Social Justice Warriors to Believers in Truth: Drop Dead

_{Barry Arrington
February 6, 2019

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

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

Comments

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.
__________ * F/N: The Jewish part was about half of the Holocaust as usually estimated: 11 - 13 millions. I think we should add in a good part of the Russian and Ukrainian civilian death toll. Likely, about 20 millions. Especially as the German High Command is now known to have planned to effectively confiscate the means of sustenance of the Ukrainian people in the face of coming winter, which would have effected a genocide.
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. KFkairosfocus_{February 12, 2019
February
02
Feb
12
12
2019
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PST}

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.ET_{February 11, 2019
February
02
Feb
11
11
2019
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2019
February
02
Feb
11
11
2019
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PST}

KF
In this context, principled objection to immoral, amoral and nihilistic conduct is not “discrimination” or “hate.”
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.
Concern that we are discarding and marginalising an intelligible, sound, warranted body of knowable moral truth is not mere freely dismissible opinion.
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.
Recognition that inescapably our rational faculties and acts are morally governed by duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc is not empty opinion.
But where this moral governance etc. comes from is in dispute.
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.
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.
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.
And myself and others have presented strategies to significantly reduce this "holocaust". Strategies that you have blindly rejected.
Such patterns constitute a civilisational march of folly that will not end well.
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.Brother Brian_{February 11, 2019
February
02
Feb
11
11
2019
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST}

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.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2019
February
02
Feb
10
10
2019
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2019
February
02
Feb
10
10
2019
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PST}

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.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2019
February
02
Feb
10
10
2019
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PST}

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 somethinges58_{February 10, 2019
February
02
Feb
10
10
2019
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PST}

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.kairosfocus_{February 10, 2019
February
02
Feb
10
10
2019
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST}

KF
BB, as you know, loaded language sends a message.
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.Brother Brian_{February 10, 2019
February
02
Feb
10
10
2019
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 10, 2019
February
02
Feb
10
10
2019
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PST}

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 BrotherET_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PST}

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.Brother Brian_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PST}

KF
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.
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.Brother Brian_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PST}

Blah, blah, blah- But I am sure that you do have a different definition of "fact" than the rest of us. :DET_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PST}

ET
No, Ed, they are not accusations. They are facts.
Then your definition of “fact” is different than mine.Ed George_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PST}

No, Ed, they are not accusations. They are facts. And yes, your acts are rather pathetic, when you come to think about it.ET_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PST}

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.Ed George_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PST}

Brother Brian, you didn't answer my question @73mike1962_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PST}

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.ET_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PST}

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_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST}

KF
your assertion that society is all we have is patently false
Yes, I understand that this is what you believe. I dusagree.Brother Brian_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PST}

PS: My Genes made me do it.kairosfocus_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PST}

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:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]
Rosenberg tried to brazen it out but utterly failed:
Alex Rosenberg as he begins Ch 9 of his The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: >> FOR SOLID EVOLUTIONARY REASONS, WE’VE BEEN tricked into looking at life from the inside. Without scientism, we look at life from the inside, from the first-person POV (OMG, you don’t know what a POV is?—a “point of view”). The first person is the subject, the audience, the viewer of subjective experience, the self in the mind. Scientism shows that the first-person POV is an illusion. [–> grand delusion is let loose in utter self referential incoherence] Even after scientism convinces us, we’ll continue to stick with the first person. But at least we’ll know that it’s another illusion of introspection and we’ll stop taking it seriously. We’ll give up all the answers to the persistent questions about free will, the self, the soul, and the meaning of life that the illusion generates [–> bye bye to responsible, rational freedom on these presuppositions]. The physical facts fix all the facts. [--> asserts materialism, leading to . . . ] The mind is the brain. It has to be physical and it can’t be anything else, since thinking, feeling, and perceiving are physical process—in particular, input/output processes—going on in the brain. We [–> at this point, what "we," apart from "we delusions"?] can be sure of a great deal about how the brain works because the physical facts fix all the facts about the brain. The fact that the mind is the brain guarantees that there is no free will. It rules out any purposes or designs organizing our actions or our lives [–> thus rational thought and responsible freedom]. It excludes the very possibility of enduring persons, selves, or souls that exist after death or for that matter while we live.>>
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:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man. We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
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. KFkairosfocus_{February 9, 2019
February
02
Feb
9
09
2019
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PST}

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.Brother Brian_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PST}

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.mike1962_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PST}

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?mike1962_{February 8, 2019
February
02
Feb
8
08
2019
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply