Those of us who believe in truth, virtue and “justice” (unadorned with the modifier “social”) are inimical to the “social justice” movement. So says this UN report:
“Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”
Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations, The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, Division for Social Policy and Development, The International Forum for Social Development, 2006, 2-3
Orwell couldn’t have come up with a more absurd concoction. Justice, of any kind, can only exist when an absolute standard is in play. Otherwise, it’s just might makes right.
Same old problem: what about fundamentalist Hindus or Muslims or Jews who feel certain about the absolute truth of their beliefs about oppression of women, for instance, or the violent suppression of people of other religions. Are they not an impediment to some things that we might consider valuable goals of social justice?
I agree, that’s a very strange sentence, and the context doesn’t improve it (it starts at the bottom of p2 of the report). Mind you, the report was published in 2006, so I doubt many social justice warriors have read the report.
Hazel
“Same old problem: what about fundamentalist Hindus or Muslims or Jews who feel certain about the absolute truth of their beliefs”
What about them?
“ about oppression of women, for instance, or the violent suppression of people of other religions. Are they not an impediment to some things that we might consider valuable goals of social justice?”
But is it TRUE that they oppress woman? Is it TRUE that there is a violent suppression of other religions?
Are these social justice grievances TRUE?
If they are and they most certainly are then the UN is bonkers. It is the very fact that they are absolutely TRUE that demands “social justice” Sheesh
Vivid
I’m confused. I thought the point of the OP was that people who believe “in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice” make it hard to work for social justice. Yes, it is true there are fundamentalists what are for suppressing women, and more importantly, violently suppressing other religions. Do you agree that those are problems in the world that it would be good to do something about?
Hazel
“I’m confused. I thought the point of the OP was that people who believe “in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice” make it hard to work for social justice. “
And this is bonkers!! I believe in absolute truth and I am for social justice. They could have just as well state that those that head tyrannical govts make it hard for social justice ,some of those tyrants are atheists and reject absolute truth.
Vivid
Hazel
I would also be interested in you answering this question. Is it absolutely true that women are oppressed by those that believe in absolute truth?
Vivid
Vividbleu
I will let Hazel answer for herself but, if you permit, I will answer as well. Yes, it is absolutely true than women are oppressed by those that believe in absolute truth. Here is a very recent example of this.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/nepalese-woman-dies-banishment-menstruation-hut-190204132855327.html
Ed George- Your example has nothing to do with absolute truth. Absolute truth has nothing to do with the oppression of women.
Ed
“Yes, it is absolutely true than women are oppressed by those that believe in absolute truth. Here is a very recent example of this.”
And I gather that you, in the name of social justice,think that this should cease, thus the UNs statement has nothing to do with people who believe in absolute truth being a hindrance to social justice. It is true that those who believe in absolute truth make it hard for social justice just as many that do not hold to absolute truth do the same. Thus its statement is vacuous.
PS The UN should take a look at itself they are hardly a body that is unflinching on human rights. They themselves make it hard for social justice.
Vivid
ET
In all fairness to Ed it was not his example it was mine.
Vivid
Ed George said:
Since you admit you believe in an absolute truth, then I take it that you oppress women? Or did you leave out a significant qualifier or two?
WJM
My point exactly. Thanks
Vivid
I think we have some confusion here, which I started. There are fundamentalist Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and others who believe it is absolutely true that women should be oppressed, and that in some cases members of other religions should be violently oppressed.
I disagree with those positions. I certainly don’t think people should be executed for blasphemy, as happens in some cases, and I assume everyone here would agree about that. However, it would be hard to help reform those countries if the people doing the executing believed that it was absolutely true that those blasphemers should be executed. So in this case the believers in absolute truth would be a hindrance to a social reform that I think we would all like to see.
Is there anything about this summary that we all don’t agree with?
Hazel
Before we all have a Kumbaya moment could you answer my question in 7 ?
Vivid
No. But I’m really not sure what you are asking. Many people who believe in absolute truth about some things don’t believe in oppressing women,
Michael Jackson Popcorn GIFs
https://tenor.com/search/michael-jackson-popcorn-gifs
Hazel
“No. But I’m really not sure what you are asking”
Hmmm your not sure what I am asking but the answer is no, priceless.
Vivid
If there is no absolute truth one way or another about how women or blasphemers should be treated, why should social justice reforms be pursued?
WJM
The question was
It is absolutely true that the Nepalese woman was oppressed. Or do you think that forcing women to isolate themselves from everyone else during menstruation because they are unclean is not oppression? And there is little doubt that the people requiring her to isolate herself do so out of what they believe to be absolutely true. Believing in absolute truth does not mean that what you believe is the absolute truth. There are still people alive today who believe that it is the absolute truth that black people are inferior to white people. Because they believe that this is an absolute truth, does that mean that it must be true. Of course not.
Well, I was gonna make a comment, but there seem to be LOTS of other people who want to fight about this stuff without my help.
Ed George:
Oh my. Is that really your argument?
Well, you didn’t answer my question, Ed. However, I will answer yours:
Ed George said,
I guess that depends on how one defines “oppressed”. If by “oppressed” you mean “forced to do something”, then we’re all oppressed, because there are things we are all forced to do or else face the consequences others would impose on us. What would be the principle you are using to discriminate a case of “oppression” from other cases where we are forced to do things we may not want to?
Again, you haven’t clearly defined the distinction (if any) between “oppression” and every other case of people being forced to do things they may not want to do.
If you could force those who are forcing the women into that action to stop forcing them into that action, would you?
I don’t think anyone here has made or even tried to make that case. Clearly, belief in something doesn’t make that something true. Are you aware you are asserting a trivial point that is universally accepted?
Perhaps you should move beyond stating commonplace, trivial facts as if they are profound arguments and address the big issue. Without an absolute truth to guide us, how is “what we prefer” any different in principle from “what they prefer”?
Vivd, I didn’t even know we were fighting about anything. I think I’ll retire from this conversation.
Hazel
Please hold the door for me. When people argue that forcing menstruating women to move to a small shack is not oppression I know that it is time to leave.
Ed George said:
Nobody argued that it wasn’t oppression. You were asked to define your terms and clarify your position.
Ed and Hazel pull their typical stunt. When they are hopelessly outclassed, they pretend they are above it all and leave.
Ed
Who argued that Ed. Certainly not WJM.
Does everyone want to know the real reason Ed is leaving the discussion? I will tell you. WJM asked him:
Ed’s argument above was that it is wrong to force other people to conform to your beliefs. So if he answers yes, he has to contradict himself. And if he answers no he has to concede that he would not stop “oppression” if he could.
Ed has decided it is better to slink out the door with his tail between his legs.
It seems the UN, being the ultimate arbiters of ‘social justice’ that they fancy themselves to be, have a fairly uneven method of detecting human rights violations.
Perhaps such blatant hypocrisy by the UN is why so many people in the US want America to stop supporting the UN?
If there are no absolute truths, why is oppressing women (or gays, blacks, Jews, you name it) a bad thing? I mean, you may not like it, but so what?
Hazel
“Vivd, I didn’t even know we were fighting about anything. I think I’ll retire from this conversation”
What a strange comment,I’m not fighting with anyone certainly not you. I just found your response very odd and disingenuous. I will let the readers decide for themselves. To paraphrase “Vivid I don’t understand your question but my answer to it is no” Furthermore my question in 7 seems pretty straight forward and hard to misunderstand.
Vivid
My bad, vivid. It was vhumana that mentioned fighting.
But I’m still leaving, and my post at 28 stands.
As an aside, having skimmed through the Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations publication (2016 revision), I have to say that 1) it’s written by the dullest of committee types, who seem who have little grasp of the economic dirt realities of nations. And 2) if someone compelled me to sit around and listen to such a committee yammer on, I would undoubtedly feel compelled to shoot myself in the head.
Ed and Hazel, distracted by their own irrelevant side stories, abandoned the thread without even addressing the point of the post:
Social justice warriors (SJW’s) want nothing to do with social justice defenders (SJD’s) who believe in social justice principles (SJP’s). In other words, SJW’s, the political partisans in question, demand justice only for themselves and their allies – defined as their personal self interest – ignoring the point that social justice means giving to *all* people what is due to them.
WJM@23, Ed obviously is not willing to wallow in the sewer with the rats, but I worked in a sewage plant for over ten years so the stench doesn’t bother me. 🙂
Oppressed is being forced to do something that everyone else is not forced to do. Women and men have different biologies and, as a result, have different limitations. Oppression is when an identifiable group is forced to do something because another identifiable group says they must.
Ed is correct. It is an absolute truth that some women are oppressed. Menstrual isolation. Female circumcision. Forced marriage. Career limitations. Lower salaries. And hundreds of other examples. And it is an absolute truth that some of these oppressions are Imposed by people who believe in absolute truth. And many women accept this oppression because they also believe in absolute truth.
I had a recent conversation with KF where I argued that it was a good thing that we confront discrimination (and oppression) that is justified by religious freedom. He argued that doing this is leading to the downfall of civilization. But I doubt very much that he would defend female circumcision, honour killings, polygamy and other things that are justified by religious freedom. But he doesn’t question the discriminations that his flavor of religion justifies.
If WJM can’t accept the fact that two people can’t believe in absolute truth yet disagree in what that truth is then his problem is not with Ed or Hazel, it is with reality.
Mike1962 – I’m with you on that. It’s an example of the observation that committees are where good ideas go to die. They get drowned in guff like the sentence Barry quoted.
Brother Brian said:
I don’t know where you got that definition from, but let’s just accept it as the definition of the term arguendo and see where it goes.
For the time being, let’s just accept all of what you say above without any sorting out or challenge and see if you will answer the following question: If you could force everyone to stop oppressing women, would you?
Brother Brian:
So parenting is oppression? Really?
Question-begging.
Do any of our opponents know how to form a coherent argument? It seems that they do not…
WJM
If I had the power to do so, absolutely. Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you force a stop to honor killings, female circumcision, vaginal narrowing, not allowing women to go out alone without a male family member, the death penalty for blasphemy, etc. ? Or would you continue to allow these because the people who do this believe in absolute truth. Or would you allow them to continue because the people doing these things believe that they are protected by religions freedom?
ET
Your irony always makes me smile. 🙂
Whatever, Brian. You couldn’t form a coherent argument if you life depended on it.
WJM’s question went over their heads I think. To put it as simply as possible, when defined as it has been throughout these comments, the interlocutors seem to think that using OPRESSION to stop what they personally deem as OPPRESSION based on personal preference is just fine. By their own definition:
Oppression is when an identifiable group is forced to do something because another identifiable group says they must.
And their solution is to move the oppression to the less popular group:
If I had the power to do so, absolutely. Wouldn’t you?
And all this based on personal preference. It is textbook might makes right. Without absolute truth, how do you get to a point where you can say anything other than “I FEEL like my oppression is better than your oppression.”? You have nothing to ground your argument other than “I think that is icky or repulsive to me, so even though it is normal to you, you shouldn’t do it because it upsets me.”
I am not defending these practices at all, they are against my belief system and absolutely abhorrent to me, but I am seriously curious as to how this incoherence in responses can continue here. The arguments need to be based on what should be some universal constant or it devolves into a battle of opinion between two oppressors. The why is more important here than the what, otherwise there is no hope for actually explaining or making a coherent argument for or against the position. SJW’s in general seem to have this problem.
It all just seems hypocritical to me. Fascists claiming to fight fascism, SJW’s using oppression to fight oppression. It is very silly.
Brother Brian said:
Why? Meaning, what is your reasoning and justification for using force to make oppressors stop their oppression?
I think we should work our way through one view at a time. I’ll be happy to revisit this after we explore your perspective, if that’s okay with you.
H: Truth is not equal to the contents of a belief system. Truth is aptly summed up by Aristotle in Metaphysics 1011b: that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. Where, absolute truth on a matter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Further, one of our prime known duties and laws of our nature is to truth, including to humility in the face of truth. Those who deny the reality of truth, knowable truth, certainly knowable truth [a restricted set], self-evident truth [even more restricted] end in self-referential incoherence. KF
WJM
There might be a little confusion. When I said that, if I had the power, I would force them to stop this type of oppression, I was not referring to physical force. I was thinking more along the lines of force of law. In the western world we have already done this to a large extent. My justification is that I believe that all humans are equal and should have equal access to freedom and opportunity.
F/N: looks like the SJW pols wish to politically repeal economics and physics: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf I think this is a highly relevant case of failure to be humble before warranted credible, reliable knowledge. KF
BB, obfuscation. Law takes its force from two things, being backed by frankly guns in the end and being manifestly just. Without the first, it is unenforceable. Lacking the second (which requires truth as a necessary component — especially moral truth), unjust decrees under false colour of law are tyranny; exactly what is happening with the abortion holocaust. KF
PS: The Moon shot was done in accord with Physics and Economics; 100% renewables (while locking out major but politically incorrect sources) in 10 y while proposing to create [net?] jobs and fund huge education and health programs . . . aka state takeover . . . without stupendous economic collapse triggering a global
recession[–> depression] is simply not possible or responsible or truthful. And BTW the economy controlling state is the biggest “monopoly” of all.KF
Where are the guns behind the abortion laws? There is no law forcing women to have abortions.
With respect to law taking its force from guns and being manifestly just, I am interested in your opinion on our laws against honor killing, female circumcision and forcing women to wear the burqua? And what about our laws that guarantee the right for women to go where they like without male supervision? Are these laws just or do you believe that they are protected under freedom of religion?
The guns aren’t pointed at the women wanting abortions in your example. They are pointed at those of us watching what we view as a holocaust of the unborn. Or do you somehow not realize that the force of law only binds? You cant actually make positive laws. Only negative. So the guns point at whomever you wish to restrain, be they murderers, thieves or simply people who believe differently than you.
Mj, correct. And, those who have the guns of the state pointing where they want under false colour of law need to realise the corrosive, cancerous, spreading nature of injustice especially blood guilt. KF
Brother Brian said:
Okay. However, there are penalties that are physically forced on us if we do not obey the law, correct? A law without any threat of physically forced penalty isn’t really much of a law, it’s more like a suggestion.
I appreciate you providing these answers to my questions. In your mind, is the idea that “all humans are equal and should have equal access to freedom and opportunity” an absolute, universal truth, meaning it is true regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees, or is it a personal, subjective perspective?
WHM
No. It is a man made ideal. Desire. Hope. Totally subjective.
Brother Brian,
So, if you could, you’d force others to live by your preference – let’s call it the non-oppression of women. Your position is that it is your subjective preference as to how people should behave, and attach no “absolute” value to that preference, and that there is no “absolute truth” as to how people should behave or treat others.
From your perspective, then, the oppressors in your example are also forcing others to live by their preference, even though they mistakenly believe that their preference is an absolute truth.
So, again from your perspective (correct me if I’m wrong), both you and the oppressor group are, ultimately, forcing others to live according to your personal preferences.
Outside of the fact that one group mistakenly believes (under your view) that their beliefs represent absolute truth, isn’t oppression and non-oppression achieved the same way – forcing people to behave in a way that they don’t want to behave?
Let’s look at the definition you provided for oppression:
Aren’t those you’ve identified as oppressors being forced to do something (not behave the way they have been, behave in an acceptable way) because another identifiable group (you and those enforcing your laws) say they must? Does this not make YOU every bit as much an oppressor, by the very definition you provided?
Let’s look at another part of your definition:
Those whom you have identified as the oppressed are being forced, by you and your law enforcers, to do something that you and your law enforcers are not being forced to do – they are being forced to not act on their beliefs or preference, to stop engaging in their preferred behavior.
Hmm. You might counter here that both your group and the oppressor group are being held to the same specific behavioral standard – you can’t forcefully segregate women at that time of the month. Therefore it wouldn’t meet the second part of your definitional standard of oppression: “Oppressed is being forced to do something that everyone else is not forced to do.”
Let’s illustrate the problem here with a more revealing example: what if the preferred behavior of a group is homosexuality. What if another group creates a law outlawing that behavior and enforces it. Now, they could say “We do not engage in homosexuality so we are not forcing them to give up any activity we ourselves engage in.” But, what the first group would be doing is denying the homosexual group the ability to engage in adult, consensual sexual relationships with their preferred gender, which the first group gets to do.
So, it seems clear logically that you would be just as guilty of oppression as those whose oppression you are seeking to eliminate; in fact, there would be no way to impose enforced behavioral restrictions on anyone with out oppressing them in some way, because you would be forcing them to stop acting on their beliefs and preferences, while other groups can freely act on theirs.
“A quarter of a century ago, in the great hopes of mankind, the United Nations Organization was born. Alas, in an immoral world, this too grew up to be immoral.”
A.Solzhenitsyn
Kf@44&46 this should be on the front page of every paper until they all resign but it won’t be will it?
WJM
RE 52 Awesome
“Does this not make YOU every bit as much an oppressor, by the very definition you provided?”
Of course it does.
Vivid
WJM
Yes.
Yes
Yes.
Yes.
So, let’s pass over the rest of your BS and get back to my original question.
If you are not willing to answer these questions, as I have answered yours, I will conclude that you are not attempting to have an honest discussion and our conversation is over. Bye bye.
Brother Brian
Actually you have not answered all of WJM’s questions
“Does this not make YOU every bit as much an oppressor, by the very definition you provided?”
Vivid
Vividbkeau
Absolutely. But I will sleep well knowing that I am “oppressing” some man’s freedom to cut off his daughter’s clitoris, or sew up part of his daughter’s vagina so that the man in his arranged marriage to his daughter can enjoy his daughter’s tight “pussy”. If you want to defend these practices under the grounds of religious freedom, that is on your conscience.
This is summarily what we are talking about:
Social justice warriors (SJW’s) want nothing to do with social justice defenders (SJD’s) who believe in social justice principles (SJP’s). In other words, SJW’s, the political partisans in question, demand justice only for themselves and their allies – defined as their personal self interest – ignoring the point that social justice means giving to *all* people what is due to them.
-StephenB
In context BB, what you are advocating is not something based on any solid universal principle that everyone agrees on. The issue, at least for me, is that you are making no distinction between right and wrong. You have no “natural rights” or “God given rights” to work with so your morality is baseless. If you perhaps conceded that there are in fact some natural universal truths that cant be violated, perhaps we would have common grounding to accept the reasoning. But since I am a man of faith, I look at someone who says that their morality is subjective like a stray dog that looks a bit sketchy. You may be benign for now, but you may change your morality on a dime as it is nothing more than personal preference. How then would you look at me? Would I become the next enemy to suppress because of the sexual morality I believe in? How far does this actually go? Does it stop at FGM etc, or will it go so far as to consider teaching your own children abstinence before marriage child abuse as well? You see, to the SJW, there is no distinction from what I can tell. The rhetoric certainly seems to go that way. The rhetoric and the outward goals of social justice and SJW’s in particular appear on the surface to be about caring and protection, but the reality is that it is just another group asserting its will to power. Might makes right does not know good or evil, only power. The power will always be wielded to excess as there is no universal “brake” on it. Leaders will always want more control and will never stop pushing for it. Usually these things are started to “solve problems” but it always runs away and takes on a life of its own after a while.
So while they tend to start out with obvious things that most people agree with (like some items on your list above)and possibly even good intentions (although the leaders of most movements should know better and probably do but their lust for power overrules), eventually it will devolve into stances that are actually things that most people do not agree with. This is where propaganda and deceit come into play as you need to sway as much of the public as possible to your new goalpost. Essentially, what happens on the way to tyranny, like with communist Russia or Nazi Germany, is that people are inundated with propaganda and outright lies to get them to some point A, and then the process repeats through point B,C etc. until the puppet masters i.e. the “Party” have complete control. It is somewhat like asking a frog to take a bath in your frying pan…
I am unsure why you never actually realized any of this.
Poor education perhaps? Using the tools and methodology of tyrants, especially without some universal boundary or legal taboo that forces it to stop at some point where it has gone too far will always land you firmly in the same destination. Tyranny. You can read the same story over and over from every “secular” revolution in the last 200 years or so. I would start with the French revolution. It is a great example of amoral people doing horrible things to other human beings in their lust for power that ends in tyranny. Perhaps communist China from the 1950’s? Or maybe a more recent one like Venezuela where Maduro appears to be readying the death squads as I type?
Mjoels
After reading your post I kept thinking about President Clinton’s comments about abortion where he said it should be safe,rare and legal. We have traveled down 20 years and now it’s make the baby comfortable while we decide whether it should live or not. Ideas have consequences and eventually when ideas find fertile ground they always go to their logical end. It may take many years but that’s where they eventually go .Once life is devalued we can know that infanticide,eugenics, sex selection,euthanasia and tyranny are it’s logical fruit. Anyone who opens up a history book knows this to be the case. Sadly infanticide is here as is sex selection,up next euthanasia. Margaret Sanger the founder of PP the famed eugenics racist would be proud.
Vivid
Mjoels
“This is where propaganda and deceit come into play as you need to sway as much of the public as possible to your new goalpost. Essentially, what happens on the way to tyranny, like with communist Russia or Nazi Germany, is that people are inundated with propaganda and outright lies to get them to some point A, and then the process repeats through point B,C etc. until the puppet masters i.e. the “Party” have complete control.”
I happen to be a WW2 history buff and one of the most startling things to me was the power of the Nazi propaganda machine. Allied soldiers most feared the Hitler Youth soldiers that ranged in age from 14 to 18 that absorbed the full brunt of their educational system. They were fanatical killers, ruthless and totally committed to Hitler and the Reich. We are about to reap the whirlwind of 30 years of a massive propaganda machine here in the US called our educational system . God help us
Vivid
ES58,
yes, and that in turn is a proof of the betrayal of duty to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness and much more by those who dominate the major media and web forum or search and news aggregator platforms etc.
The very fact that thirty years after the fall of the Berlin wall, the natural majority party of the leading Capitalistic, Free Enterprise economy in the world can be seriously contemplating economic suicide by central control of the economy under colour of environmental concern, promising fantasies that violate basic physics and economics while expecting to win votes and put others on the failing political defensive speaks deadly volumes.
For one, physical work is done when macro or micro scale forced ordered motion is imparted thus requiring energy. Where, energy is one of those key quantitative, cross-cutting abstractions that are so pervasive in the world, in effect potential to do work bound up in state of motion, position, configuration at macro or micro levels etc. Such physical work becomes economically valuable when through a set of linked technologies, goods, services, information, transportation, storage, sales etc are performed that are collectively saleable in markets by which demand, ability and willingness to pay are expressed and matched to ability and willingness to supply. All of which requires energy flow from sources to provided services using feasible and sufficiently reliable technologies that can provide baseline and seasonal or moment to moment peak demands in relevant forms. Consequently, there is a calculable energy density of an economy at any given time, expressible as energy per unit of GDP etc.
As technologies can be captured in Leontief style input output matrices/tables (routinely used to calculate GDP and to project policy impacts of interventions etc) and as technology patterns drift across time, we can reasonably assess policies and impacts. Where, the constraints on energy are so important that the last two major global economic crises were largely energy driven: ’70’s – ’80’s and from 2007 – 9 on with effects lingering to today. Indeed, much of the current accelerated US recovery traces to breaking energy constraints that were in material part ideologically motivated along the lines of what I pointed to above (but were far less radical).
The sort of breakdown of rationality starting with fundamentals of logic and first principles of reasoning, knowledge and ethics we are currently tracing in UD’s posts is directly connected.
Democracies are very valuable for the freedom they bring, but freedom demands responsibility (which is closely tied to moral government — observe the evasion of the issues raised in the current thread and OP on moral truth: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/logic-and-first-principles-10-knowable-moral-truth-and-moral-government-vs-nihilistic-manipulation/ ). Where, from the days of Athens to today, democracy has been inherently unstable, requiring stabilisation and support from culture and community. This in turn requires sustained prudently directed effort by church, family, school, media and intellectual leaders. That is precisely where the breakdown has happened, targetting the roots of a stable, sustainable society.
Once such breakdowns happen, economic and wider policy imprudence are predictable, as will be deep polarisation and targetting of scapegoats once things begin to unravel. Where, once the core stabilising groups become disaffected, collapse normally follows. This time around, nukes and other horrors are in play. That is how suicidally foolish and stubborn our civilisation has become.
Where of course, many imagine trends are favourable to themselves and those they care about, and cannot imagine how collapse can come, or how devastating it can be. (Robbing us of sound history and its hard-bought lessons is part of the manipulation process.)
Plato’s parable of the ship of state has some sobering lessons for us: https://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2018/10/platos-ship-of-state-parable-how.html
KF
PS: It is worth clipping Anthony Watts’ initial commentary:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/07/green-new-deal-this-isnt-just-radical-socialism-this-is-madness/
Today, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) released the outline of the “Green New Deal.” The resolution calls for the United States to embark on a 10-year “economic mobilization” with the goal to “achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.” The plan would shut down virtually all coal, oil, and natural gas electric plants, eliminating millions of jobs in the process; spend unspecified billions on new “zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing” and green public transit projects, and it would eliminate as many gasoline-powered vehicles “as is technologically feasible.”
The plan would also require “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency,” the creation of a federal universal college education program, and it would guarantee “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” . . .
–> Remember, these things are on the table while we see Venezuela unravelling before our eyes.
–> To begin to understand the implications, ponder how economic information is inherently widely dispersed, uncertain and particular, choking any central planning system on a communication, processing and actuation cybernetic supertasks, where feedback control loops are inherently prone to instabilities.
–> Further ponder the sort of ideological domination, imprudence and polarisation of those who hope to set up, control and effect such policies.
–> Ponder the failure of the news and views media also.
Mj, 59: sobering, again. KF
Vividbleau asks:
To which Brother Brian responds,
I would would think the other oppressor group would be sleeping just as well.
I greatly appreciate your honesty and willingness to answer the questions asked in a forthright manner, following the logical implications. It’s quite refreshing.
Now, let’s get to your questions. I’ll be happy to answer anything you want to ask.
Of course I’d stop them. Anyone with a conscience would be morally obligated to do so.
Brother Brian:
It doesn’t have anything to do with absolute truth. You are erecting a straw man
BB, what is truth in the absolute degree, save: the truth, the whole relevant truth and nothing but the truth? Why do you object to this? KF
mjoels
If you choose to mischaracterize it like that, I can’t stop you. But can you honestly say that you have never modified or changed one of your moral stances?
If you force your sexual morality on others, yes, you would be in my crosshairs.
Why? I taught my kids that abstinence before marriage was, in my opinion, the best approach. Even the progressive sex education programs that many here oppose emphasizes that abstinence is the best approach and the only one with no risk associated with it.
Like the church’s stance on homosexuality and same sex marriage? One of the major pillars of any religion is the constant fight for social justice. A commendable motive to be sure. But it has, throughout history, resulted in some horrendous unforeseen circumstances. What you and others bemoan and label as “social justice warriors” is nothing more than people attempting to fight for justice within our society. Again, a commendable motive. And, as with religion, it sometimes results in bad unforeseen circumstances. Should we stop fighting for justice just because of this?
Is that how you argue with anyone you disagree with? claim that they must have a poor education?
BB, on what basis is “honesty” a binding duty you may properly expect us to conform to? KF
KF
By desiring to live in a society we have a socially binding duty for honesty, for the most part, in our interactions. Without a high degree of honesty amongst individuals in society, society will fail. In short, it is a self-imposed duty.
BB, by now you know or should know that society cannot bear the weight of ought, for any number of reasons — start with, the would be reformer swimming against the tide becomes wrong by definition. Cultural relativism fails. What is valid is that in community we have duties of neighbourliness and justice to others who are of like morally governed nature — we do not hold a lion guilty of murder for killing a Gazelle for lunch, or a Bass for gobbling a few shiners. Where BTW the “for the most part” is a tell: it means that when calculations suit, unjust advantage can be sought. KF
KF
That is where we disagree. It may not bear the weight to the extent that you would like, but it is all we got.
There are plenty of examples of “unjust advantages” being sought through the calculated use of dishonesty. But that is not what I was referring to. I am referring to the numerous cases where absolute honesty does not benefit anyone, and might actually cause harm.
Brother Brian: My justification is that I believe that all humans are equal and should have equal access to freedom and opportunity.
Equal access example: humans-who-have-penises-but-identify-as-female want to use a certain public women’s restroom where ten year old girls coming and going. There is not enough public money to build another restroom. Girls’ parents say hell no- the girls have a right to a restroom where humans-with-penises, regardless of what they identify as, are not allowed to go. Humans-with-penises-who-identify-as-female demand the right to use that restroom. Someone is going to be oppressed in this situation. Who should the oppressed group be?
vividbleau: Once life is devalued we can know that infanticide,eugenics, sex selection,euthanasia and tyranny are it’s logical fruit.
Just wait until scientists determine that certain sets of genes all but guarantee that the baby will end up being a homosexual or liberal leaning, and people start aborting the fetuses based on their preference for heterosexual or conservative leaning children. All hell is going to break loose on the left on the matter of elective abortions.
Mike, is it possible that we are just too hung up about the human body. I was staying in a hotel on the water just north of Copenhagen. Every morning people of all ages, from pre teens to over eighty, would walk down to the waterfront, strip their clothes off and go for a swim. I don’t recall anyone getting all puritanical about it.
Another time I was in Sweden and I went to a sauna. Everyone, both sexes and all ages, buck naked. Surprisingly, there were no rapes, no child molesting.
And still another time I was in South Korea using the urinal in the men’s bathroom. A cleaning woman was mopping the floor around my feet.
BB,
your assertion that society is all we have is patently false. But, it is diagnostic, implying not only radical cultural relativism but that the underlying problem is the implications of evolutionary materialistic scientism with its inherent amorality as such a world cannot ground ought.
In truth, there are many, many indicators otherwise, starting with the self -referentially incoherent, self-falsifying nature of such materialism. J B S Haldane long since summarised the challenge:
Rosenberg tried to brazen it out but utterly failed:
In short, the problem you face isn’t moral grounding it is getting beyond grand delusion to mind. We are dealing here with entrenched irrationality as dominant ideology. That is the key point of failure. The amorality then simply opens the door to nihilism and to might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘rights’ ‘truth’ ‘knowledge’ ‘warrant’ ‘justice’ etc. Chaos and ruin follow. Worse, as the ideology imagines that it is Science with a big S, it thinks it is as firmly established as anything and that it is the champion and yardstick of rationality. Like Communism before it, it will have to be broken. Unfortunately, the price will be high.
Going back to morality, it is already on the table, unanswered, that we find ourselves under the government of known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Those known duties are the implicit basis for the appeals made in your own arguments above. This already implies that our life of reason is inextricably intertwined with moral government by such conscience-attested duties. We are here looking at undeniable laws of our morally governed nature. This is of course directly parallel to the longstanding recognition that certain crimes are not defined by the state assuming power to do so but are mala in se, inherently, intuitively recognised as crimes against our nature; starting with the willful shedding of innocent blood. It is in that context that the state exists as an instrument of common justice, which may then make other laws by common consent for the good order of the community. The state has no proper power to usurp its powers and turn tyrant, imposing injustice under false colour of law through ideological domination or the rise of autocrats.
Such is why we are seeing an unacknowledged crisis of legitimacy across our civilisation. And a good part of that is the answers as to how our civilisation has found itself enabling the worst holocaust in history. This cannot end well if left to itself.
As was pointed out, conscience, too, is not an adequate base. Like society, it is radically contingent and comes too late ontologically. That is, we are looking at ungrounded ought. The only place where the entanglement of is and ought and the gap between the two can be bridged is the root of reality.
This is where the comparative difficulties challenge bites home.
For, as you have implicitly exemplified in your declaration — BB, 72: “It [= society] may not bear the weight to the extent that you would like, but it is all we got.” — society is patently inadequate to ground OUGHT, to bridge the is-ought gap. Yet another failed candidate, alongside the further failure of the society of one, subjectivism. Evolutionary materialistic scientism fails, too. So does pantheism. Paganism failed long before the Christians arrived on the scene.
That’s what Cicero echoes in De Legibus:
In short, we are right back at the only serious candidate that can bridge is and ought at the root of reality: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature.
Speaking of which, it is further obvious from above that you have swallowed the my genes made me do it thesis: “Just wait until scientists determine that certain sets of genes all but guarantee that the baby will end up being a homosexual or liberal leaning . . . ” The problem here is that evolutionary materialism would determine just a little too much, as Haldane pointed out, decisively undermining rationality and science, thus it falsifies itself.
In the case of homosexual habituation, we are speaking of a fluid 1 – 3% of the population, statistically outside the range of one gene or a cluster of genes, also something that does not have a set life phase onset and which is known to come in culturally framed patterns that can literally change in the span of decades. This we can see from urban/rural incidence (strongly urban) and from the three common patterns: western, post buggery law, greek corruption of boys, melanesian imposition in a culturally set life phase. The previously linked book gives details. Suffice to say, sexual habits (of all sorts) are learned behaviour, which of course can be strongly habituating and even addictive. In the case of female forms, predominantly, such women engage in sexual acts with both men and women; that is not a mark of genetic programming but of habituation and of immersion in a particular social locus with its scripts and roles. For that matter, we know that various habitual heterosexual patterns of behaviour also obtain. Such habituations must all have some genetic influence as our genes give us basic capabilities as humans, but there is no good evidence — media narratives and notorious studies notwithstanding — that either homosexual habituation or adherence to today’s political agendas and narratives will be found as genetically determined. Choice is real, choice is often socially influenced, but freedom to choose is critical to responsible rational freedom. Without which rationality itself collapses.
In short, it is time to rethink.
KF
PS: My Genes made me do it.
KF
Yes, I understand that this is what you believe. I dusagree.
I have a few questions-
Is brother brian the left sock and Ed George the right sock? How does that work? Are they different color socks?
And what does it say about you when you have two different socks actually interacting on one forum?
The well is being poisoned. To put an end to that you need to start posting more topics on science subjects.
ET, have a look here: https://uncommondescent.com/video/hearing-the-cochlea-the-frequency-domain-and-fouriers-series/ (and follow up the chain from there). Also note that my series on logic and first principles is laying out foundational things, which also exposed that we are dealing with people who have closed their minds to even Mathematics and logic. In particular, they are evasive and unwilling to address things which deliver a degree of certainty unattainable from science. We have identified that we are dealing with relativism and/or subjectivism, which refuses to acknowledge that reason is morally governed under duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc. In short, socks or not, concern trolls or not, we have established that we are free to proceed independent of whatever such critics have to say. They — we can take the ones we see here as the tip of the iceberg at other places — have had their chance to show themselves reasonable and responsible and they have blown it. KF
Yes, kairosfocus, you and a few others understand what to do in the event of an attempt at poisoning the well. I am just a messenger in this case making sure you and those others understand who is who.
BB, at this stage mere disagreement on your part in absence of warrant is of no weight whatsoever on the merits. There is an outline on the merits, there have been available wider discussions. Engage them or stand exposed as making empty objections that must be ideologically motivated. In this case manifestly by evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or being a close fellow traveller. Indeed, in that context, the choice of “brother” as part of the handle tells us that we are most likely dealing with a cynical concern troll. KF
ET, as the above to BB will suggest, just the choice of a handle was already telling us something. Okay, let the tip of the iceberg show its case. Oops, evasiveness and playing the same unsubstantiated objections over and over. We can take it to the bank that the usual objectors and their wider circles have no sound answer on the merits. Wedo need to further explore logic and first principles, but that is now in the context that we need to refound what has been left in shambles by generations of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers. yes, we have to fix foundations before we can properly address scientific warrant and linked mathematical analysis. For shame. KF
Brother Brian, you didn’t answer my question @73
ET Is brother brian the left sock and Ed George the right sock? How does that work? Are they different color socks?
Further accusations? Rather pathetic when you think about it. And, for the record, I am a theist but I have never claimed to be a right wing or a conservative. If anything, my views are more on the centrist left of the spectrum. My comments should have made that very clear.
No, Ed, they are not accusations. They are facts. And yes, your acts are rather pathetic, when you come to think about it.
ET
Then your definition of “fact” is different than mine.
Blah, blah, blah- But I am sure that you do have a different definition of “fact” than the rest of us. 😀
KF
Or you are dealing with someone named Brian who happens to be the brother of two sisters. Sisters who often refer to me as “brother Brian”. The fact that you ascribe nefarious motives to my handle is more telling of your biased than of mine.
How did you get the idea that the “brother” in my handle was a reference to some religious connotation? Surely it had nothing to do with the content and context of my comments.
Brian- the thought would be that you were mocking religion with the use of “Brother Brian”- see The Meaning of the Terms Nun, Sister, Monk, Priest, and Brother
BB, as you know, loaded language sends a message. Given the patterns over the past several weeks, that message will be taken seriously, and BTW, the focal issue for this thread is the dismissal of duty to truth as a pivot of our rational life, including on justice (which is another known duty under moral government of our lives). Notice, BA’s money shot citation: “Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.” For UD, when objectors demonstrate that they are not reasonable or responsible, that shifts the framework of onward discussion. Taking what has been going on recently — especially how logic, warrant and even mathematical results have been consistently treated — and using the tip of the iceberg principle, those who are hostile to design thought and/or to the historic foundations of our civilisation and its intellectual heritage have now effectively ceded any claims to be taken seriously. Sock puppetry or concern trollery or pretence to left wing “progressive” moral superiority (with all its shibboleths) are all minor issues; unseriousness and a track record of irresponsibility as now played out for all to see have decided the case: part of the civilisational problem, not the solution. What is now on the table is how to deal with a civilisation on the brink, how to try to turn back — or if that fails, what we can and must do to prevent utter disintegration like after 476 AD; we are essentially at the locus of an Augustine or later. Where, it is well worth recalling that the army that deposed the last Emperor did not fight its way in from the line of the Rhine, it was right there next to the capital, with its leader having been a senior official of Rome. KF
KF
What loaded language are you referring to? All I have said is that it is a good thing that we question discrimination (and oppression) that is justified on the grounds of religious freedom. I don’t see how any rationally person could have a problem with that. Everything from slavery to polygamy has been justified in religious grounds.
Questioning does not mean discarding. Religion is full of problems. Not with the belief in a god or gods. I have absolutely no problem with that. But these beliefs are filtered through humans beings, who are inherently flawed. The make errors. They innocently, and sometimes not so innocently, misinterpret religious writings.
Many religious faiths have stood the test of time, and will continue to do so for the simple reason that they fundamentally, for the most part, benefit society and the individuals in them. But divisions are constantly arising in these faiths. Again, most cause no harm but on occasion they breed hatred and prejudice.
BB, with all respect, we were not born this morning. Further to this, there are two already linked references you should show signs of seriously interacting with. KF
PS: I clip from one, as a starter, on the notion of genetic determinism which was used to promote undermining of moral government of behaviour and habituation:
>>Summary
Your genes don’t make you do it !
Those researchers who know most about genes and SSA say “Your genes did not make you do it”.
Let’s review the evidence bearing in mind that many of the following arguments apply to all human
behaviours.
Genetics:
Science has not yet discovered any genetically dictated behavior in humans. So far, genetically
dictated behaviors of the “one-gene-one-trait” variety have been found only in very simple
organisms. (Ch )
From an understanding of gene structure and function there are no plausible means by which
genes could inescapably force SSA or other behaviors on a person (Ch )
No genetically determined human behavior has yet been found. The most closely genetically-
related behavior yet discovered (mono-amine oxidase deficiency leading to aggression) has
shown itself remarkably responsive to counselling. (Ch )
If (exclusive) SSA were genetically inherited, it would have bred itself out of the population in
only several generations, and wouldn’t be around today. (ie. gays with no children would not be
able to reproduce their genes.) (Ch )
Generally, geneticists settle for some genetic influence of rather undefined degree, most
agreeing that many genes (from at least five or six to many hundreds) contribute to any
particular human behavior. (Ch ) This means:
If SSA were caused by many genes it could not suddenly appear and disappear
in families the way it does. It would stay around for many (eg. at least 30)
generations because it would take that long for that many genes to be bred out.
Therefore SSA cannot be caused by many genes. (Ch )
The occurrence of SSA (2.6%) in the population is too frequent to be caused by a chance
mutation in a single gene. Therefore SSA cannot be caused by a single gene. (Ch )
Researchers trying to find “homosexual” sequences of genes on the recently mapped
human genome have not found any such sequences although they have found them for
schizophrenia, alcoholism etc. (Ch 9)
The occurrence of SSA is about five time too high to be caused by a faulty (non-genetic)
pre-natal developmental process, so it is not innate in that sense either. (Ch )
First same-sex attraction occurs over a very long time span, unlike pre-programmed genetic
events eg puberty, menopause. This argues that first same-sex attraction is not a genetically
programmed event. (Ch )
The human race shares most of its genes – something between 99.7 percent and 99.9 percent.
That means all ethnic groups will have most of them. This has the following three implications.If homosexuality is genetically dictated, homosexual practices will be identical or
extremely similar in all cultures. But there is an enormous range and diversity of
homosexual practice and customs among different cultures (and within cultures)
(Ch 6)
There would be a similar incidence of homosexuality in all cultures. But
homosexuality has been unknown in some cultures and mandatory in others.
(Ch 6)
Changes in homosexual practice and behavior in different cultures would take
place very slowly, over many centuries. But this is not what history shows. The
decline of whole models of homosexuality (the Greek, over a couple of centuries,
and the Melanesian, within a century); the relatively sudden [in genetic terms]
emergence of the present Western model over a couple of centuries; and abrupt
changes of practice within an ethnic group, even over a single generation, are not
consistent with anything genetic. Even less so the swiftly changing sexual practices
within the current Western model. (Ch 6)
The drop in SSA attraction and practice over the lifespan is too great to attribute to genetic
change – or for that matter, deaths from AIDS. It could indicate some change in sexual
orientation. (Ch 2)
Recent increases in the percentage of those experimenting with same-sex behaviour suggest
social influence rather than genetic change. (Ch 2)
Dean Hamer, one of the strongest advocates of a genetically-based homosexuality, has
remarked that he doesn’t think a gene exists for sexual orientation. (Ch 9)
Twin studies: These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins
definitively rule out genetic determinism. If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of
homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t.
The genetic influence is indirect, certainly lower than 30% for men and 50% for women
and may be as low as 10%. This is illustrated further by the fact that identical twins with
identical genes are at most 11 and 14% concordant for SSA (ie. if one twin is SSA the co-
twin will be gay only11 % of the time (males), 14% (females.) (Other studies have even lower
concordances). And remember this: everyone has at least a 10% genetic influence in his or
her behaviour – simply because without genes there can be no bodily activity of any kind, or
human behaviour. (Ch 0) What does genetic influence mean? Those who say homosexuality
is genetically influenced are correct, but only to about this degree:
If a girl becomes pregnant at age fifteen, we could argue that she is genetically
predisposed. We could say that in her culture, her genes gave her the kind of
face and figure that send male hormones into orbit and bring her under a level of
pressure that she is unable to resist, and she is fertile. But that’s about the strength
of the genetic influence. There are a huge number of environmental factors that
could also have brought the pregnancy about, from cancellation of the basketball
game she was going to watch with a girlfriend, permission to use her boyfriend’s
father’s car, her boyfriend’s company, the movie they had just viewed together,
and failure to use a contraceptive, to big environmental factors like personal values
systems, peer group pressure, and an emotionally distant father.
If there is some genetic weak influence towards SSA (quite possible) would you like to be controlled by
those genes, or to control them? . . . >>
In short, the genetic programming model fails. Genetic influences on predispositions, socio-cultural influences, familial influences and one’s choices under moral government make for a very different picture.
This extends far beyond this particular case to the much broader problems of manipulation and disintegration of virtue as a dominant ideal across our civilisation. All of this is part of the suicidal breakdown of moral government in our civilisation.
In this context, principled objection to immoral, amoral and nihilistic conduct is not “discrimination” or “hate.” Concern that we are discarding and marginalising an intelligible, sound, warranted body of knowable moral truth is not mere freely dismissible opinion. Recognition that inescapably our rational faculties and acts are morally governed by duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc is not empty opinion. Arguments of demonstrative character from inescapably true first principles and logical-mathematical consequences are not mere subjective opinions to be dismissed by appealing in effect to Leff’s grand sez who.
And more.
All of this, per the tip of the iceberg and one slice of the cake has the ingredients principles, shows the sorts of ruinous trends in our civilisation, compounded by enabling behaviour, willful obtuseness and blindness, capped off with complacency. Remember, the central moral question at stake here is the enabling of an ongoing holocaust of our living posterity, which is the true locus of hate. As we saw from the recent smear job on members of a march for life, turnabout projection is demonstrably at work. The mother of all lawsuits is proceeding in reply to that defamation, as an act of justice.
Such patterns constitute a civilisational march of folly that will not end well.
Re my post@54 about aoc resigning
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/10/the-laughable-ocasio-cortez-new-green-deal-goes-awol-from-the-internet
At least it’s something
ES58, many people clipped or saved it so it is not going to disappear. There’s also vid. Doubtless, we will see some Winston Smiths busily trying to rewrite the truth into an agenda-serving narrative. Of course, the Covington, Kavanaugh and other cases show that such agit prop often works and further polarises. Which is what the strategists want: divide and rule. KF
PS: It wasn’t just one, there were others who went along or enabled. This is a time when we must notice a track record of imprudent, ideologically motivated behaviour.
F/N: In for the penny, in for the pound too. Here is one money clip from the landmark paper by Gergis et al:
>>Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman
who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other
of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and
rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and
renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the be?
havioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them
as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its in?
herent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children con?
tributes 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. 1
Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people
(whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to
romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing
the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a un?
ion of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual
intimacy both partners find agreeable . . . .
It has sometimes been suggested that the conjugal under?
standing of marriage is based only on religious beliefs. This is
false. Although the world’s major religious traditions have his?
torically understood marriage as a union of man and woman
that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing, 3 this sug?
gests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the
demands of our common human nature have shaped (however
imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recognize this natu?
ral institution. As such, marriage is the type of social practice
whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human
reason, whatever our religious background . . . . the
nature of marriage (that is, its essential features, what it fun?
damentally is) should settle this debate . . . .
Revisionists today miss this central question—what is mar?
riage?—most obviously when they equate traditional marriage
laws with laws banning interracial marriage. They argue that
people cannot control their sexual orientation any more than
they can control the color of their skin. 6 In both cases, they ar?
gue, there is no rational basis for treating relationships differ?
ently, because the freedom to marry the person one loves is a
fundamental right. 7 The state discriminates against homosexu?
als by interfering with this basic right, thus denying them the
equal protection of the laws. 8
But the analogy fails: antimiscegenation was about whom
to allow to marry, not what marriage was essentially about;
and sex, unlike race, is rationally relevant to the latter ques?
tion. Because every law makes distinctions, there is nothing
unjustly discriminatory in marriage law’s reliance on genu?
inely relevant distinctions. >>
And more.
In short, again and again, the issue of identity — thus essential nature — is central.
When you make a crooked stick into your standard for accuracy, uprightness and straightness that very act of folly locks out what is actually those things. So, that state of delusional crooked yardsticks is an identifiable goal of the mind benders. Remember, this is a way in which the deluded will lock out correction. (Begin to see why metanoia — repentance — is deemed a gift of grace?)
Note, too, that marriage, family, sexual identity and formation of children in family are foundational to sustainable civilisation. What we are dealing with here is literally an agenda that would wreck our civilisation. And, many are driven into silence in its face, due to its ruthless, juggernaut like character because of dominance and disproportionate influence in key institutions.
Where, distortion of sexuality and sexual irresponsibility are directly connected to the ongoing holocaust of the unborn. Where, too, we must never underestimate the utterly corrupting nature of mass blood guilt.
In this context a key distortion is of our understanding of rights. No, a right is not a politically won entitlement or power. It is a binding moral claim that in respect of X, others owe us duties of support. I repeat: we cannot justly claim a right X save we show ourselves to manifestly be in the right concerning X.
Which also requires that there be objective moral truths (as has been shown but insistently side stepped). We see then how relativism and subjectivism become crooked yardsticks.
KF
PS: Let us remind ourselves of the telling admission in a UN document, from the OP: “Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.” In short, so-called social justice is anything but justice as it is the declared enemy of full and untainted truth, of virtue and of justice founded on truth and sound principle. It is therefore a term for agit prop, usurpation, ruthlessly nihilistic agendas and associated agit prop, media amplification and lawfare.
KF
But who determines what is immoral, amoral and nihilistic behavior? That is my point. Religious dogma is the result of human interpretation. As such, it can be biased and flawed. There is absolutely no danger to questioning these beliefs from time to time. As I mentioned, questioning does not mean discarding.
How does questioning result in discarding and marginalizing an intelligible, sound, warrants body of knowable truth? Yes, there may be some things that we thought were truth that we discard because they do not hold up to scrutiny, as has been the case throughout religious history. But any truth that is “True” will only be reinforced.
But where this moral governance etc. comes from is in dispute.
This is beginning to sound like a broken record (I’m old enough to know what those are). We disagree on whether or not civilization is in decline. Unfortunately for your opinion, the evidence simply does not support it. I previously listed several pieces of evidence that dispute your claim. All you can say is that civilization is not heading in the direction you would prefer, which is fair enough. But for most people, their lives are better than they would have been 100 years ago, or even fifty years ago.
And myself and others have presented strategies to significantly reduce this “holocaust”. Strategies that you have blindly rejected.
People have been yelling this at the tops of their lungs for centuries. Yet there has never been this level of peace in recorded history. Violence is down, abortions are lower, infant mortality is lower than it has ever been. Life expectancy is higher. In most countries women can be full partners in society. Institutionalized racism and discrimination is almost gone. Health care is available to more people than ever before. Things can still be improved but civilization is on a very strong footing. But keeping it there requires effort.
BB, there you go again, round and round with the grand sez who fallacy. There is a discussion on objective warrant for moral knowledge already on the table, which you have rejected without providing counter-warrant. Inter alia, your very argument shows how you must rely on our known duty to truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc in order to try to undermine duty — as in, self-referential incoherence. You then proceed to in effect if I disagree or doubt I don’t need to address on merits, I can dismiss. That is exactly the line down which nihilism comes. KF
Civilization is in a decline, acartia spearshake. The mere fact that we have an overwhelming number of abortions all the while, as you say, there are “strategies to significantly reduce this “holocaust””, is evidence of that. The fact that the same people who get up in arms (pun intended) about gun violence are OK with the way the abortion issue currently stand, is evidence for that fact.
That fake news, lies, misrepresentations, misconceptions and misinformation have deluged the information age, is evidence for that fact. The schemers and scammers are on the rise. The divisions between peoples are growing.
There is a stupid war on a simple molecule (CO2), for cryin’ out loud. And then there are the people who wish to see science be guided by the dogma of materialism, and they are having their way.
BB,
I have long pointed to the ongoing mass slaughter of our living posterity in the womb — currently proceeding, globally, at about a million further victims per week [that’s 1 Hitler holocaust every three to four months*] — as a capital example of what has gone horribly wrong with our civilisation. Cumulatively that’s 800+ millions in 40+ years. The warping of institutions, law, courts, media, education, parliaments and health professions to enable that slaughter under false colour of law is already sufficient cause to hold that the abortion holocaust is the central moral cancer in our civilisation that is busily sending out deadly metastases across the world. That’s Stage IV and there is no Stage V.
So, empty repetition on how abortion rates are going down (largely thanks to the sustained objection of the Pro-Life movement sustained in the face of decades of slanderous agit prop and lawfare — Covington is just the latest incident) in some jurisdictions comes across as utterly empty, repulsive rhetoric. Sorry, the acceptable level or rate of state-sponsored, media supported holocaust is: ZERO.
Going further, it is massively evident, save to the willfully blind and obtuse, that marriage, family, sexual habits and individual identity are under assault and are disintegrating. Under false colour of freedom of expression, the porn-perversion industry feeds off and amplifies the epidemic of sexual addictions that wreck marriages, ruin families and damage individual identity, largely unchecked save for child porn laws. The wider entertainment industry is tainted by this.
Education — especially moral education — is pivotal to stabilising democratic self-government, both formal education and informal public education through media and its wider influence on street talk. That is being dangerously distorted, destabilising sound government. It is no accident that we are becoming more and more polarised, mutually hostile and inclined to project or entertain a slander culture. News fakery, a key component, is rapidly eroding confidence in the key feedback mechanism that shapes public awareness and confidence. The toxic zone of Wikipedia is a capital example, as it shows what is emerging.
I only briefly mention the debt burden of leading countries and what it implies for economies.
Governments, church hierarchies, education leadership, business leadership, cultural leadership and family leadership alike are showing strong signs of cumulative disintegration and decline. Leadership failure, especially manifested in economic mismanagement and suicidal security policy, are historically the main way collapse is initiated. The migration of the denarius from a silver coin to the copper penny is a classic illustration of how these trends converge and how they reflect the wider trend.
Complacency multiplies the problem as business as usual leads towards shipwreck for the ship of state. Plato’s comment about that despised good for nothing stargazer staring at skies, seas and waves futilely is especially telling. The Athenian collapse, the failure of the Roman Republic leading to usurpation by Empire then collapse in the West are classic, historic warnings. In more modern times, the way the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed has a lot to tell us, if we would only be inclined to heed — as, it was a polyglot empire in the most advanced continent and made major contributions to global intellectual advance.
I could go on and on but it’s sunup time.
KF
KF
There is nothing “empty” about the abortion rate going down. You ascribe this to the pro-life movement in spite of evidence to the contrary. Education and ready access to contraceptives are generally accepted as the major cause of the reduction in abortion rates. The pro-life movement has played a smaller, although not insignificant, role.
The fact that it is an unachievable goal is very relevant. If zero can’t be attained then the best we can do is significantly reduce the rate.
Yet marriage rates have stabilized and divorce rates have declined.
Brother Brian
I have already explained that contraception increases the abortion rate, it does not reduce it. The evidence has been put on the table. Why do you continue to propagate your error?
StephenB
Yes. It is very convincing.
https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Citation/2017/05000/Worldwide_Abortion_Rates_and_Access_to.2.aspx
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.self.com/story/abortion-rates-birth-control-trump-administration/amp
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/us-abortion-rate-lowest-roe-wade-contraception-access
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.denverpost.com/2017/11/30/colorado-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-drop-free-low-cost-iud/amp/
And, just for fun.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna858476
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0738399194900329
BB, I find it interesting that when you have been repeatedly presented with the actual global rate of abortions, about a million per week, you have repeatedly tried to talk about how rates are going down, as if that were a good answer. I have pointed out what the rate means in terms of the yardstick holocaust, i.e. that the abortion holocaust is running at one Hitler scale genocide every three months or so. Your answer is to resort to the fallacy and known agit prop technique of drumbeat repetition of what is at best a quarter truth: in the case of the USA, under the pressure of a steadfast stand on principle against abortion on demand on the principle of the right to life as first right, rates have declined. All this shows is that a good number of people have broken the spell of the dominant narrative pushed by the abortion on demand agenda. It does not show that there is an acceptable rate of holocaust under false colour of law other than zero, nor does it correct the terrible ratcheting precedent set by the undermining of consensus to protect innocent life. Notice, the latest headlined lawfare pushes have passed what is in effect infanticide under false colour of law, in New York, and there is a push to do so in Virginia, where it seems other states may have already done so. And, there is an obvious push to demonise those who stand up for life. KF
PS: I see you are trying to counter a well established point made by SB. FYI, the fact is, IUDs do not prevent conception but interfere with implantation, effecting an early, silent abortion. Similarly, historically, too much of oral contraceptives acted in a similar manner. There is the so-called morning after pill. Likewise, given that many forms of sexual behaviour form as in effect habituating and addictive behaviour, getting caught up in such is not conducive to self-discipline or consistent responsible behaviour — irresponsibility is a corrosive behaviour and character challenge. This means that especially with teens, methods of contraception that are fairly reliable under other circumstances are liable to fail, above and beyond the obvious problem of the failure rate of thin latex barriers or the like. Apparent protection that makes risky but enjoyable behaviour seem less risky is liable to increase exposure and carelessness to the point where protective effect — which needs to be there in effect every time — is undermined as a simple probability calculation I long since gave shows. BTW, this also holds for the unspoken part, the epidemic of dozens of sexually transmissible diseases that in significantly many cases are not protected against in any significant manner by use of condoms. Several are utterly debilitating, others are direct risks to life.
PPS: Since it seems some statistics are needed to underscore the factual status of about one million abortions per week (thus roughly 50 millions per year), here is a result from Sedgh et al in Lancet:
Let me add a Sci Direct clip on global IUD use:
This implies that there is a huge, silent abortion rate pivoting on women being misinformed on what the IUD is using. The article’s next sentence is thus revealing: “Reasons for this large variation are not well documented.” Why, sure.
WHO, 2016:
Now of course, I cut off in mid-sentence. The sentence continues with the agenda-serving talking points: ” . . . clearly underscore the need to improve and expand access to effective contraceptive services.” That sounds ever so reasonable. Why do I disagree (even though I think that contraceptives of appropriate kind and used responsibly have a legitimate value in actual family planning)?
For one, as the US based Magazine, National Review notes:
In short, talking points to the effect that contraceptive availability is responsible for declining abortion rates in the US are highly misleading or ill-informed.
PPPS: Further information compiled: https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/worldwide_abortion_statistics/
PPPPS: Kindly note that my 800+ million figure does not include the silent IUD rate, and is based on a simple 40 year linear growth to 50 millions. Taking the Lancet figures and their 50 mn baseline from 1990 to 2014 already gives us 1.2 billions, and I have seen 1.4 billion as overall estimate. The figures from China in the toll are likely to be significantly understated and could push the rate to 70+ millions per year. We are here dealing with the central, corrosive blood guilt of our time and should expect that we will not be told the full truth. Just try to think on 14% of women globally using IUD’s and what that implies for the silent abortion rate. Notice, how Planned Parenthood (for which Guttmacher is the research arm) describes IUDs:
So Brian just ignores all of the data that is contrary to its claim.
How wonderful
I have a friend who is a doctor and runs an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic. One situation where this is used is when a couple has a known possibility of having a child with a genetic disorder. Multiple eggs are taken from the woman and fertilized with sperm from the man. Some of the cells are successfully fertilized, and begin to divide (but some don’t). For successful fertilizations, the cells divide, and after there are about eight cells, genetic testing is done to see which embryos do not carry the genetic disorder. One or two of those embryos are then inserted into the woman, in which case one or both might attach and become a viable fetus, or they might not.
I’m curious what people here think of this. Is the whole process OK in principle? Is discarding the embryos with the genetic disorder OK? Is it OK to implant the embryos knowing that the probability of each one becoming a viable fetus is not 100%, and is often much less than that?
One’s answer to this question probably depends wholly or in part to their answer to the question, “At what point does the embryo become a person? At the moment of conception in the test tube? After being implanted in the woman? Only if successfully attaching to the uterus and beginning to be nourished by the mother?
Thoughts?
Hazel@111, I know a couple that has fertility issues and have tried three rounds of in vitro, unsuccessfully. Each failed round was very costly and very emotional. But they are currently making there fourth attempt. Each attempt produce six to eight fertilized eggs, only three of which are implanted, the remainder discarded. Personally I see no problem with this. Although I suspect that there are two other possible opinions from others here. One would think that invitro is “unnatural” and therefore wrong. The other would be that the parents must commit to having every embryo implanted or not undergo the procedure.
Brother Brian to ET:
Obviously. you do not know the difference between real science and abortionist propaganda. The baby-killers you allude to (all of them) refer to abortifacients like IUDs as contraceptivess. In fact, IUDs are nothing less then early abortions since they prevent implantation. Abortions dishonestly counted as contraceptives will always reduce the abortion rate. It’s all part of the baby-killers’ big lie. It has nothing to do with the fact that contraceptives increase the abortion rate, which has already been documented. I am losing patience with your inability to grasp the point.
hazel- That is a difficult question because it is all artificial. It may be unnatural but I don’t think that makes it wrong. Personally I would rather have medical people doing things to help people who are already here.
I would tell those couples that they can adopt.
My understanding is that IUD’s prevent the sperm from reaching an egg, so no fertilization occurs. From that point of view, how is that an abortion, I wonder.
Hazel@115, Modern IUDs typically have two modes of action. The first is to act to prevent viable sperm from entering the fallopian tubes. The second is to prevent implantation if fertilization does occur.
I read a bit about that. First, there are hormonal and copper, which are different. Second, the primary action keeps the sperm from reaching the egg, but if fertilization occurs, it can prevent implantation.
So two issues: first, there is no way of knowing which of those occur. Second, is it an abortion if implantation doesn’t occur?
This goes back to the broad question: from various perspectives, when is there a person? Is an embryo in a culture in a laboratory with four cells a person? Or does personhood start when an embryo is implanted and begins to grow because it is being nourished by a mother? Or at the moment of fertilization? What guidelines or perspectives enables one to answer these questions?
Hazel, the problem is that this topic sets off religious triggers. For example, even if the IUD only prevented fertilization, this would go against Catholic teachings wher contraceptives of any sort is wrong. And then there are others like KF and, presumably, StephenB who hold the view that full human rights start at conception. As such, preventing implantation is considered to be an abortion. But that raises the whole issue of where human rights come from. That could make for a whole other thread.
Hazel
The IUD has many contraceptive qualities, but it also acts as an abortifacient. Among other things, it irritates the endometrium (lining of uterus) so that the developing fetus (blastocyst) cannot survive in that environment.
So it is stupid (and dishonest) to say that IUD’s decrease the abortion rate when, in fact, they kill babies in the earlier stages of development, which is the same thing as an early abortion. The baby killers, *and their enablers,* withhold that information (lie by omission) so that people will think that an IUD is a mere contraceptive.
Baby killers *and their enablers* will say or do anything to protect their bloodthirsty habit of murdering unborn children. As we discovered on this site, they will cite references that manipulate data and cheat on definitions to make false arguments. Meanwhile, they ignore the findings of true scientific reports because it doesn’t serve their anti-life agenda.
I understand that religious issues are involved, but my interest here (the only reason I joined the thread) is to understand what people believe, not why.
In particular I am interested in the issues involved in IVF, because of the discussion I had with my doctor friend.
I am also interested in the bigger question of where people believe personhood starts, as well as whether contraception of any sort is OK. Where does conception start: at fertilization of implantation? Does it start in a test tube?
And you say that you think KF and Stephen would consider preventing implantation an abortion, while others might think that an abortion only would take place about implantation. You’re probably right about their views, but maybe not.
So I’m interested in whatever views anyone wants to express, which so far have been ET and Ed.
Edit: I see Stephen posted while I was writing this: I’ll see what he has to say.
… I see: he has explained why he considers the IUD an abortifacient. I had read about that, so I understand what he is saying.
Also, even though he wasn’t explicit, I think this means that his position is that a fertilized egg that is not yet implanted has personhood.
Perhaps Stephen will offer his thoughts on IVF?
Hazel:
Of course it is an abortion if implantation doesn’t occur. Human life begins at fertilization with the embryo’s conception. Contraception prevents the embryo from coming into being; Abortion kills the embryo that has already come into being.
Stephen writes,
Thank you: that is a clear distinction.
StephenB@121, but is it an abortion if the fertilized egg in a petri dish of an invitro clinic isn’t implanted? You will have to do some serious selling before you can convince me of that. Well, to be honest, you haven’t convinced me that an IUD preventing implantation is an abortion.
Interesting conundrum. Is it conception or implantation, that is the key?
I have always looked at the soul as the key issue. Is the soul there, at conception? Or is the soul waiting for the mother’s embrace (ie implantation)? An acceptance of the body, so to speak.
As if I don’t have enough to worry/ think about. I am starting to dislike you, StephenB, LoL! 😀 😎
Brother Brian
You have changed the subject yet again. I will address the new subject when you provide a reasonable response to the old subject. The issue on the table is whether or not an IUD is an abortifacient, which it clearly is.
Facts do not need your acceptance in order to be true. [a] It is a fact that an abortion is the purposeful killing of an embryo or fetus any time after conception, and [b] the mechanism of an IUD, which I have already described, kills the living embryo and is, therefore, an early abortion. It doesn’t prevent life (contraception) it ends life (abortion). I am amazed that you cannot understand the difference.
Anyone can disengage, stick his fingers in his ears, and say “I am not convinced.” It requires no intellectual exertion at all. What matters is that my argument is unassailable, you cannot refute it, and our reading audience knows it.
FWIW, Stephen, I brought up the subject of IVF at 111, so my comment was in large part Brian’s stimulus for mentioning that topic.
StephenB
It is not a change of subject. Both invitro and the IUD prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo in the womb. They are either both murder or they are not.
ET
Education is a series of questions, the answers to which cause confusion and frustration, and a whole new series of questions at a higher and more important level. Few people want to go through the process in the beginning, but for those who persist, the final prize is the truth.
Brother Brian
In that context, both invitro and IUD qualify as murder, but not in the same way. The first involves simple act of killing one human life that is not wanted. The second involves the attempt to create a new life that is wanted by destroying many other lives that are not wanted.
Meanwhile, you have evaded numerous points all along the way. You claimed that contraception reduces abortion rates, but as I stated, IUD’s, which is a universal strategy for contraception, are really abortifacients, which means that IUDs do not decrease the rate of abortions at all, they increase it. The so-called “studies” that you alluded to, which refer to IUD’s as contraceptives, are not based on science because they misuses scientific terms to get the results that they want.
Indeed, even when one leaves the subject of IUD’s and starts discussing the pill, contraception always leads to abortion. The majority of women who seek an abortion are already on contraceptives. They don’t want children, and when contraception fails, they want to kill the child. These are all facts. Your willingness to accept them as such is irrelevant.
Stephen, then it is murder when the embryos that are grown for a few cell divisions in vitro are then discarded?
I assume, therefore, that in vitro fertilization is not acceptable.
Do I understand correctly?
hazel
Yes, and yes.
Thanks for explaining, and for verifying my understanding.
F/N: Murder in the moral sense, antecedent to legislative definitions: the willful, unjust, inexcusable shedding of innocent blood, that is, the unjustified, inexcusable, willful destruction of innocent human life. Secondary sense, similarly willful defamation ,robbing an innocent person of reputation, livelihood and place in the community — oftentimes, by false accusation or similar behaviour. KF
PS: The IUD is used in silent early abortions, and the above numbers do not include their impact, which must be material given statistics that up to 14% of women of childbearing age have had such inserted. Redefining this as contraception implies a loaded redefinition of conception as implantation, not the formation of the zygote which is the scientifically known point where a genetically distinct new life begins.
I’ve been thinking about the idea expressed here that human life begins at fertilization. About 50% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant, and about 50% of all implanted eggs miscarry, most of them before the women even knows she’s pregnant.
That means that about 50% of all human beings live for less than a week, and perhaps 75% for less than a month or so, before they die a natural death. That’s an interesting thought to ponder.
Actually, hazel, it strengthens the case that human life is indeed special and those who get [pregnant are the fortunate ones. And that should not be taken lightly, but it is.
ET
Sorry, but I am not going to tell a 14 year old rape victim that she is the fortunate one. Are you?
I can’t buy the idea that preventing a fertilized egg from implanting (ie IUD) is murder.
I know that this sounds facetious, but I am really interested in what people think about this. What is the fundamental reason that an abortificant like the IUD or the morning after pill is the equivalent of murder. Is it because the fertilized egg has human DNA? Is it because it has the potential of developing into a functioning human? Is it because God breathes a soul into it at the point of conception?
H (& attn BB),
obviously, our reproductive functions are not functioning perfectly (from the technical perspective); though such are plainly adequate to sustain the population from one generation to the next. The difference we are highlighting is the deliberate, disrespectful destruction of human life once it has started at the point where the process begins: fertilisation and formation of the zygote which marks a new, genetically unique individual.
That deliberate action is morally freighted and should be morally governed, starting with the quasi-infinite value of the individual human being from initiation of life through intra-uterine stages then birth, growth and upbringing, adulthood and the natural span of life.
The persistent pattern of dehumanisation and imposition of arbitrary will on the alienated innocent other is a red flag that we recognise and we must further recognise its corrosive effect. The habit of dehumanisation and arbitrary — thus unreasonable, irresponsible and dubious — imposition notoriously has a slippery slope ratcheting effect and we must guard against it.
If one is not in a position to manage the known, natural consequences of the conjugal act (a major part of its obvious purposes) then perhaps one should reconsider what he or she is doing. BTW, the contribution of sexual attraction, sexually tinged interaction, romantic interaction and bonding, actual foreplay and the sex act leading to orgasmic release to bonding and mutual psycho-social well being should not be overlooked as legitimate purposes. It is not for nothing that we speak of consummation of a marriage, and of the act of marriage.
While there is arguably nothing wrong with responsible contraception (as opposed to devices that essentially trigger a silent abortion) we must realise that such is not foolproof.
Linked, children need stable nurturing environments sustained on abiding commitment of their mother and father; the very context of marriage and family. Further linked, families need well ordered communities that support family livelihood and a wider reasonably safe and stimulating environment; including protection of children from sexual predators . . . it is not for nothing that we can be viewed as the most dangerous predators to have ever walked this planet.
It is thus not an accident that every one of these supportive frameworks is under attack, in many cases leading to undermining of the long term viability of our civilisation — our sexuality is an obvious vulnerability that needs to be managed in the interests of the long term good in the face of obvious radical, ruinous folly and destructive evil on the march.
Roaring and sneaking lions are on the prowl, seeking whom they can devour.
KF
BB, a 14 year old rape victim has been horribly violated (and one who has been seduced has been exploited); that is a separate issue from the fact that occasionally rape leads to conception. Where, again, the newly conceived life is a separate, distinct innocent human life in its earliest stages. That must be recognised and must shape our response to such a hard case. The use of hard cases to then dehumanise and enable a policy of arbitrary killing of the unwanted is yet another distinct issue. The fundamental issue is that we must recognise and respect life. KF
Brother Brian/ acartia- you have serious problems. Good luck with that.
re 137. BB, I also am trying to understand the views of others. I assume that at least some have a religious belief that the fertilized cell has a soul received as an immediate effect of that fertilization. That is one of the facts that prompted my thoughts at 134: all those souls, I assume, are believed to go to heaven, although they have had no conscious or sensory experience at all. I just can’t imagine what that must be like?
Also, kf writes,
I wish I saw as much fervent commitment to that as I do against abortion. /political comment>
hazel,
Yes, it is. Here’s a slightly off-topic hypothetical: Suppose the death rate for these fertilized eggs was even higher, so that perhaps only 1 out of 100,000 survive to implantation. Suppose also that in vitro techniques are improved to the point where 99% of fertilized eggs survive to implantation and no eggs or embryos have to be discarded.
Would it then be more moral to use only vitro fertilization when attempting to conceive? Should couples even have unprotected sex? (Of course my question is directed primarily at those who believe a fertilized egg is a complete human being and should not be killed, just as an adult should not be killed).