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
AK, I just returned, though a phone call is pending. I underscore that mobs overturn the civil pact known as the civil peace of justice, which duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities across a community. As SB highlights, many things have been passed under colour of law that violate that pact. Currently, this includes the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb and it includes the ongoing cynical imposition of a cluster of counterfeits designed to undermine marriage, family, personal identity and conscience thus contributing to the atomisation and destabilisation of our civilisation -- a comprehensive breach of the civil pact rooted in cultural marxism agendas. (No, the struggle with Marxism did not end at the turn of the 90's, ask yourself just what is a community organiser of the Chicago School and why there was a great silence on the subject.) More will follow, DV. KFkairosfocus
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
StephenB,
To say the law is the law is no answer and it cannot be used as an argument to justify the outrages perpetuated in the name of that law.
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.
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. At one time it was "obvious" that homosexuality should be against the law even though the practice is consensual and does not harm society. At one time it was "obvious" that women should not be allowed to vote. At one time, it was "obvious' that same sex marriage should not be allowed.
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.
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. Any state with a death penalty has declared that some lives are more important than others. Even doctors will abort a fetus if the life of the mother is at risk.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
SB: Bad logic. Human rights are established by *what* the embryo is not by *where* it happens to be in the developmental process.
Allan Keith
Not according to the law.
To say the law is the law is no answer and it cannot be used as an argument to justify the outrages perpetuated in the name of that law. In Germany, the law was once used to justify genocide. In America, the law was once used to justify slavery. 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.
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. 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.StephenB
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Allan, proper democracy and mob rule are not exclusive (and is the big reason the U.S. is not a democracy).
A democratic society can certainly exist where the majority doesn't believe the minority deserve civil liberty.tribune7
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
AK, RW calls so just a prelim. Mob rule is patently different from properly stabilised democracy:
Let's use a hypothetical:
1) US calls a vote to make abortion illegal.
2) The vote is announced and adequate time is given for public debates.
3) The result of the vote is 67% in favour of making it illegal.
4) The US passes legislation making abortion illegal.
Is this the result of proper democracy or mob rule?Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
AK, RW calls so just a prelim. Mob rule is patently different from properly stabilised democracy: rule of just law and a well-informed, self-disciplined, prudent public with by and large public spirited educated and governance classes not overly dominated by envy and selfish ambition. Only possible after the mid to late 1600's -- let me pin down 1688, given forces at work; arguably first implemented in 1787 - 9, then spreading gradually across C19 and C20; now in apparently terminal decline. Before that, the lawful but not democratic state was possible, usually under just kings and a strong corpus of law such as Corpus Juris Civilis or British Common Law. Later, more. KFkairosfocus
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
The first step to a real solution — the most practical thing we can do [I will speak to the fatal compromise in a moment] — is to focus first things first. Thus, to remind and awaken the benumbed, bloodguilt ridden consciences of a seriously sick generation that is enabling mass slaughter.
In the west, abortions were only illegal for around 100 years. This means that your "holocaust enabling" generation is actually hundreds of "holocaust enabling" generations. Even your much quoted Plato favoured abortions:
"However, I think that when women and men have passed the age of having children, we’ll leave them free to have sex with whomever they wish, with these exceptions: For a man – his daughter, his mother, his daughter’s children, and his mother’s ancestors; for a woman – her son and his descendants, her father and his ancestors. Having received these instructions, they should be very careful not to let a single fetus see the light of day, but if one is conceived and forces its way to the light, they must deal with it in the knowledge that no nurture is available for it. That’ s certainly sensible"
Even scripture is ambiguous on the subject:
Numbers 5:11-31 If a man is suspicious of his wife's fidelity, he would take her to the high priest. The priest would make a substance for the woman to drink made from water and "dust from the tabernacle floor". If she had been unfaithful "her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse." If she was innocent the drink had no effect.
Some things are, for cause, non-negotiable, indeed they are the foundation of responsible negotiation and just, enduring agreement.
Is it really a negotiation if one side refuses to negotiate?
...those who hate Christ love debasement and those who hate God love death.
Good thing that I don't know anyone who hates Christ or hates god.
Something truly ugly happened in our civilisation that moved the Overton window of the politically possible or plausible to a point where institutionalised mass slaughter of living posterity in the womb under false colour of law became widespread reality. That has to be diagnosed, if we are to find a lasting solution.
If you want a lasting solution, you will also have to address the thousands of years before the Victorian era when abortion was legal and common. And the 100+ years from the Victorian era until the 70s when abortion was illegal, and still common.
It was connected to heavily promoted notions of over-population and Club of Rome doomsday scenarios and simulations, it was tied to now admitted bogus statistics on how many women were suffering and dying at the hands of illegal abortionists.
The best estimate for illegal abortions before Roe-v Wade is around 800,000/year. (Abernathy JR, Greenberg BG and Horvitz DG, Estimates of induced abortion in urban North Carolina, Demography, 1970, 7(1):19-29.). If it has been discredited, I have not heard about it. Although, it does seem a bit high.
No wonder our politics, policies, laws, courts, media, education systems, professions and general civilisation have run amok with more and more perversions and corruptions of what is sound, stabilising, just, reasonable and responsible: the benumbed and endarkened, drunk on newfound power will try to impose a might and manipulation make ‘right’ agenda.
"THE END IS NIGH"
One, with nukes and other horrors in play. We ought to be building responsibility not undermining it.
We are building responsibility. We do this by providing comprehensive sex education at an early age and unrestricted access to contraceptives. This is RESPONSIBLE for the drastic decline we are seeing in the abortion rates.
In the end, they undermine the buttresses that make a modern constitutional democracy work. For, democracies easily deteriorate into mob rule unless a strong moral fabric of self-government drives a mutual pact, the civil peace of justice.
Translation: If I agree with it, it is democratic. If I don't, it is mob rule.
You have written a lot of words on this subject but the words that I still do not see, even after repeatedly requesting them, is a proposal that is equally effective as comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives in reducing the abortion rate. Until you can provide a strategy that can do this, one that is supported by some evidence, I will continue to advocate for sex ed and contraceptives.Allan Keith
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
AK,
you are again reducing the unborn, growing child to an object, the means to your end. That child -- regardless of where it is -- patently is an end in itself, it is a human being in the first stages of his or her existence.
The first step to a real solution -- the most practical thing we can do [I will speak to the fatal compromise in a moment] -- is to focus first things first. Thus, to remind and awaken the benumbed, bloodguilt ridden consciences of a seriously sick generation that is enabling mass slaughter. Some things are, for cause, non-negotiable, indeed they are the foundation of responsible negotiation and just, enduring agreement.
This deliberately echoes how the great wave of early Victorian era reformations traced directly to the heart softening effects of the great Wesleyan spiritual awakenings of the previous 100 years. In short, there are four R's: repentance, renewal, revival, reformation. The latter is the consequence of the former three attaining critical mass in a culture.
And the further suppressed history is that the benumbed and guilty resist those four R's, using precisely the tactics we now see: you are hypocrites, you are impractical, you are imposing your religious notions (who, exactly, pontificates, please tell us . . .?) , and the like. The most practical thing is to recognise that politics is the art of the possible, and that that possibility shifts as the Overton Window (= zone of the possible] moves.
Nothing less than scripture will do at this point, here, Paul's devastating summary of pagan Greco-Roman culture at the time when the utterly reprobate, demonically mad Nero had begun to toss aside all restraints:
Eph 4: 17 So this I say, and solemnly affirm together with the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the [unbelieving] Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds [and in the foolishness and emptiness of their souls], 18 for their [moral] understanding is darkened and their reasoning is clouded; [they are] alienated and self-banished from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the [willful] ignorance and spiritual blindness that is [deep-seated] within them, because of the hardness and insensitivity of their heart. 19 And they, [the ungodly in their spiritual apathy], having become callous and unfeeling, have given themselves over [as prey] to unbridled sensuality, eagerly craving the practice of every kind of impurity [that their desires may demand].
20 But you did not learn Christ in this way!
21 If in fact you have [really] heard Him and have been taught by Him, just as truth is in Jesus [revealed in His life and personified in Him], 22 that, regarding your previous way of life, you put off your old self [completely discard your former nature], which is being corrupted through deceitful desires, 23 and be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh, untarnished mental and spiritual attitude], 24 and put on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image, [godlike] in the righteousness and holiness of the truth [living in a way that expresses to God your gratitude for your salvation]. [AMP]
The gospel positively transforms cultures, as it has done over and over and over again. Fair comment backed up by history: those who hate Christ love debasement and those who hate God love death.
We have to go back to what happened at the turn of the '70's.
Something truly ugly happened in our civilisation that moved the Overton window of the politically possible or plausible to a point where institutionalised mass slaughter of living posterity in the womb under false colour of law became widespread reality. That has to be diagnosed, if we are to find a lasting solution.
It was connected to heavily promoted notions of over-population and Club of Rome doomsday scenarios and simulations, it was tied to now admitted bogus statistics on how many women were suffering and dying at the hands of illegal abortionists [hence the coat hanger symbol], it was tied to dehumanisation of the unborn child (often using Haeckel's fraud . . . I recall seeing documentaries that did that), it was tied to the rise of the massively destructive sexual revolution, it was somehow tied to the notion that the 'right' to kill a living child in one's womb was a means of liberation and equality, and more.
To such I simply say: to justly claim a right, one must first be in the right, and one cannot rob another of life in the name of a 'right.'
No wonder our politics, policies, laws, courts, media, education systems, professions and general civilisation have run amok with more and more perversions and corruptions of what is sound, stabilising, just, reasonable and responsible: the benumbed and endarkened, drunk on newfound power will try to impose a might and manipulation make 'right' agenda.
Where, injection of a culture of imposing death on innocents at will is a terrible marker of a dark age.
One, with nukes and other horrors in play. We ought to be building responsibility not undermining it.
So, the most practical thing in such a day is not misguided compromise, appeasement and attempted amelioration. All such half-measures simply blunt the force of the necessary reform.
In the end, they undermine the buttresses that make a modern constitutional democracy work. For, democracies easily deteriorate into mob rule unless a strong moral fabric of self-government drives a mutual pact, the civil peace of justice. Justice, being a moral issue. Respect for duties to truth, reason, justice and more being habits of mind and conscience that must be nurtured for years in a civil climate that prizes virtue.
And so, we can see why we have embarked on a civilisational march of folly.
To turn back before the cliff's edge underfoot collapses, a critical mass have to wake up.
At the turn of the 1830's, there was an uprising in Jamaica. It was viciously suppressed and over a dozen dissenter chapels were razed, as it was felt that notions of a right to freedom, just compensation for work and equality in that book the Bible were at the heart of the uprising. They tried to hang missionaries as instigators. William Knibb was sent to the UK to bear witness of the truth.
At about the same time government in the UK went to crisis, with the dissenter-heavy districts at the heart of the upheavals. Then, the reports of the destruction of chapels in material part funded by dissenters arrived from Jamaica's Governor.
The window shifted decisively, as the pent up tide broke through: Am I not a man and a brother/a woman and a sister?
The intensity of attack-attack-attack we see coming over from the media and the power centres that enable the ongoing holocaust tell us that they sense the tide beginning to break through.
It is time to turn from the culture of holocaust, corruption, perversion and undermining of the things that make widespread freedom possible and sustainable.
Central to these is that it is time to end the worst holocaust in history.
KFkairosfocus
May 28, 2018
May
05
May
28
28
2018
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
Allen Keith@136:I am opposed to banning abortion because the data indicate that it has very little effect on abortion rates but does significantly increase the risk to women who obtain illegal abortions
If you knew legalizing murder wouldn't increase murders but would significantly increase risk to murderers e.g. death penalty, or incarceration (not as pleasant) would you feel the same?es58
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
Stephen,
Bad logic. Human rights are established by *what* the embryo is not by *where* it happens to be in the developmental process.
Not according to the law.Allan Keith
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, there you go again with loaded language, with religious suggestions....
And again, no concrete proposal from you that would have any impact on the abortion rates.Allan Keith
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
Cancel.StephenB
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
Allan Keith
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.
Bad logic. Human rights are established by *what* the embryo is not by *where* it happens to be in the developmental process. That is why a zygote has just as much right to live as a seven-month-old fetus. It also explains why a seven-month -old fetus has just as much right to live as a ten-year-old child.StephenB
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
AK, there you go again with loaded language, with religious suggestions. The question, as noted is whether we will continue the dehumanising tactics that open the door to mass slaughter of the unborn child. And where right to life is in the stakes in the context of mass slaughter, there is no flexibility. Oh, don't kill a million per week, a hundred thousand a week is an improvement. Nope, it is just as unacceptable, just as absurd -- we have greatly erred as a civilisation and need to wake up to what we have been doing. Absurd, too, is the underlying dehumanisation that refuses to acknowledge the magnitude of the evil. Something awful has happened to especially centres of power and influence that has enabled that dehumanisation and it is time we admitted it and stopped. Then, we can move on to dealing with the damage we have done to our civilisation. Yes, the answer still is: am I not a man and a brother/ a woman and a sister? KF
PS: Let me add, that the slave trade was deeply integrated into the UK's economy and was seen as the recruiting base for the Navy. They had to recognise that such a trade had to be stopped, then spent a century patrolling off Africa to enforce the ban on the trade. That sort of sea change is comparable to where we need to go, but we are doing so in a day where worldviews that have no is capable of bearing the weight of ought are far more influential and work to benumb consciences to what we have been doing.kairosfocus
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
KairosFocus, none of your pontificating does a thing to reduce abortions. Even if you are successful and government makes abortions illegal, abortions will continue on at the same rate. The data shows this. What exactly will you have gained other than the death of women?
Again, you have not proposed a course of action that will actually have an impact on abortion rates. It may make you sleep better at night, for some strange reason, but you will not have saved a single life. You have not even proposed a legal ban on abortion in combination with comprehensive sex education in combination with access to birth control.
I respect your moral stance, but when a person’s moral stance is so inflexible as to hinder attainment of the goals behind the moral stance, it is time to question your rigid moral stance.Allan Keith
AK, until there is a shift in the understanding of a critical mass, the holocaust will continue. In such a situation, it is a vital issue to expose the ugly fact of dehumanising and holocaust. Going beyond that the trend you wish to boast of owes much to persistent moral suasion that pivots on the recognising and respecting the evident humanity of the unborn child. For instance, ultrasound clips have been literally eye opening. So much so that they are suppressed by the complicit media and education power brokers -- a big clue in a visual age. And judging by the ferocity of attack regarding judicial appointments to the US Supreme Court, those who are fighting to continue the slaughter know they have lost the case on the merits and can only cling to domination of key institutions to stave off collapse. Which was the strategy in reaction to Wilberforce. KFkairosfocus
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, maybe I need to let you know that I am descended from slaves and that a relative was kangaroo courted...
So you don’t have a proposal that will affect a real change to the abortion rates. Why didn’t you just say that? It is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a tough problem with no easy or perfect solution.
But isn’t taking real steps to reducing abortion the exact opposite of dehumanizing a marginalizing group?Allan Keith
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
AK, maybe I need to let you know that I am descended from slaves and that a relative was kangaroo courted and judicially murdered because he spoke up for the oppressed and warned of the consequences of letting a situation keep on deteriorating. I therefore have a very different perspective than you do on the vital importance of avoiding dehumanising or scapegoating and targetting the marginalised. Your glib talking points about "reducing" abortion rates are little more than a way of reinforcing the basic problem: dehumanising a marginalised group -- living posterity in the womb -- then robbing that minority of the first of all rights at will: LIFE. without which, there are no other rights. The fact that after repeated correction you keep on in indifference and trotting out dismissive or distractive talking points tells us all we need to know about where your underlying worldview and its cultural agendas lead. Which, was noticed as long ago as in the corpus we inherit from Plato. It is obvious that you are oblivious to what you are radiating, pointing to a Plato's Cave shadow show problem: indoctrinated into en-darkenment under false colours of enlightenment and progress. And, if you checked out the history of the Antislavery movement you will know the practical significance of its motto, drawn from Philemon in the NT: Am I not a man and a brother/ am I not a woman and a sister? The unborn cannot speak for themselves, we who survived that stage have to do the speaking. And part of that speaking is to point out the consequences of the dark road our civilisation is following. That may seem like nonsense and noise to you, but that simply reflects just how endarkened you and many others have been led to become. It is time to see and understand the signs of our times. Signs of a darkened generation guilty of enabling the worst holocaust in history. KF
PS: And then we go around pretending to be shocked when marginalised and angry survivors of the ongoing holocaust start to act as though human life they see as a target has no intrinsic value that demands respect. We should not be surprised, we spent a generation undermining the basis for respecting and protecting innocent life.kairosfocus
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
KairosFocus,
Truth, actually, when we say this is where evolutionary materialism ends up, nihilism, radical relativism, debased mentality etc people often think we are exaggerating. When it comes out of the horse’s mouth insistently despite correctives, that is another matter.
Other than the verbose equivalent of wearing a sandwich board with “THE END IS NIGH” on it, what concrete proposals have you provided that would significantly reduce abortion rates? My proposals have the high probability of reducing abortion rates by 50% of what they are now without increasing the risk to women. Simply making abortions illegal are known to have little impact on abortion rates but do have significant impact on the health risks of women who still seek an abortion.
The only way that making abortions illegal would be effective would be to have surveillance on every woman between the age of 15 and 44. Or to mandate daily pregnancy tests on all women in the same age group and to lock up any pregnant woman who’s pregnancy wasn’t planned.
You invoke Plato but propose absolutely no strategy that has any hope of being effective. I have done so. The ball is in your court. You can respond with more Plato and sawing through tree branch nonsense, or you can present an alternate proposal that has an equal or better possibility of success.Allan Keith
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
F/N: The Republic is even more pointed:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.)
Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures.
Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it]
The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27].
Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.
Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?
[Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus.
[Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already.
[Ad.] Certainly.
[Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.
[Ad.] I will.
[Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.
[Ad.] Precisely so, he said.
[Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical].
[Ad.] Yes.
[Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained?
[Ad.] True.
[Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other?
[Ad.] By all means.
[Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
The laughter of a fool is as the crackling of thorns under a pot.kairosfocus
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Truth, actually, when we say this is where evolutionary materialism ends up, nihilism, radical relativism, debased mentality etc people often think we are exaggerating. When it comes out of the horse's mouth insistently despite correctives, that is another matter. Major cat out of the bag moment here. And ironically, such was long since warned against by Plato et al -- evolutionary materialism (though its lab coat is relatively new) is an ancient and long since failed philosophy. KF
PS: For those with eyes to read, Plato in The Laws, Bk X again. Notice how studiously this is ignored by those who are hell-bent on sawing off the root of the branch on which we are sitting. Yes, this is only one little curlicue of sawdust, but there are a lot of teeth in the agit prop saw and it is going zip zip zip very rapidly. But all is well, we are thriving, it's just those old religious fuddy-duddies complaining, we are making progress.
Yes, progress to civilisational suicide by march of folly.
Let's clip:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .
[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
Take time to read and then ask why we typically never heard this in school, or connexions to things like the story of Alcibiades and the failure of Athenian democracy. (Ever wondered why so many of the US founders were emphatic that they founded a republic not a democracy?)
PPS: Particularly note how holocaust is being enabled. Then, shudder.kairosfocus
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
TWSYF,
There is no added value to you stating your repeated philosophical opinions over and over again. We already know your opinions.
But my opinions on reducing abortion rates are supported by actual hard data. For people serious about reducing abortion rates, this should have value. For those who are merely virtue signalling to demonstrate their superior pseudo-morality, my opinions and facts fall on deaf ears.Allan Keith
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
KairosFocus,
I suggest that the first thing you need to straighten out is that our living posterity in the womb are fully human beings in their earliest stage of life. As such, they have the same status and dignity as we who have been born have.
Unfortunately, if Ireland is any indication, two thirds of the world disagree with you. I have no argument with the idea that late term fetuses should have the same rights as us, with a couple restrictions. 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. I have no problem with you thinking otherwise but that is primarily a religious belief.
For enabling this holocaust and corrupting key institutions and professions to support and carry it out our civilisation proves itself morally bankrupt.
There is only corruption if they are doing something they know to be wrong. No government is forced the allow abortions. No doctors are forced to perform abortions. No women are forced to have abortions.
Nobody is suggesting that abortion is the best option. The best option, obviously, is to not get pregnant in the first place. But you are not willing to support the two approaches that are proven to prevent these pregnancies, comprehensive sex education and access to birth control.
Governments allow practices that are known to kill people. For example, alcohol and smoking are perfectly legal even though they are responsible for over 500,000 deaths per year in the US alone. And not only do governments allow it, they profit from it, in many cases actually selling the products directly.
That many have become morally blind to this worst single evil of our time speaks saddening volumes. And on fair comment, that includes you sir, given rhetoric above and elsewhere. Wake up! KF
This is priceless. Of the two of us, one has proposed an approach that has a proven track record of significantly reducing abortion rates, with the minimal risk to women. The other is proposing something that the data shows does not have an impact on abortion rates but significantly increases the risk to women. And you call me morally blind? If that is the type of logic that the blind belief in objective morality results in, I will stick with subjective morality.Allan Keith
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
AK @ 187: What is and isn't sensical is a matter of opinion, which is largely a matter of one's chosen philosophical worldview. There is no added value to you stating your repeated philosophical opinions over and over again. We already know your opinions.
Two questions:
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 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
JDK, for cause, I can no longer respect NG's credibility on fact claims. And, on matters of gender identity specifically, we need to mark a distinction between ideology and fact, especially as there is a tendency to see "gender" as a socio-psychological stance. I think that word has become so loaded and that so many ideologies dress up in lab coats the better to pass off ideology as credible science that it is now at best an orange cautionary flag. I have reverted to sex, which definitely -- rare pathologies notwithstanding -- is naturally evident and is deeply connected to the thriving of civilisation. Sound family structure and child nurture are rooted in that evident order of maleness and femaleness, and anything that would subvert such [which is exactly what I see in the NG issue in question] is highly dubious. As a further index of how far NG has fallen, I observe how in the opening words of a recent article on Jesus of Nazareth, it started by suggesting that he is a myth; a sign of ideology triumphing over sound history. KF
PS: Your doctor friend reflects the exact cluster of issues I have spoken to above. Your terminology of distancing speaks, also. He is definitely contributing to the undermining of respect for human life and is playing God with things waaaay above his paygrade. Of course, statistics on practices like this are not likely to be seriously and systematically collected globally. And yes, I am implying big questions about IVF, cloning, embryonic stem cell research so-called, and more. For instance some types of contraceptive work by preventing implantation and that is also highly dubious. I spoke to living posterity in the womb as that is the natural locus of the unborn child from conception on.kairosfocus
May 27, 2018
May
05
May
27
27
2018
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
kf writes, "that our living posterity in the womb are fully human beings in their earliest stage of life."
I have a doctor friend who grows embryos from a couple's eggs to about eight cells, checks for genetic abnormalities, or lack thereof, and then implants a healthy embryo, if there are any, back into the mother. The other embryos are destroyed.
Is this murder? Are these embryos being "robbed of life"? Is this contributing to the "holocaust" of which you speak?
P.S. Or does the phrase "in the womb" in the quote above mean that these embryos out of the womb are different? If so, why?jdk
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
re 189: there are some very significant true stories and facts about various people, cultures, and gender situations, irrespective of what kf thinks of Nat'l Geographic. Facts are facts, no matter who presents them.jdk
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
AK, your track record speaks for itself. I suggest that the first thing you need to straighten out is that our living posterity in the womb are fully human beings in their earliest stage of life. As such, they have the same status and dignity as we who have been born have. Among other things, this includes the very first and primary right: life. If one is robbed of life s/he has been robbed of everything else also. That is patent. And so, for cause I draw attention to a hole in your worldview where you have found yourself enabling the ongoing, worst holocaust in history; that of our living posterity in the womb. 800+ millions in 40+ years, mounting at a million more per week. For enabling this holocaust and corrupting key institutions and professions to support and carry it out our civilisation proves itself morally bankrupt. That many have become morally blind to this worst single evil of our time speaks saddening volumes. And on fair comment, that includes you sir, given rhetoric above and elsewhere. Wake up! KFkairosfocus
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
JDK, Nat Geog is now definitively part of the problem, not part of the solution. I have noticed this on many issues in recent years and can no longer recommend it as a responsible, educational magazine. KFkairosfocus
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. 🙂>>