Barbarians Inside the Gate

_{Barry Arrington

August 17, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Everyone who believes the barbarians among us have declared total war on Western Civilization raise your hand.

The differences between this and Auschwitz:

1. The victims are more defenseless.

2. The victims are more innocent.

3. The victims are smaller.

4. The execution chambers are more sanitary.

Ideas have consequences.

Comments

Barry A: "Do you believe it is evil to split a human face in two while the human’s heart is still beating so that you can rip out his brain and sell it like a piece of meat?" What's the condition of that brain? If it's supporting a mind, then yes it's very evil. But if the brain hasn't developed enough to support a mind, then we're just talking about spiritless flesh. In that case, ask the woman what she wants done with it. Let me give you (and everybody else) a piece of general advice that has served me well: Don't automatically assume that everybody who disagrees with you is stupid or evil. Don't call their thinking illogical or ignorant. They might be, but they might not. Read what they say carefully. Try to understand why they might disagree with you if they're not stupid, evil, illogical or ignorant. Remember that the mind plays tricks with us when strongly held beliefs are challenged and we're liable to make false assumptions (medical doctors at Planned Parenthood are greed crazed monsters who kill babies for Lamborghinis for example) that help us retain those beliefs even when we're mistaken. Perhaps we can turn away from some of the hatred that way.MatSpirit_{August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit, sad that you did not try to honestly address the question. The answer is quite interesting. A clue to the answer is given in Talbott's note of what goes missing upon death. Specifically, information.
i.e. "But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary." -Talbott
bornagain77_{August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

BA77: "A human body conservatively has a billion trillion protein molecules which are all dedicated to the singular task of keeping you alive for precisely a life-time." PRECISELY a life time? I wonder if you could rephrase that question so milk doesn't shoot out people's noses when they read it? Living creatures seem to generally live as long as they possibly can. I guess you can credit evolution for that since you stop reproducing when you die and similar, but longer living organisms will overtake your descendants and crowd them out if you die young. By the way, I don't want to push you, but you still haven't told us how many of your descendants you've destroyed by not having their ancestors. As for the power that holds you together until you die, we call that biology. Please pass that on to Mr. Talbot. He seems confused. As for why everything doesn't fall apart, we call that physics. And physics seems to be pretty simple - just a handful of fairly simple laws and forces. I wonder why so many people think you have to add something much more complex (and thus much more unlikely to exist according to Dr. Demski) to that? Perhaps Mr. Talbot knows.MatSpirit_{August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Cornucopia, you scared me a little with your "I think ISIS deals with gays the right way" comment, since this is a Christian blog and Christians have a long history of dealing with gays, old women and people who worship God in an inappropriate fashion "the right way". But then I realized you were pulling my leg. Hitler is a bit touchier - he was a Christian too, after all, having been confirmed in the Catholic Church, served as an altar boy and desiring to become a priest when he was a youth. Don't feel bad about that if you're Catholic, though. By the time he was an adult he had discovered Martin Luther, "a strong Christian" and read Luther's book, "On the Jews and Their Lies." Did you ever see Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", the movie about Hitler's Nuremberg rally? You might have noticed that book on the pedestal at stage center. That was "On the Jews and Their Lies." I don't know what part Hitler liked best, burning the Jews homes, temples and holy books or making Jews wear yellow patches on their clothing or what. But I digress. Anyway, when you said we should listen to the spirit of Hitler as revealed in Mein Kampf, did you mean, “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”? No, he said that at a speech at the Reichstag. Maybe you meant, "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” or “What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.” or “This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.” or “And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.” or “Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another… while the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.”? He said all that in Mein Kampf. If so, I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you because I'm not a Christian.MatSpirit_{August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit, I have a question for you. A human body conservatively has a billion trillion protein molecules which are all dedicated to the singular task of keeping you alive for precisely a life-time. My question is this, "What organizing principle keeps all those billion trillion protein molecules dedicated to that singular task of keeping you alive for precisely a life time?" Or as Talbott put it, "the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?"
picture - "What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?" http://cdn-4.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/harvardd-2.jpg The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings
bornagain77_{August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

BA77, I'm sorry you've decided to withdraw, but I can understand. I had hoped to ask you about a wife who "has a headache" when her husband wants to have sex. I guess I'll never know how many babies she destroys. I'm curious about this "wait 'till death for your big reward" business. Does it work for more secular rewards? I was going to offer to sell you a gold bar, 10 kilos, 99.99% fine for only $100 dollars, payable in advance, delivery on death. You'll have to sign for it, of course.MatSpirit_{August 21, 2015
August
08
Aug
21
21
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

Who give a flying f@#$ if the unborn child doesn’t show signs of having a mind???!!!! calm down, steve. we need you to be very quiet.evnfrdrcksn_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

NO, they are not pieces of flesh. They ARE heads, arms, legs, feet. They are flesh and bones. They are complete body parts. You attempt to whitewash the seriousness of the issue is cowardly!!
No, losing 55 million SPIRITLESS PIECES OF FLESH does not faze me in the least. Unlike you, I know that what counts is the MIND and that flesh is only important when it serves a mind.
Who give a flying f@#$ if the unborn child doesn't show signs of having a mind???!!!! You are a friggin' Neanderthal!!! Keep your knife in your pocket, give the kid a chance, and it will SHOW YOU its mind!!!! What we have all known for 40 years about abortion, is you lame, cowardly attempts to find an out for an "inconvenient", 'uncomfortable" situation. Moral, just, rational people take RESPONSIBILITY for life no matter what the circumstances. There are plenty of social support systems to handle it. Your excuses beg to keep in the dark ages, where brew and potions did the trick. Now you bring a shiny blade. When will YOU put the poisons and the knife away, stand up and be counted on to SUPPORT life in ALL its stages of existence whether foetus, child, adult or old age???!!!! It is astounding that we still have the likes of people like Matspirit and evnfrdrcksn advocating going back in time to the "club your wife" Neanderthal type of solutions to life issues. Now its "club your baby" before it gets too big to club you back!!!!
Here’s the abortion argument in a nutshell. We’ve known for over 40 years that a mind cannot exist in the earliest stages of pregnancy because a mind requires a functioning brain and nothing remotely like that exists until very late in pregnancy. There’s a lot of evidence to show that the brain is not ready to start forming a mind until after birth. Roe v Wade took these facts into account with its graduated increase in protections for the fetus as it develops. In fact, they were overly conservative but you want that in cases of possible human life.
Steve_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

don't worry, folks (aka onlookers). Barry is the type who spouts garbage that will quickly disappear from the society against which he so strongly rails. seen it before, i'll see it again.evnfrdrcksn_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

you men are sure worked up about men stuff. so wide eyed and fervent. sex is evil, right? any woman who dares indulge is SADDLED WITH THE FRUIT OF HER CHOICE, right? evil looks itself in the mirror and sees nothing. like vampires.evnfrdrcksn_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Matspirit, I think ISIS deals with gays the right way. Gays are not humans. They are simply a blob of tissue developed in the wrong way. Hitler understood this and one of the highlights of the holocaust is how efficiently dealt with this problem.He realized that they are not humans and he finished them in beautiful gas chambers. The Nazis are unfairly demonized. The homosexual (fags) mind is not developed in the right way and therefore, we should cleanse them from this earth. Hitler is one of the unsung heroes of 20th century. We should listen to the spirit of Hitler which is revealed to us in Mein Kampf and get rid of deformed perverts.cornucopian_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit, Do you believe it is evil to split a human face in two while the human's heart is still beating so that you can rip out his brain and sell it like a piece of meat?Barry Arrington_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Matspirit, A new born baby is a clump of cells. It is useless. Can we kill it? It can't think. It really does not have a mind. Your arguments can be used to justify killing a whole lot of people. You are a fanatic. Saying the baby does not have mind so we can kill it is no different than infanticide. homosexual marriage is a joke. It is the easy ticket to get AIDS. We are born that way.... even pedophiles are born that way too.cornucopian_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit, you are wrong. and I'm willing to wait for you to be corrected by God himself. The question is 'can you afford to wait like I can?'bornagain77_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

BA77: By all means get upset over web page formatting, since such atrocity as 55 million abortions apparently doesn’t seem to faze you in the least. No, losing 55 million SPIRITLESS PIECES OF FLESH does not faze me in the least. Unlike you, I know that what counts is the MIND and that flesh is only important when it serves a mind. BA77: "Personally, methinks your moral priorities are severely screwed up! But who am I? I am nobody! It is almighty God that each and every one of us will have to give a account to!" That's the fundamentalist attitude in spades! You disagree with me, therefore you have bad morals. We've been seeing it in abortion for the last 40 years. Lately, we've gotten a fresh load of conservative moral arrogance over gay marriage. (And over just plain not harassing or killing gays. You're way behind your Ugandan brothers here and even Vladimir Putin is pulling ahead of you. And you'll never catch up to I.S.I.S. Truly, those are Men of God. You can tell by the body count,) Back in my great grandfather's day the great example of conservative immoral arrogance was slavery. "The Bible says slavery is approved by God, I believe it and therefor we're going to secede from the Union and kill 600,000 Americans and its all because of YOUR bad morals!" And of course, that moral arrogance absolutely permeates this blog. Nobody just disagrees with the blog owner and his supporters, they're evil moral degenerates who are incapable of logical thinking and stupid. I like how you brought so-called near death experiences into this argument. That's one of the best examples of the effects of "framing" you'll ever find. If we called it the "lack of oxygen and buildup of waste products in the brain experience", nobody would be impressed. Of course the brain malfunctions under those conditions and the malfunctions have no meaning beyond "the brain is in trouble". But call it "near-death experience" and people who aren't used to clear thinking are convinced they've found the keys to the universe. Try to mention the Shroud of Turin in your next reply. Here's the abortion argument in a nutshell. We've known for over 40 years that a mind cannot exist in the earliest stages of pregnancy because a mind requires a functioning brain and nothing remotely like that exists until very late in pregnancy. There's a lot of evidence to show that the brain is not ready to start forming a mind until after birth. Roe v Wade took these facts into account with its graduated increase in protections for the fetus as it develops. In fact, they were overly conservative but you want that in cases of possible human life. This was all lost on conservative Christians, of course. It's ironic that they continue to ignore the spirit, including the spirits in the pregnant women involved, and concentrate all their efforts protecting mindless pieces of flesh.MatSpirit_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

harry: What difference does that make, since abortion is “legal” right up to birth? Roe v. Wade allows restrictions on abortions after viability, and most states have statutes doing exactly that. harry: It wouldn’t have to be restricted after viability if the Supreme Court hadn’t “legalized” it right up to birth. You keep putting "legalized" in scare-quotes, so your comments are unclear. The Courts allow states to restrict post-viability abortion, but don't require it. That was the status before Roe v. Wade. What Roe v. Wade did was prohibit restrictions before viability.Zachriel_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: The point of viability has decreased somewhat since Roe v. Wade, which was one finding in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. What difference does that make, since abortion is "legal" right up to birth? Zachriel: That is false. Abortion can be restricted after viability. We provided citations. In reply, you make bald claims. It wouldn't have to be restricted after viability if the Supreme Court hadn't "legalized" it right up to birth. In the case of "Partial Birth" abortion, the baby is already born except for part of the child's head. The abortionist then jabs a hole in the child's head and suctions his/her brains out, collapsing it to facilitate the delivery of the head.harry_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

harry: Even staunch advocates of “legal” abortion place viability somewhere between the 22nd and 24th week of pregnancy. The point of viability has decreased somewhat since Roe v. Wade, which was one finding in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. harry: The Supreme Court “legalized” abortion right up to birth, for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all. That is false. Abortion can be restricted after viability. We provided citations. In reply, you make bald claims.Zachriel_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
The U.S. Supreme Court drew the line at viability. Before then, the right to autonomy for the woman prevails. After that, states can legislate more protections for the unborn.
Even staunch advocates of “legal” abortion place viability somewhere between the 22nd and 24th week of pregnancy. Infamous late-term abortionist, the late George Tiller, used to advertise in the newspaper abortion services up to 26 weeks. The Supreme Court “legalized” abortion right up to birth, for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all. The Supreme Court “legalized” murder. That was over 40 years ago and the opposition to that treasonous act of judicial tyranny began immediately and continues to grow ever stronger.harry_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

SteRusJon @ 62
Seversky, Suggested reading about republic vs democracy, http://www.lexrex.com/enlighte.....emrep.html
I had, as well as a couple of others making essentially the same argument. But people would be well advised to be wary of articles like this guilty of poor arguments and shoddy scholarship. For example:
It is correct to say that in any Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority.
No, it is not correct. It is plainly nonsense. There is nothing in the concept of democracy which precludes a majority deciding that, in the interests of all, there should be a written constitution incorporating statutory individual rights and an independent judiciary to administer the laws. This is a transparent attempt to redefine the concept into a form which has never obtained in Europe, not even the Greek city-states. As for this:
The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
I am a naturalized American citizen but British by birth and I can assure you that that comment about the House of Lords is absolute nonsense. The Upper Chamber has not had unlimited power for hundreds of years, indeed, it is arguable that it never had it to that extent. The Parliament Act of 1911 effectively abolished the power of the Lords to reject legislation sent up from the House of Commons. Thereafter they could only delay it for a maximum of of three Parliamentary sessions or two calendar years. The Parliament Act of 1949 reduced the period for which the Lords could delay legislation to two Parliamentary sessions or one year. The author of that piece frankly doesn’t know what he’s talking about.Seversky_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Robert Byers: Today only at birth , fully out, is a human being come into existence according to Roe vs Wade. That is incorrect. Roe v. Wade, along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, recognizes the legitimate interests of the health and life of the fetus from conception, and allows restrictions on abortion after viability as long as there are exceptions to protect the life and health of the mother.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey: It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.
Zachriel_{August 20, 2015
August
08
Aug
20
20
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Barry: the source of the moral law in whose being that law is grounded (i.e. God). You're just pushing the question back one step. Whose version of God? Which supposed writings from God? What human gets to decide that question in an absolute sense?mike1962_{August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Mike:
when parties or groups disagree on a point of morality, who gets to settle the matter in an absolute sense?
The source of the moral law in whose being that law is grounded (i.e. God). Your point that evil people can sometimes prevail over righteous people is true, as when the Seversky's and eigenstate's of the world want to chop up little babies and sell their pieces like meat. The fact that they prevail is irrelevant as to whether they are right or wrong. The Nazis prevailed for a while. They were still unspeakably evil even while they were prevailing.Barry Arrington_{August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Robert @89: If at some point does it not follow they have to be treated like all human beings relative to natural rights? When brain waves begin at about 45 days. At that point I am against abortion. Cessation of brain waves are how we decide when adults are dead so the converse seems right to me. But I would never try to convince anyone of my view on this matter.mike1962_{August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

Barry @28: Mike asks if there is a practical alternative. Yes, Mike, let’s not put another person’s status as human or non-human up for vote. But this is what humanity does, explicitly or implicitly, given the tools that it has, whether from the top down, or by democratic consensus, within each culture, regardless of ideologies. Someone or some group defines what is right and wrong in practice in each culture. You never answered my question: when parties or groups disagree on a point of morality, who gets to settle the matter in an absolute sense? Nobody, of course. The only factors available to humanity is cultural consensus and power, based on various ideas floating around humanity. What else is there in the day to day practical sense? Until a Lawgiver from On High shows up, that's all we've got.mike1962_{August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Zachriel and all pro choicers. When is a human being, with natural rights, entered this universe? If at some point does it not follow they have to be treated like all human beings relative to natural rights? Today only at birth , fully out, is a human being come into existence according to Roe vs Wade. Also no one may say otherwise. Its in the constitution eh. I say there is NO difference between a child outside the mother and a child within a mother ten minutes or hours or days (9 months) before birth. A line of reasoning. Not a difficult question.Robert Byers_{August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

MatSpirit, Well let's take a closer look shall we?
I think Olson undercounts the number for a variety of reasons: a) Olson relies on the estimate of 50 million abortions. In January, LifeNews reported that more than 54.5 million abortions had been done at that time (which itself is an undercount of the likely number) and the United States has passed 55 million abortions since 1973 since that time. b) The states that legalized abortion prior to Roe included some of the most populated states in the nation (i.e., California and New York) and those states legalized abortion for a few years prior to Roe. As such, the total number of legal abortions is likely well over 60 million when those pre-Roe abortions are added to the 55 million total. c) I would argue the number is likely higher. In 2011, 3,953,593 babies were born in the United States in what reports indicate was an all-time low birth rate. Using that as a conservative estimate and also (conservatively) estimating that people who were killed from abortions (not including those killed in abortions before Roe) didn’t begin having children until age 20, there are roughly 19 childbearing years following Roe (1993-2012). That yields about 75 million grandchildren who are missing who would have been born to people killed in abortions in the first 19 years following Roe. That results in a figure of 130 million missing director or indirectly from abortion — which is admittedly a lowball figure. Regardless of the number, 117 million or 130 million or more, the number of people missing because of abortion is overwhelming. Olson’s analysis follows:,,, http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/06/abortion-has-destroyed-117-million-people-in-the-united-states/
By all means get upset over web page formatting, since such atrocity as 55 million abortions apparently doesn't seem to faze you in the least. Personally, methinks your moral priorities are severely screwed up! But who am I? I am nobody! It is almighty God that each and every one of us will have to give a account to! At the 17:45 minute mark of the following Near Death Experience documentary, the Life Review portion of the Near Death Experience is highlighted, with several testimonies relating how every word, deed, and action, of a person's life (all the 'information' of a person's life) is gone over in the presence of God:
Near Death Experience Documentary - commonalities of the experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTuMYaEB35U Matthew 12:36-37 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Words (Official Music Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=26&v=Bf_H7Lwl0FI
bornagain77_{August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT}

BA77 in 3: "When factoring grandchildren missing due to abortion since Roe vs. Wade in 1973, the number escalates dramatically: Abortion Has Destroyed 117 Million People in the United States http://www.lifenews.com ... Abortion Has Killed 1-2 Billion Worldwide in 50 Years – April 21, 2013 http://www.lifenews.com ..." Say, that's a very interesting way to look at the situation. If you abort a fetus, you also destroy all the children that fetus would have had if it had been born and had children of its own. The body count really mounts up, doesn't it? So how are you doing personally in that respect? Your picture makes you look like you're in your thirties. Assuming you're exactly thirty and that you began reproducing when you were twenty, you could easily have ten children by now. That would be hard on your wife, though, but even if you adopted a slower pace that wasn't so dangerous to your wife's health, you could easily have produced five healthy children by now. So how many human beings have you produced so far? More importantly, subtract your total number of babies from five and how many babies have you destroyed? And what will that total be twenty years from now when the babies you've destroyed don't have babies of their own? And what will the body count be twenty years later when the grand children fail to get born? And don't even get me started on celibate priests and nuns! One more thing. Have you ever noticed how important typography and layout are to a web site? Use good looking fonts and layouts, add a few pictures and even the dumbest half baked nonsensical ideas in the world will make some readers say, "Looks pretty good to me! I'd better pass this on."MatSpirit_{August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

SteRusJon: I am not saying that representative democracy and (direct) democracy are antithetical. You suggested we read an article, which we did. The article argues based on the claim that "These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical”. It's an overstatement based on an equivocation of the term democracy. It's a common right wing meme to claim that the U.S. is not a democracy when that is exactly the term people use to describe the U.S. system of government. We prefer modern democracy to the Founders original republican form of government, with slavery and suffrage restricted to white men of privilege. We don't disagree with your larger point. For instance, Iraq didn't have the necessary social structures, such as an independent judiciary, and a minimal respect for the opposition, that democracy entails, so democracy has thus far failed to take root.Zachriel_{August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, You have completely missed the point or are trying to divert the discussion. I am not saying that representative democracy and (direct) democracy are antithetical. It is the difference between a representative republic and a pure democracy, whether representative or direct, that I am drawing attention to. The republican form has as one of its objectives to restrict the possible abusive actions of the majority. It is in that way that a republic and a democracy are antithetical. The majority direct election of representatives to engage in operating the republic on the individual citizens behalf does not make the government itself a democracy. The representatives of the people (are supposed to) operate the government within the strictures of the government's constituting documents and constitutional laws derived therefrom irrespective of the majority's will or whim to the contrary. StephenSteRusJon_{August 19, 2015
August
08
Aug
19
19
2015
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply