US AG Barr on the importance of religious liberty

_{kairosfocus
October 14, 2019

Academic Freedom, Atheism, Defending our Civilization, News Highlights, Religion

1}_{Categories
Academic Freedom
Atheism
Defending our Civilization
News Highlights
Religion}

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

Here (as updated):

Money clip:

The imperative of protecting religious freedom was not just a nod in the direction of piety. It reflects the framers’ belief that religion was indispensable to sustaining our free system of government . . . ”

Food for thought. END

F/N, U/D: Prepared text, found. I think he mostly read the speech, let us clip and discuss below.

PS: First, a different view on political spectra (than where one sat in the French legislature 200 years ago or thereabouts):

Next, Aquinas on law, as summarised:

Third, Schaeffer’s line of despair analysis, as adjusted and extended:

Let’s add on straight vs spin

Comments

EG, your response fails. If you are saying little more than "I detest prunes," then you have nothing substantial to say. If you are setting out to use or to enable agit prop, media amplified street theatre and lawfare to impose your preferred rewriting of sexual identity, sexual ethics and key institutions like marriage and family in the teeth of evidence of SET's and much more that such is extremely ill advised and even ruinous, including opening up grooming in the name of library reading time, then you are declaring war of imposition and usurpation that triggers the rights of remonstrance and resistance discussed in say the 2nd Paragraph, US DoI. In this region, we already have to deal with judges trying to rewrite -- not merely "creatively" interpret [bad as that already is] -- specific, focal, referendum-passed constitutional provisions from their unaccountable benches. It seems you are blissfully unaware of what fatal spreading disaffection of the people in the face of a long train of abuses and usurpations can all too easily lead to. Somewhere that it is patent madness to go. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Hazel, you obviously have forgotten what you said, to which I specifically objected and which you have doubled down on:
Hazel, 413: "do you not see that you never, ever respond (other than by repeating your claims) to counterpoints of others"
In a context of a three-day process of taking time out from multiple local RW challenges to answer Seversky, EG and you on specific arguments, that was simply false and a false accusation. There are points of evidence and arguments that will bear repeating, including pointing out how -- consistently and inescapably -- your objections etc have a pattern with an ". . . implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right." Later, Vivid would note this at 426 & 429 for a case where you argued in 425 "It’s not right to interject your comments in my posts." Indeed, that would not be right as a routine matter but this is not that, you have a false accusation, corrected that you doubled down on. Thus, I took strong steps to highlight the problem. Further to all of this, you have shown a pattern of evasion or dismissive comment or ignoring material argument and evidence then proceeding with whatever talking points you wish. Indeed, IIRC there were points in the past where you said you did not read what you engaged. When you are making accusations involving terms like "you never, ever . . ." you had better have done the work of ensuring accuracy. You obviously failed to do so, and raised an accusation that comes across as turnabout projection rather than anything fair minded or truthful. And especially given current circumstances, that is not acceptable. Please, do better. And, worse, all of this is distractive from a central and serious issue for our civilisation. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Aha - I found it. At 439, kf writes,
you still have not retracted your insistently repeated false assertion that I am simply emptily repeating. There is no need to go off on side tracks, just admit that your assertion on empty repetition was wrong.
When I look back over your posts, briefly, I primarily see repeats of quoted material and boilerplate language, so I think it's correct to say that most of what you post is repetitious. I don't think I've used the word "empty", although I have said I don't see why you think saying the same things over and over again accomplishes anything.hazel_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

KF, sorry, but how does that address my comment?
KF: Do you deny that it is not a key premise in your objections above, that “we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that”?
I believe you are subjectively wrong. Not objectively so. But please, address my actual comment, don’t just provide rhetorical talking points.Ed George_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

kf writes, "you know the specific false accusation you made, then insisted on in the teeth of accessible correction on a mere matter of material fact " Refresh my memory, please. I have accused you of improperly inserting a comment into my post. I have accused you of endless reposting the same stuff. But if I made some other specific false accusation, please let me know what it is, and point back to the post where you "corrected me" with a "mere matter of material fact."hazel_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

EG, the above was adequately answered above, try 363 -- "the relevant SETs depend only on having understanding rooted in experience and honesty to admit its force. Indeed, there you go again, just as was noted . . ." Notice, no particular questionable assertions or assumptions, just an observation easily confirmed throughout this thread: we cannot escape appealing to the first duties of reason when we reason or argue; this you just did yet again but refuse to acknowledge. Notice, from no 1 in my list:
we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right . . .
Do you deny that it is not a key premise in your objections above, that "we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that"? If you deny, you have no argument, you are just making noises. If you do acknowledge that we may and do readily see just this commonplace fact, then your huffing and puffing over alleged or suggested dubious assumptions falls flat. That you insist on repeating adequately corrected errors is sufficient to show how weak your case is. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Hazel, you know the specific false accusation you made, then insisted on in the teeth of accessible correction on a mere matter of material fact -- never mind that, likely, you did not read properly before setting up and knocking over a strawman -- and you had just as much access to how it was refuted. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Since repetition appears to be a valid form of argument here, let me clip again:
I have not denied the existence of SETs. All I have said is that some of your claims of SETs are dependent on assumptions that are not proven. As such, they cannot be SETs. For example, your claim that we are inescapably under moral governance. Yes, we all have something that we refer to as a sense of morality. But the source of this “sense” and the values that populate it are up for debate. Some say it is objectively derived (God) and others say it is subjectively derived. If it were subjectively derived we would expect moral values to vary within a society, between societies, and over time. This is exactly what we see. If it is subjectively derived we would expect some societies to thrive and last a long time and others to be short lived. Again, this is exactly what we see. If it is subjectively derived we would expect to see changes over time in what society holds as its moral values. And it is exactly these changes that you are so upset about. You arguments about this inevitably boil down to your fears over the consequences to a society of moral values that are subjectively derived; your oft repeated might and manipulation make right. However, you conveniently leave out the concepts of cooperation, shared self-interest and the ability, although not infallible, to predict consequences of actions.
This is what you have not satisfactorily addresses. And what Hazel has accused you of. And, please, stop with the “piling on” nonsense. Unless, of course, you are going to accuse ET, VB, UB and yourself for piling on as well.Ed George_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

EG, perhaps it has escaped your notice that disagreement on moral subjects carries no more capability to imply that there are no moral realities or that they can never be accurately described -- which is a moral truth claim (and a false one) -- than do differences of views or gaps between what is thought and what is done in any number of subjects. Including Logic and Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Medicine, Economics, History [there was an actual past and despite debates we may often accurately report it] and many more. Where, that reform is possible shows that moral errors can be recognised, warranted as errors, and corrected. In addition, you would do well to take time to absorb the points in 410, noting how such views break down decisively. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

kf writes, "Hazel, you have an unretracted serious false accusation to address." I do? Can you be more specific? What false accusation have I made? In what post?hazel_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Hazel, you have an unretracted serious false accusation to address. That fact has been duly notified. That it remains unretracted speaks for itself. Meanwhile, comment after comment you show that the first duties of reason are inescapable. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Hazel
And what will that disciplinary action be?
As long as it doesn’t involve handcuffs, gags and leather. :)Ed George_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

kf writes, "leading to a disciplinary action by the responsible thread owner." And what will that disciplinary action be? And Ed did respond to the substantial matter at 361, which I notice you haven't responded to, other than to repeat yourself ad infinitum.hazel_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

KF@442, again, you have not addressed the evidence of all of recorded history.Ed George_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

EG, I cannot but notice that you do not respond to the substantial matter, insistent false accusation in the face of manifest correction, leading to a disciplinary action by the responsible thread owner. Meanwhile, you again exemplify the point that those who would sideline the first duties of reason are forced to rely on them to try to lend force to what they say; inescapable moral truths are truths and are self evident, objective and well warranted for those willing and able to ponder. Further, we cannot but observe that your latest piling on attempt also represents a derailment effort. KF PS: Your attempt to inject subjectivism fails, for reasons already laid out above. Or, do you want to fish for another run on the tactic see you are repeating the same argument. You are insistently ignoring cogent correction put up starting at 91 and last appearing at 410.kairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

KF@440, if you think that addresses Hazel’s comment, you are sadly mistaken. Her point is simply that it is rude to post in someone else’s comment. There are many things that I think you OUGHT to do/accept. That doesn’t mean that we are under any objective governance of OUGHT. You are not bound to follow my OUGHTs, and I am not bound to follow yours. My OUGHTS are based on education, indoctrination, rational thought and feedback. There is not a single one of my OUGHTS that is dependent on a “necessary being”. In all of your words (and there have been thousands of them) you have not come close to adequately addressing the fact that moral values differ between societies, between people and over time. Claiming that free will and human error account for this is just equivocation at its best.Ed George_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Hazel, Just to get back on track, I note as follows, first:
Vivid, 426: >>426 vividbleau October 24, 2019 at 8:49 pm (Edit) KF You gotta love Hazels post in 425 in light of what you told her in 414 “The implicit premise of your argument is, indeed, “manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right . . . “ Hazel as usual talks out of both sides of her mouth. You OUGHT not interject your comments but that does not mean you are under ought and ought not do so. How do these people not realize that they are constantly contradicting themselves ? Vivid>>
And, again:
Vivid, 429: >>429 vividbleau October 24, 2019 at 10:20 pm (Edit) “It’s not right to interject your comments in my posts.” KF this is what Hazel means. Even though you ought not interject your comments that does not mean you ought not do so. Since I am fallible I may be wrong in saying you are not right in which case your right and I apologize. However if your right you are fallible as well and could be wrong and then you need to apologize to me. Rinse and repeat. Better yet let’s take a vote and see if I can get some intersubjective agreement on the matter which is also fallible so it may be wrong as well in which case ( if it goes my way) I apologize. However if it goes your way it is fallible as well and we just rinse and repeat again. Clear? Vivid>>
Taken together, he has put on the table a substantial matter and that should be answered. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

hazel, he put up two closely related comments. these highlight the inconsistencies in your remarks above, and how in fact you cannot escape precisely the appeals to first duties of reason that you have tried to sideline. Further to this, you still have not retracted your insistently repeated false assertion that I am simply emptily repeating. There is no need to go off on side tracks, just admit that your assertion on empty repetition was wrong, and engage the issue that the first duties of reason are in fact inescapable and present in your own arguments. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

No, Vivid has posted a silly parody that makes no attempt to address serious objections to the issue.hazel_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

Hazel, Vivid has in fact posed a serious challenge you would be well advised to address. This includes that you have made and in the teeth of corrective evidence repeated a manifestly false assertion about my arguments above; which have not been merely empty repetition of text without addressing specific claims made by Seversky et al with fresh argument. Such fresh argument, as I remind at 415 echoing 315, includes the issue that reality is not credibly to be confined to the empirical domain. Were that done, mathematics and logic would collapse. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
I assume, that it would morally abhorrent for a father to kill and eat his own children. Yet we know there are other animal species, such as some of the big cats, in which this happens. We might regard that as distasteful but do we regard it as morally wrong? Typically, no, we just put it down to Nature being “red in tooth and claw”.
Is a Lion responsibly and rationally significantly free and so morally governed? Do we put lions on trial for killing a gazelle for lunch, or for that matter a man for similarly catching, killing and cooking a fish [that is not protected]? This is where the force of "rational [and so responsible] en-soulment" comes in. We are rational and responsible, not blindly driven by impulses and instincts. Thus, too, a higher being treating humans would err grossly were it to ignore or reject or dismiss the evidence that we exhibit in-built rational responsible freedom and linked intelligence, thus ability to reason, warrant, know, decide prudently or to the good, etc. That is the context of moral government in which we have rights and properly expect just treatment. If you will, we can express this in terms of the Kantian Categorical imperative, suitably understood, which arguably extend the do no harm justice implication of the Golden Rule of neighbour love:
I: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law II: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means. III: Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.
Note, again, just what first duties of reason are are on the table: to truth, to right reason, to sound conscience, to prudence, to justice etc. In that context, we observe that the very act of arguing and reasoning, as we know abundantly from experience, is governed by these duties. Where, were we to deny this, we would on one side, undermine the basis for knowledge and responsible community or living, converting rationality into little more than a tool for clever deceit and manipulation. If we took another path (similar to that of Ruse and Wilson as cited and commented on in 411 above), we would imply grand delusion, causing immediate collapse of the intellectual life. I am not looking for absolute, bedrock certainties, I am looking at key self evident truths relevant to responsible reason. And, even the implied appeal of your latest arguments to these self-same principles show how inescapable they are. They are first truths, part of the package that we must acknowledge to set out on warranting other things. Again, you may profit from the exchange Epictetus had with an interlocutor on logic, as was shared above:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus’] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not?
There are things that are self-evident as they are inescapable. Indeed, arguably the first duties of reason are as central and as inescapable a part of logic as are the first principles pivoting on the principle of distinct identity: LOI, LNC, LEM. KFkairosfocus_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Vivid, given your comments to JAD a while back, it is clear that your comments are, in general, much more like a troll than anything approaching a genuine participant. 429 confirms my opinion.hazel_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

hazel:
It’s not right to interject your comments in my posts.
Sure it is.ET_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Holy Moley- Only humans are held to moral standards, seversky. Your desperation, while entertaining, is not an argument.ET_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @ 328
SET’s clearly include moral issues, including that said rationality undeniably is morally governed by duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, fairness, justice etc
We would all agree, I assume, that it would morally abhorrent for a father to kill and eat his own children. Yet we know there are other animal species, such as some of the big cats, in which this happens. We might regard that as distasteful but do we regard it as morally wrong? Typically, no, we just put it down to Nature being "red in tooth and claw". Following from that, we can envisage a more advanced alien intelligence conducting observations of Earth much as human scientist study other animals here. They might see instances of human children being abused by adults and classify them as aberrant behavior but not self-evidently immoral. So when an adult male lion kills an eats cubs. perhaps sired by another male, is that wrong on the grounds that it is a moral SET and, if not why not? No one is denying the importance of rationality but we use it because of its practical value in achieving a desired end, just like mathematics or logic. We are not "inescapably" governed by it or bound to use it. We can ignore it whenever we choose. Gambling, for example, is an irrational behavior because "the house always wins". Yet a large number of people indulge in it now and apparently have done so throughout recorded history. The problem is that you are looking for absolute, bedrock certainties, particularly in terms of morality where, as far as I can see, there is none to be had.Seversky_{October 25, 2019
October
10
Oct
25
25
2019
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

PPS: Let us refocus what has been so tellingly vindicated, this time going to the first four SET's on moral government of right reason -- and please note the list of what we can call first duties of responsible reason [FDRR]:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial. Expanding slightly: our rational, responsible intelligent behaviour is inescapably under the moral government of known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc. [ --> The FDRR, proper.] Thus, we find morally rooted law built into our morally governed nature, even for our intellectual life. Thus, too, the civil law extends what is already built in, to our social circumstances, turning on issues of prudence, justice and mutual duties; if it is to be legitimate. Notice, this is itself a theory on what law is or at least should be. And yes, all of this is fraught with implications for the roots of reality.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.
We can take these as established beyond reasonable, responsible doubt. Complete with poster-boy/ -girl cases in point. Now, let us bridge to the business of turning back from the crumbling cliff's edge through reformation, pivoting on:
5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.
This harks back to Cicero:
. . . “Law (say they [the received thinkers c 50 BC]) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . 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]
On this, much can be rebuilt, starting with a much more powerful, broad and sound picture of law that embraces laws of right, responsible reason, thus laws of being that frame worlds [including core math], more or less intelligible laws of nature that govern the dynamic-stochastic aspects of our world, laws of information, laws of design [and design detection i/l/o informational properties of complex, information rich functional organisation], laws of moral government towards the civil peace of justice, civil law in its various forms, etc. . From it, we can then contemplate how best to rebuild the civil peace of justice that is now being torn to tatters by the aggressive, cultural marxist subversions and radical secularist impositions that US AG Barr has headlined. As a first step, we then see:
6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.
Where, of course the asterisk to 6 is worth citing:
* F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.
Of course, the very same tactics of distortion, dismissal, evasion and claimed successful rebuttal will come out again and again. It seems, that's what they have left in a pretty bare rhetorical cupboard. Maybe, now, we can start afresh.kairosfocus_{October 24, 2019
October
10
Oct
24
24
2019
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

Vivid, sadly, yes. She needs to attend to what she tried to brush aside, then evade, then complained when I decided to put it up again and again until substantially addressed. Seversky tried, and -- given RW events, across 3 days -- I responded point by point then took up EG and H, following the chain of mutual endorsements. The latest stunt after that is to pretend that I have only blindly repeated the refuted. Meanwhile, at every step they manage to show that the relevant SETs are in fact inescapable as first duties of reason that actually govern how reason works. I have to conclude that we are seeing willful clinging to a crooked ideological yardstick in the face of a plain plumb line that naturally manifests the reality. The obvious reasons tie to generations of indoctrination in evolutionary materialistic scientism [note Sev's begged question on what is in reality and refusal to acknowledge that key Mathematical abstracta are logic of being, necessary, world framing realities, etc], and to the implication that if rationality operates on both sides of the IS-OUGHT gap, then we have to go to the reality root that can ground ought and fuse it to is. Which strongly indicates that ethical theistic views are the strong horse; as a logic of being and ground of duty/ oughtness/ morality matter. And yes, this is antecedent to any particular specific theistic tradition or body of teachings. Then, too, all of this points to the reality of built-in law that governs us, thus to the credibility of natural law. Thence, undercutting legal positivism and currently fashionable impositions. Quite a stew. KF PS: BTW, your numbers don't seem to be right. We are not yet up to 450. Oh, now I get it, you are using a rhetorical device. Slow on the uptake . . .kairosfocus_{October 24, 2019
October
10
Oct
24
24
2019
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

“It’s not right to interject your comments in my posts.” KF this is what Hazel means. Even though you ought not interject your comments that does not mean you ought not do so. Since I am fallible I may be wrong in saying you are not right in which case your right and I apologize. However if your right you are fallible as well and could be wrong and then you need to apologize to me. Rinse and repeat. Better yet let’s take a vote and see if I can get some intersubjective agreement on the matter which is also fallible so it may be wrong as well in which case ( if it goes my way) I apologize. However if it goes your way it is fallible as well and we just rinse and repeat again. Clear? Vividvividbleau_{October 24, 2019
October
10
Oct
24
24
2019
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

See 450 Hazel. Yeh I know there is nothing to see as it relates to 426 just like 413. Vividvividbleau_{October 24, 2019
October
10
Oct
24
24
2019
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

See 413, Vivid.hazel_{October 24, 2019
October
10
Oct
24
24
2019
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 25 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply