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
KairosFocus,
AK, evidently, it is not registering with you. We have enabled the systematic, institutionalised killing of 800+ million of our living posterity in the womb since the 1970’s.
Yet the abortion rates are lower than they were at the time of Roe v Wade.
Abortion numbers in the US before it was made legal were as high as 1.2 million per year. Higher than today’s rates. These numbers come from the same source that you frequently use for your abortion numbers. The same source that says that the rates of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies and abortions have declined dramatically over the last couple decades. The same source that says the decline is due to comprehensive sex education and access to birth control. The same source that says that comprehensive sex education and access to birth control have not increased the frequency of risky sexual activity. The same source that says that abortion rates in countries where it is legal are no higher than those in countries where it is illegal.
So, where is this ever increasing holocaust that you keep warning us about? Your own source says that abortion rates are significantly reduced by a combination of sex education and access to birth control, and that the legal status of abortion makes no difference.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
ET,
Maybe some do. I would say they are a minority.
Not on this site. But, again, I suggest that you bring this up with KairosFocus. 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.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
ET,
Education and use the people who are paid to make sure civilians do not break the law. If the numbers were as high as you say it should be easy to find out who is performing abortions.
If you are questioning my numbers, take it up with KairosFocus. I am using the same source that he uses for abortions. The same source that says that they are declining. The same source that says they are lower now that at the time of Roe v Wade. The same source that says that teen pregnancies are on the decline.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
@AK (#80) said "How does allowing homosexuals to marry undermine your marriage? How does it undermine anyone’s marriage?" (I don't know how to do the fancy quote block that everyone seems to know how to do.)
Here is your answer:
At this point, some revisionists abandon the philosophical
project of attacking the conjugal conception of marriage and
simply ask, “what’s the harm?” Even if we are right, is imple?
menting our view important enough to justify the emotional and
other difficulties that some may experience as a result of being
denied recognition of the sexual partnerships they have formed?
Why should the state care about some abstract moral principle?
Revisionists often capture this point with a question: “How
would gay marriage affect you or your marriage?”29 It is worth
noting, first, that this question could be turned back on revi?
sionists who oppose legally recognizing, for example, polya?
morous unions: How would doing so affect anyone else’s
marriage? If this kind of question is decisive against the conju?
gal view’s constraints on which unions to recognize, it cuts
equally against the revisionist’s. In fact it undermines neither
since, as even many revisionists implicitly agree, public institu?
tions like civil marriage have wide and deep effects on our cul?
ture—which in turn affects others’ lives and choices.
Thus, supporters of the conjugal view often respond to this
challenge—rightly, we believe—that abolishing the conjugal con?
ception of marriage would weaken the social institution of mar?
riage, obscure the value of opposite?sex parenting as an ideal, and
threaten moral and religious freedom. Here is a sketch of how.
1. Weakening Marriage
No one deliberates or acts in a vacuum. We all take cues (in?
cluding cues as to what marriage is and what it requires of us)
from cultural norms, which are shaped in part by the law. In?
deed, revisionists themselves implicitly concede this point.
Why else would they be dissatisfied with civil unions for same?
sex couples? Like us, they understand that the state’s favored
conception of marriage matters because it affects society’s un?
derstanding of that institution.
In redefining marriage, the law would teach that marriage is
fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not bodily un?ion30
or children,31 with which marital norms are tightly inter?
twined.32 Since emotions can be inconstant, viewing marriage
essentially as an emotional union would tend to increase mari?
tal instability—and it would blur the distinct value of friend?
ship, which is a union of hearts and minds.33 Moreover, and
more importantly, because there is no reason that primarily
emotional unions any more than ordinary friendships in gen?
eral should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two,34 these
norms of marriage would make less and less sense. Less able to
understand the rationale for these marital norms, people would
feel less bound to live by them. And less able to understand the
value of marriage itself as a certain kind of union, even apart
from the value of its emotional satisfactions, people would in?
creasingly fail to see the intrinsic reasons they have for marry?
ing35 or staying with a spouse absent consistently strong feeling.
In other words, a mistaken marriage policy tends to distort
people’s understanding of the kind of relationship that spouses
are to form and sustain. And that likely erodes people’s adher?
ence to marital norms that are essential to the common good.
As University of Calgary philosopher Elizabeth Brake, who
supports legal recognition of relationships of any size, gender
composition, and allocation of responsibilities, affirms, “mar?
riage does not simply allow access to legal entitlements; it also
allows partners to signal the importance of their relationship
and to invoke social pressures on commitment.”36
Of course, marriage policy could go bad—and already has—in
many ways. Many of today’s public opponents of the revisionist
view—for example, Maggie Gallagher, David Blankenhorn, the
U.S. Catholic bishops—also opposed other legal changes detri?
mental to the conjugal conception of marriage.37 We are focusing
here on the issue of same?sex unions, not because it alone matters,
but because it is the focus of a live debate whose results have
wide implications for reforms to strengthen our marriage culture.
Yes, social and legal developments have already worn the ties
that bind spouses to something beyond themselves and thus more
securely to each other. But recognizing same?sex unions would
mean cutting the last remaining threads. After all, underlying
people’s adherence to the marital norms already in decline are the
deep (if implicit) connections in their minds between marriage,
bodily union, and children. Enshrining the revisionist view would
not just wear down but tear out this foundation, and with it any
basis for reversing other recent trends and restoring the many so?
cial benefits of a healthy marriage culture.
Those benefits redound to children and spouses alike. Because
children fare best on most indicators of health and wellbeing
when reared by their wedded biological parents,38 the further
erosion of marital norms would adversely affect children, forc?
ing the state to play a larger role in their health, education, and
formation more generally.39 As for the adults, those in the poor?
est and most vulnerable sectors of society would be hit the hard?
est.40 But adults more generally would be harmed insofar as the
weakening of social expectations supporting marriage would
make it harder for them to abide by marital norms.
2. Obscuring the Value of Opposite?Sex Parenting As an Ideal
As we have seen in Part I.B, legally enshrining conjugal mar?
riage socially reinforces the idea that the union of husband and
wife is (as a rule and ideal) the most appropriate environment
for the bearing and rearing of children—an ideal whose value
is strongly corroborated by the best available social science.41
Note, moreover, that the need for adoption where the ideal is
practically impossible is no argument for redefining civil mar?
riage, a unified legal structure of incentives meant precisely to
reinforce the ideal socially and practically—to minimize the
need for alternative, case?by?case provisions.
If same?sex partnerships were recognized as marriages, how?
ever, that ideal would be abolished from our law: no civil insti?
tution would any longer reinforce the notion that children need
both a mother and father; that men and women on average
bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; and that boys
and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in
different ways.
In that case, to the extent that some continued to regard mar?
riage as crucially linked to children, the message would be sent
that a household of two women or two men is, as a rule, just as
appropriate a context for childrearing, so that it does not matter
(even as a rule) whether children are reared by both their
mother and their father, or by a parent of each sex at all.
On the other hand, to the extent that the connection between
marriage and parenting is obscured more generally, as we
think it would be eventually,42 no kind of arrangement would
be proposed as an ideal.
But the currency of either view would significantly weaken
the extent to which the social institution of marriage provided
social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with
their wives and children. And to the extent that children were
not reared by both parents, they would be prone to suffer in
the ways identified by social science.
3. Threatening Moral and Religious Freedom
Because the state’s value?neutrality on this question (of the
proper contours and norms of marriage) is impossible if there is to
be any marriage law at all, abolishing the conjugal understanding
of marriage would imply that committed same?sex and opposite?
sex romantic unions are equivalently real marriages. The state
would thus be forced to view conjugal?marriage supporters as
bigots who make groundless and invidious distinctions. In ways
that have been catalogued by Marc Stern of the American Jewish
Committee and by many other defenders of the rights of con?
science, this would undermine religious freedom and the rights of
parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children.44
Already, we have seen antidiscrimination laws wielded as
weapons against those who cannot, in good conscience, accept
the revisionist understanding of sexuality and marriage: In Mas?
sachusetts, Catholic Charities was forced to give up its adoption
services rather than, against its principles, place children with
same?sex couples.45 In California, a U.S. District Court held that a
student’s religious speech against homosexual acts could be
banned by his school as injurious remarks that “intrude[s] upon
the work of the schools or on the rights of other students.”46 And
again in Massachusetts, a Court of Appeals ruled that a public
school may teach children that homosexual relations are morally
good despite the objections of parents who disagree.47
The proposition that support for the conjugal conception of
marriage is nothing more than a form of bigotry has become so
deeply entrenched among marriage revisionists that a Washing?
ton Post feature story48 drew denunciations and cries of journalis?
tic bias for even implying that one conjugal?marriage advocate
was “sane” and “thoughtful.” Outraged readers compared the
profile to a hypothetical puff piece on a Ku Klux Klan member.49
A New York Times columnist has called proponents of conjugal
marriage “bigots,” even singling an author of this Article out by
name.50 Meanwhile, organizations advocating the legal redefini?
tion of marriage label themselves as being for “human rights”
and against “hate.”51 The implications are clear: if marriage is
legally redefined, believing what every human society once be?
lieved about marriage—namely, that it is a male?female union—
will increasingly be regarded as evidence of moral insanity, mal?
ice, prejudice, injustice, and hatred.
These points are not offered as arguments for accepting the
conjugal view of marriage. If our viewpoint is wrong, then the
state could be justified in sometimes requiring others to treat
same?sex and opposite?sex romantic unions alike, and private
citizens could be justified in sometimes marginalizing the op?
posing view as noxious. Rather, given our arguments about
what marriage actually is,52 these are important warnings about
the consequences of enshrining a seriously unsound conception
of marriage. These considerations should motivate people who
accept the conjugal view but have trouble seeing the effects of
abolishing it from the law.
In short, marriage should command our attention and en?
ergy more than many other moral causes because so many di?
mensions of the common good are damaged if the moral truth
about marriage is obscured. For the same reason, bypassing the
current debate by abolishing marriage law entirely would be
imprudent in the extreme. Almost no society that has left us a
trace of itself has done without some regulation of sexual rela?
tionships. As we show in Part I.E.1 (and the data cited in Part
I.B.2 suggest), the wellbeing of children gives us powerful pru?
dential reasons to recognize and protect marriage legally.
ET, there is a world of difference between responsible, reasonable sex education and teaching the techniques of vice in ways that are tantamount to grooming, desensitisation and outright recruitment. That was happening, for example, with orphanages in Jamaica, leading to a scandal. All the usual suspects, of course, were involved. KFkairosfocus
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
AK, evidently, it is not registering with you. We have enabled the systematic, institutionalised killing of 800+ million of our living posterity in the womb since the 1970's. Currently, this grows at another million per week. This is the worst holocaust in history and our civilisation is collectively guilty. That is the reality we need to awaken our consciences to -- and a deadened conscience to the wilful taking of innocent life like this is a very bad sign indeed. So, sorry, I cannot take talking points about oh this reduces the rate of the holocaust, on grounds that the acceptable rate of willful shedding of innocent blood is zero. Yes, we may face a situation where there is a dismal trade-off and we have to ponder 400 starving this year vs 800 starving over the next several years at say 200/yr. That is an awful issue (and it is essentially the case my dad shared with me to warn me away from Economic policy), but it is different in kind from a case where we are warping institutions, law and more to foster the nihilistic notion that the deliberate slaughter of our living posterity in the womb is a right. To which, the only responsible stance is that to claim a right, one must be in the right; or else one is nihilistically demanding power to impose on others that they enable oneself in doing the wrong. As is clearly happening, with bloodshed in the stakes. The reckoning for our civilisation will be terrible if we do not turn back soon and seek cleansing from this stain of innocent blood. KFkairosfocus
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Allan:
And how do you enforce it?
Education and use the people who are paid to make sure civilians do not break the law. If the numbers were as high as you say it should be easy to find out who is performing abortions.
Yet the same people who oppose abortion also oppose the use of any other type of birth control.
Maybe some do. I would say they are a minority. But I understand their point- wait until you are ready to take on the responsibility of such a choice. And make sure that you understand that responsibility and the consequences of not following through.ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
ET,
Well, if it was illegal and enforced the rates should drop. Otherwise it signals that we are a very, very stupid or ignorant society.
And how do you enforce it? Storm troopers? Gestapo? Toaster repair men?
Which we are because we allow abortions as a means of birth control.
Yet the same people who oppose abortion also oppose the use of any other type of birth control.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Well, if it was illegal and enforced the rates should drop. Otherwise it signals that we are a very, very stupid or ignorant society. Which we are because we allow abortions as a means of birth control.
Maybe you are OK with living in a sick and perverse society but most of us are not.ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
And no different than the abortion rates we have now that it is legal. So, what would be gained by making it illegal again? Other than making you and KF feel better?Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Allan:
Before Roe v Wade, there were approximately 800,000 illegal abortions in the US per year. That’s a lot of murderers.
Yes, it is.ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
ET,
They have to be smart enough to choose before having sex, Allan. Once pregnant any abortion would be tantamount to murder. Women and men have to be educated on that, too.
Before Roe v Wade, there were approximately 800,000 illegal abortions in the US per year. That’s a lot of murderers.
Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
1) Teens will have sex, no matter how much teachers, ministers and parents tell them that it is wrong. The sex drive is just too great. Besides, sex is fun.
And yet not all teens do it.
2) A combination of comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to birth control significantly reduces teen pregnancy rates.
It would be nice to teach them that snuffing out the life of an unborn child is tantamount to murder and will have consequences for both people.ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Allan:
So you agree with allowing women to chose to have an abortion?
They have to be smart enough to choose before having sex, Allan. Once pregnant any abortion would be tantamount to murder. Women and men have to be educated on that, too.ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
ET,
Hogwash. I am allowing them to make their own choices to.
So you agree with allowing women to chose to have an abortion?Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
TWSYF,
Preventing unwanted pregnancies among teens? Sounds like a good idea, but it would take a tremendous change in pop culture to do it. I simply don’t see that happening anytime soon. Hedonism is in vogue… and has been for awhile.
Thank you for the response. I agree that it will be difficult, but we have already seen significant declines in teen birth rates, from just over 40/1,000 in 2007 to just over 20/1,000 in 2015.
https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/images/about/about-teen-birth-rates-1991-2015-585px.jpg
Keeping in mind that these are not all unwanted pregnancies.
You might argue that the decrease is due to increased abortion rates, but this is not what has been seen. Over the same period, and for the same age group (15 - 19), the teen abortion rates also decreased.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/images/teenpregrates1280.jpg
Of interest is the national distribution of teen pregnancy rates. Being the highest in the south and southwest.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/images/teensexresizedmap1280fix.png
"The authors note that disparities in teen pregnancy rates and outcomes between states are likely due to a variety of factors, including differences in state demographic characteristics, the availability of comprehensive sex education, and knowledge about and availability of contraceptive services.
What most of the data shows is that there are a couple incontestable facts:
1) Teens will have sex, no matter how much teachers, ministers and parents tell them that it is wrong. The sex drive is just too great. Besides, sex is fun.
2) A combination of comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to birth control significantly reduces teen pregnancy rates.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Is there anyone here against sex education for teens?
Would you be OK to have your kids read informative websites- accredited medical sites- about the subject and have discussions with them?ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Allan:
Look at the studies.
There is no way there were more than 3,000 illegal abortions a day before Roe v Wade.
No. I am giving women far more credit than you do in allowing them to make their own choices.
Hogwash. I am allowing them to make their own choices to. I am saying that they are smart enough to know what happens when they have unprotected sex. You are saying that they are not that smart.
As for your rant I am not opposed to contraception and I am for education. All of the information is at their fingertips, Allan. This is in Information Age. PARENTs should be the people who are front and center getting their children access to it.
But thank you for letting us know that you are fine with letting women die due to inadequate medical care.
What a demented thing to say. Only a twisted loser would get that from what I said. Abortions are not "medical care" unless the fetus is killing the mother.ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Allan:
Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for well over a decade yet polygamy is still not allowed (unlike in the bible), interspecies marriage is still not allowed.
Why? That sounds hypocritical.ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Although, I have been hearing a lot about today's young people being less likely to have promiscuous sex for various reasons. Maybe that is the best way to stop unwanted pregnancies among teens.Truth Will Set You Free
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Preventing unwanted pregnancies among teens? Sounds like a good idea, but it would take a tremendous change in pop culture to do it. I simply don't see that happening anytime soon. Hedonism is in vogue... and has been for awhile.Truth Will Set You Free
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Correction to 136
So, are you willing to agree with me that preventing unwanted pregnancies, especially amongst teens, is good for society?
Oops Freudian slip> :)Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
Andrew,
That’s only because you are a pro-abortion troll, regurgitating all the things a pro-abortion troll regurgitates.
Not true. 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. However, I am in favour of examining any and all approaches that will reduce the demand for abortion.
So, are you willing to agree with me that preventing unwanted abortions, especially amongst teens, is good for society?Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
And you automatically jump to the conclusion that I am advocating for abortion.
AK,
That's only because you are a pro-abortion troll, regurgitating all the things a pro-abortion troll regurgitates.
Andrewasauber
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Andrew,
For one thing you didn’t write “prevent” unwanted pregancies.
And you automatically jump to the conclusion that I am advocating for abortion. This says rather more about your biases than it does about mine.
But, to get back on track, do you agree that unwanted pregnancies, especially in teens (keeping abortion off the table), is bad for society?Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
AK,
For one thing you didn't write "prevent" unwanted pregancies. You commented:
Do we both agree that unwanted pregnancies, especially in teens, are bad for society?
Kinda makes a difference, doesn't it, troll?
Andrewasauber
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Andrew@131, your point? I fail to see how our views on abortion have anything to do with whether you agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies, especially in teens, is good for society. Please stay focused.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
a human offspring
off·spring
?ôf?spriNG,?äf?spriNG/
noun
noun: offspring; plural noun: offspring
a person's child or children.
Andrewasauber
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. 🙂>>