Reality is the Wall You Smack into When You’re Wrong

_{Barry Arrington

September 15, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

Reality is the wall you smack into when you are wrong, as KLM inadvertently demonstrates in this tweet. The three combinations are not equal. It does matter which I try to click with. Only one of the three combinations allows the seat belt to function to protect the passenger. If there were a crash, the result of the first two combinations would be “splat.” Here is some nice irony: I am 100% certain that if I boarded a KLM flight and attempted to use either of the first two combinations, they would insist that I revert to the third.

A seat belt buckle is designed to be complementary with the latchplate. One ignores that obviously complementary design at one’s peril.

Comments

--There is a mystery here but let us understand this is not the be all and end all of human existence.-- Dittos.tribune7_{September 24, 2017
September
09
Sep
24
24
2017
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Trib, 30 years ago it was Montserrat's turn (Hugo) and Jamaica's turn (Gilbert, then Ivan in 2004). MNI then went through the still unfinished volcano crisis and the aftermath of a dragged out, flawed rebuilding and redevelopment which is feeding right into the current political crisis here that takes up my focus just now. We cannot always count on being spared, and it is not just a matter of our lack of prudence why we suffer disasters but our refusal to act aright is a contribution. Can you believe people have rebuilt villages on the flanks of the volcano in St Vincent? 1500 dead in 1902, IIRC dozens in 1979, as the big pyroclastic flow went west that time not east. We need to wake up to reality and to the need for prudence. Beyond, God grant grace and help us all to be good neighbours, reaching out to those now in need. This evening I heard of how after tropical storm Erica (two years ago), in relocating villages Dominica built 300 houses. Post Maria, all the roofs are gone. On the EC side of my family [wife's side], there has been loss of life in Dominica, no details as of yet. Let us mourn with those who mourn, and let us ponder those on whom the tower of Siloam fell as well as those whose blood was mixed with that of their sacrifices by the rulers of the day and the warning save we repent we should all likewise perish in our sins and follies. There is a mystery here but let us understand this is not the be all and end all of human existence. KFkairosfocus_{September 23, 2017
September
09
Sep
23
23
2017
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

The reports coming out of Puerto Rico are very bad. Prayers continue, KF.tribune7_{September 23, 2017
September
09
Sep
23
23
2017
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Eugen & Trib: Sadly, Dominica took a direct eyewall hit from a Cat 5 hurricane. We got maybe 100+ in gusts likely 80 mph steady, did some damage. The eye passed south and west of us, with a tight high intensity core. Took days for power to be back and the local water reservoir was empty, it will take 1 - 2 days to pump it full again. I gather Puerto Rico and parts of the VI took hard blows too but net access has not been very good. The local political crisis continues and metastasises requiring main focus. KF PS: Marriage is not an arbitrary phenomenon and is connected to our core nature as two-sexed creatures taking 20 - 30 years to mature and reproduce effectively. The critical need to civilise males across the first three decades of life and to productively channel our energies in that cause will be the utter undoing of folly and absurdity under colour of law. Already, we see news about how "science" tells us that having children is very bad for us. What utter folly: https://www.indy100.com/article/worst-decision-you-can-ever-make-have-a-child-science-research-parent-sleep-sex-money-video-7960906?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100 (I thought the UK Independent had good journalists and editors.)kairosfocus_{September 23, 2017
September
09
Sep
23
23
2017
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

“The secular state can sanction marriage however it sees fit.” What? Where in the world do you live? In the United States we are governed by the U.S. Constitution which begins with three words: “We the People…” It is the people who control the so-called state and not vice-versa. In other words, the state is not a conscious being with an independent will of its’ own that can decide what is right for society. The problem with same-sex marriage is that oppresses people who disagree with it. For example, coercing people to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies when it conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs.john_a_designer_{September 20, 2017
September
09
Sep
20
20
2017
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

The secular state can sanction marriage however it sees fit. It makes no difference to me. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. I personally think that homosexual marriage is unhealthy for society and that it reveals just how far we have fallen. It is not the cause of our fall, but merely a symptom of how great the fall already is.Truth Will Set You Free_{September 20, 2017
September
09
Sep
20
20
2017
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

I agree wholeheartedly with the following quote.
“I believe that marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. [It’s a] fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”
Unfortunately, when the politics changed the person who made the statement above changed her views. So what are we to conclude from that? That political group think is what determines moral truth? When the herd changes direction we must all change direction. If there are no children involved what is the point of the state being legally involved in a personal relationship between two consenting adults? I don’t see any.john_a_designer_{September 20, 2017
September
09
Sep
20
20
2017
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Of course Barry, If you think having same sex relations will result in a pregnancy, you will smack into the wall of reality. That's why, for the most part, same sex couples do not expect to reproduce sexually. Knowledge is independent of anyone's belief, intent or purpose. For example, regardless if a heterosexual couple believes, wants or intends to reproduce by having sex, if one of them is medically incapable of actually reproducing sexually, they will run into the same wall, etc. So, what's your point?critical rationalist_{September 20, 2017
September
09
Sep
20
20
2017
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Pindi-- follow the conversation and keep it in context. My comment in # 73 was in response to Dave's question in #69. "BTW, is there support for your position that sterile couples should marry only if they plan to raise a child?" In fairness, my answer concerned an inability to function sexually rather than sterility -- something not expected to be known at the time of marriage -- but the point stands. Marriage historically has been based on the expectation of procreation. And I probably should have objected to the adjective "sterile" in Dave's description of my position as it is unnecessary. My position is better stated as civil marriage benefits should only apply to couples planning on raising children. Why would you disagree with it?tribune7_{September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

JAD, One question that occurred to me earlier: You mentioned above that you don't believe there is a good reason for the state to get involved in mere romantic relationships. Suppose we have a heterosexual couple who would like to engage in such a relationship; they plan to cohabitate and engage in sexual relationships, but not to have any children. This could be due to a number of factors such as age of the woman, injury, or simply lack of desire to procreate. Is it ok for them to move in together?daveS_{September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

JAD, I for one wouldn't expect same-sex marriage to have any significant positive effect on "illegitimacy". Perhaps it could have some small effect on the raising of children outside of marriage through adoption, but I don't know whether this actually happens.daveS_{September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

One thing that gets left out of the discussion over same sex marriage is the society wide effect of illegitimacy.
[W]hen President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1964, 93 percent of children born in the United States were born to married parents. Since that time, births within marriage have declined sharply. In 2010, only 59 percent of all births in the nation occurred to married couples. The flip side of the decline in marriage is the growth in the out-of-wedlock childbearing birth rate, meaning the percentage of births that occur to women who are not married when the child is born… throughout most of U.S. history, out-of-wedlock childbearing was rare. When the War on Poverty began in the mid-1960s, only 6 percent of children were born out of wedlock. Over the next four and a half decades, the number rose rapidly. In 2010, 40.8 percent of all children born in the U.S. were born outside of marriage.
http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty The report goes on to examine the correlation between marriage and child poverty.
Not surprisingly, single-parent families make up the overwhelming majority of all poor families with children in the U.S. Overall, single-parent families comprise one-third of all families with children… 71 percent of poor families with children are headed by single parents. By contrast, 73 percent of all non-poor families with children are headed by married couples.
Same-sex marriage can’t and won’t do anything to solve that problem. Again, two women can’t make a baby, nor can two men. But, of course our atheist interlocutors can always make the inane and stupid argument, “well, it can’t do any more harm.” The truth is same-sex marriage is cause dreamed up by affluent and “elite” cultural Marxist ideologues who have contempt for traditional moral values. Tragically their morally bankrupt world view doesn’t help anyone; it only make society worse.john_a_designer_{September 19, 2017
September
09
Sep
19
19
2017
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

tribune7 - so what was the relevance of all the stuff about procreation?Pindi_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Pindi -- is that DaveS does not have a right to be married -- No, Pindi. I am saying that the inability to perform sex has historically been grounds to deny marriage i.e. the basis is old and traditional.tribune7_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Prayers for you KF.tribune7_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Kairos I hope hurricane will go over open waters, enough of destruction. Stay safe!Eugen_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Folks, Maria just hit Cat 5 and looks to track over Dominica (ouch for them after Erica) then perhaps 40 - 60 mi SW of Montserrat. At least, full hurricane force winds are in a 30 mi diameter ring about the 12 mi across eye. Maybe, 6 inches rain here too. KF PS: No-one has a RIGHT to marry, as no-one owes a duty to marry you. There is a FREEDOM to marry, circumscribed by various limits for all sorts of reasons; this already raises questions about the level of thought that is at work behind various opinions and comments. Further to this, there is a word magic game going on under false colour of law, that pretends that marriage is an arbitrary arrangement that can freely be redefined at will per agit prop power plays. The grand scale willful blindness to the naturally evident creation order reflected in marriage will come back to haunt us. Posterity, for cause, will rise up and call this generation accursed and hell-bent on suicidal perversity. Notice, the challenge of productively channelling the energies of men in the first three decades of life as the first challenge of a sustainable civil order. I don't think we understand the matches we are playing with.kairosfocus_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Ah, always interesting discussions about marriage with our atheist friends. We have seen this before so Christians should get ready to face piles of great arguments generated by: http://sjwinsult.comEugen_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

tribune7, contrary to DaveS, I do speak legalese, and I'm afraid the dictionary definition does not support your point. It says, as DaveS notes, that marriage can be legal without consummation. Failure to consummate is a grounds for a spouse to apply for an anullment of the marriage. Until they do that the marriage is quite legal, and if they apply it is very likely that a judge wouldn't grant it. So far as as I can gather, what you and JAD are saying, is that DaveS does not have a right to be married (based on the fact that he and his wife did not have children). Is that correct?Pindi_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

John, yes. Marriage came about because of the need for general society to deal with babies -- wanted and unwanted. What some seem to be missing is that civil marriage is basically the rest of us via the law involving ourselves in one's sex life. The pendulum has swung so that proponents of unrestrictive marriage law are demanding that society ignore the sex activity (and work caused by it) but still grant the benefits for traditionally assumed necessary work (procreation, child rearing). I missed this but Dave said "It’s a huge taboo (incest) in our society and around the world, for multiple reasons (association with abuse, for example), . . .." For Pete's sake, that applies to homosexuality too Even the abuse: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/media_nervous_on_new_duke_u_ra.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-lesbian-lover-charged-sons-7736067tribune7_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

JAD, You are correct that I, at least, have not addressed your argument about natural law. I also am not trying to convince anyone that my personal opinions are morally binding on anyone. I am interested in the fact that you seem not to support marriage between a man and a woman who cannot bear children, which would be quite a ways out of the mainstream, as far as I can tell. We can at least share the conclusions we have each drawn about who should and should not be allowed to get married, and perhaps some of the reasoning behind these conclusions. I don't think anyone will change their position here, but it might provide some food for later thought.daveS_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Once again this is the premise of my argument: “Procreation is the only natural law BASIS for marriage.” What do I mean by basis? Here are a couple of dictionary definitions: * the bottom of something considered as its foundation (Merriam-Webster) *the underlying support or foundation for an idea, argument, or process. (Google) I am not arguing there are no exceptions. (We talk about those if we get to that point.) However, the exceptions are not the BASIS. So far Pindi and DaveS have not really addressed the premise of the argument. Again, biologically two women cannot make a baby, nor can two men. (Those seatbelts don’t click.) Historically and traditionally marriage has always been defined in terms of procreation and raising children in a happy and healthy environment (a family.) Pindi and Dave want to reject all that and redefine marriage for everyone else on a completely different basis, but why? So far they haven’t given us any kind of logical justification other than their personal opinions. They won’t or can’t even tell us why their personal opinions are morally binding on everyone else.john_a_designer_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

DaveS -- With me it's not about aesthetics, or even personal morality, but objective things i.e. tax burdens, safe streets, etc. There is a need for civil marriage but this need should not go beyond what the need is for which would not include old army buddies trying to beat the tax man. You are correct that today people incapable of sex can be considered married. Historically, however, they couldn't. --I don’t see an actual father and son in the Jeremy Irons story wishing to get married, but rather JI suggesting it to be a possibility-- Which would most certainly be (unfairly) realized if the estate was big enough.tribune7_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

tribune7,
Actually, its basis is very old and traditional:
I don't speak legalese, but doesn't this note:
2. The marriage, when otherwise legal, is complete without this; for it is a maxim of law, borrowed from the civil, law, that consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias. Co. Litt. 33; Dig. 50, 17, 30; 1 Black. Com. 434.
mean that a marriage is complete without consummation?daveS_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

tribune7,
–I think — Here you are saying civil marriage should be based on (your own) aesthetics regardless of societal necessity.
No, as I stated in my post to KF, societal necessity surely plays a role. When I say "I think", I just mean I'm expressing an opinion, and in this case, I'm pretty certain that I won't be able to "justify" it to you since our worldviews are quite different.
–(not closely related)– And here you are conceding that marriage is not a right, but as you have said sexual activity should not be a criteria for marriage what would be the rational to prevent father/son brother/sister first cousins etc. from getting married?
It's a huge taboo in our society and around the world, for multiple reasons (association with abuse, for example), whether there is sex involved or not. BTW, first cousins can get married in some states but not in others, which reflects that fact that these restrictions are necessarily somewhat arbitrary.
As the possibility is obvious citing a case should not be necessary. But yes: []
It's also possible that a man might want to marry the left front hubcab on his '67 Pontiac Bonneville, but I doubt this has been realized. I don't see an actual father and son in the Jeremy Irons story wishing to get married, but rather JI suggesting it to be a possibility (which we both accept). On the other hand, I know several same-sex married couples, and as far as I can tell, each is an asset to the community. Some of these people have already raised healthy children in previous relationships, so they've fulfilled that duty. So I look at my wife and myself, and ask "what societal needs are we fulfilling that these couples are not?", and I can't come up with anything.daveS_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

--BTW, is there support for your position that sterile couples should marry only if they plan to raise a child? I have never heard of such a requirement.-- Actually, its basis is very old and traditional: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consummation+of+marriage I'll grant my position is more modern and not as extreme.tribune7_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, why are you imposing ANY constraints on those who may or may not use the label on some sort of civil-recognised, friendship with “benefits and thrills” partnership?
"benefits and thrills"? This trivializes the issue, in my view. As I stated above, I think two people who wish to be life partners, with some restrictions, should be allowed to marry, regardless of whether they intend to have children or whether they wish to indulge in "benefits and thrills". But to answer your question, you are correct that I have concerns about stability and cultural sensitivity. Personally, I'm very conservative regarding some of these issues---for example, I would never consider having children outside of marriage. I'm not going to respond to the graphic details of the rest of your post---you will note that tribune7 and I have gone so far as to assume these hypothetical relationships do not involve sexual activity Do you have any comment on the requirement that marrying couples commit to raising a child? I was legally married at a courthouse (no wedding ceremony), and recited a vow something like the following:
I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
and did not promise to raise children, and thus do not believe there is anything wrong with my own childless marriage.daveS_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

--I think -- Here you are saying civil marriage should be based on (your own) aesthetics regardless of societal necessity. --(not closely related)-- And here you are conceding that marriage is not a right. As you have said, however, sexual activity should not be a criteria for marriage what would be the rational to prevent father/son brother/sister first cousins etc. from getting married? --Do you know of any cases where an actual father and son expressed interest in marriage?-- As the possibility is obvious citing a case should not be necessary. But yes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9972011/Jeremy-Irons-claims-gay-marriage-laws-could-lead-to-a-father-marrying-his-son.htmltribune7_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

DS, why are you imposing ANY constraints on those who may or may not use the label on some sort of civil-recognised, friendship with "benefits and thrills" partnership? Could it be, that you fear destabbilisation of a foundational institution ("family") and/or genetic breakdown (incest "taboos")? Once that is in the door, if- it- feelz- good- do- it hedonism is out the door and the proper question is, what lines are reasonable to sustain a sound society across time given the challenge of high- sexual- energy, potentially ruinously destructive young males in the first three decades of life. The answer to that question readily comes up as the naturally evident creation order anchored framework we term marriage, with monogamy highly favoured as even the injection of concubines (sleeping with the handmaidens) or so-called open marriages is a patently destabilising pattern. Where also, certain sex acts commonly or formerly termed sodomy or buggery in law -- involving anal and even oral-genital contact -- are patently insanitary and obvious disease vectors thus in the interests of the community to discourage or even ban [the anal case]. Recall, e.g. fellatio is fast and easily done in just about any corner or alley, and is a proved vector for rapid spreading of diseases. Cunnilingus is now being associated with a cluster of diseases too (ask your dentist or ENT specialist etc). I am not even going to more than point to the psychological and relationship/bonding implications of benumbing conscience and addicting people to promiscuity, porn and escalating perversity. Our civilisation has set a hellish fire loose and is burning up as it seems hell-bent on wrecking marriage. Our folly will be evident to all and a byword to future generations who will rise up to curse us for the havoc we are even now wreaking but seem too benumbed and endarkened to recognise. To our everlasting shame. KFkairosfocus_{September 18, 2017
September
09
Sep
18
18
2017
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

tribune7, BTW, is there support for your position that sterile couples should marry only if they plan to raise a child? I have never heard of such a requirement.daveS_{September 17, 2017
September
09
Sep
17
17
2017
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply