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
Allan illustrates perfectly how materialism corrupts everything and everyone it touches. His A/Mat approach to life has so thoroughly corrupted his soul, he thinks that if he repeats a lie often enough -- even an obvious lie -- it will become the truth. He reminds me of why we fight. He scares the crap out of me too, because he is not alone.Barry Arrington
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
AK, legalised abortion on demand (or even on various excuses that are typically accepted) — just like euthanasia and full blown eugenics — imposes death on the innocent but inconvenient under false colour of law. That is immediately and unavoidably to the detriment of civilisation.
I wasn't talking about euthanasia or eugenics, although I do support doctor assisted suicide under defined criteria.
I don't see how abortion on demand and doctor assisted suicide, within strict limits, is to the detriment of civilization. Could you elaborate?Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
ET @ 13 says society has not improved from legalized abortion:
Society has not improved with the addition of same-sex marriages and it has definitely suffered because of legalized abortions, ie abortions as a means of birth control.
Allan @ 14 says the math suggests that society has improved from legalized abortion:
Yet there are fewer women dying of botched illegal abortions, and a lower rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions even though abortions are legal. Again, the math suggests that there is an improvement.
Allan @ 62 lies about what he said:
I was not at the time saying that legal abortions improved society
How many times do I have to rub your nose in your lies before you stop lying? My count is three nose-rubbings so far. Would you like another?Barry Arrington
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
PPS: Plato, in The Republic:
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)
kairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
AK, legalised abortion on demand (or even on various excuses that are typically accepted) -- just like euthanasia and full blown eugenics -- imposes death on the innocent but inconvenient under false colour of law. That is immediately and unavoidably to the detriment of civilisation. What is really going on is that your definition of the social good implies that it is a good for death to be imposed on the vulnerable at convenience of the favoured. That is, consistent with the amorality and invited nihilism of evolutionary materialistic secular humanism, you evidently view values and goods as essentially matters of subjective opinion held by critical masses of the sufficiently powerful. In short, we see radical relativism and/or subjectivism in action and where it naturally ends: might and/or manipulation make 'right'/ 'rights'/ truth'/ 'justice'/ 'good' etc. Or, if the light in you is darkness, how great is your darkness. Which should give any sensible person with an understanding of history and the consequences of nihilism quite serious pause. KF
PS: Plato long since warned, nigh on 2360 years past:
Ath[enian Stranger, 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].
kairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Allan:
My original comment was just a response to ET’s claim that legalized abortion was a detriment to society
It is
I simply pointed out that the numbers did not support his claim,
Nonsense. Your numbers don't have anything to do with it
My opinion on abortion is that abortion on demand, within strict limits, is good for society.
Only if limits involved getting rid of all liberals, then it would benefit society. ;)ET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Barry,
Not sure what point you are making. You said legalized abortion improved society. Then you said you did not say that. Now you are saying you did say that. God help us. People like Allan walk among us.
It is really quite clear Barry. My original comment was just a response to ET's claim that legalized abortion was a detriment to society. I simply pointed out that the numbers did not support his claim, which they don't. I was not at the time saying that legal abortions improved society, as you claim that I did. And I did not say that the lower rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion were due to the legalization of abortion, because they are not.
But, since you seemed incapable of reading for context, I figured that I would give you something to legitimately criticize. My opinion on abortion is that abortion on demand, within strict limits, is good for society. Have at it.Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Allan @ 56.
Not sure what point you are making. You said legalized abortion improved society. Then you said you did not say that. Now you are saying you did say that. God help us. People like Allan walk among us.
BTW, you can keep this up as long as you like. Every time you try to deflect from your lies, I will rub your nose in your lies again. Your turn.Barry Arrington
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
F/N: I just added an illustration of fool's gold. There is a story that a shipload of the stuff was shipped back to Britain from the New World in the 1500's. If so, a lot of hard work was carried out in vain. KFkairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Society is worse off because of legalized abortions and the numbers do not refute that claim.
Any society that willfully preys on its most vulnerable is a sick society. And abortions do just thatET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Allan-
Your reference in 47 shows that abortions went way up after Roe v Wade and only a few years ago did the rate become lower then 1973ET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
ET:
The definition of marriage had to be changed. And now the door is open for all other types of marriages too.
Actually, we need to start with this: if some court or parliament were to say that fools gold was to be accepted as real gold, would that make any real change, other than to legislate folly?
A mere form of words, even under false colour of law backed up by fascistic tactics to force submission, does not change realities. All that has happened is that we now have sin-stitutionalised (That was originally a typo) lies under false colour of law backed up by corruption of the means of law enforcement. Actually, there is more, the stability of marriage has been severely undermined and we have set the terrible precedent that might and manipulation will be regarded as making 'truth' 'right' 'rights' "justice" and more.
No great surprise, as we are already sin-stitutionalising the worst holocaust in history, the slaughter of our living posterity. That has led to the corruption that now opens the door for further corruption.
Zip zip zip go the saws and the branch on which we are all sitting is more and more undercut as one corruption paves the way for the next.
And, we here see the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic secular humanism working out as it infiltrates and subverts key institutions across our civilisation.
Oh, people can plaster over the reality with whatever manipulative terms and corrupt decrees under false colour of laws they may want. Fools gold will never be the real thing, regardless of who makes such a decree.
And no, it is not hate to speak unwelcome truth to power like this, it is vital that we face the truth and turn back from the crumbling edge of the cliff.
I cannot believe how reckless we are as a civilisation with nukes and other horrors in play.
We are playing with fire.
KFkairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Barry,
My God man! What you wrote is right up there for everyone to see. What possible purpose is served by telling lies that are so easily demonstrated as such? Watching thoroughly evil lying liars such as Allan pile lie upon lie is astonishing.
My comment was in response to ET's claim that society is worse because of legalized abortion. I simply pointed out that the numbers don't support his claim. To claim that my comment was an assertion that legalized abortion is good for society is simply false. But, if you are asking me if I do believe this, then I will answer that I do think that abortion on demand during the first couple months of pregnancy is good for society. We can disagree and argue about this, because at least then you will be arguing about something that I have actually said.Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Allan @ 14:
Yet there are fewer women dying of botched illegal abortions, and a lower rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions even though abortions are legal. Again, the math suggests that there is an improvement.
Allan @ 43:
I didn’t say that legalizing abortion improved society.
My God man! What you wrote is right up there for everyone to see. What possible purpose is served by telling lies that are so easily demonstrated as such? Watching thoroughly evil lying liars such as Allan pile lie upon lie is astonishing.Barry Arrington
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
ET, thank you for pointing out that error. That was an incorrect reference to my original claim.Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Your comment @ 43 said:
I said that since it has been legalized the number of women’s deaths by abortion, the rate of unwanted pregnancies and the rate of abortion has decreased.
That means the rate of abortion was higher before it was legalized.ET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
My comment from 50:
My claim was that abortion rates are lower now than they were at Roe v Wade. I can’t be responsible for you reading something that was not said.
ET,
That wasn’t your claim. Try again
My claim from comment 14:
And the data indicates that these rates are lower now than they were at the time of Roe v Wade.
Again, I can't be responsible for you reading something that was not said.Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Allan:
My claim was that abortion rates are lower now than they were at Roe v Wade.
That wasn't your claim. Try againET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
ET,
Allan, you have serious issues as neither link supports your claim.
My claim was that abortion rates are lower now than they were at Roe v Wade. I can't be responsible for you reading something that was not said.Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
In order for Allan to support his claim Allan has to show that abortions were higher before they became legal. And I know that he can't do that. Why? Because no one kept stats because the abortions were ILLEGALET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Allan, you have serious issues as neither link supports your claim.ET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
ET, here is another one. Using the same site that FF often sites, so I assume that it is accurate.
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/images/trendsinabortiongraph.pngAllan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
Allan, your reference shows the rate increased since abortions have been legalized.ET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Please provide a reference that shows the rate of abortions has decreased since abortions have been legalized. That means there were well over a million illegal abortions a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_StatesAllan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Please provide a reference that shows the rate of abortions has decreased since abortions have been legalized. That means there were well over a million illegal abortions a year.ET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Barry,
ET argued that legalized abortion as a means of birth control has caused society to suffer. You attempted to demonstrate the opposite by stating that society has actually improved because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, i.e, abortions accomplish their goal of terminating unwanted pregnancies.
If the only way you can demonize another person's argument is to make things up, this is going to be a very short discussion.
I pointed out to you that the fact that an act accomplishes it goal, does not make it good. In other words, the mere fact that legalized abortion accomplish its goal of terminating unwanted pregnancies does not make it a good thing that improves society.
You lied and said you never said that it did.
I didn't say that legalizing abortion improved society. I said that since it has been legalized the number of women's deaths by abortion, the rate of unwanted pregnancies and the rate of abortion has decreased. Are you suggesting that reducing women's death caused by abortion, reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancies, and reducing the rate of abortion is not good for society?
Shameless, utterly shameless.
I agree. Putting words in another person's mouth to score debating points is shameless. Please stop.Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Allan @ 40:
I knew this already, but it always amazes me how utterly shameless you are. Lying about your previous arguments only makes you look like a lying liar Allan. It does not help your cause at all.
Let’s review shall we:
ET @ 13
Society has not improved with the addition of same-sex marriages and it has definitely suffered because of legalized abortions, ie abortions as a means of birth control.
Allan @ 14
Yet there are fewer women dying of botched illegal abortions, and a lower rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions even though abortions are legal. Again, the math suggests that there is an improvement.
Barry @ 32
The fact that an act accomplishes it goal, does not make it good does it Allan.
Allan @ 40
I never said that it did.
Let’s sum up shall we:
ET argued that legalized abortion as a means of birth control has caused society to suffer. You attempted to demonstrate the opposite by stating that society has actually improved because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, i.e, abortions accomplish their goal of terminating unwanted pregnancies.
I pointed out to you that the fact that an act accomplishes it goal, does not make it good. In other words, the mere fact that legalized abortion accomplish its goal of terminating unwanted pregnancies does not make it a good thing that improves society.
You lied and said you never said that it did.
Shameless, utterly shameless. It never seems to occur to you that when you feel the need to lie to support your cause, maybe you should step back and rethink (as KF often urges).Barry Arrington
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Sorry for the messed up block quotes at 40.Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Barry, You argued that because an act accomplishes its goal, it is good and therefore should be legal.
I never said any such thing.
I will state this again and give you another chance to admit how stupid your argument was and retract it. The fact that an act accomplishes it goal, does not make it good does it Allan.
I never said that it did.
Prediction: Allan has many times proven himself incapable of good faith or self-critical reflection. He will double down rather than admit his argument is invalid.
Which argument would that be? The one that I made or the strawman argument you raised?
I suppose if one is OK with the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies, it is no great leap to argue in bad faith.
Who said that I was in favour of killing unborn babies?Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
If evolutionism was really open to scrutiny then it definitely would not be taught as science in any classroom.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. 🙂>>