Why There Is (And Should Be) No Legal Right To Transgender Protections

_{William Murray

May 16, 2016

Constitution, Culture, governance, Laws, Legal, Philosophy, Psychology, Society}

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

Transgenderism is when a person considers themselves to internally be the opposite sex of their physical body. They mentally “self-identify” in contradiction to the physical fact of their body sex. Transgender law advocates insist that self-identified “transgenders” be given legal right to have unfettered access to all public facilities currently reserved for one sex or the other (male and female restrooms, lockers, showers, women’s shelters, etc.) Obama has recently decreed that all schools that do not fully adopt transgender protections and policies will face the revocation of federal funding.

Usually, when a person believes they are something in contradiction to the physical facts (such as believing one is Napoleon, or believing one is a horse), we call that view delusional, because it is a persistent belief held in contradiction to physical facts. Believing that one is a “female” trapped in a male’s body is to consider female-ness something other than what it is, which is a designation based on physical facts. A man can have personality traits that are more in line with what are generally considered the personality traits of females, but having such personality traits doesn’t in fact make them a female “trapped” in a man’s body; it just makes them a man with some personality/psychological traits that are more generally considered to be that of females.

Should men (or women) be free to exhibit personality traits that are more in line with the opposite sex? Should they be allowed to dress like the opposite sex? Certainly. No one is arguing against that. However, should such people have the right to be legally accepted as actually being the opposite sex, for all legal intents and purposes? Should public institutions be forced to view them as the sex they personally identify with by allowing them full legal access to public facilities of the opposite sex?

This boils down to a simple question: should self-identifying personality traits that contradict physical facts be enforceable in the public sector as if those personality traits were physical facts? If a man self-identifies as a woman, should they be given access to all female-specific services and facilities? Should they be able to fill out employment forms and government forms, such as the census, as the opposite sex? Should public-funded school sports teams be required to allow men into women’s sports because they self-identify as women?

Logically, where does the right to self-identify in contradiction to physical facts end? Can I self-identify as a different race? A different age? Can I self-identify as having skills I physically do not have, as having talent I do not possess? Should the law force everyone to accept whatever anyone self-identifies as, regardless of what the physical facts are?

The reason transgenderism is not, and should not be, a legally protected right is because it is a set of personality/psychological traits where a person subjectively, mentally sees him- or herself as something they physically are not, or perhaps because they wish to display a personality that is somewhat in contradiction to social norms concerning gender. Society cannot legally enforce individual personality traits as if those traits represented physical reality or else chaos will ensue. Actual law must be grounded in physical reality, not in individual conceptions of self or individual personality traits. Society cannot, and should not, force everyone to treat such personality traits as if those personality traits represent physical reality. If a 40 year old man “sees himself” as a 4 year old child, am I legally bound to treat him as such? If a stranger insists they are my child or my parent, should such a personality trait have legal force?

These are not “slippery slope arguments”, these are the logical entailments of giving personality/psychological traits (that are in contradiction to physical facts) the full support and force of law. It is outright insanity. It is not a “civil rights” issue at all; it is attempting to break down any valid meaning to any law or right whatsoever if people can simply “self-identify” in contradiction to physical facts.

Comments

WJM, of course, consistency is also tossed out the window -- even as such will often try to skewer others as hypocrites. KFkairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

hrun challenges me to address a specific example:
I’m on a train right now and there’s an annoying kid next to me with a pretty cool cell phone. I CAN punch the kid in the face and take his cellphone. Subjectivists are supposed to believe that might makes right and should do act as they please. Yet, I have empathy. If I were to punch the kid in the face I would share his feelings of pain, loss, and bewilderment. Furthermore, the golden rule means that since I do not wish for other people to punch me in the face and take my cell phone (however much they’d like to) I will do the same. Do you realize that nowhere here have I assumed any kind of objectivity of morals? It is actually completely irrelevant if my morals are true or not nor if they are shared by anybody else but me. Still, I do not act according to ‘might makes right’ nor do I do something simply because I can. In short, it is not a necessary entailment of moral subjectivism to act like a sociopath. So, if you wish you can address this specific case. Was anything I did here irrational? Was it necessary for me to assume or know that my morality is TRUE for everybody, everywhere, at every time? Did I need to use complex abstract thought even though I don’t understand it and that therefore goes over my head? I would say ‘no’ on all accounts.
As I respond to this, try and understand another aspect of abstract reasoning: when I assert what your principle of moral subjectivism entails for other people, I am not asserting that it is something you personally endorse. First, let's address this overly simplistic concept of what "might makes right" means. No, hrun, it doesn't mean that one applies physical might in every case to solve a conflict or to impose one's preferences on others. The fact that your example and description thereof of the "might makes right" option has such a superficial idea of MMR makes clear why higher-abstract arguments are lost on you. "Might Makes Right" refers to using whatever means are at one's disposal that best serves one's own self interest and has the best opportunity to deliver a personally desired end. This can mean physical might, the might of a majority, or use of cunning tactics like emotional pleading or media manipulation. In every case, it is some form of "strength", and not a presumed valid arbiter of right and wrong, that determines what is considered "right". Next, you say that you have not referred to any objective morality, yet one of the things you have referred to in your moral decision is "the Golden Rule". Under subjectivism, all this can be is a personally held behavioral maxim, not a binding or objective "rule" that everyone must follow. IOW, all it can be is a maxim that describes your own feelings about how you prefer to behave. So that maxim, the empathy you describe, and your annoyance are all nothing more than competing personal emotions and feelings. Your entire process can be summed up in the following: you ultimately did what you felt like doing, even though there were competing feelings, and via your moral subjectivism, what you did was necessarily right because you did what you felt like doing. You seem to think that just because you did not do X (not hit the boy in the mouth) it is somehow different in nature than if you did do X (hit the boy in the mouth). This is where your abstract reasoning fails you; under moral subjectivism, both are entirely, unequivocally the same thing. Both would be entirely morally "right" and made so by virtue of the person doing it feeling like doing it and because they can do whatever it is they did. Yes, hrun, you did what you did because you felt like it, because you could. You could restrain yourself, you felt like restraining yourself, so you did in order to serve your own self-interest of not feeling the empathetic pain you would inflict upon yourself. Under your worldview and stated principles, a person with a less developed empathy has the perfect moral right to smash the little bugger in the face if he felt like it, because he could. You don't seem to realize that the principle of moral subjectivism that you advocate authorizes any and all behavior by anyone as absolutely moral as anyone else, as long as they are doing what they feel like doing, because there is no objective standard by which to judge any behavior as moral or immoral. Whether or not "what you did" was irrational with respect to your premise depends upon how you attempt to logically justify what you did from the premise of moral subjectivism. If you say that what you did is rationally justified because moral subjectivism necessarily implies that you are free to do whatever you feel like (limited by what you can) in any given situation, then your behavior is 100% rationally justified by your premise. As I have said before, the hypocrisy is evident not where a self-identified "moral subjectivist" justifies their own behavior, but rather where they attempt to justify their moral interventions and lawmaking.
In short, it is not a necessary entailment of moral subjectivism to act like a sociopath.
I didn't say it was. I said that the only people that can act as if moral subjectivism is true are sociopaths. Being able to construct an example where behavior logically consistent with moral subjectivism does not appear to be the behavior of a sociopath (IOW, acting on empathy, which sociopaths lack) is irrelevant to that point, but I don't expect you to understand that. You ask:
Was it necessary for me to assume or know that my morality is TRUE for everybody, everywhere, at every time?
The example you constructed doesn't even include what I have repeatedly explained where such (unrecognized) assumptions are necessary: when a self-described "moral subjectivist" intervenes in the behavior of others or attempts to pass or advocates for laws that reflect their personal, subjective moral feelings. You have cherry-picked a convenient scenario you think supports your views; the person seeking truth via internal reflection and external (debate) challenges attempts to deliberately undermine their own position by inventing or seeking out the most difficult questions and criticism to put their views and their reasoning to the test. Have you ever seen those "what would you do" shows on TV, where they invent and act out moral dilemmas in some public place to see what people will do? Invent a moral dilemma for yourself where you must intervene in order to protect a child in a situation where no law is actually being broken (so you don't have that to fall back on) from what you consider to be a potentially bad situation. Then ask yourself, how does your moral subjectivism justify your intervening in the moral affairs of others? How is that justification in principle any different than the justification of the person you perceive as doing the immoral thing? If someone "feels" justified in going over and knocking a plate of food off of another diner's table because they personally find that food disgusting, is that perfectly okay because they felt like doing so? Your moral worldview principle endorses all acts as morally equivalent as long as the person feels like it, and justifies all acts as moral goods as long as the person feels like it is justified. That doesn't mean you endorse such behavior and justification, it just means that if you were a logically-consistent moral subjectivist, you would endorse any and all behaviors and justifications by anyone as factually moral in nature.William J Murray_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Aleta I think I should respond to:
192 Aleta May 17, 2016 at 9:46 am to kf, re your new post. Do you seriously think anyone is going to read that rehash of things you’ve copy-and-pasted innumerable times before, miscellaneous quotes, and hyperbolic, overblown rhetoric. Seriously?
. . . which was evidently written to dismiss this summary on the fall of Athens as a lesson on the inherent instability of democracies and by extension the dangerous trends in our own civilisation today. While, conveniently rhetoricaly skewering me. First, you seem to have forgotten that you are the one who made the invidious comparison between support of race based chattel slavery and the principled natural moral law based objection to the radical agenda of homosexualisation of marriage under false colour of law through agit prop and lawfare. I pointed out to you that in fact it is exactly reliance on manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law and on the Judaeo Christian tradition which respects it, that the kidnapping based slave trade then the institution itself were broken. Further, those same principles point to the dangers inherent in reducing marriage to nominalism and might/manipulation makes 'right' manipulation of public opinion and law alike; which are the basis for the current agendas. Of course, such a principle of action has its proper, ugly name: nihilism. Further to this, I have in recent days (based on not only study but on direct experience of such activism that materially helped to ruin my homeland) spoken to the challenge of cultural marxism and its agit prop tactics, how people are swept up in marches of folly, how others are enmeshed in front groups, some becoming activist enablers of agendas. Where, behind the scenes you have strategic level planners and backers of agendas, who are often quite ruthless and willing to twist law into a weapon regardless of consequences for democracy, which is inherently unstable as a system of government. It can be fully justified that such agendas have been at work, and are at work. And yes, such agendas patently use powerful social psychology based manipulative tactics that can colloquially be termed 'brainwashing' or 'mind control.' Such terms are ugly, but they are unfortunately fact based. Now, you in effect dismissed what I put up yesterday as a pastiche of often used, ill-considered and irrelevant clips from here and there, of no account. I think that is unfair and materially false. For instance, the first clip is this, from Wiki (for convenience), which puts the matter of the fall of Athens in a nutshell -- that he may run who reads it:
[The Delian League] . . . founded in 477 BC, was an association of Greek city-states . . . under the leadership of Athens, whose purpose was to continue fighting the Persian Empire after the Greek victory in the Battle of Plataea at the end of the Second Persian invasion of Greece. The League’s modern name derives from its official meeting place, the island of Delos, where congresses were held in the temple and where the treasury stood until, in a symbolic gesture, Pericles moved it to Athens in 454 BC [–> that is, the League was now effectively an Empire]. Shortly after its inception, Athens began to use the League’s navy for its own purposes. [–> what does this already tell us about the challenge of good governance for entangling alliances, out of control international or regional bodies, or even parliaments or cabinets and the like? NATO, the late Warsaw Pact, EU, UN, even FIFA etc?] This behavior frequently led to conflict between Athens and the less powerful members of the League. By 431 BC, Athens’ heavy-handed control of the Delian League prompted the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War; the League was dissolved upon the war’s conclusion in 404 BC under the direction of Lysander, the Spartan commander. [Wikipedia, for convenience]
My point was and is -- in the teeth of repeated dismissal of concerns that we are in a situation of factionalism and mutual polarisation leading to a watershed effect of being ever more wedged apart, leading to a march of folly and ruin -- that the fall of the first great democratic polity has lessons for us today. Lessons that are so vital that we need to routinely learn them in school. Namely -- and I have taken the time to develop a set of infographics that illustrate the dynamics -- that democracies are inherently unstable, prone to either rushing onward toward anarchy and snapping back to oligarchy and tyranny, or else simply sliding down into the same. Where, the history of Athens is particularly relevant. For which I took time to excerpt Thucydides and to clip again a useful Wiki summary, to outline the history. (The invitation is obviously to explore further.) Nor is this an idiosyncratic view of some idle spermologos picking up scraps of half understood learning in the marketplace of ideas. (And yes the echo of the attitude of the academics in Athens c 50 AD per Ac 17 is intended.) As I summarised (having cited Cicero, Burke and Luke's study in Ac 27) regarding the American founders:
The repeated, hard-bought lesson of history that democratic opinions can become marches of folly to ruin, was so stringent that the founders of the first modern constitutional democratic republic, the Americans, were emphatic that they founded a republic not a democracy, and put in place many checks and balances to restrain the dangerous tendency of democracies to deteriorate into marches of folly and/or mob rule leading to ruin.
I then went on to Tytler, both the common misattributed remarks on voting for largess from the treasury and this more authentic remark:
It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic, which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy. [Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser (1854). Universal History: From the Creation of the World to the Beginning of the Eighteenth Century, Vol. I. Petridge and Company. p. 216.]
That is why I could freely conclude: " . . . there is a longstanding concern about the inherent instability and vulnerability of democracies that need to be kept in control through an educated, concerned, public spirited, virtue minded public." I have argued also therein, that: " . . . a democracy is inherently unstable and was only feasible when, from 1400 – 1700, the printing press was invented, the Bible — bulwark of liberty and recognition of equality as made in God’s image and as responsible, rational, morally governed creatures — was put in the hands of the ordinary man, and there arose a regular, responsible, free press. Also, the theology and philosophy of liberty and self government had to be worked out and communicated to the people . . . . Such changes took generations, and it is no surprise that as these ideas and supports became more and more established, democracy, the central importance of liberty, abolition of the kidnapping based slave trade and then the institution it supported and other important reforms were able to move ahead. Often, carried on the wings of revival." It is in that context that I cited the oh so tiresome call of the Congress to prayer and penitence and covenant of nationhood under God of May 17, 1776 (as I clipped in this thread at 211); which happened to be exactly 240 years ago yesterday. Yes, there are some clips as well that are cites I have frequently used at UD. These are also quite relevant, including the US DoI of two months after that act of covenant as just pointed to. If I am hyperbolic and overblown, it seems I am in fairly good company in being concerned that democracy is inherently unstable and must be carefully guarded to keep it sustainable. And, it would seem that I have abundant company in concern that our civilisation is in serious danger, of which it is largely heedless. Where, it is a strong mark of marches of folly that those caught up routinely become angry towards those who point out the unwelcome concerns and facts. Where it is ever so tempting to attack the man rather than deal with the issue. Where, to attack the man, the easiest dirty trick in the book is to project "he hit back first" turnabout accusations, and to denigrate his character. Finally, I again point out to you that in your own reference to slavery and failure to see the actual connexions of the natural moral law in regards to its abolition, you inadvertently underscored my concern that another commenter had made a seriously invidious association by trying to connect the concerns of Christians today to the practices of Meso America 500 years past, to the Westboro Baptists and to the KKK, etc. It is fair comment to say that these are out of order, and it is further fair comment to say that your ilk has not walked back from such. As it seems there is an undercurrent of anti-Christian animus in far too much of current debates, I will close off by drawing to your attention four highly relevant foundational teachings on Christian morality that speak to all of these things:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them [--> note the reference to conscience and to the manifestly evident first principles of natural law, which will next be outlined] Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [--> this is one of the contexts of reference for Hooker's 1594+ remarks cited by Locke c 1690 in founding principles of law and justice for freedom and what would become modern democracy starting with the US DoI 1776] 1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c: The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Tim 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[b: That is, those who [kidnap and] take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. [ESV]
KFkairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

F/N: Part of my point is that democracy is inherently unstable and exists in tension with a cumulative trend to oligarchy -- and possibly autocracy if one figure emerges who dominates the oligarchy. A constitutional, responsibly free and sustainable democracy is critically dependent on a worldviews and institutional framework -- cf the seven mountains cultural high ground model -- that sustains good governance across time. That frame is palpably being drastically undermined in our time. KF PS: That is why I believe we need to teach the general public on how Athens fell and on what modern framers of democracy did to stabilise democracies. Freedom is now fading into license and domineering through critical mass mob mentality, divide and rule tactics [a pattern deliberately injected by cultural marxist activists], and that is a big red warning flag.kairosfocus_{May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

Seversky, radical relativism/subjectivism, extreme nominalism that turns key words into policy putty in the hands of the powerful and agenda driven ['right' 'equal' 'truth' 'law' 'justice' 'value' 'sex' 'gender' 'marriage' 'child abuse' 'discrimination' 'tolerance' and many more come to mind . . . ], discarding of objective moral governance, nihilism and ruthless lawfare are the issue. And the worldviews that lead to such. Stalin was not unique [we cannot merely dismiss him as an isolated madman], the far too long list of atheistical and post Christian dictators with similar lists of victims and tactics is a horrific feature of the century just past that led to over 100 millions murdered by such states. It is not for nothing that Plato warned us 2350 years ago. The pivotal point is, that we must recognise such lawlessness for what it is and address it from the worldview roots. But instead, we have begun to recklessly run down the same lines, on much the same worldview and cultural/policy agenda grounds. Remember, just in the USA there is already an in progress holocaust of the innocent unborn that is mounting to 60 millions; under false colour of law, dehumanisation of the child in the womb and manipulation of 'rights' 'choice' and the like. Globally in the same period since the turn of the 70's, we are likely looking at many hundreds of millions. The corruption of law, institutions, language, thought, and conscience to sustain such under false colour of law is a huge red warning flag on the matches we are playing with and where our civilisation is clearly recklessly headed. KF PS: FYI though it is nowadays almost always sneered at as a fallacy, the slippery slope dynamic is a real issue. It becomes a real concern once one establishes a wedge/initiation point that triggers a slide and a cumulative positive feedback or chain reaction process that with relevantly high likelihood -- and that is a balance of probability x impact i/l/o reasonable ability to control the process. Including, what happens when good governance is undermined through injection of amorality, polarisation and nihilism] triggers a slide that can go out of control. Where, history is a very good source for such justifications. PPS: And the notion that history is little more than victors' propaganda is insane. Sound history was bought and paid for in blood and tears. Those who ignore, dismiss or neglect its lessons doom themselves to pay much the same coin, over and over again.kairosfocus_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

Seversky Do you have kids? A daughter? How would you feel if your nine year old daughter shares a bathroom with a transgender? Can you say with absolute certainty that he is not a disguised sexual predator? How does one test genetically if someone really is a transgender? How do we do that? What biological tests exist today to ascertain if someone is transgender? Can you name one? We do have biological tests to differentiate male from female but for transgenderism? What do we have?Andre_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

Seversky @223, Your ability to prove KF's points is impressive.Brent_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

hrun @212,
That is the point about things like the increased risks due to exposure to harmful things like UV rays or asbesotos. You can have countless exposures to either without ‘experiencing ill effects’. Yet, our common understanding of harm still labels such exposures harmful.
Wrong as wrong can be. Yes, we say exposure is harmful because of a high likelihood that actual (in these cases physical) harm will be the result. BUT, we can only make that determination based on experience of the number of ACTUAL instances where exposure over time caused ACTUAL harm. In other words, we make the general assumption that exposure IS harm ONLY because there has been an investigation into ACTUAL harm as a result. It is not that any exposure in any degree actually IS harmful, but that since it often is the case that actual harm results we say, for expediency and to keep potential victims completely sobered (rightly in my opinion), that exposure is harmful. So, with that. If I am exposed to asbestos every day of my life for 90 years and upon my death multiple autopsies determine that, surprisingly, my exposure to asbestos didn't effect my health in any way, was I harmed by asbestos? Apparently you say yes.Brent_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

So let me get this straight, allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice will lead inevitably to a ruthless and brutal Stalinist dictatorship? And we don't see this because we cannot reason in the abstract in the way that WJM and StephenB can?Seversky_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

PPPS: The show trials:
The show trials that took place in Stalin’sUSSR had a very specific purpose for Stalin. The show trials were not held in secret but were, as their title suggests, in the open with foreign journalists invited and were there to prove to those in the USSR who were interested that ‘enemies of the state’ still existed despite the ‘Red Terror’ and that state leaders such as Stalin were at risk. There is little doubt that those who faced a show trial were going to be found guilty and they served the main purpose of Stalin – to get rid of anyone who might be a potential rival to him as leader . . . . Leon Trotsky was another case. Few would have questioned the intellectual qualities of Trotsky and as a member of the Bolshevik Old Guard, he did represent a threat to ‘the Boss’ as did anyone, Stalin believed, who was associated with Trotsky. To be labelled a ‘Trotskyite’ at the time of Stalin’s tenure in charge of the USSR invariably brought with it imprisonment and death. However, Stalin did not feel in sufficient control of the USSR to simply allow the NKVD to round up ‘enemies of the state’ and have a second version of the ‘Red Terror’. He needed an excuse to justify what was to happen. Kirov played a vital part in this – he was murdered on December 1st 1934 by Leonid Nikolayev. Historians are divided as to the extent Stalin played in this. Some believe that he effectively organised it while others believe that supporters of Trotsky made up the ‘evidence’ to discredit Stalin. Whatever the case, Stalin asked the Politburo for a purge of the party to rid it of those who were, in Stalin’s mind, betraying the November 1917 Revolution. The Politburo agreed with Stalin. The NKVD was handed a list of those who were now labelled ‘enemies of the state’ – effectively the Bolshevik Party’s Old Guard – for example, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin. Anyone associated with these men was also under suspicion. They were put on trial at heavily manipulated show trials where the verdict was never in doubt. The show trials had to prove their guilt preferably with a very public admission of betraying the revolution and therefore the people. The first people arrested were known supporters of Trotsky who at this time was living on an island off the coast of Turkey. While he was safe for the time being, his supporters were not. Very few survived long enough in a NKVD prison to make a public admission of guilt. However, signed confessions were considered useful tools as well. Why should men sign a confession knowing that it was probably nonsense and knowing that such a signing was almost like signing their own execution warrant. Those who survived the NKVD prisons – and very few did – later wrote about the brutal regime they faced. Cells would be windowless and a very strong electric light bulb – which prisoners could not turn on or off – was left permanently on. NKVD guards ensured prisoners were sleep deprived and exhausted when it came to their interrogation. A promise of better treatment was made to ensure the swift signature of a confession. However, the NKVD also wanted the names of anyone else associated with the ‘crimes’ of the man who had just signed his own death warrant. In his book ‘Darkness at Noon’ the author Arthur Koestler states his belief that prisoners actually signed confessions knowing that it would lead to their deaths but that death was better than the life they were leading while in a cell. If psychological torture did not work on a prisoner, then the NKVD turned to his family [--> to try to save them from torture or death (and too often they were killed or sent to the Gulag anyway); yes, that is how hellish these matches can get]. In June 1934, Stalin signed a decree that held the family of a prisoner as guilty as he was and that the family (directed of course against the Old Guard) was guilty in its own right. This law stated that children over the age of 12 could be executed for the crimes of their father. Others faced the prospect of a sentence in the brutal gulags that were being built across the USSR. There were some prisoners who would not play along with the dangerous game played by the NKVD. A different approach was needed. The one the NKVD adopted was to get a prisoner to confess to crimes and to sign the required confession in return for a document that guaranteed their lives. If all else failed then the victim was simply told that he would be executed without the formality of a trial. The show trials became just that – a show.
More grim reading: http://art-bin.com/art/amosc_preeng.htmlkairosfocus_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

F/N: Where the accusation mentality can end up: http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSshow.htm . . . and why it is important to stand up now before the demonisation tactic utterly runs out of all control. Those who ignore, dismiss or neglect the lessons of history that were bought hard with blood and tears, doom themselves to pay much the same coin again and again. KF PS: Aleta, the issue is first not what any individuals, classes, states, leaders, church officials etc may say or do, it is first what are the manifestly evident first principles of the natural moral law. And for the Christian faith, no one can now actually redefine the core Christian faith or shake its guarantee of truth, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, with 500 eyewitnesses, with life transforming power that has changed the lives of millions. One can only become faithless, turning way from truth and right. PPS: Some disturbing listening: http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/05/impersonal-appearance-2/kairosfocus_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Interesting how el presidente sounds lot like some liberal Anglo Saxon elitist ...maybe he was promised mucho pesos to jump on the rainbow bandwagon...I wonder if they will setup referendum for that issue? Probably not.Eugen_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

The fall down the slippery slope continues: the president of Mexico, a predominately Catholic country, proposes legalizing same-sex marriage. http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-mexican-president-proposes-legalizing-gay-marriage-2016-5 He (a moral objectivist, as a Catholic, I imagine) appears to agree with me:
Peña Nieto said he would seek to reform Article 4 of the constitution to clearly reflect the Supreme Court opinion "to recognize as a human right that people can enter into marriage without any kind of discrimination." "That is, for marriages to be carried out without discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or nationality, of disabilities, of social or health conditions, of religion, of gender or sexual preference," he added.
Aleta_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Hrun "I wouldn’t call this measured or scholarly, no." I was hoping to hear from Aleta but since WJMs beat down of the subjectivists position maybe she is licking her wounds. Then again she might just have other things to do. Obviously I am not surprised by your response however I was trying to make a subtle point ,not to get your agreement. Like KF others are sounding the alarm and the bells are ringing very loudly. He sounds very much like KF. Vividvividbleau_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

vivid
StephenB In light of your back and forth with Hrun I thought you might like this article. Pay particular attention to the middle aged girls response to the transgender person.
Vivid, yes. Any fair minded person would understand that this law militates against non-transgenders, especially non-transgender women.StephenB_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

WJM, @158 you write,
One of the problems I consistently run into with moral subjectivists (and materialists and atheists) is that they have a serious problem understanding complex abstract thought. I mean, this problem is pretty obvious in this thread, but I think what you are trying to explain to hrun is just over his head. He reads and understands things far too literally for this kind of argument.
Yes, I agree. The ability to reason in the abstract seems to be the main problem. Here is my abbreviated analysis: Normal people recognize that truth is the destination of intellectual activity and reason is the vehicle by which the journey is made. They sense the intellectual gap between where they are and where they need to be, and they are willing to invest the necessary intellectual exertion to get there-- to move away from their feelings and in the direction of the truth. Subjectivsts, on the other hand, do not recognize any intellectual gap between what is and what could be. For them, there is no destination called truth, so there is no use for reason as the vehicle that could take them there. From their perspective, truth should be making the journey in their direction, twisting and bending itself until it finally conforms to their personal biases. Thus, reason’s true function, which is to lead the mind to truth, is downgraded to the role rationalizing made up truths. In the end, the faculty of reason becomes weak and flabby from a lack of intellectual exertion. The end result is a failure to recognize basic literary devices such as generalized principles, intellectual categories, and descriptive metaphors. I wouldn't be surprised if hrun responds by saying, "How can reason be a vehicle? Does it have four wheels?"StephenB_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Re #213:
America may no longer be a country worth dying for in a war against extremists if we simultaneously, psychologically abuse millions upon millions of our children by insisting that they go to the bathroom beside adults who are physically of the opposite gender. Why would a country that does that have any moral standing, whatsoever? Why would our enemies not point to that reality and mock us for criticizing darkness in their own cultures? Really, what could be worse than the Department of Education commanding schools to let anatomic boys use the girls’ locker rooms and restrooms?
I wouldn't call this measured or scholarly, no.hrun0815_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

StephenB In light of your back and forth with Hrun I thought you might like this article. Pay particular attention to the middle aged girls response to the transgender person. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/17/middle-school-students-take-a-stand-in-transgender-bathroom-firestorm-after-controversial-directive-from-obama-administration/ Vividvividbleau_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Aleta RE 208 Is Keith Ablow Measured? Scholarly? http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dr-keith-ablow-transgender-extremism-is-the-biggest-issue-in-america/ Vividvividbleau_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Re #210: Brent, you asked in #186:
How is it that someone can be harmed when they never ever experience any ill effects from losing something?
Which I actually addressed in both of my posts. 'Experiencing ill effects' is not an exclusive precondition of harm. A loss in value can be harm just as well. And this is not tied to a threshold value. That is the point about things like the increased risks due to exposure to harmful things like UV rays or asbesotos. You can have countless exposures to either without 'experiencing ill effects'. Yet, our common understanding of harm still labels such exposures harmful.hrun0815_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

F/N: 240 years ago today, by order of the US Congress: __________________ >>May 1776 [over the name of John Hancock, first signer of the US Declaration of Independence]: In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day.>> __________________ Yes, this is the Congress calling the incipient nation to covenantal, penitent prayer. This, is nationhood and eventually government under God with all the struggles entailed and all the flaws. But, it is with fixed purpose to move forward to the good. KF PS: WJM, thanks. Kindly note today's date and of what this is the 240th anniversary; theologically, the spiritual birthday of the USA. I remain of the view that democracy is ever fragile and unstable and that it can only be sustained by citizens of a sort of spirit as just outlined. That spirit is being despised and driven out all over our civilisation and we have now come to the sort of ridge line watershed with double mutually polarised slippery slopes leading to ruin that I have pointed out. PPS: Aleta, here are the neo-marxist agitator Alinsky's rules 5 and 13, which I for cause summarised and identified as at work:
5] “Ridicule [--> cruel mockery in this context] is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 13] “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
PPPS: Vivid, that was an exercise in invidious, behind the back association. In the further context of what has been going on it is quite revealing.kairosfocus_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

hrun, how is it that you disregard my direct question as well as my explanation as to why loss isn't always harm? Harm sometimes is characterized by loss of value. Loss of value does not always result in harm. Why have you not answered me?Brent_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Aleta said:
I’m afraid my irony meter just broke.
It's so sad that you think that quote makes your case.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

wjm writes,
Then they just start baiting him, and he [kf] patiently responds in a rather scholarly and very measured way.
I'm afraid my irony meter just broke. To call kf's posts "measured and scholarly" is just incomprehensible. For example, here's the first paragraph from a post today:
On observing your behaviour above, I find it necessary to point out that you are now proceeding to demonisation and using the notorious agit prop techniques of the cultural marxist nihilists to cruelly mock, personalise and polarise rather than actually address the substantial matters with civlity, on the merits:
Measured? Scholarly?Aleta_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

BTW, Aleta, if there is one set of rules for the regulars here, and another for dissenters, so what? You have one set of rules for those you agree with ([cue theme music from "Frozen"]: the moral obligation to help them achieve their truest version of their nature/nurture self) and another for those you disagree with (like, you know, psychopaths), whom you are (as you say) under no moral obligation to help. But, it's not like you're going to actually respond to these inconsistencies no matter how often I point them out, because, gosh darn it, logic ain't everything!William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

WJM RE 204 Amen Vividvividbleau_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Re #201:
No, I do not. Your confusion will be resolved when you try to produce either a legitimate or illegitimate law (take your choice) that doesn’t compromise or take away a right from the party that it is aimed against. Recall that you have not even tried to produce a counter example. I will interpret that omission to mean that you are tacitly conceding the point.
I guess I do. I wrote in #156 that if you allow for the gain and loss of imaginary or illegitimate or non-existent rights then absolutely your statement is always true-- and trivially so: Group A gains right Y. Group B loses right for group A not to have right Y. or Group A gains right Y. Group A loses right not to have right Y. So if this the extent to which your statement that 'I don't understand rights' refers then I absolutely concede the point? And I also concede that I don't understand 'rights'-- at least not in the same sense as you do.hrun0815_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

And you don’t ban kairosfocus for the steady stream of extreme accusations that he hurls at people he doesn’t agree with. Why not? .... I see. kf gets his own rules. Thanks for the explanation, Eugen.
You may not believe this, but you conceptualization of kf's posts, what they mean, and the spirit in which they are presented is entirely erroneous. It's really too bad you don't take him seriously enough to actually pay cose attention to him, follow his links, etc. Inquisitor and others (like you, apparently) think they understand his posts because they think they understand him, but they do not - not at all. Instead of understanding the conceptual, historical and cautionary narrative kf consistently provides in pretty close to full and annotated context, inquisitor and others are simply triggered by his use of certain words and phrases and then feel justified in making comparisons and drawing conclusions based on those reactions. Then they just start baiting him, and he patiently responds in a rather scholarly and very measured way. Inquisitor thinks he understands arguments, but he doesn't. Much like inquisitor thought I had made an argument against using incendiary language, when I had done no such thing; he didn't understand the context of that post nor did he apparently read my pointed corrections within that thread when someone (perhaps he) made the same mistaken assertion as to the nature of my argument. Much like inquisitor did, yet again, when he thought I was accusing him of believing in moral anarchism, and then quote-mined several lines where I had used the term anarchism in close proximity to the words moral relativism/relativist as if that alone supported his conclusion that I had accused him of believing in moral anarchism. Even you were able to see that he was mistaken about what case I was making. I'm telling you now, you are mistaken about the kind of case kf makes. And the primary reason you and others of your ilk constantly misunderstand kf and some other posters here is because you have abandoned adherence to logic and reason and the principle of charitable interpretation in favor of emotional evaluations and sentimental judgments.William J Murray_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

News see 145 Vividvividbleau_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

RE 193 Oh boy I am really going to get into trouble now. News I was his discussion partner. "Godwin’s Law violation: The first party to imply that his discussion partners are comparable to Hitler, a current celebrity mass murderer, the KKK, or any similar entity is deemed to have both lost the argument and terminated his role in the discussion." I have already stated that the KKK, Westborough comment was a continuation of a discussion Inquisitor and I had been having about "logical consequences of ideas" I was his DISCUSSION partner. He was not comparing me to the KKK, etc!!!! I do agree that he should have left KF out of it. Vividvividbleau_{May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply