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
re 186 and FYI: Anyone seriously interested in the gender issue should carefully read the entire National Geographic special issue on gender at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/jdk
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, we have seen how often you have used “nonsense” as a dismissive epithet, and how often you have spoken dismissively concerning religion.
I think that nonsense is found everywhere. Some religiously based. Some not. For example, I think that the religious arguments against birth control and homosexuality are nonsense. But I don’t think that the religious opposition to abortion is nonsense. I just think that their approach to addressing it (I.e., make it illegal, limit sex education and don’t allow birth control) is nonsense. I also think that the US adherence to the second amendment and their pearl clutching at football players taking a knee during the anthem are nonsense.
I have provided an approach to significantly reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions, one that has a proven track record, but I have not received any support for it from you or anyone else here. If protecting the sanctity of life is as important to you as you claim, your silence on this is sending a mixed message.
My proposal does something that yours does not. It recognizes the reality that all of the efforts made to prevent abortion over the centuries have failed miserably. Our experience with prostitution, alcohol and drugs have clearly shown that if there is a demand, a supply will be found, regardless of the legality of that supply. If you want to have a real impact, take steps to reduce the demand. Prevent the unwanted pregnancies. We have tried religiously based abstinence only guilt trips, but they have never worked. It’s time to try something new.Allan Keith
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
ET, eyeball, Mark I, has told me of a documented list of 112 "genders" and I have heard of another with over 200. This is the sort of intellectual and moral bankruptcy that now rules the roost in global affairs. I take that as a point of reference when I calibrate the dominant voices and agendas on issues. This of course includes the media -- and this is a yardstick to tell the difference between news agit prop fakery and turnabout accusations targetting those who speak unwelcome truth. And yes, big lie and turnspeech were both notorious tactics of a certain Dr Goebbels. If the media and other dominant institutions cannot get this straight, nothing else will be straight. KFkairosfocus
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Whoops, I forgot, we are also redefining the sexes.ET
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
ET, AK evidently fails to realise that the restoration of moral sanity regarding the mass shedding of innocent blood and linked corruption of key institutions, professions, law and government etc is a huge issue. The widespread rot in our civilisation has to be seen for what it is and a lot of busted moral compasses need to be fixed. Then, we have a lot of repenting and healing and reforming have to happen. Moral numbness and blindness leading to inability to think straight are themselves existential threats to our civilisation. KF
PS: Yes, a pattern of worldviews and cultural agendas getting ever more out of alignment with objective and even patent reality. Word magick feeding into state backed groupthink. A civilisation going down that road is committing suicide. With nukes etc in play. Our reckless folly is outright insane.kairosfocus
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Notice a pattern?
1- Redefine what a human is so that abortions are not murder
2- Redefine what a marriage is to allow for other than female/ male marriages
3- Redefine the minority as the majority so it gets its way too
4- Redefine CO2 as a pollutant without realizing you have just made water vapor a pollutant for the same reasonET
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Allan:
The only thing that making abortion illegal will do is make you feel better about yourself.
No, making murder illegal is just the right thing to do.
But it is obvious that redefining life such that an abortion is not murder makes you feel better.ET
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
DAT, Guttmacher is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. The UN uses its figures. 2 + 2 = 4. KF
PS: Much of our civilisation is well below replacement levels, some to levels that have never been survived. The future belongs to those who show up. And a culture that refuses to breed is committing suicide. Things like settlement jihad simply exploit the process.kairosfocus
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
PS: Maybe it is time to again point out the underlying incoherence of evolutionary materialism, as a reminder. Here, let us ponder in brief how Haldane put the matter:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]
(More details at 101 level can be seen here on, and that is followed by a summary on the amorality, here on. Evolutionary materialism is intellectually bankrupt and morally bankrupt; with sobering consequences to follow. The current upshot of this is enabling of holocaust in progress, and the cynical counterfeiting of marriage under false colours of equality, the steeping of children in the techniques of vice and rabid hostility to God and to anything that reminds of God are of a piece. BTW, Ireland sees the results of a scandal which sets up a pattern of behaviour the Irish will come to rue.)kairosfocus
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
AK, we have seen how often you have used "nonsense" as a dismissive epithet, and how often you have spoken dismissively concerning religion. Meanwhile, you expect us to be bound by moral duties while you have opened the door to outright nihilism, all in defence of a scheme of thought that is self-refuting and amoral, having no IS capable of bearing the weight of ought. Where all of this is enabling of a holocaust that proceeds at another million victims per week. All of this is telling us a lot about what we are up against. Our civilisation has cosseted an asp which is proceeding to pump venom into our lifeblood. Along the way, the pattern of hyperskeptical dismissiveness rather than serious comparative difficulties analysis tells us that there is want of substance in the underlying worldview. You would be well advised to rethink. KFkairosfocus
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
KairosFocus, I do not dismiss your moral principles. I simply disagree with them. As, apparently, do two thirds of Ireland.Allan Keith
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
AK, your comfort is doubtless because you do not expect to be on the receiving end of the sort of democides and genocides that accounted for 100+ millions over the past century or so. You are also -- again -- appealing to the binding nature of the moral principles you dismiss. KFkairosfocus
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
An interesting turn of affairs yesterday in Ireland,
Ireland has voted by a landslide to liberalise some of the world’s most restrictive abortion laws in what its prime minister described as the culmination of a “quiet revolution” in what was one of Europe’s most socially conservative countries.
Voters in the once deeply Catholic nation were estimated to have backed the change by more than two-to-one, according to two exit polls released on Friday evening, and the government plans to bring in legislation by the end of the year.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-ireland-ends-abortion-ban-as-quiet-revolution-transforms-country/
First gay marriage, then they elected an openly gay Prime Minister, and yesterday they voted overwhelmingly to end the prohibition on abortion.
Cue the saw.... zip, zip, zip...Allan Keith
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
KairosFocus,
You are on the wrong side of history...
Time will tell. I am quite comfortable with the future my worldview will create.
...and the way you have been arguing does not speak well for the sort of worldview you have endorsed.
You are entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately for you, my worldview is supported by more people than yours is.
What is frightening is that you sense the trend of the times is such that you would not meet severe social censure for speaking like that.
We all risk social censure.
That points to what you mean by a thriving civilisation. I do not think that word means what you seem to think it does.
Less persecution, less judgmental Attitudes, and more acceptance of those different than us. Declining abortion rates. Declining rates of unwanted pregnancies. Tossing aside of the ridiculous social restrictions imposed on others by religion. Providing children with comprehensive information necessary for them to make informed decisions. No longer being able to hide behind “religious freedom” to discriminate against others. Increasing power to women and minorities. Reductions in violent crimes. Longer life expectancy. Reduced infant mortality. I’m sure there is more, but this should do for now.
Ours is a suicidally sick civilisation by any reasonable standard. KF
I agree. That is why we are changing it for the better. You are welcome to come along for the ride or you can continue to sit on your front porch yelling at kids to get off your front lawn.Allan Keith
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
AK, too often, whatever you disagree with is termed by you nonsense or things obviously connected. In this case, you are dismissing the worst -- and an ongoing -- holocaust in history. That speaks volumes and not in your favour. And BTW, wrong is one thing, when it is backed by the state it becomes something again. In this case, mass slaughter of the innocents backed by a state is what makes a holocaust a holocaust. And that killing of the unborn is a longstanding problem is a very different thing from it is backed by the state, has climbed -- yes, climbed -- to unprecedented numbers, and is corrupting law, government, media, education, professions and more. You are on the wrong side of history and the way you have been arguing does not speak well for the sort of worldview you have endorsed. What is frightening is that you sense the trend of the times is such that you would not meet severe social censure for speaking like that. That points to what you mean by a thriving civilisation. I do not think that word means what you seem to think it does. Ours is a suicidally sick civilisation by any reasonable standard. KFkairosfocus
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
DATCG, I don’t doubt that pro-lifers are having an impact and making it more difficult to get abortions. But that still doesn’t explain the significantly reduced teen pregnancy rates and lower abortion rates in countries where access to abortion is not being affected by pro-lifers.
With regard to the birth rate, what is wrong with a declining population? There are only three options. Increase, remain stable, or decrease. Governments and economists do not want us to remain stable or decline, but we can’t increase indefinitely. Immigration is being used to offset declining birth rates. Again, what is wrong with this? Our country was built on immigrants.Allan Keith
May 26, 2018
May
05
May
26
26
2018
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
from wiki again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate
Fertility rate: #148 United States 1.8
which is below...
"In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman"
ahhhhh men of the West... why won't you stand, so amazed are you by the Ring, so blindly you heel to it's power. All that is gold does not glitter...
http://i.pinimg.com/736x/e7/f4/2d/e7f42d6642c6fb6631279ce67367e136.jpgDATCG
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
From wiki...
Sub-replacement fertility is a total fertility rate (TFR) that (if sustained) leads to each new generation being less populous than the older, previous one in a given area. In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates.[1] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement was 2.33 children per woman in 2003.[1] This can be "translated" as 2 children per woman to replace the parents, plus a "third of a child" to make up for the higher probability of boys born and mortality prior to the end of their fertile life.[2]
Replacement level fertility in terms of the net reproduction rate (NRR) is exactly one, because the NRR takes both mortality rates and sex ratios at birth into account.
As of 2010, about 48% (3.3 billion people) of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility.[3] Nonetheless most of these countries still have growing populations due to immigration, population momentum and increase of the life expectancy. This includes most nations of Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Russia, Iran, Tunisia, China, the United States and many others. In 2015, all European Union countries had a sub-replacement fertility rate, ranging from a low of 1.31 in Portugal to a high of 1.96 in France.[4] The countries or areas that have the lowest fertility are in developed parts of East and Southeast Asia: Singapore, Macau, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea.[5]
DATCG
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
Birthrates going down in teens up to 19 includes or excludes murder of innocent, defenseless babies in the womb?
Includes or excludes Pro-Life movements in saving babies?
Earlier this year, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute even admitted that pro-life efforts are contributing to the decline.
As is typical, Guttmacher researchers argued that one cause for the decline is improved access to birth control, which they said decreases the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. However, they also admitted in less than flattering terms that pro-lifers are succeeding in their efforts to save unborn babies and moms from abortion.
“… the wave of abortion restrictions passed at the state level over the last five years could also have contributed to the decline by making it more difficult for women to access needed services in highly restrictive states,” the report states.
The pro-abortion research group, considered to have the most comprehensive abortion numbers for the U.S., reported an estimated 926,200 abortions in 2014 and 958,700 in 2013.
Those numbers are the lowest since 1975, two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade and opened the doors to abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.
Pro-lifers have been working hard to make abortion unthinkable by providing hope, assistance and information to moms and their babies.
Some of the state laws passed in recent years have helped to ensure that women are fully informed about their unborn baby’s development as well as their options, including material assistance for parents, before having an abortion.
Other states cracked down on abortion facilities that were operating in unsafe conditions and putting women’s lives in jeopardy.
http://www.lifenews.com/2017/11/22/abortions-in-the-united-states-hit-an-all-time-low-more-babies-saved-from-abortion-than-ever/
What is a sustainable Birth Rate for a nation? And where does American stand? In relation to other nations? And in relation to history? For example like Rome?
What happens if a nation does not have a sustainable birth rate? More imports? What else happens as a nation cannot sustain it's replacement birth rate? Social Security? Health Care?DATCG
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
Seversky @163
Judith Jarvis Thompson's argument in a paper titled “A Defense of Abortion” is terrible. It's scary how much academics influence politics and culture with such silly writings.Eugen
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
Harry,
I suspect KairosFocus was merely refuting you with data you accepted.
Only if he is clairvoyant because he has been using this source to support his holocaust nonsense long before I came on the scene. The only difference is that I have actually looked in greater detail at the source of his numbers. Sadly, his own source does not support his claims.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
I suspect KairosFocus was merely refuting you with data you accepted.
Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, converted and spent years revealing the lies, fraudulent statistics and propaganda used by the murderous pro "legal" murder lobby before his death.harry
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Harry,
You are pushing old, worn out, pro “legal” murder propaganda.
Take it up with KairosFocus. I am using the same source that he uses. I can’t vouch for its accuracy. But if my numbers are wrong, so are Kairosfocus’Allan Keith
Former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, discussed how the abortion industry purposely fabricated the number of illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade.
Nathanson admitted that fictional polls were created in order to convince the public of the need for legal abortion. He said abortion activists sold Americans the lie that thousands of women were dying annually from back-alley abortions, when the actual figure was in the hundreds.
...
The notion that regulating abortion will cause women to seek an illegal “back-alley” procedure is a myth. A study in 2012 reveals that outlawing abortion in Chile not only saved children, but advanced women’s health. Chile was a prime nation to study this effect because before the country banned “therapeutic” abortions in 1989, abortion was largely legal.
The study, led by epidemiologist Elard S. Koch from the University of Chile, showed that restrictive abortion laws were good for women’s health.
Similar to restrictions on alcohol or tobacco, restrictive abortion laws acted to dissuade. The study concluded that even with these restrictions, Chile has one of the lowest abortion-related maternal mortality rates in the world.
You are pushing old, worn out, pro "legal" murder propaganda.harry
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, you are continually deflecting attention from what is central: a live, in progress holocaust.
If this is true, then it is a holocaust that has been going on for thousands of years. A holocaust that has been dramatically declining. A holocaust that is smaller now than it was before abortion was legalized.
You keep ignoring the facts.
1) the abortion rate before Roe v Wade was much higher than it is now.
2) comprehensive sex education and access to birth control have reduced unwanted pregnancies and abortions far more effectively than legal prohibitions ever did.
3) a woman who wants an abortion will get one, regardless of legal status.
4) Unless you are prepared to lock up pregnant women until they give birth you are not going to change number three.
The only thing that making abortion illegal will do is make you feel better about yourself. It won’t do anything to actually reduce abortion rates and it will cause the death of women. As far as I can tell, the only benefit that making abortion illegal has is that it will allow people of your ilk to sleep better at night. Because it sure as hell won’t reduce the rate of abortion, which should be the only goal if you are serious about the sanctity of life.
Now, if you have data that shows that banning abortion will reduce abortions more effectively than sex education and access to birth control, feel free to present it. But if you are going to resort to holocaust analogies or lemmings and sawing branches metaphors, or Plato, I think that I will step out of this discussion. I have no interest in discussing irrelevant hypotheticals.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
It seems to me that the question of whether abortions can be permitted turns on whether or not society grants the right to life to individuals from conception. I believe that should be the case and that the notion of 'personhood' is simply irrelevant but the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson offered the following argument in a paper titled "A Defense of Abortion" published in Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971)
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago
Seversky
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
AK, you are continually deflecting attention from what is central: a live, in progress holocaust. That is the decisive issue, and it is obvious that you cannot face it for what it is. That is a lesson for us to ponder as the scope and number of licenses to kill the inconvenient are under pressure to widen. Once the sanctity of life is undermined, the dominoes begin to fall. Which is history, living memory history. I suspect more and more people will wake up to what is going on. KFkairosfocus
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
ET,
They increased first and then started declining. And it still blows away any other lose of life cause.
Yes. They declined due to comprehensive sex education and access to birth control, in spite of the efforts of to prevent these by religious groups. To levels below what they were before abortion was legalized.
I am not sure that enabling is the right approach either.
By all means. We don’t want to enable young people to make informed decisions. Did you miss the part about sex Ed and access to birth control not actually increasing risky sexual activity? From the same source that KairosFocus gets his abortion information from. A certain proportion of young people will have sex regardless of all the scare tactics used by parents and clergy. I know I did. And I have no regrets.
Doesn’t society have a responsibility to ensure that teens are provided with accurate information about sex and the tools to minimize the risk should they decide to have sex?
With regard to abortion, it was originally legal in the US up until quickening (about 20 weeks). It was made illegal several decades later and remained so until 1973. Yet the abortion rate in 1967 was over 800,000. A higher rate than we see today. Obviously, making it illegal does not prevent it. It just shifts it from something that can be regulated to something that is beyond legal oversite. With the added problem that it increased the death rate of women who opt for abortion.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
ED, added your quotes. That paper is a very important statement of witness. KF
PS: Do you know basic HTML markup? If so, it is the blockquote element. Open tag with left-pointing angle bracket, write blockquote, then close the tag. The quote follows immediately. At its end do the like again, except that just before blockquote inside the first angle, put a forward slash or solidus.kairosfocus
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Allan:
Yet the abortion rates are lower than they were at the time of Roe v Wade.
They increased first and then started declining. And it still blows away any other lose of life cause.
I have asked him several times if he would support early comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to birth control, the two things with a proven track record of reducing abortion rates, and he refuses to give a yes or a no
I am not sure that enabling is the right approach either.
First and foremost we have to accept that life is a process with a beginning and an end. And that the beginning is as much a living being as that which is outside of the womb.ET
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. 🙂>>