m wrong, SB.)
WJM, thanks for the input. I just discovered your comment or I would have responded sooner. Just a quick note since I have little time at the moment. I could probably have unified all my self-contained points under a common theme, but I haven't really done that. Here are only three of what I consider to be separate self-contained arguments, thought they may share some comment elements: Example1 Same-sex marriage is metaphysically impossible, and therefore not real, because it cannot duplicate heterosexual complementarity and the possibility of two people becoming "one flesh." The latter is similar to the covenant between Christ and his Church. By contrast, a same-sex union is not a covenant; it is a mere "social contract." To falsely characterize the latter as the former does not make it so. Example2 Same-sex marriage does not simply destabilize society, it militates against the possibility of any well-ordered society. On the other hand, SSM blends very well with, and would not destabilize, a tyrannical government that reduces morality to the whims of elitists. As far as the tyrant is concerned, anyone can have sex with anything, anyone, at any time. That is the only freedom they will grant because they use sex as a means of political control, inflaming sexual passions in order to destroy internal freedom and curb resistance. Example3 The children of same-sex couples suffer needlessly and in a disturbingly unusual way. Unlike some heterosexual relationships, which can also harm children, it is the very nature of the same-sex union that does the harm. Thus, the argument that heterosexual parents can also harm children is irrelevant. Bad behavior from any parent or anyone playing that role will harm children.StephenB
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
StephenB, this is a response to the second example you provided. Headline -- Canada Holds American at Border for Being ChristianCanada Other than the fact that the headline is a complete lie, all we have to go on are LaBerbera's words.
We were treated fairly and reasonably. They said they didn’t have sufficient grounds to prosecute (based on) the hate propaganda code. That’s gratifying,
It is clear that he was investigated at customs for his reason for entering Canada, presumably on a tip from someone claiming that he violates Canada's anti-hate laws. But what you are overlooking is the fact that he was allowed to enter Canada in spite of his very public opposition to homosexuality. So, nobody's rights were violated. He was inconvenienced, but have you ever crossed a border lately? Claim -- LaBarbera later arrested for presence at university, jailed for a day, and finally booted from Canada He was arrested with Bill Whatcott and charged with mischief for refusing to leave university grounds when requested by University officials. The same Bill Whatcott who was charged with distributing hateful materials. The charges were dismissed, as most mischief charges are. And his departure from Canada was voluntary, he was not kicked out. Let's be honest here. Both LaBberbera's and WhatCott's actions were intended to get media attention so that they could play the martyr role. Personally, it is my opinion that the best way to counter views that most people disagree with (e.g., referring to homosexuals as pedophiles) is to let them rant and demonstrate to everyone that they are fools. So, again, who's free speech rights were denied? The fact that there may be consequences to what you say is just a fact of life. You are free to wear a KKK hood and robe at a Black Panthers rally, but I wouldn't advise it. Now I am not suggesting that there aren't people on the pro SSM side who use dirty tactics, because there are. As there are on the other side. But to suggest that SSM has resulted in the loss of free speech is just not backed up by the evidence. There are plenty of people writing articles, and blogs, and giving speeches, and hosting TV shows who are very critical of SSM and homosexuality. And they are protected in doing this as long as they are not inciting hatred in doing so.ziggy lorenc
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, LEM and LNC are corollaries of LoI. Once distinct identity exists all are present. KF
Eh? I don't think so. Do you have a published source for that?daveS
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
VS, a society of 100% liars could not have communication and trust so would instantly disintegrate. Could not form in fact. KFkairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
ZL, If you feel pinched when the shoe is on the other foot to the level of describing what has been going on, ponder what your ilk have been doing. And, I have not endorsed, but it brought out how it pinches. KFkairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
DS, LEM and LNC are corollaries of LoI. Once distinct identity exists all are present. KFkairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
KF: Using the CI, a society where everyone is lying all the time would instantly collapse. In such a society the only lie would be telling the truth.velikovskys
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
KF,
PS: Partial set membership as a concept depends on the prior point of distinct identity (which immediately brings in LOI, LNC and LEM).
Do you really want to include the Laws of Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle here?daveS
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
KF -- "You can be safely categorised as an idea and implementer hitman, in a strategic change context. In the online context, as a troll. BA77 suggests a very familiar identity resurfacing under another pseudonym." First, I am a woman. Secondly, thank you for again providing another example of Mr. Murray's argument about using inflammatory labels for the purpose of stifling discussion. Thirdly, to you always believe unsubstantiated accusations made by BA77? Who is William Spearshake? If you don't like him, I get the feeling that I might. Origenes -- "The continuous stream of ad hominem attacks on Ziggy Lorenc and others is hard to stomach." Thanks for the support. Personally, I just find it embarrassing. Not for me, but for KF. Why he thinks that 6,500 words spread over several comments is going to be read by anyone is the biggest mystery.ziggy lorenc
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Zach
You do understand that equality is an abstraction? The real world is more of an A is similar to B type of world, in which case, equality is partial.
That would explain a number of arguments where an equality is given to "an object" and "exists". Or, "an event" and "was observed". It would be interesting science to work with equalities are only partial.Silver Asiatic
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Zach
Silver Asiatic: But you cannot offer a rational argument about anything without accepting this fact of reality. We value truth. We just don’t accept your argument that truth has an intrinsic value.
Is this the same as saying you do not value truth?
Existence doesn’t have intrinsic value either.
In a rational argument, citing evidence that exists is not intrinsically more valuable than evidence that does not exist?
No. Truth has value to Zachriel, and we hope it has value to you too.
Would I be correct in stating that you deny the value of truth?Silver Asiatic
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Lawfare protection guide from ADF: http://www.afa.net/pdfs/sogi-handbook.pdfkairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Let A = B. You do understand that equality is an abstraction? The real world is more of an A is similar to B type of world, in which case, equality is partial.Zachriel
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
KF
Partial set membership as a concept depends on the prior point of distinct identity (which immediately brings in LOI, LNC and LEM).
True. Take LOI for example and then any first logical premise. We say, Let A = B. The intrinsic value of truth is required. Otherwise, the conclusion "therefore A does not equal B" is perfectly valid. Additionally, in a supposed consensus to "agree that truth has value", it would have to begin with truth having the same value as false. "I do not give truth more value than falsehood". Is that statement true or false?Silver Asiatic
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Z, Aristotle in Metaphysics 1011b: truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. KF PS: Lying parasites off the fact that most of the time we speak the truth, indeed it is the fraud of passing off the false as if it were true, showing the superior value of the genuine over the counterfeit. Using the CI, a society where everyone is lying all the time would instantly collapse.kairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: You have to accept that truth has value before you can respond. In order to affirm anything, you have to accept that truth has a greater value than falsehood. That's clearly not correct as any unrepentant liar knows. Silver Asiatic: Truth has intrinsic value. That's nice that you think so, but your saying so doesn't make it so. Silver Asiatic: But you cannot offer a rational argument about anything without accepting this fact of reality. We value truth. We just don't accept your argument that truth has an intrinsic value. Silver Asiatic: To claim that truth does not have intrinsic value is the same as to claim you see no value-distinction between that which exists and that which does not exist. Existence doesn't have intrinsic value either. Silver Asiatic: To claim “we agree on the value of truth” while at the same time denying that truth has intrinsic value, is to say that the statement “we agree” has the same value-equivalency as the statement “we do not agree” No. Truth has value to Zachriel, and we hope it has value to you too. Silver Asiatic: None of us is in a position to agree that truth has value. Of course we do. Truth has value to Zachriel, and we hope it has value to you too.Zachriel
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: Z, are you implying “it is true [= accurate to reality] that . . . “? or just, “it is pragmatically useful to accept that . . . “? See the difference? We're using the word truth as an abstract concept. If someone says he says he rejects climate change, but actually believes otherwise, then he is not telling the truth, regardless of the facts about climate change.Zachriel
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Zach
Silver Asiatic: It is impossible to respond to me, in any way at all, without demonstrating the intrinsic value of truth. No. We just have to agree that truth has value.
You have to accept that truth has value before you can respond. In order to affirm anything, you have to accept that truth has a greater value than falsehood. That is given as part of reality, not as something you decide upon. In fact, you can't make a decision without already having accepted that truth has an intrinsic value. To decide means to affirm a selection. That's a distinction based on truth. Did you choose or not? "Yes, I chose". That affirms the intrinsic value of truth.
Silver Asiatic: Truth is a Necessary component of rational thought. Then fuzzy logic isn’t rational thought.
Fuzzy logic is not possible unless truth has intrinsic value. Rational thought requires a distinction between truth and falsehood - with truth accepted as a higher-order value. That's how we arrive at any conclusions, any decisions or even making any affirmative proposals. Truth has intrinsic value. As I said above, this is something you've denied. You do not recognize the intrinsic value of truth. But you cannot offer a rational argument about anything without accepting this fact of reality. Truth is given, in the same way something either exists or it doesn't. To claim that truth does not have intrinsic value is the same as to claim you see no value-distinction between that which exists and that which does not exist. To claim "we agree on the value of truth" while at the same time denying that truth has intrinsic value, is to say that the statement "we agree" has the same value-equivalency as the statement "we do not agree". In order to agree on anything, you are required to accept that truth has value, outside of your own subjective opinion. You cannot even have a subjective opinion without accepting the value of truth. None of us is in a position to agree that truth has value. You have to accept it before you can make a rational, intellectually coherent statement.Silver Asiatic
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Z, are you implying "it is true [= accurate to reality] that . . . "? or just, "it is pragmatically useful to accept that . . . "? See the difference? KF PS: Partial set membership as a concept depends on the prior point of distinct identity (which immediately brings in LOI, LNC and LEM).kairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: It is impossible to respond to me, in any way at all, without demonstrating the intrinsic value of truth. No. We just have to agree that truth has value. Silver Asiatic: Truth is a Necessary component of rational thought. Then fuzzy logic isn't rational thought.Zachriel
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
StephenB, thank you for doing the leg work for me. Just to make it clear that Canada does not have freedom of speech in our constitution the same way that you have in the US. It never has. We also have hate speech laws that are more extensive than any in the US. These are not new either. StephenB `` "The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that citizens are NOT free to quote the Bible regarding the sin of homosexual behavior." What the ruling actually said about the bible:
While use of the Bible as a credible authority for a hateful proposition has been considered a hallmark of hatred [by the commission], it would only be unusual circumstances and context that could transform a simple reading or publication of a religion’s holy text into what could objectively be viewed as hate speech.
Not quite what the headline claims. In fact, it sounds opposite to what the headline claims. The supreme court upheld the commissions ruling for two pamphlets and overruled them on several others. The offending pamphlets were: 1--Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools! and 2--Sodomites in our Public Schools From the court ruling -- about the offending pamphlets"
It delegitimizes homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles, a traditionally reviled group in society. .
You may disagree with our hate speech laws, but the court clearly ruled that Whalcot violated the law when he distributed these pamphlets. I have concerns with our hate speech laws, mostly that I can see the danger of them being abused. But from what I have read in the ruling, this was not one of those abuses. I will look at the others and provide my opinion on them.ziggy lorenc
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
F/N: It is necessary to clarify what has actually happened, so I have taken time to clip the record. Pardon, needed. KFkairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
PPPS: How ZL joined the exchanges:
319 ziggy lorencApril 29, 2016 at 8:34 am 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 kairosfocusApril 29, 2016 at 8:48 am 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 EugenApril 29, 2016 at 8:50 am 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.
Where, context: >> 315 kairosfocusApril 29, 2016 at 7:51 am 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 >> Above: >> 310 kairosfocusApril 29, 2016 at 7:16 am 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 Silver AsiaticApril 29, 2016 at 7:28 am 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 CLAVDIVSApril 29, 2016 at 7:36 am kairosfocus @ 310 More argumenta ad hominem. As if whatever happened to you years ago excuses your rudeness today. Hilarious! *Ignore*>>kairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
PPS: Note 248, which dealt with the main reference on manipulation of marriage though lawfare and how it was dismissed:
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 fashionable dismissive assertions 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.
kairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
PS: My comment 12 in reply to that pattern:
12 kairosfocusApril 24, 2016 at 4:30 am 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
kairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
F/N: Let's roll the record from the first several comments, which tell us what went down from day 1:
1 kairosfocusApril 23, 2016 at 5:33 pm 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/20001212204800/http://www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/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_Attack_Survival_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: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tortious_interference cases: http://www.nrlawyers.com/Recent-Successes/Perjury-Public-Mischief-Mischief-to-Property-and-Breach-of-Court-Orders.shtml . 2 hrun0815April 23, 2016 at 8:18 pm 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 kairosfocusApril 23, 2016 at 9:08 pm 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 hrun0815April 23, 2016 at 9:38 pm 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 Robert ByersApril 23, 2016 at 9:45 pm 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 CannuckianYankeeApril 23, 2016 at 10:03 pm 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 Indiana EffigyApril 23, 2016 at 10:48 pm 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 AndreApril 24, 2016 at 12:04 am 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 William J MurrayApril 24, 2016 at 3:42 am 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.
In short the you are bigots and haters line of attack was set up by members of the circle of design objectors within the first ten comments. That has been sustained since and when the irresponsibility of this and its fitting a standard distract, distort, denigrate line of rhetoric was pointed out, that was twisted into turnspeech accusations -- yes, that is a propaganda technique -- and in effect see you have no evidence and substantial points all you have is bigotry against progress. Of course, great offence was obviously taken at the thought crime of pointing out that evolutionary materialistic scientism is inherently and multiply self-referentially incoherent [thus necessarily false], that it has in it no foundational IS capable of sustaining OUGHT [thus is amoral and invites nihilistic ruthless factionalism], that it is deeply institutionalised in halls of power and influence across our civilisation, that we are seeing linked fellow travellers, enablers and activists in an agit prop and lawfare pattern that is rooted in agendas of cultural marxism, and that our civilisation as a whole is on a slippery slope with a cliff engaged in a march of folly. Which is a common enough historical theme. All of these points were supported during the course of the thread. I could continue, but the point is clear enough. The onlooker would be well advised to note who has provided sustantiating argument all along and who have uses personalising and polarising tactics from the outset and have mostly failed to actually cogently address substance. KF PS: Of course, in comment 1, I provided useful reference material, which would give a lot of context. Where I do not like a source but find its advice relevant, I ring fenced the source.kairosfocus
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
The continuous stream of ad hominem attacks on Ziggy Lorenc and others is hard to stomach.Origenes
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 27

Leave a Reply