It is clearly time to hammer selective hyperskepticism again. Here is AK at 49 in the Answering thread:
A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims. And I don’t apologize for that.
BA, UD President (and a lawyer familiar with correcting fallacies) duly hammered the fallacy:
BA, 50 – 53 : >>50: . . . Like the extraordinary claim that a bag of chemicals configured in just the right way suddenly becomes subjectively self-aware?
Funny, I’ve never met an A/Mat who was skeptical of that extraordinary claim. Can you point me to one?
51: . . . Like the extraordinary claim that non-living chemicals spontaneously combined in just the right way to become living things?
Funny, I’ve never met an A/Mat who was skeptical of that extraordinary claim. Can you point me to one?
52: . . . Like the extraordinary claim that everything came from nothing? Or the universe created itself? Or “because we have something (e.g., gravity), the universe can and will create itself from nothing?
Funny, I’ve never met an A/Mat who was skeptical of those extraordinary claims. Can you point me to one?
53: . . . Like the extraordinary claim . . .
Well, you get the picture. I could go on all day.
AK is typical of A/Mats who would impose super heavy evidentiary burdens on theists for what the A/Mats label “extraordinary claims” while at the same time swallowing their own extraordinary claims down with nary a thought for the fact that they lack even the slightest evidentiary support.>>
LM, in 54, focusses on some of the particular claims:
LM, 54: >>I can’t recall any proper skeptics who’ve identified as atheistic materialist. What I see is Epicureans who’ve surrendered skepticism, if they could even find it in the first place.
Materialism as a creed is generally a failure to come to terms with epistemology.
Personally, I think “Forgive thine enemies” would have been more appropriate.
That’s in there, too. But it goes a step further, in actually considering and acting to further the welfare of folks you aren’t getting along with.
I agree that it would require extraordinary wisdom, but I don’t see where the faith in a higher being is necessary.
Hence the junction “or”.
For example, it would have been easy after WWII to severely punish the Germans and Japanese. But cooler (and smarter) heads prevailed. They realized that if you want to prevent recurrence, you don’t do something that will just ingender continued hatred from those who were your enemies. The US approach of providing aid and support to get its enemies back on their feet and prospering is something that took guts. But it was the smart thing to do if the goal was long term peace. And this did not require the faith in a higher being to realize this.
The conflict proceeding immediately in historical terms from the conclusion of “The Great War” and the punitive treaty with Germany, I don’t even know if it could be properly called hindsight.
I very much like your example for the principle, though.>>
AK chooses to reply to LM:
AK, 55: >>LocalMinimum,
I can’t recall any proper skeptics who’ve identified as atheistic materialist.
Look closer.
That’s in there, too. But it goes a step further, in actually considering and acting to further the welfare of folks you aren’t getting along with.
For who’s benefit? If I communicate with and provide support to my past enemies, they are less likely to be future enemies.
[–> BTW, not at all well grounded historically, cf. the consequences of the 1930’s policy of Appeasement, and note the post-WWII generosity came after Germany and Japan were utterly smashed and devastated]
A purely self-serving and manipulative strategy, a strategy that I happen to support.
[–> How do you know that this was “purely” self serving and manipulative? Surely, that’s an extraordinary claim!]
But the bigger question is, why aren’t we using this strategy more often before they become enemies? Rather than take this approach, we invoke sanctions.
I very much like your example for the principle, though.
Thank you. I’m obviously not the complete {SNIP — language, thread owner] that some here would project. I’m looking at you Barry. 🙂>>
I made a response on the underlying principle as to why Cliffordian evidentialism (as popularised by Sagan et al) is fatally flawed:
KF, 56: >>I see your:
A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims,
Which seems to be a compressed form of a common epistemological error, descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism. To see why it is a gross error, simply reflect on the correction:
In short, the selectively hyperskeptical assertion is a clever-sounding way to announce selective closed-mindedness. What “I” am inclined to agree with is of course not “extraordinary.” But, equally of course, what “I” am disinclined to believe must meet extra-stringent standards, usually calibrated to be beyond the evidence that is available on the question, which is usually a pressing issue.
Such a self-serving double standard on warrant is patently fallacious.
Instead, what is needed is a reasonable, responsible standard, which duly and consistently weighs the sort of evidence and argument that are likely to be available and the near and far, immediate and cumulative consequences of rejecting truth or accepting error on relevant matters.
Greenleaf had something significant to say:
Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [–> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. [–> that is, his focus is on the logic of good support for in principle uncertain conclusions, i.e. in the modern sense, inductive logic and reasoning in real world, momentous contexts with potentially serious consequences.]
Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. [–> the issue of warrant to moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt; and the contrasted absurdity of selective hyperskepticism.]
The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. [–> moral certainty standard, and this is for the proverbial man in the Clapham bus stop, not some clever determined advocate or skeptic motivated not to see or assent to what is warranted.]
The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. [–> pistis enters; we might as well learn the underlying classical Greek word that addresses the three levers of persuasion, pathos- ethos- logos and its extension to address worldview level warranted faith-commitment and confident trust on good grounding, through the impact of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in C1 as was energised by the 500 key witnesses.]
By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind [–> in British usage, the man in the Clapham bus stop], beyond reasonable doubt.
The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal [–> and responsible] test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [= definition of moral certainty as a balanced unprejudiced judgement beyond reasonable, responsible doubt. Obviously, i/l/o wider concerns, while scientific facts as actually observed may meet this standard, scientific explanatory frameworks such as hypotheses, models, laws and theories cannot as they are necessarily provisional and in many cases have had to be materially modified, substantially re-interpreted to the point of implied modification, or outright replaced; so a modicum of prudent caution is warranted in such contexts — explanatory frameworks are empirically reliable so far on various tests, not utterly certain. ] [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]
I suggest, you need to take an inventory of how you have approached warrant on a list of significant issues that have come up here at UD, and on broader issues in general. Selective hyperskepticism tends to become a destructive, self-serving habit of mind.>>
Now, observe AK’s response and what it inadvertently exposes:
AK, 57: >>KairosFocus,
Which seems to be a compressed form of a common epistemological error, descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism.
Those are big words that appear to preclude an illuminating prognostication that present a counter-argumentative rebuttal of… OK, as the youth say [SNIP-language]? What are you trying to say?
Are you saying that I am being hyperskeptical because I don’t blindly accept your claim that god-did-it?>>
Notice, the invidious projection and implied appeal to “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked,” when the substantial and quite serious error of selective closed mindedness has been corrected from three directions. Note, too, that BA’s similar correction was turned into you are suggesting that I am a whatever.
At no point has the substantial issue of a key fallacy been actually responsibly, much less adequately, addressed.
I responded further at 58 and 59:
KF: >>58: I already took time to explain the error and to correct it. If you had even bothered to look at the specific one line correction to Sagan’s form of Cliffordian evidentialism [yes, that is a technical name] — which is the popular one nowadays, you would have seen the corrections in a nutshell by use of strike and insert. I amplified and took time to cite a longstanding corrective from Greenleaf’s Treatise on Evidence. I have done my job, now it is time for you to do yours.
59:
Let me continue from where you so cleverly cut off citation:
>>Which seems to be a compressed form of a common
epistemological error, descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism.
To see why it is a gross error, simply reflect on the correction:
In short, the selectively hyperskeptical assertion is a
clever-sounding way to announce selective closed-mindedness. What “I”
am inclined to agree with is of course not “extraordinary.” But,
equally of course, what “I” am disinclined to believe must meet
extra-stringent standards, usually calibrated to be beyond the evidence
that is available on the question, which is usually a pressing issue.>> >>
The response is again inadvertently revealing:
AK, 60: >>I honestly don’t understand what you are on about.
[–> Nope, THREE people have corrected the key error — four if you count Simon Greenleaf (a distinguished jurist on Evidence), this is personalising and targetting, insinuating that I have not made good sense.]
All I said is that I am skeptical of extraordinary claims.
[–> Doubling down, refusing to acknowledge cogent correction]
I am skeptical of Bigfoot, alien abductions,
[–> Notice, the silly examples]
and
[–> And joins equals, so note the fallacy of invidious association. Here, by setting up a string of ill founded claims then appending a far weightier one as though it were of the same order. A strawman tactic.]
the existance of god.
[–> AK cannot even summon enough respect to correctly spell: God. That is itself revealing. And of course, he was long since invited to seriously examine the 101 on warranting a theistic worldview here on, and a similar 101 on the more specifically Christian case here. He gives little sign of any serious engagement, even at 101 level. Okay, God is a serious candidate to be the world-source, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Where, a serious candidate necessary being will either be impossible of being (cf. a square circle) or else possible. If possible, in at least one world. But, as framework to any world existing, a necessary being that is possible will be in all worlds; thus actual in this one. E.g. try to imagine a world without distinct identity, thus two-ness etc. So, it is not enough to announce that one is selectively hyperskeptical on the reality of God and dismiss it with a fallacious quip. No, the would-be atheist has taken up the epistemological burden to show that either God is not a serious candidate NB, or else that God is impossible of being. A tough row to hoe in either case. AK has shown no evidence of shouldering such, and in an earlier sneer that “evil is a concept fabricated by religion” he has shown that he has not done his homework before using the fallacy of confident manner to rhetorically brush aside serious matters of literally eternal weight.]
At no point did I say
[–> you directly implied, through the known provenance of the quip you used]
that I needed extraordinary evidence to convince me otherwise. Those are words that you put in my mouth, took offence to, and then berated me for.
[–> there is no taking offence or berating, that is projection. There is correction, a very different thing. Now we know how AK views being corrected in an error.]
And you talk about others raising strawmen.
[–> turnabout accusations and projections. As just noted, AK half-cited a popular quip, knowing that the blank would be filled in. As Ari pointed out, in rhetoric, enthymemes are persuasive. This is in part as they induce the audience to participate, filling in missing parts by inference. And, often, unreflectively accepting the claims. No, the correction, from FOUR sources, is on target.]
For any claim, extraordinary or otherwise, all I am looking for is compelling evidence to support them. I haven’t seen any compelling evidence for the existance of god,
[–> have you showed evidence of having seriously interacted with the evidence already presented or linked? No. The pattern speaks louder than the clever talking points.]
or the evils of sex education, contraceptives, homosexuality or same sex marriage. Or for the existance of objective morality, or for the decline of morality and civilization. Maybe compelling evidence exists for all of this, but you certainly have not presented any.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Harry and Meghan Wales (Or, should that be Mountbatten-Windsor?)
[–> Here, we see a real case of piling up weak claims that are mutually reinforcing in error. The linked worldviews 101 context goes on to address several of them, and of course, these are not addressed by AK. Given the pattern already in evidence, we have no good reason to take AK’s claims seriously. If AK wishes, in addition, to imagine that by word magic, aggressive enemies of civilisation can culturally appropriate marriage and twist it into a counterfeit under false colour of law then imagine that tampering heedlessly with a core institution the family will not have devastating consequences, we have good reason to see that this is just part and parcel of a pattern of reckless behaviour that is just one curlicue of sawdust. But, cumulatively, zip zip zip, he and many others are busily sawing away at the branch on which we all must sit. CRAACK-crash is a serious concern. As for “sex education,” Augustine in City of God long since pointed out the destructive impact of teaching the techniques of vice, i.e. of undermining moral fibre. AK went on a long run on contraception, imagining that I must be Roman Catholic. My mother was a public health educator who dealt with real, responsible family planning and I took time to point out how different forms of contraception are of different merits — I add, not just effectiveness (esp. in the hands of immature and irresponsible teens) some are little more than disguised very early term abortions. I could also point to the
Decreeing that henceforth fool’s gold (shown above) will be treated as real gold would not thereby change the realities of real Gold or of Iron Pyrites
dangers of encouraging risky behaviour with but dubious benefits so that sound cost benefits analysis would counsel, go in another direction. And more, but this is a day when many are hell-bent on folly. It is enough to highlight key examples of the pattern of fallacies.]
When you do, I will reassess my opinions.
[–> Nope, on evidence in hand, you will not do homework, you will not acknowledge correction, you will project and double down. Grade: F.]>>
One slice of a cake has in it all the ingredients. END
Comments
KF,
In this video a relatively famous person declares “what we want, what we need and the path to real happiness and wisdom”.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/06/09/anthony-bourdain-cnn-host-and-celebrity-chef-hanged-himself-with-bathrobe-belt.htmlPaoloV
June 10, 2018
June
06
Jun
10
10
2018
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus, thank you. I noticed this yesterday.Allan Keith
May 30, 2018
May
05
May
30
30
2018
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
AK, it seems the UD mods have released your comment from the mod pile. KFkairosfocus
May 30, 2018
May
05
May
30
30
2018
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
AK,
Let me state the facts again. Comprehensive and early sex education, combined with unrestricted access to contraceptives, is proven to significantly reduce both the teen pregnant rate and the abortion rate.
StephenB,
How, where, and by whom was this proven? According to all my sources, which include the pro-choice atheists that you ignored, it is a false claim. Even the Guttmacher Institute has given up on this idea.
Here are a few papers that suggest that you are wrong.
Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. [The Lancet Volume 388, No. 10041, p258–267, 16 July 2016]
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30380-4/abstract?code=lancet-site
Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S [PLoS One. 2011; 6(10)]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S [PLOS Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S]
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024658#pone.0024658-Kirby1
Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy [Journal of Adolescent Health 2007]
Contraception in The Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained. [Patient Educ Couns. 1994 Jul;23(3):161-71.]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545
New Clarity for the U.S. Abortion Debate: A Steep Drop in Unintended Pregnancy Is Driving Recent Abortion Declines [Guttmacher Policy Review Volume 19 2016]
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/03/new-clarity-us-abortion-debate-steep-drop-unintended-pregnancy-driving-recent-abortion
Steep Drop in Unintended Pregnancy Is Behind the 2008–2011 U.S. Abortion Decline [Guttmacher 2016]
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2016/steep-drop-unintended-pregnancy-behind-2008-2011-us-abortion-decline
Dire Demographics: Population Trends in the Russian Federation [Rand Monograph Report]
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1273.html
Understanding the Decline in Adolescent Fertility in the United States, 2007–2012 [Journal of Adolescent Health November 2016]
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(16)30172-0/fulltext?utm_source=Master+List&utm_campaign=26e5d9ae10-NR_Lindberg_PRI_20168_24_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9ac83dc920-26e5d9ae10-260650549
Epidemiologic Surveillance of Teenage Birth Rates in the United States, 2006–2012 [Obstetrics & Gynecology: June 2017]
https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2017/06000/Epidemiologic_Surveillance_of_Teenage_Birth_Rates.17.aspx
And yes, to give fair reading to alternative studies,
The effect of spending cuts on teen pregnancy [Journal of Health 2017]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629617304551
However, I might add, that another study conducted in Sweden showed an increase in teen pregnancy with cuts to sex education.
Adolescent sexual health in Sweden. [Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Oct;78(5):352-6]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12407239Allan Keith
May 29, 2018
May
05
May
29
29
2018
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
AK,
I have limited time, so let me clip the following from 229 and respond, as it seems to go to the heart of the matter.
(Oh, BTW, what is needed to "reduce" holocaust of living posterity in the womb is to recognise and move away from a culture that dehumanises targetted members of our race and enables the nihilism of might and manipulation make 'right'/ 'truth'/ 'rights'/ 'justice' etc, which then helps us return to sanity. Retaining the culture of holocaust while trying to salve consciences by a substitute target of "reduction" from what the rate of holocaust might otherwise have been is self-undermining. And BTW, steeping the young in the techniques of vice while giving false hope that they can greatly reduce risk of pregnancy and/or STD's by techniques that require an exactitude and consistency of habits that teens are unlikely to have, will likely INCREASE incidence through greatly heightened exposure levels.)
Okay, let me clip and comment:
>> [KF:] The case of that young child abused and murdered to feed someone’s perverted appetites is highly instructive.
[AK:] Actually, it is not. We all know that there are some twisted individuals who take advantage of others. The secret is to not let those horrendous events dictate how you perceive others. If you will forgive me an observation, you appear to be ruled by your misadventures rather than to be informed by them.>>
RESP:
1: You seem to have forgotten one little part, the issue was that this horror show that played out one afternoon while I was a student was a case where I could SEE the reaction of many people, which across the time it took me to complete my dinner, had already formed search and rescue parties then found the body of the child, showing their patent reaction to self-evident evil.
2: That is a key part of my realisation on how instructive it was, I could actually SEE how ordinary people responded and acted. Thus, it was a clue to see how self-evident evil manifests itself, and thus how we may understand how to deal with it.
3: And above I have already indicated that the child has neither strength nor eloquence to fight or persuade. The right is inherent in the child as a living human being, not in the power structures, agendas and views of the society. Indeed, to try to deny this while standing over a small, violated and shattered body is self-evidently absurd. That is already highly instructive. However, you seem to have failed to take notice.
4: Let me clip how I have further drawn out the lessons elsewhere:
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.)
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. [--> and remember, we are standing by some bushes, over a small, broken, abused, lifeless body. Even now, as the father approaches what remains of the child he sent off to school that morning.])
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.
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.
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 -- so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, 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; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. 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. (In Aristotle's terms as cited by Hooker: "because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like.") 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 institutionalised 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.
>> [KF:] However, to claim a right, one must first be in the right and this means there can be no right to compel another to uphold or enable you in the wrong (which instantly exposes a lot of what is going on nowadays).
[AK:} But, again, who determines who is in the right? From my reading of your words, you obviously do not brook the possibility that you may be wrong. Which makes it very difficult to have a constructive conversation with you. For example, I admit that I could be wrong in my views about abortion, homosexuality and same sex marriage. Are you willing to admit the same?>>
5: Instantly, you obviously have failed to read or take seriously the force of my discussion on the first self evident truth: error exists.
6: I summarise. The very attempt to deny that error exists instantiates a manifest case of error. Thus it is undeniable on pain of instant patent absurdity, that error exists is true. Which is what self-evidence indicates (and not the strawman caricature of closed minded dogmatism you would substitute). From this, truth exists as what accurately describes reality. This truth is warranted to undeniable certainty so strong form knowledge exists as truths that are warranted, true belief. Perforce, weak form knowledge exists as credibly true, well warranted, reliable belief. Thus schemes of thought, arguments, ideologies and worldviews that deny or undermine such are immediately irretrievably falsified. And, their name is legion.
7: Further, such SETs serve as plumbline tests for our yardstick beliefs, exposing crooked yardsticks. Where, if we measure by a crooked yardstick, what is actually straight ["true"], square, on the level, accurate and upright -- yes the terms overlap from carpentry and masonry to weightier matters -- cannot pass the test of conformity to crookedness. (Now you know why agit prop strategists want to get us to make crooked yardsticks into our standard.)
8: A plumbline is naturally, undeniably upright and straight, so it restores the due balance. Which is why those who are locked into ideologies of crookedness so stoutly resist, deny or studiously ignore them. Only, to reveal the utter absurdity of their behaviour and thought.
9: The issue of the right then, is not set by the power or mere opinions or rulings of an individual or collective WHO, that is the appeal to might and manipulation make right. Which is the instantly absurd appeal to nihilism.
10: WHAT makes the truth and the right is the nature of the claim, which is tested by plumbline principles and test cases that demonstrate what is sound from what is unsound. The truth says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. This holds for history, accounting, arithmetic, philosophy, theology, politics, journalism, education, justice and morality alike.
11: What is just duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Where, a right is a properly binding moral claim to be respected and protected in a certain particular, based on our inherent dignity and quasi-infinite worth as a living human being. Even the dead have a due right to respect.
12: And as rights must be universalisable, we cannot have a right to demand that others do the wrong or uphold and enable us in the wrong. That would be to impose evil under false colours of rights, often by agit prop and lawfare that perverts justice. Which is exactly what has been going on, starting with the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb. (This is a plumbline case of establishment of evils under false colour of law in our day. But until the crooked yardsticks have been given up, that will not be acknowledged. And, perforce for the avalanche of other perversions of justice and sound society which are ever so fashionable in our time.)
13: So, what is evil? The frustration, perversion, privation or abuse of the good that blocks its due fulfillment of its purpose, which in key cases is naturally evident.
14: The purpose of rationality is to know and do the true, the right, the prudent. So, deception, corruption of education and media, lying, slander and more are evils. The robbing of that child of innocence, violation of body, robbing of life itself are patent evils.
15: And though it is hard for the deluded to acknowledge now, abuse of organs of digestion and excretion in insanitary, unhealthy, disease spreading ways is perversion of proper purpose of those organs and of the proper familially grounded fulfillment of our sexual nature. Likewise, perversion of marriage and sexual identity under false colours of law.
16: Worse, abusing powers of law to compel people of sound conscience to enable such evils under threat of bankruptcy and loss of livelihood; that is early stage tyranny. He who would rob me of innocent livelihood or daily bread would rob me of life. He who would rob me of conscience would rob me of my soul and its proper end.
17: The utter, increasing moral blindness and endarkenment of our day are quite plain.
18: But the point above can be twisted through the Euthyphro dilemma, so called. But the fatal flaw lies in the root of that argument: it addressed pagan gods who are not the root of reality so such could never bridge IS and OUGHT. They are categorically distinct from the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, who is the root of reality. God is essentially good and truthful, so he will neither do nor say evil, such would be alien to and at utter odds with his being. So, too, when he speaks, he speaks truth, as that too is his nature. and when he judges, he judges by the truth and the right which are inextricably part of his nature.
19: So, the so-called dilemma is misdirected.
20: Further, the real question is, does this God exist? Where, inherently, he would be the necessary being root of existence. So, the question, then is, is such a candidate being impossible, having core characteristics that are mutually contradictory like the case of a square circle.
21: God is a serious candidate necessary being, unlike a flying spaghetti monster (which, being material and composite, CANNOT be anything but contingent; the parody explodes, poof). So, the would-be atheist's challenge is to show that God is impossible of being. As, a serious NB candidate will either be impossible or actual. As, NB's are framework to any world existing.
22: And while it was formerly fashionable to trot out the problem of evils, that has collapsed since it was seen as parasitical on the problem of good and on the impact of Plantinga's free will defense. Once creating freedom allows for a higher order of good, there is a sufficient reason to permit freedoms that can by definition be abused thus resulting in evil. Thus, as that is possible, the claimed contradiction evaporates.
23: We have addressed the core of the matter. Now, let us apply:
>> [KF:] It also means that might and manipulation do not make right, truth, justice etc.
[AK:] Nobody has suggested that it does. But consensus and social agreement can certainly make rules by which we can live and prosper by. >>
24: Just the opposite is the case, just look all around and consult the history of the past 100 years. Nihilism, radical relativism, subjectivism and emotivism -- they are all of a piece -- have been rampant and have predictably ended in chaos. To the point where they are rhetorically indefensible.
25: Of course, appeal to social "consensus" is a disguised form of just said appeal, cultural relativist from. Let me clip, again, from Lewis Vaughn:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping:
. . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts.
Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values.
Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible.
Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
KFkairosfocus
May 29, 2018
May
05
May
29
29
2018
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
Let me state the facts again. Comprehensive and early sex education, combined with unrestricted access to contraceptives, is proven to significantly reduce both the teen pregnant rate and the abortion rate.
How, where, and by whom was this proven? According to all my sources, which include the pro-choice atheists that you ignored, it is a false claim. Even the Guttmacher Institute has given up on this idea.StephenB
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
Allan Keith
1) “Habit Persistence.,,” A paywalled article from the Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. Do I really have to say more?
Irrelevant. You must address the evidence, the points made, and explain why they are not correct.
You must have missed the part where I argued only that contraceptive use leads to increased abortion.
.
I didn't miss that part, but I did miss the part where you provided evidence in support of that claim. The reason that I missed that part is because you didn't provide it.
3) “The false promise…” non link is to the same business and economic journal paper you provided in number 1.
So what? Do you dislike evidence because you don't like the authors that provide it? And what is this hang up of yours that I didn't provide a "link." I gave you the sources and that is all you need. I only wish that you would provide your sources or your links.
4) “Greater access to contraceptives…” this is from another completely scientific, non biased and impartial source, the United States Congress of Catholic Bishops.
So what? They allude to reports that are not-biased. I notice that you ignored those reports and the facts presented.
So far,
*I have presented good arguments to show that it is unjust to kill an early fetus while allowing an older fetus to live. I have asked you to provide an argument defending this practice, and you have failed to respond.
*I have also produced evidence to show that access to birth control does not reduce abortions. By contrast, you have made the claim that comprehensive sex education and access to birth control reduces abortions, but you have not provided any evidence in support of that claim.
There seems to be a patter here. I make arguments and support my claims with evidence. You just make claims and ignore all challenges.StephenB
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
StephenB@239. Here is a summary of the highly scientific papers you didn’t provide links to.
1) “Habit Persistence.,,” A paywalled article from the Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. Do I really have to say more?
2) “Adolescent sexual health in Sweden” This article points out that the increased abortion rate corresponded to decrease in funding for comprehensive sex education. You must have missed the part where I said that access to contraceptives combined with comprehensive sex education has been shown to reduce abortion rates.
3) “The false promise...” non link is to the same business and economic journal paper you provided in number 1.
4) “Greater access to contraceptives...” this is from another completely scientific, non biased and impartial source, the United States Congress of Catholic Bishops.
You stated that my claims were obviously from outdated and methodologically flawed studies, and you provide this list to counter it? I’m surprised that you didn’t include articles from LifeSite News and Campaign Life Coalition.
Let me state the facts again. Comprehensive and early sex education, combined with unrestricted access to contraceptives, is proven to significantly reduce both the teen pregnant rate and the abortion rate. If you have any reputable studies that contradict this, please provide links. I would love to read them.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Meanwhile, AK, I am still waiting for you to justify the policy of killing of young fetuses while allowing the older ones to live. Since this is my fourth (or fifth?) challenge, may I safely assume that you cannot make the case?StephenB
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Provide links to these studies. I would like to read them.
* Habit Persistence and Teen Sex: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?
* Adolescent sexual health in Sweden
* The False Promise of Contraception
* Greater Access To Contraception Does Not Reduce AbortionsStephenB
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
StephenB,
You are obviously relying on dated studies contaminated with false methodologies. Statistically, contraception use actually increases, rather than decreases the abortion rate.
Provide links to these studies. I would like to read them.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
LarTanner--The theists here don’t actually care about abortions or health or women. --
The atheists here don't actually care about health or women. They certainly care about abortion though. If they get a woman (or girl) pregnant they want an out.tribune7
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Allan Keith
The most ironic thing from this entire thread is the fact that it is only the atheist who has expressed a concern for the number of abortions and proposed an action that has been shown to significantly reduce them. From the theists all we have seen is righteous indignation, chest thumping and bemoaning the imminent downfall of civilization.
You are obviously relying on dated studies contaminated with false methodologies. Statistically, contraception use actually increases, rather than decreases the abortion rate.StephenB
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
SB: I was referring to the fact that killing a zygote is unjust.
Allan Keith
No you weren’t. Here are your words:
“Human rights are established by *what* the embryo is not by *where* it happens to be in the developmental process.”
Unfortunately, you appear incapable of following a simple argument. Let me break it down for you once again: [a] It is *unjust* to kill a zygote because [b] *where* it happens to be in the developmental process is irrelevant to its right to life, which is [c] based on its *whatness* (a human being with inherent dignity).
SB The only way to establish a just law is to recognize the inherent dignity of every human being. Any law that protects only a portion of those human beings is obviously an unjust law and ought to be abolished.
Nothing about fetus or stage of development.
Do you always struggle with logic in this way? One “portion” of the whole refers to the fetus at an early stage and another portion of the whole refers to the fetus at another stage. Very simple.
Meanwhile, you are literally sprinting away from my challenge. First, you said that you had made a counter argument against my argument, but when I pointed out that you had merely made a claim in the absence of an argument, you changed the subject. I am still waiting for you to make your case. Explain why it is just to kill a young fetus. So far, you haven't even tried.StephenB
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
LT @ 230: "The theists here don’t actually care about abortions or health or women. They care mostly about appearing moral..."
Really? You actually believe that?Truth Will Set You Free
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
AK @ 231: Where?Truth Will Set You Free
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
LT,
We all note that the US is right at this very moment “lawfully” implementing activities against immigrants, asylum seekers, and migrants. Families are literally being torn apart and children being cast irretrievably into the depths of impenetrable bureaucracy. It’s a brazen and unapologetic attack on decency.
The biggest indictment of Current US policy is the fact that we now have refugee camps in North America.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
TWSYF,
Got it. Please answer the following questions I asked earlier:
Already answered.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Allan Keith @ 226:
The most ironic thing from this entire thread is the fact that it is only the atheist who has expressed a concern for the number of abortions and proposed an action that has been shown to significantly reduce them. From the theists all we have seen is righteous indignation, chest thumping and bemoaning the imminent downfall of civilization.
You might be onto something here. The theists here don't actually care about abortions or health or women. They care mostly about appearing moral, and they cherish the myth that "Christian" values are superior -- even though these values are not original to Christianity nor are many particularly superior at all.
KF at 227:
PS: What would you say if we were to note: you want to change the law so that untermensch like the Jews or Poles or slavs are not to be got rid of like the vermin they are. See why we point to a law that is keyed to our nature and which cannot be abolished or changed by referendums, elections, parliaments, decrees of a dictator under an enabling act, courts, tribunals or faceless bureaucrats etc?
We all note that the U.S. is right at this very moment "lawfully" implementing activities against immigrants, asylum seekers, and migrants. Families are literally being torn apart and children being cast irretrievably into the depths of impenetrable bureaucracy. It's a brazen and unapologetic attack on decency.LarTanner
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
AK, Another quick note; I think you confuse what is lawful with what is done under colour of law.
No, I am pretty clear on this. Whatever you agree with is lawful, and what you disagree with is done under the colour of law.
There is a higher law, the law of our nature as morally governed creatures of quasi-infinite value.
Sounds good. Who determines what these “higher laws” are?
Further, we are social creatures who require long child nurture in an appropriately protective but stimulating environment.
Agreed.
The case of that young child abused and murdered to feed someone’s perverted appetites is highly instructive.
Actually, it is not. We all know that there are some twisted individuals who take advantage of others. The secret is to not let those horrendous events dictate how you perceive others. If you will forgive me an observation, you appear to be ruled by your misadventures rather than to be informed by them.
However, to claim a right, one must first be in the right and this means there can be no right to compel another to uphold or enable you in the wrong (which instantly exposes a lot of what is going on nowadays).
But, again, who determines who is in the right? From my reading of your words, you obviously do not brook the possibility that you may be wrong. Which makes it very difficult to have a constructive conversation with you. For example, I admit that I could be wrong in my views about abortion, homosexuality and same sex marriage. Are you willing to admit the same?
It also means that might and manipulation do not make right, truth, justice etc.
Nobody has suggested that it does. But consensus and social agreement can certainly make rules by which we can live and prosper by.
What would you say if we were to note: you want to change the law so that untermensch like the Jews or Poles or slavs are not to be got rid of like the vermin they are.
But since those “laws” weren’t arrived at by consensus and social agreement? I don’t see what your point is. Other than the fact that governments don’t always act in the best interest of minorities.
See why we point to a law that is keyed to our nature...
That is where you and I differ. I hope to look beyond our “nature”. Our “nature” is distrust and bigotry and fear.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
AK @ 196: Got it. Please answer the following questions I asked earlier:
1. What do you hope to gain by this time-consuming endeavor (fool’s errand?)?
2. Do you consider this some sort of a/mat missionary field?Truth Will Set You Free
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
AK, Another quick note; I think you confuse what is lawful with what is done under colour of law. A common enough error. There is a higher law, the law of our nature as morally governed creatures of quasi-infinite value. In that context, certain rights are inherent, starting with life. Further, we are social creatures who require long child nurture in an appropriately protective but stimulating environment. From such, we can learn much about the natural law pact, the civil peace of justice that appropriately balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. The case of that young child abused and murdered to feed someone's perverted appetites is highly instructive. I have already noted that even our thought life is morally governed. In that context, remonstrance against injustice under false colour of law and reformation through peaceful suasion make perfect sense. However, to claim a right, one must first be in the right and this means there can be no right to compel another to uphold or enable you in the wrong (which instantly exposes a lot of what is going on nowadays). It also means that might and manipulation do not make right, truth, justice etc. We have already had several examples of how the false colour of law can be expressed as majority decrees or through institutions set up by that process. Beyond, lie things like the right of intercession by lower magistrates through remonstrance and when tyranny emerges, the last resort is revolution under duly representative magistrates to remove the tyrant. The rule of the mob is by contrast unconstrained by justice, prudence or anything beyond what the mob bays for today, then the morrow, then the next day. Which is usually folly, manipulated agit prop, injustice or blood. KF
PS: What would you say if we were to note: you want to change the law so that untermensch like the Jews or Poles or slavs are not to be got rid of like the vermin they are. See why we point to a law that is keyed to our nature and which cannot be abolished or changed by referendums, elections, parliaments, decrees of a dictator under an enabling act, courts, tribunals or faceless bureaucrats etc?kairosfocus
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
StephenB,
...you even agreed that ALL humans at all stages of development have inherent dignity, which would indicate that all humans should be allowed to enter the world.
You have a real penchant for misrepresenting what others say. Here is what I agreed to, with qualifications:
The only way to establish a just law is to recognize the inherent dignity of every human being. Any law that protects only a portion of those human beings is obviously an unjust law and ought to be abolished.
Nothing about fetus or stage of development.
The most ironic thing from this entire thread is the fact that it is only the atheist who has expressed a concern for the number of abortions and proposed an action that has been shown to significantly reduce them. From the theists all we have seen is righteous indignation, chest thumping and bemoaning the imminent downfall of civilization.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
StephenB,
I was referring to the fact that killing a zygote is unjust.
No you weren’t. Here are your words:
Human rights are established by *what* the embryo is not by *where* it happens to be in the developmental process.
And I responded that the law disagrees with you. There was no mention of what is unjust. If you are going to twist both your words and mine to score points, don’t think that others don’t notice.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
SB: It was you who appealed to the law as the means of justifying the killing of a young fetus.
Nice turnabout. You, KF and others want to introduce a law to ban abortions and I am the one appealing to the law.
You are very confused. I said nothing at all about the law until you brought it up. I was referring to the fact that killing a zygote is unjust. It was you who said that the "law says otherwise," so it was necessary for me to inform you that the law is supposed to encourage what is right and discourage what is wrong. Then, you changed the subject to the "people" who pass the laws, as if that changes anything. It doesn't. I must say that you do not handle refutations very well.
SB: I have already invited you to make your case.
I have already made my case. You may disagree with it but to say that it hasn’t been made is just a lie.
You didn't provide an argument, you simply made a claim. What you said was this:
But to argue that an eight or ten week embryo, which has no means of perceiving anything and no means of being self aware, should have the same rights as you and I, belies the facts.
You did not even come close to making the case that humans who lack perception or self-awareness do not deserve to begin living as much as those who have developed those qualities. Indeed, you even agreed that ALL humans at all stages of development have inherent dignity, which would indicate that all humans should be allowed to enter the world.StephenB
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
StephenB,
It was you who appealed to the law as the means of justifying the killing of a young fetus.
Nice turnabout. You, KF and others want to introduce a law to ban abortions and I am the one appealing to the law. The only appeals I have made to the law is to impose legal restrictions on when abortion on demand shouldn’t be allowed.
I have already invited you to make your case.
I have already made my case. You may disagree with it but to say that it hasn’t been made is just a lie.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Allan Keith
I was not defending the law. All I was pointing out is that, for good or bad, it is humans who decide what human rights are.
It was you who appealed to the law as the means of justifying the killing of a young fetus. Now you are appealing to the people who make those laws. No matter, both appeals fail. Neither laws or the people who make them can be used to justify the killing of innocent human beings.
SB: The only way to establish a just law is to recognize the inherent dignity of every human being. Any law that protects only a portion of those human beings is obviously an unjust law and ought to be abolished.
I agree. Although, the “obviousness” is not always the case.
Irrelevant. I said nothing about what is "obvious."
SB: In like fashion, any policy that justifies the killing of a young fetus and forbids the killing of an old fetus cannot be rationally defended since it protects only a portion of human beings.
That can certainly be debated.
I have already invited you to make your case. Do you need a second invitation? What is your argument for saying that a relatively young fetus does not have the same right to live as a relatively old fetus.
SB: If one human being has a right to live, then all human beings have a right to live. If you think you can argue against that position, then go ahead and try.
That, obviously, is not true. A person attempting to rape and kill my daughter has less of a right to live than I do.
Irrelevant. We are discussing the right for all humans to *begin* life, (as opposed to some humans), not the right to remain alive after they have committed a crime. The context should make that clear. Please stay on topic.StephenB
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus, at this point I would just like to see how you would briefly describe the difference between a policy change resulting from a democratic process and one resulting from mob rule. Take my hypothetical at 214 as a starting point. Is this a democratic process or is it mob rule? The reason I ask is because I have heard pro-lifers campaign for putting the abortion question in a binding referendum. I strongly suggest that if such a referendum was overwhelmingly in support of banning abortion that you and others would argue that the government was morally obliged to follow the will of the people. However, I also suggest that if it was overwhelmingly in favour of retaining legal abortion that you would argue that this was nothing but mob rule.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
PPS: Ponder this subtitled rendition of Panzer Lied, and consider how honourable and courageous young men were manipulated to serve ultimate evil.kairosfocus
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
PS: As a sobering read, I suggest The Rape of the Mind by A. M. Meerloo, M.D.kairosfocus
pattern of reckless behaviour that is just one curlicue of sawdust. But, cumulatively, zip zip zip, he and many others are busily sawing away at the branch on which we all must sit. CRAACK-crash is a serious concern. As for “sex education,” Augustine in City of God long since pointed out the destructive impact of teaching the techniques of vice, i.e. of undermining moral fibre. AK went on a long run on contraception, imagining that I must be Roman Catholic. My mother was a public health educator who dealt with real, responsible family planning and I took time to point out how different forms of contraception are of different merits — I add, not just effectiveness (esp. in the hands of immature and irresponsible teens) some are little more than disguised very early term abortions. I could also point to the
Look closer.
For who’s benefit? If I communicate with and provide support to my past enemies, they are less likely to be future enemies.
[–> BTW, not at all well grounded historically, cf. the consequences of the 1930’s policy of Appeasement, and note the post-WWII generosity came after Germany and Japan were utterly smashed and devastated]
A purely self-serving and manipulative strategy, a strategy that I happen to support.
[–> How do you know that this was “purely” self serving and manipulative? Surely, that’s an extraordinary claim!]
But the bigger question is, why aren’t we using this strategy more often before they become enemies? Rather than take this approach, we invoke sanctions.
Thank you. I’m obviously not the complete {SNIP — language, thread owner] that some here would project. I’m looking at you Barry. 🙂>>