Today’s moral blind spots

The Washington Post printed an interesting moral exercise written by Kwame Anthony Appiah:

Once, pretty much everywhere, beating your wife and children was regarded as a father’s duty, homosexuality was a hanging offense, and waterboarding was approved — in fact, invented — by the Catholic Church. Through the middle of the 19th century, the United States and other nations in the Americas condoned plantation slavery. Many of our grandparents were born in states where women were forbidden to vote. And well into the 20th century, lynch mobs in this country stripped, tortured, hanged and burned human beings at picnics.

Looking back at such horrors, it is easy to ask: What were people thinking?

Yet, the chances are that our own descendants will ask the same question, with the same incomprehension, about some of our practices today.

Is there a way to guess which ones? After all, not every disputed institution or practice is destined to be discredited. And it can be hard to distinguish in real time between movements, such as abolition, that will come to represent moral common sense and those, such as prohibition, that will come to seem quaint or misguided. Recall the book-burners of Boston’s old Watch and Ward Society or the organizations for the suppression of vice, with their crusades against claret, contraceptives and sexually candid novels.

Still, a look at the past suggests three signs that a particular practice is destined for future condemnation.

First, people have already heard the arguments against the practice. The case against slavery didn’t emerge in a blinding moment of moral clarity, for instance; it had been around for centuries.

Second, defenders of the custom tend not to offer moral counterarguments but instead invoke tradition, human nature or necessity. (As in, “We’ve always had slaves, and how could we grow cotton without them?”)

And third, supporters engage in what one might call strategic ignorance, avoiding truths that might force them to face the evils in which they’re complicit. Those who ate the sugar or wore the cotton that the slaves grew simply didn’t think about what made those goods possible. That’s why abolitionists sought to direct attention toward the conditions of the Middle Passage, through detailed illustrations of slave ships and horrifying stories of the suffering below decks.

via What will future generations condemn us for?.

The article goes on to apply these three principles and predicts four areas that future generations will be appalled about:  our prison system; our treatment of animals in food production; our treatment of the elderly; our treatment of the environment.

And yet the three principles apply most clearly to one issue that the article says nothing about:  ABORTION.

What, by these criteria, are some other moral blind spots of our time?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    Fairly routine 21st century swill – the first paragraph lays most of these societal ills at the feet of Christianity (i.e. the Catholics invented waterboarding) but is deafeningly silent about the fact that both the abolitionist and civil rights movements originated in the church.

    Not to mention the fact that, it ain’t rocket science to figure out “in real time” that abortion is terminating a life that did nothing to deserve such.

    Sorry, just kinda cranky on a rainy Monday morning.

  • Pete

    Fairly routine 21st century swill – the first paragraph lays most of these societal ills at the feet of Christianity (i.e. the Catholics invented waterboarding) but is deafeningly silent about the fact that both the abolitionist and civil rights movements originated in the church.

    Not to mention the fact that, it ain’t rocket science to figure out “in real time” that abortion is terminating a life that did nothing to deserve such.

    Sorry, just kinda cranky on a rainy Monday morning.

  • Kirk

    Two words: reality television

  • Kirk

    Two words: reality television

  • bunnycatch3r

    The practice of religiously indoctrinating children will be seen as another form of child abuse. Instead of teaching children the best scientific and philosophical understanding of the natural world—to teach, for example, our evolutionary heritage, cosmology, or the methods of rational analysis the church practices a form of circumcision of the mind i.e a “cerebral cortex mutilation”.

  • bunnycatch3r

    The practice of religiously indoctrinating children will be seen as another form of child abuse. Instead of teaching children the best scientific and philosophical understanding of the natural world—to teach, for example, our evolutionary heritage, cosmology, or the methods of rational analysis the church practices a form of circumcision of the mind i.e a “cerebral cortex mutilation”.

  • SKPeterson

    The extended infantilization of the populace such as the over-worship of childhood and the unwillingness of people to accept the responsibilities of adulthood.

    Perhaps there will be a turning away from public education contra bunnycatch3r’s prediction; there is more and more evidence that public education fails our children and our society “[i]nstead of teaching children the best scientific and philosophical understanding of the natural world.” Can you find anyone outside the public education mafia who argues that our children are being given a quality “free” public education instead of the old church tradition of the trivium/quadrivium?

  • SKPeterson

    The extended infantilization of the populace such as the over-worship of childhood and the unwillingness of people to accept the responsibilities of adulthood.

    Perhaps there will be a turning away from public education contra bunnycatch3r’s prediction; there is more and more evidence that public education fails our children and our society “[i]nstead of teaching children the best scientific and philosophical understanding of the natural world.” Can you find anyone outside the public education mafia who argues that our children are being given a quality “free” public education instead of the old church tradition of the trivium/quadrivium?

  • Dan Kempin

    Interesting. Of the four “future” predictions, three are very “present” issues that some in the culture are trying very hard to make moral issues. Treatment of animals, the environment, and the prison system–These are being crusaded against right now, though with limited success. I think the traction is beginning to slip on them, in fact.

    What genuinely surprises me is that “treatment of the elderly” made the list. It surprises me because I agree with it, and I wonder whether this is a “life” or a “quality of life” issue. Does the author think future generations will judge us for denying care to our elderly, or for denying them “dignified death?”

    Hmm. Maybe if I find time I’ll read the article later. Right now I’m not interested enough. Any analysis that leaves off abortion as even an objective possibility does not seem worth my time.

    Here’s my conjecture about how future generations MIGHT think:

    Conquering and enslaving others: Bad!
    Killing and exterminating others: Worse!
    Killing and exterminating your OWN babies:

  • Dan Kempin

    Interesting. Of the four “future” predictions, three are very “present” issues that some in the culture are trying very hard to make moral issues. Treatment of animals, the environment, and the prison system–These are being crusaded against right now, though with limited success. I think the traction is beginning to slip on them, in fact.

    What genuinely surprises me is that “treatment of the elderly” made the list. It surprises me because I agree with it, and I wonder whether this is a “life” or a “quality of life” issue. Does the author think future generations will judge us for denying care to our elderly, or for denying them “dignified death?”

    Hmm. Maybe if I find time I’ll read the article later. Right now I’m not interested enough. Any analysis that leaves off abortion as even an objective possibility does not seem worth my time.

    Here’s my conjecture about how future generations MIGHT think:

    Conquering and enslaving others: Bad!
    Killing and exterminating others: Worse!
    Killing and exterminating your OWN babies:

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Many of our grandparents were born in states where women were forbidden to vote. And well into the 20th century, lynch mobs in this country stripped, tortured, hanged and burned human beings at picnics.”

    “Looking back at such horrors, it is easy to ask: What were people thinking?”

    Ah, the self righteous, self congratulatory tone. Hilarious.

    Back then it was common sense for only men to vote. Is there any objective evidence that having women vote improves anything? Universal suffrage is inherently unfair.

    Lynching. I am sure everyone knows that it wasn’t just minorities that were hanged by enraged mobs. Lynching is evidence that society lacks confidence that the approved legal system will give the villain his due. If you actually investigate real lynchings, you find that the folks who got lynched were the sorts whose crimes would naturally enrage the community. If the community felt such perpetrators would get justice in the courts, they might not want to lynch them.

    Now we don’t have lynchings, and perpetrators get off easy for all sorts of heinous crimes. It is not more just than lynching.

    More laws/bureaucracy, less justice.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Many of our grandparents were born in states where women were forbidden to vote. And well into the 20th century, lynch mobs in this country stripped, tortured, hanged and burned human beings at picnics.”

    “Looking back at such horrors, it is easy to ask: What were people thinking?”

    Ah, the self righteous, self congratulatory tone. Hilarious.

    Back then it was common sense for only men to vote. Is there any objective evidence that having women vote improves anything? Universal suffrage is inherently unfair.

    Lynching. I am sure everyone knows that it wasn’t just minorities that were hanged by enraged mobs. Lynching is evidence that society lacks confidence that the approved legal system will give the villain his due. If you actually investigate real lynchings, you find that the folks who got lynched were the sorts whose crimes would naturally enrage the community. If the community felt such perpetrators would get justice in the courts, they might not want to lynch them.

    Now we don’t have lynchings, and perpetrators get off easy for all sorts of heinous crimes. It is not more just than lynching.

    More laws/bureaucracy, less justice.

  • Norman Teigen

    I think that the anti-abortion position taken by some Lutherans promotes gullibility and religious fraud.

    Faithful Christians can be counted on to expend their energies and spend their monies on organizations, such as Christian Life Resources.

    An examination of these resources reveals, more often than not, a strong appeal for money based on religious expression with no effect whatever on the larger social situation. Chaucer exposed religious fraud in ‘The Canterbury Tales’ and believing Christians would do well to re-read ‘The Pardoner’s Tale’ and consider what they do in this matter of anti-abortion expression.

    For the believing Christian, the most serious danger in all of this is the attempted binding of conscience. Advocates of the anti-abortion campaign would bind the consciences of all to the advocacy of their (mostly) political and social agenda.

  • Norman Teigen

    I think that the anti-abortion position taken by some Lutherans promotes gullibility and religious fraud.

    Faithful Christians can be counted on to expend their energies and spend their monies on organizations, such as Christian Life Resources.

    An examination of these resources reveals, more often than not, a strong appeal for money based on religious expression with no effect whatever on the larger social situation. Chaucer exposed religious fraud in ‘The Canterbury Tales’ and believing Christians would do well to re-read ‘The Pardoner’s Tale’ and consider what they do in this matter of anti-abortion expression.

    For the believing Christian, the most serious danger in all of this is the attempted binding of conscience. Advocates of the anti-abortion campaign would bind the consciences of all to the advocacy of their (mostly) political and social agenda.

  • Porcell

    One moral blind-spot of the contemporary West is the lack of courage that has crippled it from seriously defending itself from known enemies. Europe, the land of Churchill, came close to caving against the totalitarian Soviet Union and at present is in process of caving to radical Islam. In the U.S. the radical Left that dominates the media and academia shows a serious lack of courage.

    Solzhenitsyn in his 1978 Harvard commencement address addressed this as follows:

    A Decline in Courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

    Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

    We lost the Vietnam War essentially due to a lack of courage as a people; we almost lost the Iraq War due to the Left pacifists and the isolationists; fortunately Pres. Bush resisted fierce public criticism and eventually we defeated both Saddam Hussein and the later insurgency. America since the Korean War has tended to fight feckless limited wars.

  • Porcell

    One moral blind-spot of the contemporary West is the lack of courage that has crippled it from seriously defending itself from known enemies. Europe, the land of Churchill, came close to caving against the totalitarian Soviet Union and at present is in process of caving to radical Islam. In the U.S. the radical Left that dominates the media and academia shows a serious lack of courage.

    Solzhenitsyn in his 1978 Harvard commencement address addressed this as follows:

    A Decline in Courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life. Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

    Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

    We lost the Vietnam War essentially due to a lack of courage as a people; we almost lost the Iraq War due to the Left pacifists and the isolationists; fortunately Pres. Bush resisted fierce public criticism and eventually we defeated both Saddam Hussein and the later insurgency. America since the Korean War has tended to fight feckless limited wars.

  • Kirk

    @sg

    YES! Thank God someone is finally saying this! No more of this requirement for witnesses or proof of guilt! If an angry mob thinks you deserve to die, you obviously deserve to die!

    Seriously, do you actually think about what you’re saying?

  • Kirk

    @sg

    YES! Thank God someone is finally saying this! No more of this requirement for witnesses or proof of guilt! If an angry mob thinks you deserve to die, you obviously deserve to die!

    Seriously, do you actually think about what you’re saying?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” teaching children the best scientific and philosophical understanding of the natural world—to teach, for example, our evolutionary heritage, cosmology, or the methods of rational analysis”

    Uh huh. Good luck with that. You couldn’t teach all that to the average person even if money were no object. Los Angeles school district spends $27k per student per year and has a 44% graduation rate, and they don’t religiously indoctrinate. Hello, not everyone is above average. Plenty of folks who actually do understand all that stuff are religious anyway. Go figure.

    Consider the fact that men have bigger bodies and brains just due to their biology. They outperform women on all cognitive and physical measures. They have invented and built virtually everything that has been built or invented. Now from that, use evolutionary biology to give us the rational basis for calling women equal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” teaching children the best scientific and philosophical understanding of the natural world—to teach, for example, our evolutionary heritage, cosmology, or the methods of rational analysis”

    Uh huh. Good luck with that. You couldn’t teach all that to the average person even if money were no object. Los Angeles school district spends $27k per student per year and has a 44% graduation rate, and they don’t religiously indoctrinate. Hello, not everyone is above average. Plenty of folks who actually do understand all that stuff are religious anyway. Go figure.

    Consider the fact that men have bigger bodies and brains just due to their biology. They outperform women on all cognitive and physical measures. They have invented and built virtually everything that has been built or invented. Now from that, use evolutionary biology to give us the rational basis for calling women equal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Advocates of the anti-abortion campaign would bind the consciences of all to the advocacy of their (mostly) political and social agenda.”

    Remind me again of the basis for that social agenda.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Advocates of the anti-abortion campaign would bind the consciences of all to the advocacy of their (mostly) political and social agenda.”

    Remind me again of the basis for that social agenda.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @SKPeterson.

    Can you find anyone outside the public education mafia who argues that our children are being given a quality “free” public education instead of the old church tradition of the trivium/quadrivium?

    I feel a “no true Scottsman” fallacy coming on in that anyone who argues for public education as a benefit is necessarily positioned well within the “public education mafia”.
    Do you think trivium/qaudrivium would work if it replaced public education’s current curriculum and pedagogy or would the appalling conditions of it being both public and free handicap its advantages as well?

  • bunnycatch3r

    @SKPeterson.

    Can you find anyone outside the public education mafia who argues that our children are being given a quality “free” public education instead of the old church tradition of the trivium/quadrivium?

    I feel a “no true Scottsman” fallacy coming on in that anyone who argues for public education as a benefit is necessarily positioned well within the “public education mafia”.
    Do you think trivium/qaudrivium would work if it replaced public education’s current curriculum and pedagogy or would the appalling conditions of it being both public and free handicap its advantages as well?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Seriously, do you actually think about what you’re saying?”

    Did you actually read what I said?

    It is not that lynching is good. It is that there is a distrust of the justice system. That is the basis for vigilante justice. The community has standards. When they feel that justice will not prevail, they use force to advocate for themselves. It is a failure on both sides.

    Consider the notion from the Bible that relatives of murder victim could kill the perpetrator. Strictly speaking, it is not immoral to kill the guy. Now, of course folks need to get the right guy and the community should act to protect the accused which is what our system does. However, at times our system has confused the accused with the guilty. The guilty do not deserve the same protection as the accused.

    Now we have a society where the law abiding live in fear, but the lawless do not. The point is to suppress lawlessness with the real threat of violence. Now we suppress violence with very expensive incarceration. So, the victims are taxed to house those who abused them. Fabulous.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Seriously, do you actually think about what you’re saying?”

    Did you actually read what I said?

    It is not that lynching is good. It is that there is a distrust of the justice system. That is the basis for vigilante justice. The community has standards. When they feel that justice will not prevail, they use force to advocate for themselves. It is a failure on both sides.

    Consider the notion from the Bible that relatives of murder victim could kill the perpetrator. Strictly speaking, it is not immoral to kill the guy. Now, of course folks need to get the right guy and the community should act to protect the accused which is what our system does. However, at times our system has confused the accused with the guilty. The guilty do not deserve the same protection as the accused.

    Now we have a society where the law abiding live in fear, but the lawless do not. The point is to suppress lawlessness with the real threat of violence. Now we suppress violence with very expensive incarceration. So, the victims are taxed to house those who abused them. Fabulous.

  • bunnycatch3r

    Is there any objective evidence that having women vote improves anything? Universal suffrage is inherently unfair.

    Martyria, Diakonia, Koinonia, Misogynia

  • bunnycatch3r

    Is there any objective evidence that having women vote improves anything? Universal suffrage is inherently unfair.

    Martyria, Diakonia, Koinonia, Misogynia

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Do you think trivium/qaudrivium would work if it replaced public education’s current curriculum and pedagogy or would the appalling conditions of it being both public and free handicap its advantages as well?”

    Nothing will make everyone erudite thinkers. Nothing can make everyone equal or even competent. It can not happen. It is fantasy. Students need appropriate education. They need to be trained to do what they have actual aptitude for. The weakest students need help from the school with job placement etc. We need to treat those with less ability with respect and caring and help them guide them. We can not make them all smart, tall, thin and good looking. It can not be done. This is why loving people is a challenge. We want to fix them rather than help them. We can’t eliminate the human condition. We can’t save them from the limits of human existence. Only Jesus saves. We can love and serve, but that is it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Do you think trivium/qaudrivium would work if it replaced public education’s current curriculum and pedagogy or would the appalling conditions of it being both public and free handicap its advantages as well?”

    Nothing will make everyone erudite thinkers. Nothing can make everyone equal or even competent. It can not happen. It is fantasy. Students need appropriate education. They need to be trained to do what they have actual aptitude for. The weakest students need help from the school with job placement etc. We need to treat those with less ability with respect and caring and help them guide them. We can not make them all smart, tall, thin and good looking. It can not be done. This is why loving people is a challenge. We want to fix them rather than help them. We can’t eliminate the human condition. We can’t save them from the limits of human existence. Only Jesus saves. We can love and serve, but that is it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Martyria, Diakonia, Koinonia, Misogynia”

    What, no rational analysis?

    But, but, but, I thought you knew some great enlightened stuff!

    Nah, just the usual ad hominem.

    Fail.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Martyria, Diakonia, Koinonia, Misogynia”

    What, no rational analysis?

    But, but, but, I thought you knew some great enlightened stuff!

    Nah, just the usual ad hominem.

    Fail.

  • Norman Teigen

    The social agenda for the political right is to promote their own, obviously debatable, view of how the country should be run.

    The motivation of the religious agenda in this context is to promote a world where sin is conquered through the use of civil laws.

    The interpretation of history and law by these certain advocates is very debatable. The idea of promotion religious values through civil laws is, I think. quite clearly evident from a study of history.

  • Norman Teigen

    The social agenda for the political right is to promote their own, obviously debatable, view of how the country should be run.

    The motivation of the religious agenda in this context is to promote a world where sin is conquered through the use of civil laws.

    The interpretation of history and law by these certain advocates is very debatable. The idea of promotion religious values through civil laws is, I think. quite clearly evident from a study of history.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Does the writer actually provide any evidence that beating one’s wife was actually treated as a duty? I’m calling, um, “bovine scat” on that one. Corporal punishment of children, yes, but that’s not just “beating” one’s children, either.

    Which leads me to a blind spot that future generations just might call us on, if they’re lucky; believing things just because we’ve seen them from a source we like, whether or not we can actually provide evidence for our position.

    I would add “prenatal infanticide” to the list as well, and finally the idea that we ought to force our neighbors, at gunpoint, to furnish funds for our purposes via government.

    That is, they will condemn our generation for this if they are lucky, and you see of course that my worldview differs fairly strongly from Mr. Appiah’s.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Does the writer actually provide any evidence that beating one’s wife was actually treated as a duty? I’m calling, um, “bovine scat” on that one. Corporal punishment of children, yes, but that’s not just “beating” one’s children, either.

    Which leads me to a blind spot that future generations just might call us on, if they’re lucky; believing things just because we’ve seen them from a source we like, whether or not we can actually provide evidence for our position.

    I would add “prenatal infanticide” to the list as well, and finally the idea that we ought to force our neighbors, at gunpoint, to furnish funds for our purposes via government.

    That is, they will condemn our generation for this if they are lucky, and you see of course that my worldview differs fairly strongly from Mr. Appiah’s.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Norman, I asked for the basis, not the goal.

    Bunny, I just asked the question “Is there any objective evidence that having women vote improves anything?” Shall I assume you are not aware of any, which is why you offered none, only insults?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Norman, I asked for the basis, not the goal.

    Bunny, I just asked the question “Is there any objective evidence that having women vote improves anything?” Shall I assume you are not aware of any, which is why you offered none, only insults?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The motivation of the religious agenda in this context is to promote a world where sin is conquered through the use of civil laws.”

    Really? Murder, rape and robbery are illegal, and no one thinks those sins are going to be conquered by writing and enforcing laws. Laws just reflect expectations.

    So, what is the basis for these laws? And what is the basis for the social agenda you mentioned?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The motivation of the religious agenda in this context is to promote a world where sin is conquered through the use of civil laws.”

    Really? Murder, rape and robbery are illegal, and no one thinks those sins are going to be conquered by writing and enforcing laws. Laws just reflect expectations.

    So, what is the basis for these laws? And what is the basis for the social agenda you mentioned?

  • Kirk

    @13

    Yes, I did. You said that lynchings ensure justice. You made no qualifications. You specifically stated that lynchings are a more effective means of justice than our legal system

    But to your explanation:

    Under the provision that the murderer was actually guilty, as proved by the testimony of two witnesses. There was still a legal system involved and the assumption that the guilty person would be shown to actually be guilty before justice was meeted out. The law did no say “If someone murders your relative, go out and look for the person that you think might perpetrated the crime. If you find him, kill him.”

    And your dichotomy of failed justice does not to take into account the difference between satisfaction (ie a failed concept of justice) and justice. There are certain things that people should not be killed for, no matter how badly they anger a particular group. In cases such as these, the aggreived group may feel that justice is death, when it is infact something wholly different. That group may not feel as though justice is being carried out, when in fact it is. They would be wrong for killing.

    Furthermore, our system is a democratic product. The penal code was determined by elected representatives and sentences are handed out by a jury of peers. I would contest that contrary to your notion of the lawful living in fear, the lawful built the system that they felt best suits them. (The fear line is good for movies and NRA advertisements, but in real life, I don’t think that most people arethat afraid.) Plus, there are times when the ends justify the means. For example, a murderer may get a life sentence in exchange for information that gets another murderer arrested. Is it better that murderer A meets total justice through execution while murderer B remains free? Or is it preferable that both be taken off the streets, even if it means that one gets to live?

  • Kirk

    @13

    Yes, I did. You said that lynchings ensure justice. You made no qualifications. You specifically stated that lynchings are a more effective means of justice than our legal system

    But to your explanation:

    Under the provision that the murderer was actually guilty, as proved by the testimony of two witnesses. There was still a legal system involved and the assumption that the guilty person would be shown to actually be guilty before justice was meeted out. The law did no say “If someone murders your relative, go out and look for the person that you think might perpetrated the crime. If you find him, kill him.”

    And your dichotomy of failed justice does not to take into account the difference between satisfaction (ie a failed concept of justice) and justice. There are certain things that people should not be killed for, no matter how badly they anger a particular group. In cases such as these, the aggreived group may feel that justice is death, when it is infact something wholly different. That group may not feel as though justice is being carried out, when in fact it is. They would be wrong for killing.

    Furthermore, our system is a democratic product. The penal code was determined by elected representatives and sentences are handed out by a jury of peers. I would contest that contrary to your notion of the lawful living in fear, the lawful built the system that they felt best suits them. (The fear line is good for movies and NRA advertisements, but in real life, I don’t think that most people arethat afraid.) Plus, there are times when the ends justify the means. For example, a murderer may get a life sentence in exchange for information that gets another murderer arrested. Is it better that murderer A meets total justice through execution while murderer B remains free? Or is it preferable that both be taken off the streets, even if it means that one gets to live?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You said that lynchings ensure justice.”

    No, I didn’t. I said the community wanted to ensure justice, which is why they pursued it. I said they didn’t trust the system. It is an explanation not an endorsement. I think to many folks want to oversimplify the situation.

    “You made no qualifications.”

    Nah, I noted the distrust by the community as the qualifier.

    “You specifically stated that lynchings are a more effective means of justice than our legal system”

    No, I didn’t. I implied they were more effective in the eyes of the community, which is obviously why they did it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You said that lynchings ensure justice.”

    No, I didn’t. I said the community wanted to ensure justice, which is why they pursued it. I said they didn’t trust the system. It is an explanation not an endorsement. I think to many folks want to oversimplify the situation.

    “You made no qualifications.”

    Nah, I noted the distrust by the community as the qualifier.

    “You specifically stated that lynchings are a more effective means of justice than our legal system”

    No, I didn’t. I implied they were more effective in the eyes of the community, which is obviously why they did it.

  • Kirk

    This all to say, there’s more to justice than just what happens to criminals. The punishment is part of it, to be sure, but how the conclusion of guilt is determined and how the appropriate punishment is decided is all a part of it.

  • Kirk

    This all to say, there’s more to justice than just what happens to criminals. The punishment is part of it, to be sure, but how the conclusion of guilt is determined and how the appropriate punishment is decided is all a part of it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Kirk, I don’t disagree with you on the point of having a better justice system than lynchings and vigilantes etc. However, the writer wanted to take the point of view of a third grader who has no idea why anyone in the world would do XYZ. Obviously, people had reasons. Ignoring those reasons is pretty lame. That is where we are now. Conventional PC assertions. No analysis. Like the misogyny catchall. Any question about women’s competence or disposition is dismissed rather than discussed. No discussion based on evidence will be tolerated. We must all accept blindly every edict of conventional PC wisdom.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Kirk, I don’t disagree with you on the point of having a better justice system than lynchings and vigilantes etc. However, the writer wanted to take the point of view of a third grader who has no idea why anyone in the world would do XYZ. Obviously, people had reasons. Ignoring those reasons is pretty lame. That is where we are now. Conventional PC assertions. No analysis. Like the misogyny catchall. Any question about women’s competence or disposition is dismissed rather than discussed. No discussion based on evidence will be tolerated. We must all accept blindly every edict of conventional PC wisdom.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “What, by these criteria, are some other moral blind spots of our time?”

    Misandry

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “What, by these criteria, are some other moral blind spots of our time?”

    Misandry

  • Louis

    Ok, there is a lot of debate going on here. But to answer the question, I would certainly add abortion (though I accept some of Norman’s qualifications, in that we have to see the whole picture), in addition to the points the author mentions, and I have to agree with Dan, in that i’m pleasantly surprised that the treatment of the elderly made the list. Here in SK, for instance, a province of more than 1 million inhabitants, there is just one geriatrician. Just one. And she is doing tireless work in promoting the cause of geriatric medicine. Care for the elderly is just not seen as “sexy” enough nowadays, and there is not a lot of funds committed to that either.

  • Louis

    Ok, there is a lot of debate going on here. But to answer the question, I would certainly add abortion (though I accept some of Norman’s qualifications, in that we have to see the whole picture), in addition to the points the author mentions, and I have to agree with Dan, in that i’m pleasantly surprised that the treatment of the elderly made the list. Here in SK, for instance, a province of more than 1 million inhabitants, there is just one geriatrician. Just one. And she is doing tireless work in promoting the cause of geriatric medicine. Care for the elderly is just not seen as “sexy” enough nowadays, and there is not a lot of funds committed to that either.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Here in SK, for instance, a province of more than 1 million inhabitants, there is just one geriatrician. Just one. And she is doing tireless work in promoting the cause of geriatric medicine. Care for the elderly is just not seen as “sexy” enough nowadays, and there is not a lot of funds committed to that either.”

    How much does geriatric medicine pay? There is no shortage of plastic surgeons where I live. How about where you live? If old people paid directly for services like patients of plastic surgeons, there would likely be a rush into geriatric medicine. Why on earth would a government put money into geriatric medicine where the return on investment is a guaranteed zero? Those folks will never work or pay tax again. Just explaining natural forces at work. Don’t shoot the messenger.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Here in SK, for instance, a province of more than 1 million inhabitants, there is just one geriatrician. Just one. And she is doing tireless work in promoting the cause of geriatric medicine. Care for the elderly is just not seen as “sexy” enough nowadays, and there is not a lot of funds committed to that either.”

    How much does geriatric medicine pay? There is no shortage of plastic surgeons where I live. How about where you live? If old people paid directly for services like patients of plastic surgeons, there would likely be a rush into geriatric medicine. Why on earth would a government put money into geriatric medicine where the return on investment is a guaranteed zero? Those folks will never work or pay tax again. Just explaining natural forces at work. Don’t shoot the messenger.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @sg

    Consider the fact that men have bigger bodies and brains just due to their biology. They outperform women on all cognitive and physical measures. They have invented and built virtually everything that has been built or invented. Now from that, use evolutionary biology to give us the rational basis for calling women equal.

    And from this “analysis” women should not be allowed to vote.
    Using this approach insert “white males” into the following:
    “They (that is white males) have invented and built virtually everything that has been built or invented. Now from that, use evolutionary biology to give us the rational basis for calling [BLACKS] equal”.

    amidoinitrite?

  • bunnycatch3r

    @sg

    Consider the fact that men have bigger bodies and brains just due to their biology. They outperform women on all cognitive and physical measures. They have invented and built virtually everything that has been built or invented. Now from that, use evolutionary biology to give us the rational basis for calling women equal.

    And from this “analysis” women should not be allowed to vote.
    Using this approach insert “white males” into the following:
    “They (that is white males) have invented and built virtually everything that has been built or invented. Now from that, use evolutionary biology to give us the rational basis for calling [BLACKS] equal”.

    amidoinitrite?

  • Louis

    “If old people paid directly for services like patients of plastic surgeons, there would likely be a rush into geriatric medicine. ”

    Last time I checked, old people were not exactly awash in money. So, by your standards, they should still not be helped – I mean, if they don’t have money, let them die!

    As to the other fallacy behind your position – in our medical system (which is province controlled, not federally, hence different systems for different provinces), doctors work for themselves, but the bills are paid by government, more or less – not all services are covered. Thus you are arguing with a soci@list straw man of your own imagination.

  • Louis

    “If old people paid directly for services like patients of plastic surgeons, there would likely be a rush into geriatric medicine. ”

    Last time I checked, old people were not exactly awash in money. So, by your standards, they should still not be helped – I mean, if they don’t have money, let them die!

    As to the other fallacy behind your position – in our medical system (which is province controlled, not federally, hence different systems for different provinces), doctors work for themselves, but the bills are paid by government, more or less – not all services are covered. Thus you are arguing with a soci@list straw man of your own imagination.

  • Louis

    bunnycatch3r – I heartily disagree with you in #3, for the simple fact that all positions -whether atheism or fundamentalist baptist, are in fact religious in nature. Dawkins is as much of a fundamentalist as Fred Phelps. And while the word “indoctrinate” is loaded, reaching your child ANY set of values can be described as “indoctrination”. Teaching your child hatred towards others, based on that indoctrination, could be problmatic though.

    On another point, I support your calling out of sg in #28, but in previous threads she (yes, she) has shown herself to be prone to racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness, so do try and avoid her rants, will you? It can make this environment quite, hmm, flammable, if you get my drift.

  • Louis

    bunnycatch3r – I heartily disagree with you in #3, for the simple fact that all positions -whether atheism or fundamentalist baptist, are in fact religious in nature. Dawkins is as much of a fundamentalist as Fred Phelps. And while the word “indoctrinate” is loaded, reaching your child ANY set of values can be described as “indoctrination”. Teaching your child hatred towards others, based on that indoctrination, could be problmatic though.

    On another point, I support your calling out of sg in #28, but in previous threads she (yes, she) has shown herself to be prone to racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness, so do try and avoid her rants, will you? It can make this environment quite, hmm, flammable, if you get my drift.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Last time I checked, old people were not exactly awash in money. So, by your standards, they should still not be helped – I mean, if they don’t have money, let them die!”

    When did you last check? Old people control more wealth now than ever before.

    Where did you get the “your standards”? I asserted no standards. I just said that if there were more money to be made, more folks would likely enter the field. People will provide services that others are willing and able to pay for.

    “On another point, I support your calling out of sg in #28, but in previous threads she (yes, she) has shown herself to be prone to racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness, so do try and avoid her rants, will you? It can make this environment quite, hmm, flammable, if you get my drift”

    Ah, the old reliable ad hominem. No refutation of my points with evidence, just the comfortable, self serving retreat into the approving arms of the PC hegemony. No, we should never discuss race, or sex or any of the pertinent elephants in the room. We must all toe the PC line and purge any such thoughts without any thought just humble obedience to the prevailing majority opinion.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Last time I checked, old people were not exactly awash in money. So, by your standards, they should still not be helped – I mean, if they don’t have money, let them die!”

    When did you last check? Old people control more wealth now than ever before.

    Where did you get the “your standards”? I asserted no standards. I just said that if there were more money to be made, more folks would likely enter the field. People will provide services that others are willing and able to pay for.

    “On another point, I support your calling out of sg in #28, but in previous threads she (yes, she) has shown herself to be prone to racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness, so do try and avoid her rants, will you? It can make this environment quite, hmm, flammable, if you get my drift”

    Ah, the old reliable ad hominem. No refutation of my points with evidence, just the comfortable, self serving retreat into the approving arms of the PC hegemony. No, we should never discuss race, or sex or any of the pertinent elephants in the room. We must all toe the PC line and purge any such thoughts without any thought just humble obedience to the prevailing majority opinion.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness”

    What dubiousness? Data tables from the US Census Bureau and the Dept. of Justice? That dubiousness?

    PC claims are dubious. Numerical data, not so much.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness”

    What dubiousness? Data tables from the US Census Bureau and the Dept. of Justice? That dubiousness?

    PC claims are dubious. Numerical data, not so much.

  • Dan Kempin

    Louis, #30,

    It was Bunny @#28 who introduced race into sg’s comments. (Out of thin air, I might add.) I could take anyone’s sentences and by subsituting words of my choosing make them inflammatory as well.

  • Dan Kempin

    Louis, #30,

    It was Bunny @#28 who introduced race into sg’s comments. (Out of thin air, I might add.) I could take anyone’s sentences and by subsituting words of my choosing make them inflammatory as well.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg

    wow. sure people had reasons for lynchings. but to see those postcards of white children smiling at a picnic in front of a dead lynched black man does in fact make me wonder “what WERE they thinking??!!”

    I would LOVE to know how they thought. That desire does not flow from my thinking I am beyond such behavior given circumstances.

    indeed the point of the article is blind spots. I have those. so do you. Things we are certain of and take for granted because “they have always been so”.

    The article does not seem so much about casting stones or aspersions as an invitation to self reflection. indeed maybe a blind spot of the author of the article is in fact abortion. This just reinforces the value of his exercise. It does not vitiate it.

    Christians value repentance. and true repentance can only be about hearing the law in ones conscience calling. Mileage may vary here for those who fancy ourselves to have some calling to be jeremiah as christians.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg

    wow. sure people had reasons for lynchings. but to see those postcards of white children smiling at a picnic in front of a dead lynched black man does in fact make me wonder “what WERE they thinking??!!”

    I would LOVE to know how they thought. That desire does not flow from my thinking I am beyond such behavior given circumstances.

    indeed the point of the article is blind spots. I have those. so do you. Things we are certain of and take for granted because “they have always been so”.

    The article does not seem so much about casting stones or aspersions as an invitation to self reflection. indeed maybe a blind spot of the author of the article is in fact abortion. This just reinforces the value of his exercise. It does not vitiate it.

    Christians value repentance. and true repentance can only be about hearing the law in ones conscience calling. Mileage may vary here for those who fancy ourselves to have some calling to be jeremiah as christians.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And from this “analysis” women should not be allowed to vote.”

    Once again avoiding the question. I just asked for the evidence. Got any?

    “Using this approach insert “white males” into the following:
    “They (that is white males) have invented and built virtually everything that has been built or invented. Now from that, use evolutionary biology to give us the rational basis for calling [BLACKS] equal”.

    Okay, go ahead. I am waiting.

    Make the case based on evolutionary biology.

    I can make the case for equality based on my religion.

    Can you make it based on evolutionary biology?

    “amidoinitrite”

    Hey, cool new word. Thanks.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And from this “analysis” women should not be allowed to vote.”

    Once again avoiding the question. I just asked for the evidence. Got any?

    “Using this approach insert “white males” into the following:
    “They (that is white males) have invented and built virtually everything that has been built or invented. Now from that, use evolutionary biology to give us the rational basis for calling [BLACKS] equal”.

    Okay, go ahead. I am waiting.

    Make the case based on evolutionary biology.

    I can make the case for equality based on my religion.

    Can you make it based on evolutionary biology?

    “amidoinitrite”

    Hey, cool new word. Thanks.

  • Louis

    Dan – right. But I was cautioning bunny not to do that – not because it isn’t consistent with sg’s thoughts (that has been demonstrated very well in other threads), but because that will set her off, and destroy this thread. I am sick to the brim of folks like sg harping on race like a stuck record, refusing to even consider alternatives, or trying to understand the data. They are like the definition of fanatics:

    Somebody that won’t change their mind, and won’t change the subject.

    SG: Simply calling on somebody to examine their beliefs on race etc, doesn’t constitute PC-mindedness etc etc. You really, really need to get out more, talk to people, listen to their stories, and read up on history other than one specific viewpoint only. We’ve been through this before.

  • Louis

    Dan – right. But I was cautioning bunny not to do that – not because it isn’t consistent with sg’s thoughts (that has been demonstrated very well in other threads), but because that will set her off, and destroy this thread. I am sick to the brim of folks like sg harping on race like a stuck record, refusing to even consider alternatives, or trying to understand the data. They are like the definition of fanatics:

    Somebody that won’t change their mind, and won’t change the subject.

    SG: Simply calling on somebody to examine their beliefs on race etc, doesn’t constitute PC-mindedness etc etc. You really, really need to get out more, talk to people, listen to their stories, and read up on history other than one specific viewpoint only. We’ve been through this before.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    those who read me here will know that the diagnostic list he offers for consideration sorta screams at me about a certain class of society of which I am a part eh?

    I just saw KD Lang in concert for the first time last night. Even as a gay man she sorta threw me visually. She is a she-man. It threw me. So what. The problem is alone mine.

    That fact of her sexuality has utterly no eternal consequences for her. None at all. Lutherans confess this fact as Truth because we believe that The Truth alone is what saves us.

    She sang “I went to a house of prayer and found myself unwelcome there”. Probably where she could have alone found comfort in the one thing that would be eternal for her had they told her the truth that Jesus would never turn her away.

    I would pray that she would come to know her Savior in spite of us all.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    those who read me here will know that the diagnostic list he offers for consideration sorta screams at me about a certain class of society of which I am a part eh?

    I just saw KD Lang in concert for the first time last night. Even as a gay man she sorta threw me visually. She is a she-man. It threw me. So what. The problem is alone mine.

    That fact of her sexuality has utterly no eternal consequences for her. None at all. Lutherans confess this fact as Truth because we believe that The Truth alone is what saves us.

    She sang “I went to a house of prayer and found myself unwelcome there”. Probably where she could have alone found comfort in the one thing that would be eternal for her had they told her the truth that Jesus would never turn her away.

    I would pray that she would come to know her Savior in spite of us all.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “wow. sure people had reasons for lynchings. but to see those postcards of white children smiling at a picnic in front of a dead lynched black man does in fact make me wonder “what WERE they thinking??!!”

    “I would LOVE to know how they thought. That desire does not flow from my thinking I am beyond such behavior given circumstances.”

    Come on. We all know what they were thinking. They were glad he was dead. They had revenge. They had asserted their authority and power. These are by no means high virtues, but it is not like we don’t know that people think like that or that depravity can be deep and wide. None of us is so innocent he doesn’t know that people like revenge and power.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “wow. sure people had reasons for lynchings. but to see those postcards of white children smiling at a picnic in front of a dead lynched black man does in fact make me wonder “what WERE they thinking??!!”

    “I would LOVE to know how they thought. That desire does not flow from my thinking I am beyond such behavior given circumstances.”

    Come on. We all know what they were thinking. They were glad he was dead. They had revenge. They had asserted their authority and power. These are by no means high virtues, but it is not like we don’t know that people think like that or that depravity can be deep and wide. None of us is so innocent he doesn’t know that people like revenge and power.

  • Ryan

    I wonder about thinking of those ‘barbarians of the past’ might think we are barbaric too. There is nothing new under the sun. CS Lewis has a great essay in the reading of books – here is a longish excerpt that I think shows some sanity compared to the pompous tone of the piece Dr. Veith posted:

    Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?”—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

  • Ryan

    I wonder about thinking of those ‘barbarians of the past’ might think we are barbaric too. There is nothing new under the sun. CS Lewis has a great essay in the reading of books – here is a longish excerpt that I think shows some sanity compared to the pompous tone of the piece Dr. Veith posted:

    Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook—even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united—united with each other and against earlier and later ages—by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century—the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?”—lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H. G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.

  • ptl

    Spending our children’s, our grand children’s and great grand children’s money today, so we can have a so called affluent life style, and then sticking them with the bill and very serious problems in the future, all while they had absolutely no say in the matter. Shame, shame, shame…..have we no shame?

  • ptl

    Spending our children’s, our grand children’s and great grand children’s money today, so we can have a so called affluent life style, and then sticking them with the bill and very serious problems in the future, all while they had absolutely no say in the matter. Shame, shame, shame…..have we no shame?

  • Porcell

    Another moral failing of the West is that we allow leftist liberals with little understanding of original sin to preach moralistic sermons, like that of Kwame Anthony Appiah, on our assorted evils. This from a Ghanaian teaching at Princeton whose country enjoys the distinction of being the 53rd least failed state in the world according to the Failed State Index. Come to think of it, Princeton in itself is an egregious moral failure having appointed Peter Singer a professor of an “ethic” that allows abortion, euthanasia and infanticide.

    Religious liberals, especially, lack a healthy sense of original sin. Richard Niebuhr remarked nicely on this with: A God without wrath brought people without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministry of a Christ without the cross.

    For all of its faults the historically Christian West has made great contributions to world civilization, of which we may be proud, notwithstanding our very human moral failings, many of which including slavery over time we’ve managed to correct.

  • Porcell

    Another moral failing of the West is that we allow leftist liberals with little understanding of original sin to preach moralistic sermons, like that of Kwame Anthony Appiah, on our assorted evils. This from a Ghanaian teaching at Princeton whose country enjoys the distinction of being the 53rd least failed state in the world according to the Failed State Index. Come to think of it, Princeton in itself is an egregious moral failure having appointed Peter Singer a professor of an “ethic” that allows abortion, euthanasia and infanticide.

    Religious liberals, especially, lack a healthy sense of original sin. Richard Niebuhr remarked nicely on this with: A God without wrath brought people without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministry of a Christ without the cross.

    For all of its faults the historically Christian West has made great contributions to world civilization, of which we may be proud, notwithstanding our very human moral failings, many of which including slavery over time we’ve managed to correct.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @sg

    Consider the fact that men have bigger bodies and brains just due to their biology. They outperform women on all cognitive and physical measures.

    “bigger bodies and bigger brains” -ok, so the elephant is superior male humans. This proves nothing.
    “They outperform women on all cognitive…measures” source?
    “…and physical measures” -poppycock! Can a man give birth? Breastfeed?

  • bunnycatch3r

    @sg

    Consider the fact that men have bigger bodies and brains just due to their biology. They outperform women on all cognitive and physical measures.

    “bigger bodies and bigger brains” -ok, so the elephant is superior male humans. This proves nothing.
    “They outperform women on all cognitive…measures” source?
    “…and physical measures” -poppycock! Can a man give birth? Breastfeed?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Somebody that won’t change their mind, and won’t change the subject.”

    Are you talking about you or me?

    “SG: Simply calling on somebody to examine their beliefs on race etc, doesn’t constitute PC-mindedness etc etc. You really, really need to get out more, talk to people, listen to their stories, and read up on history other than one specific viewpoint only. We’ve been through this before.”

    I really haven’t asserted any beliefs. I just posted the data and asked others to offer suggestions and comments based on the data, for which I continually get slammed and insulted. I am just asking some questions of others. No one has offered any reasonable arguments. Just insults and innuendo. If you want someone to agree with you, you have to give them a reason. You haven’t. It is all shaming language. Ad hominem. You assume I have this or that opinion even though I have basically just posted data and asked questions.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Somebody that won’t change their mind, and won’t change the subject.”

    Are you talking about you or me?

    “SG: Simply calling on somebody to examine their beliefs on race etc, doesn’t constitute PC-mindedness etc etc. You really, really need to get out more, talk to people, listen to their stories, and read up on history other than one specific viewpoint only. We’ve been through this before.”

    I really haven’t asserted any beliefs. I just posted the data and asked others to offer suggestions and comments based on the data, for which I continually get slammed and insulted. I am just asking some questions of others. No one has offered any reasonable arguments. Just insults and innuendo. If you want someone to agree with you, you have to give them a reason. You haven’t. It is all shaming language. Ad hominem. You assume I have this or that opinion even though I have basically just posted data and asked questions.

  • Louis

    Sg: And when we gave you explanations, you ignored it. Ah well….

  • Louis

    Sg: And when we gave you explanations, you ignored it. Ah well….

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “…and physical measures” -poppycock! Can a man give birth? Breastfeed?”

    You got me there. Thanks for making a cogent and salient point.

    Childbearing is the female’s defining characteristic; her raison d’être.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “…and physical measures” -poppycock! Can a man give birth? Breastfeed?”

    You got me there. Thanks for making a cogent and salient point.

    Childbearing is the female’s defining characteristic; her raison d’être.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Sg: And when we gave you explanations, you ignored it. Ah well….”

    Not. You ignored the data and made excuses.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Sg: And when we gave you explanations, you ignored it. Ah well….”

    Not. You ignored the data and made excuses.

  • Louis

    The best way to discover blind spots, or at least be aware of them, is to read a lot of original documents and writings, not contemporary analysis of them, because the analyser most likely shares your viewpoint. Furthermore, mixing with other cultural groups can be quite useful as well, as it removes one from your own comfort zone.

  • Louis

    The best way to discover blind spots, or at least be aware of them, is to read a lot of original documents and writings, not contemporary analysis of them, because the analyser most likely shares your viewpoint. Furthermore, mixing with other cultural groups can be quite useful as well, as it removes one from your own comfort zone.

  • John C

    The great moral failure of our age is the inability to incorporate a price on carbon and enviromental degradation into our every day transactions.
    sg@6
    I would not like to live in a society where women did not have the vote — imagine the anger and resentment.
    In Australia the ballot box has ensured women have access to universal health care, improved maternity leave for both parents, near wages parity, greater education and career prospects, control of fertility…………. ………..

  • John C

    The great moral failure of our age is the inability to incorporate a price on carbon and enviromental degradation into our every day transactions.
    sg@6
    I would not like to live in a society where women did not have the vote — imagine the anger and resentment.
    In Australia the ballot box has ensured women have access to universal health care, improved maternity leave for both parents, near wages parity, greater education and career prospects, control of fertility…………. ………..

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Dan Kempin

    It was Bunny @#28 who introduced race into sg’s comments. (Out of thin air, I might add.) I could take anyone’s sentences and by subsituting words of my choosing make them inflammatory as well.

    I was merely showing that her argument could be used to justify almost form of bigotry.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Dan Kempin

    It was Bunny @#28 who introduced race into sg’s comments. (Out of thin air, I might add.) I could take anyone’s sentences and by subsituting words of my choosing make them inflammatory as well.

    I was merely showing that her argument could be used to justify almost form of bigotry.

  • John C

    I should add sg, that if the lives of my wife and daughters have improved than so has mine.

  • John C

    I should add sg, that if the lives of my wife and daughters have improved than so has mine.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I would not like to live in a society where women did not have the vote — imagine the anger and resentment.”

    Yes, we will have to imagine due to the lack of evidence.

    I would call this statement a fundamental misunderstanding of female psychology. Women in the modern era are more angry and resentful than ever. Based on the evidence, it would be easier to make the case that allowing women to vote causes anger and resentment.

    I know I am insufferable because I am a woman who doesn’t have the opinions that society demands women have.

    “In Australia the ballot box has ensured women have access to universal health care, improved maternity leave for both parents, near wages parity, greater education and career prospects, control of fertility…………. ………..”

    Are you saying men would not have voted for those things? I mean men were voting for, and building and inventing all manner of things to improve the lives of people and women before women got the vote in Australia.

    Wage parity is enforced by anti discrimination laws. Without such laws women would be paid what employers actually feel they are worth. Would that be parity? Probably not. The demand for female workers would likely fall, even precipitously in some areas. Honest, open, fair competition is not what women want.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I would not like to live in a society where women did not have the vote — imagine the anger and resentment.”

    Yes, we will have to imagine due to the lack of evidence.

    I would call this statement a fundamental misunderstanding of female psychology. Women in the modern era are more angry and resentful than ever. Based on the evidence, it would be easier to make the case that allowing women to vote causes anger and resentment.

    I know I am insufferable because I am a woman who doesn’t have the opinions that society demands women have.

    “In Australia the ballot box has ensured women have access to universal health care, improved maternity leave for both parents, near wages parity, greater education and career prospects, control of fertility…………. ………..”

    Are you saying men would not have voted for those things? I mean men were voting for, and building and inventing all manner of things to improve the lives of people and women before women got the vote in Australia.

    Wage parity is enforced by anti discrimination laws. Without such laws women would be paid what employers actually feel they are worth. Would that be parity? Probably not. The demand for female workers would likely fall, even precipitously in some areas. Honest, open, fair competition is not what women want.

  • DonS

    Reading through these comments brought to mind another present day policy that I hope future generations abhor. The PC policy of shutting (shouting?) down a speaker because you don’t like what they have to say. I long for intelligent engagement and the willingness to tackle controversial ideas.

  • DonS

    Reading through these comments brought to mind another present day policy that I hope future generations abhor. The PC policy of shutting (shouting?) down a speaker because you don’t like what they have to say. I long for intelligent engagement and the willingness to tackle controversial ideas.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I should add sg, that if the lives of my wife and daughters have improved than so has mine.”

    Yes, of course. However, that does not show that female voting is the cause for the improvement.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I should add sg, that if the lives of my wife and daughters have improved than so has mine.”

    Yes, of course. However, that does not show that female voting is the cause for the improvement.

  • Louis

    sg: “Women in the modern era are more angry and resentful than ever.”

    Ahh – now I understand… :)

    DonS: If you are referring to my comments to/about sg, we have gone through the whole trying to discuss thing ad nauseum, a couple of weeks ago. The discussion was, and is, fruitless.

  • Louis

    sg: “Women in the modern era are more angry and resentful than ever.”

    Ahh – now I understand… :)

    DonS: If you are referring to my comments to/about sg, we have gone through the whole trying to discuss thing ad nauseum, a couple of weeks ago. The discussion was, and is, fruitless.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Louis #30
    Yes, I agree the new atheists are just as fundamentalist in nature as the examples you give. And it’s a fair question: If anything taught to children is by one perspective or another considered “indoctrination” then what can be taught?

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Louis #30
    Yes, I agree the new atheists are just as fundamentalist in nature as the examples you give. And it’s a fair question: If anything taught to children is by one perspective or another considered “indoctrination” then what can be taught?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I was merely showing that her argument could be used to justify almost form of bigotry.”

    Not my argument.

    Still waiting for Bunny to reconcile the idea that Christian religious indoctrination (which is the basis for equally valuing all human beings regardless of ability or status) is somehow child abuse with her statement in favor of teaching evolutionary heritage combined with rational analysis which logically leads to all of those ideas that she feels she should abhor like race and sex differences.

    Still waiting, Bunny.

    Bring on the rational analysis.

    We have seen the proficient use of ad hominem and conventional PC and changing the subject and avoiding the question.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I was merely showing that her argument could be used to justify almost form of bigotry.”

    Not my argument.

    Still waiting for Bunny to reconcile the idea that Christian religious indoctrination (which is the basis for equally valuing all human beings regardless of ability or status) is somehow child abuse with her statement in favor of teaching evolutionary heritage combined with rational analysis which logically leads to all of those ideas that she feels she should abhor like race and sex differences.

    Still waiting, Bunny.

    Bring on the rational analysis.

    We have seen the proficient use of ad hominem and conventional PC and changing the subject and avoiding the question.

  • Louis

    sg – you must have cross-posted, I think you’ll find an answer in her comment at #55. But here’s a question, leading from your comments at #56 – is Christianity also the basis of equally valuing human beings regardless of race?

  • Louis

    sg – you must have cross-posted, I think you’ll find an answer in her comment at #55. But here’s a question, leading from your comments at #56 – is Christianity also the basis of equally valuing human beings regardless of race?

  • Dan Kempin

    Ryan, #39,

    Great quote.

    Bunny, #49,

    “I was merely showing that her argument could be used to justify almost form of bigotry.”

    Actually, you changed the argument from sex to race.

    Besides which, I think sg’s deeper point was that the culturaly accepted verdict of gender equality may itself be a lens through which future generations may not look. (Correct me if I am astray, sg.) By raising the point, she is not necessarily arguing against gender equality as much as revealing that there is no meaningful argument taking place for it. It is simply accepted.

  • Dan Kempin

    Ryan, #39,

    Great quote.

    Bunny, #49,

    “I was merely showing that her argument could be used to justify almost form of bigotry.”

    Actually, you changed the argument from sex to race.

    Besides which, I think sg’s deeper point was that the culturaly accepted verdict of gender equality may itself be a lens through which future generations may not look. (Correct me if I am astray, sg.) By raising the point, she is not necessarily arguing against gender equality as much as revealing that there is no meaningful argument taking place for it. It is simply accepted.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But here’s a question, leading from your comments at #56 – is Christianity also the basis of equally valuing human beings regardless of race?”

    Okay, I will set a good example and actually answer a question. Could be a first on this thread.

    Yes, I think Christianity is the basis for equally valuing human beings regardless of race. That doesn’t mean that everyone who has ever claimed to be Christian has lived up to that ideal. I don’t think there is much interest these days in living up to it. It just manifests itself in different ways. We are all fallen. No one is good. Only Jesus saves. We should love and serve our neighbors as ourselves. We can do that and be honest, and we should.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “But here’s a question, leading from your comments at #56 – is Christianity also the basis of equally valuing human beings regardless of race?”

    Okay, I will set a good example and actually answer a question. Could be a first on this thread.

    Yes, I think Christianity is the basis for equally valuing human beings regardless of race. That doesn’t mean that everyone who has ever claimed to be Christian has lived up to that ideal. I don’t think there is much interest these days in living up to it. It just manifests itself in different ways. We are all fallen. No one is good. Only Jesus saves. We should love and serve our neighbors as ourselves. We can do that and be honest, and we should.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If anything taught to children is by one perspective or another considered “indoctrination” then what can be taught?”

    Based on my experience as a parent, I would say all education is indoctrination. Very, very few people are free thinkers. Many are hedonists who flatter themselves into thinking they are free thinkers.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “If anything taught to children is by one perspective or another considered “indoctrination” then what can be taught?”

    Based on my experience as a parent, I would say all education is indoctrination. Very, very few people are free thinkers. Many are hedonists who flatter themselves into thinking they are free thinkers.

  • John C

    The changes in women’s lives were largely brought about through the agitation of the second wave of feminism in the 60s and 70s. If women did not have the vote than it is unlikely that male politicians would have felt the need to respond. There is power in a vote, enough of them can change the way we live.
    If there is a case that allowing women to vote causes anger and resentment, then make it sg. As you say, “Where is the evidence?”
    Statistics do 0ffer evidence of a sort sg, but do statistics provide wisdom?

  • John C

    The changes in women’s lives were largely brought about through the agitation of the second wave of feminism in the 60s and 70s. If women did not have the vote than it is unlikely that male politicians would have felt the need to respond. There is power in a vote, enough of them can change the way we live.
    If there is a case that allowing women to vote causes anger and resentment, then make it sg. As you say, “Where is the evidence?”
    Statistics do 0ffer evidence of a sort sg, but do statistics provide wisdom?

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Dan Kempin

    Actually, you changed the argument from sex to race.

    Actually, I showed how easily her argument for male supremacy could be used to justify racism as well.

    By raising the point, she is not necessarily arguing against gender equality as much as revealing that there is no meaningful argument taking place for it.

    I pointed out that her reasons against gender equality and therefore against women sufferage are baseless.
    1) Large brain
    2) Males out perform females on all cognitive standards
    3) Males out perform females on all physical standards.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Dan Kempin

    Actually, you changed the argument from sex to race.

    Actually, I showed how easily her argument for male supremacy could be used to justify racism as well.

    By raising the point, she is not necessarily arguing against gender equality as much as revealing that there is no meaningful argument taking place for it.

    I pointed out that her reasons against gender equality and therefore against women sufferage are baseless.
    1) Large brain
    2) Males out perform females on all cognitive standards
    3) Males out perform females on all physical standards.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Political feminism was pushed by educated upper class women (and men) and largely benefits them the most. The average woman actually wants to be married and home with her kids. However the new normal is increasing illegitimacy and single motherhood and dual income households. This does not favor the notion that women’s suffrage improved the lot of women. By overvaluing women’s contribution to the workplace and undervaluing them as mothers at home, this generation has not exactly valued women for who they really are. Now I know this is not a pleasant argument to the ears of men who want wives to boost the family bottom line, nor to women who have been told all of their lives that they should rather work than nurture kids, but it seems to be shaping up as a fair characterization of the actual effect.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Political feminism was pushed by educated upper class women (and men) and largely benefits them the most. The average woman actually wants to be married and home with her kids. However the new normal is increasing illegitimacy and single motherhood and dual income households. This does not favor the notion that women’s suffrage improved the lot of women. By overvaluing women’s contribution to the workplace and undervaluing them as mothers at home, this generation has not exactly valued women for who they really are. Now I know this is not a pleasant argument to the ears of men who want wives to boost the family bottom line, nor to women who have been told all of their lives that they should rather work than nurture kids, but it seems to be shaping up as a fair characterization of the actual effect.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I pointed out that her reasons against gender equality and therefore against women sufferage are baseless.”

    Those aren’t my reasons against women’s suffrage.

    Those are the reasons that evolutionary biology/psychology does not support the notion of equality.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I pointed out that her reasons against gender equality and therefore against women sufferage are baseless.”

    Those aren’t my reasons against women’s suffrage.

    Those are the reasons that evolutionary biology/psychology does not support the notion of equality.

  • DonS

    Louis @ 54: Yes, your comment @ 30 definitely brought the general present tendency of shutting down free speech for PC reasons to mind. If you think it is fruitless to have a discussion with SG, by all means, don’t have one. But, what you said was “…but in previous threads she (yes, she) has shown herself to be prone to racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness, so do try and avoid her rants, will you? It can make this environment quite, hmm, flammable, if you get my drift.” In other words, you were exhorting Bunnycatch3r to boycott SG’s comments because, in your mind, her ideas are of dubious value and tend to inflame, and she “rants”.

    The term “rant” is in inself dubious and inflammatory. I’ve used it at times, and I’m not proud when I do. Because it’s not an argument, but rather, merely an ad hominem statement. And who are any of us to merely label another’s ideas as “dubious”. The best way to shed light on the validity of an idea is to discuss it, not simply to label it. As someone else pointed out, it was not even SG who introduced race into the discussion, it was Bunnycatch3r. As an aside, it is clear to me that SG is a very bright and articulate commenter. I don’t agree with everything she posts, but she always adds to the discussion and makes one think. She certainly doesn’t deserve to be shouted down or boycotted.

    But, the point of my comment was to use your comment as a springboard to remind people that what you did is current practice in our PC world, and I hope someday it is roundly condemned. The most egregious thing is to see PC speechcodes on university campuses! Supposedly, the very essence of free speech zones! Yet, speakers come onto campus and, rather than being engaged, are shouted down! Others are refused access because their ideas are simply labeled “dubious”. Your country has gone far down the road in this direction with the introduction of its human rights commissions, which evaluate the speech of its citizens and punish that which they deem inappropriate. Witness what happened to Mark Steyn last year. That is horrible, and the very essence of the beginnings of totalitarianism.

    That is the policy I am condemning.

  • DonS

    Louis @ 54: Yes, your comment @ 30 definitely brought the general present tendency of shutting down free speech for PC reasons to mind. If you think it is fruitless to have a discussion with SG, by all means, don’t have one. But, what you said was “…but in previous threads she (yes, she) has shown herself to be prone to racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness, so do try and avoid her rants, will you? It can make this environment quite, hmm, flammable, if you get my drift.” In other words, you were exhorting Bunnycatch3r to boycott SG’s comments because, in your mind, her ideas are of dubious value and tend to inflame, and she “rants”.

    The term “rant” is in inself dubious and inflammatory. I’ve used it at times, and I’m not proud when I do. Because it’s not an argument, but rather, merely an ad hominem statement. And who are any of us to merely label another’s ideas as “dubious”. The best way to shed light on the validity of an idea is to discuss it, not simply to label it. As someone else pointed out, it was not even SG who introduced race into the discussion, it was Bunnycatch3r. As an aside, it is clear to me that SG is a very bright and articulate commenter. I don’t agree with everything she posts, but she always adds to the discussion and makes one think. She certainly doesn’t deserve to be shouted down or boycotted.

    But, the point of my comment was to use your comment as a springboard to remind people that what you did is current practice in our PC world, and I hope someday it is roundly condemned. The most egregious thing is to see PC speechcodes on university campuses! Supposedly, the very essence of free speech zones! Yet, speakers come onto campus and, rather than being engaged, are shouted down! Others are refused access because their ideas are simply labeled “dubious”. Your country has gone far down the road in this direction with the introduction of its human rights commissions, which evaluate the speech of its citizens and punish that which they deem inappropriate. Witness what happened to Mark Steyn last year. That is horrible, and the very essence of the beginnings of totalitarianism.

    That is the policy I am condemning.

  • bunnycatch3r

    Those aren’t my reasons against women’s suffrage.
    Those are the reasons that evolutionary biology/psychology does not support the notion of equality.

    And if not for your views on evolutionary biology/psychology universal suffrage should be challenged based on what exactly?

  • bunnycatch3r

    Those aren’t my reasons against women’s suffrage.
    Those are the reasons that evolutionary biology/psychology does not support the notion of equality.

    And if not for your views on evolutionary biology/psychology universal suffrage should be challenged based on what exactly?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@52), since you abhor the “PC policy of shutting (shouting?) down a speaker because you don’t like what they have to say”, with respect to Louis’ comment (@30), I wonder what you think about Porcell’s statement (@41) that “Another moral failing of the West is that we allow leftist liberals with little understanding of original sin to preach moralistic sermons, like that of Kwame Anthony Appiah, on our assorted evils” (emphasis mine). Never mind Porcell’s bizarre conflation of Appiah with the country of Ghana and its condition, does it seem to you that it’s not merely the “PC” that want to shut out what they don’t want to hear? Or is it just that “PC” can be found on “both” sides of the aisle?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@52), since you abhor the “PC policy of shutting (shouting?) down a speaker because you don’t like what they have to say”, with respect to Louis’ comment (@30), I wonder what you think about Porcell’s statement (@41) that “Another moral failing of the West is that we allow leftist liberals with little understanding of original sin to preach moralistic sermons, like that of Kwame Anthony Appiah, on our assorted evils” (emphasis mine). Never mind Porcell’s bizarre conflation of Appiah with the country of Ghana and its condition, does it seem to you that it’s not merely the “PC” that want to shut out what they don’t want to hear? Or is it just that “PC” can be found on “both” sides of the aisle?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Two points. First, Bunnycatch3r is a male, and SG is a female. For people who haven’t worked that out yet.

    Second, Bunnycatch3r, by all means, read SG’s comments — sunlight, disinfectant, etc. — but please don’t assume that she speaks for all Lutherans or Christians when it comes to her particular interpretations of statistics.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Two points. First, Bunnycatch3r is a male, and SG is a female. For people who haven’t worked that out yet.

    Second, Bunnycatch3r, by all means, read SG’s comments — sunlight, disinfectant, etc. — but please don’t assume that she speaks for all Lutherans or Christians when it comes to her particular interpretations of statistics.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I pointed out that her reasons against gender equality and therefore against women sufferage are baseless.”

    Even if women are equal, why do they need to vote? Is there any evidence they have voted for policies that have benefitted them or society? Is there any evidence that women voted significantly different from men? If they vote exactly the same as men, then there is little argument that their participation is necessary. If they vote differently, do they vote more responsibly? If not, why not? If yes, why? Come on, think. Evidence?

    “If there is a case that allowing women to vote causes anger and resentment, then make it sg. As you say, “Where is the evidence?”

    Okay, why do I have to play research gopher? Anyway, once again setting the example and actually answering the question.

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

    Please don’t tell me that this study doesn’t make the case that women’s suffrage causes women’s discontent. I know that. I never said that. I merely said that the correlation of declining female satisfaction could be used to make the case.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I pointed out that her reasons against gender equality and therefore against women sufferage are baseless.”

    Even if women are equal, why do they need to vote? Is there any evidence they have voted for policies that have benefitted them or society? Is there any evidence that women voted significantly different from men? If they vote exactly the same as men, then there is little argument that their participation is necessary. If they vote differently, do they vote more responsibly? If not, why not? If yes, why? Come on, think. Evidence?

    “If there is a case that allowing women to vote causes anger and resentment, then make it sg. As you say, “Where is the evidence?”

    Okay, why do I have to play research gopher? Anyway, once again setting the example and actually answering the question.

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969

    Please don’t tell me that this study doesn’t make the case that women’s suffrage causes women’s discontent. I know that. I never said that. I merely said that the correlation of declining female satisfaction could be used to make the case.

  • John C

    For the moment sg @ 63, your argument is based on assertions, just assertions.

  • John C

    For the moment sg @ 63, your argument is based on assertions, just assertions.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “particular interpretations of statistics”

    Posting data tables and asking questions does not constitute interpretation.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “particular interpretations of statistics”

    Posting data tables and asking questions does not constitute interpretation.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “For the moment sg @ 63, your argument is based on assertions, just assertions.”

    Uh huh. So was yours. The difference is, given a moment, I can actually back mine up with at least some evidence vs. your sitting there with “I think, therefore it is true.”

    My point is not that my positions are absolute truth, rather they are based on evidence. I just ask others to back theirs up with some evidence. I don’t ask folks to meet an impossible standard of proof. I just ask for a shred of evidence. I haven’t gotten it. Wait. Bunny made the astute observation about female childbearing. So I will give him that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “For the moment sg @ 63, your argument is based on assertions, just assertions.”

    Uh huh. So was yours. The difference is, given a moment, I can actually back mine up with at least some evidence vs. your sitting there with “I think, therefore it is true.”

    My point is not that my positions are absolute truth, rather they are based on evidence. I just ask others to back theirs up with some evidence. I don’t ask folks to meet an impossible standard of proof. I just ask for a shred of evidence. I haven’t gotten it. Wait. Bunny made the astute observation about female childbearing. So I will give him that.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 67: By all means, no one of any persuasion should be shouting down speakers merely because they have an opposing viewpoint. I don’t think that is what Porcell was doing, however. I think he is merely using the term “allow” in the sense that we shouldn’t permit the speech to occur without rebuttal or refutation. In other words, we should vigorously challenge ideas we believe are wrongheaded or factually incorrect. If I’m wrong, and your interpretation of Porcell’s comment — that he would like such speech to be shut down — is the correct one, then, yes, I condemn it.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 67: By all means, no one of any persuasion should be shouting down speakers merely because they have an opposing viewpoint. I don’t think that is what Porcell was doing, however. I think he is merely using the term “allow” in the sense that we shouldn’t permit the speech to occur without rebuttal or refutation. In other words, we should vigorously challenge ideas we believe are wrongheaded or factually incorrect. If I’m wrong, and your interpretation of Porcell’s comment — that he would like such speech to be shut down — is the correct one, then, yes, I condemn it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And if not for your views on evolutionary biology/psychology universal suffrage should be challenged based on what exactly?”

    Utility.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “And if not for your views on evolutionary biology/psychology universal suffrage should be challenged based on what exactly?”

    Utility.

  • John C

    You’re right sg, this study does not support the argument that women’s sufferage causes women’s discontent.

  • John C

    You’re right sg, this study does not support the argument that women’s sufferage causes women’s discontent.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Today’s moral blind spots?

    a. Definitely abortion.
    b. Lack of true mercy and interpersonal care for the elderly.
    c. Scientific experimentation on the tiniest and most defenseless members of humanity.
    d. Consumerism.
    e. The de-personalization and automation of warfare and other human disagreements (for some reason the above thread seems especially symptomatic of this blind spot today – good grief).

    Anyway, Cheers everyone!

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Today’s moral blind spots?

    a. Definitely abortion.
    b. Lack of true mercy and interpersonal care for the elderly.
    c. Scientific experimentation on the tiniest and most defenseless members of humanity.
    d. Consumerism.
    e. The de-personalization and automation of warfare and other human disagreements (for some reason the above thread seems especially symptomatic of this blind spot today – good grief).

    Anyway, Cheers everyone!

  • Porcell

    Don S I think he is merely using the term “allow” in the sense that we shouldn’t permit the speech to occur without rebuttal or refutation. In other words, we should vigorously challenge ideas we believe are wrongheaded or factually incorrect.

    Thanks, that’s exactly what i meant. What frosts me is that liberal scholars including Appiah rather dominate the terms of debate and many Americans fall for this. I have no problem with his right to free speech, though I do note the irony of some liberal from Ghana righteously lecturing Americans on morality.

    On this thread, I’m delighted to see sg smoke the liberals on the subject of feminism. She has thought through her position, while her interlocutors can’t imagine that a thoughtful woman might have serious reservations regarding the ideology of feminism.

  • Porcell

    Don S I think he is merely using the term “allow” in the sense that we shouldn’t permit the speech to occur without rebuttal or refutation. In other words, we should vigorously challenge ideas we believe are wrongheaded or factually incorrect.

    Thanks, that’s exactly what i meant. What frosts me is that liberal scholars including Appiah rather dominate the terms of debate and many Americans fall for this. I have no problem with his right to free speech, though I do note the irony of some liberal from Ghana righteously lecturing Americans on morality.

    On this thread, I’m delighted to see sg smoke the liberals on the subject of feminism. She has thought through her position, while her interlocutors can’t imagine that a thoughtful woman might have serious reservations regarding the ideology of feminism.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “Posting data tables and asking questions does not constitute interpretation” (@71). Actually, I’m pretty certain that interpretations are necessary in order to convert the data into a framework that underlies your questions. What’s more, you do more than ask questions; you also make assertions, like this quote of yours:

    Why wait to have them destroy you later, when you can invite them in to destroy you now? If you think they will play nice later because we kindly allowed them to immigrate, you are dreaming. They will be resentful that they cannot achieve what we have and they will blame and punish us for it.

    Seems to go just a wee bit beyond pure data, that one.

    “I do note the irony of some liberal from Ghana righteously lecturing Americans on morality” (@77). And why is that ironic?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “Posting data tables and asking questions does not constitute interpretation” (@71). Actually, I’m pretty certain that interpretations are necessary in order to convert the data into a framework that underlies your questions. What’s more, you do more than ask questions; you also make assertions, like this quote of yours:

    Why wait to have them destroy you later, when you can invite them in to destroy you now? If you think they will play nice later because we kindly allowed them to immigrate, you are dreaming. They will be resentful that they cannot achieve what we have and they will blame and punish us for it.

    Seems to go just a wee bit beyond pure data, that one.

    “I do note the irony of some liberal from Ghana righteously lecturing Americans on morality” (@77). And why is that ironic?

  • Louis

    DonS – my point was not that Bunnycatch3r should ignore sg, but not raise the subject of race in a conversation with her. That’s all.

    BTW: Mark Steyn and Macleans were exonerated. Not that I like the fellow. Occasionaly he makes good points, occasionaly bad ones. But his style can be so crass that it detracts from his points.

    I myself am all for free speech, especially on Campuses. The PC police is completely fascist. At the same time though, defamation and hate speech also exist. It takes a wise man to draw the line, and that is what courts are for, I believe. I strongly agree with Todd that both sides of these debates tend to have their own PC policies.

  • Louis

    DonS – my point was not that Bunnycatch3r should ignore sg, but not raise the subject of race in a conversation with her. That’s all.

    BTW: Mark Steyn and Macleans were exonerated. Not that I like the fellow. Occasionaly he makes good points, occasionaly bad ones. But his style can be so crass that it detracts from his points.

    I myself am all for free speech, especially on Campuses. The PC police is completely fascist. At the same time though, defamation and hate speech also exist. It takes a wise man to draw the line, and that is what courts are for, I believe. I strongly agree with Todd that both sides of these debates tend to have their own PC policies.

  • Louis

    Bryan – depersonalisation: Yes – very soon it becomes this:

    HT: The Catholic Fascist, via Reditus.

  • Louis

    Bryan – depersonalisation: Yes – very soon it becomes this:

    HT: The Catholic Fascist, via Reditus.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You’re right sg, this study does not support the argument that women’s sufferage causes women’s discontent.”

    It also directly contradicts the assertion that the changes ushered in by second wave feminism or women’s suffrage improved women’s satisfaction.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You’re right sg, this study does not support the argument that women’s sufferage causes women’s discontent.”

    It also directly contradicts the assertion that the changes ushered in by second wave feminism or women’s suffrage improved women’s satisfaction.

  • Porcell

    bunnycatch3r, at 3: The practice of religiously indoctrinating children will be seen as another form of child abuse.

    Christian churches who take their faith seriously teach their biblical and rational Christian doctrines, hoping and praying that young people will seriously consider and adopt them, though, knowing that we live in a culture that allows freedom of thought, they are far from forcing their religious ideas. Any culture that doesn’t teach its truths and traditions is actually neglectful.

    As I understand your position, you follow some sort of Nietzschean nihilism that views God including natural moral law as dead and that the truth is a free for all. Of course, if you believe in the relativity of truth, you may believe in anything, as during the 20th century the fascist and communist totalitarians attempted to prove. Nowadays, as Jonah Golldberg argues in Liberal Fascism it is the secular liberals that are involved in forcing their breathless ideology.

    In your case it is distinctly amusing to read your assorted attempts to prove your points, though you admit to being skeptical of either objective or subjective truth. You parade your limited knowledge of Greek and cosmology in a rather juvenile attempt to prove your bona fides; Meanwhile a real woman, sg, who has arrived at what she believes to be some meaningful truths through experience and thought takes you to the cleaners with her argument.

  • Porcell

    bunnycatch3r, at 3: The practice of religiously indoctrinating children will be seen as another form of child abuse.

    Christian churches who take their faith seriously teach their biblical and rational Christian doctrines, hoping and praying that young people will seriously consider and adopt them, though, knowing that we live in a culture that allows freedom of thought, they are far from forcing their religious ideas. Any culture that doesn’t teach its truths and traditions is actually neglectful.

    As I understand your position, you follow some sort of Nietzschean nihilism that views God including natural moral law as dead and that the truth is a free for all. Of course, if you believe in the relativity of truth, you may believe in anything, as during the 20th century the fascist and communist totalitarians attempted to prove. Nowadays, as Jonah Golldberg argues in Liberal Fascism it is the secular liberals that are involved in forcing their breathless ideology.

    In your case it is distinctly amusing to read your assorted attempts to prove your points, though you admit to being skeptical of either objective or subjective truth. You parade your limited knowledge of Greek and cosmology in a rather juvenile attempt to prove your bona fides; Meanwhile a real woman, sg, who has arrived at what she believes to be some meaningful truths through experience and thought takes you to the cleaners with her argument.

  • DonS

    Louis @ 79: With all due respect, I cannot fairly interpret this comment: “…but in previous threads she (yes, she) has shown herself to be prone to racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness, so do try and avoid her rants, will you? It can make this environment quite, hmm, flammable, if you get my drift.” to mean “…not that Bunnycatch3r should ignore sg, but not raise the subject of race in a conversation with her”. You specifically stated that it is SG that is “prone to racial analysis” and you specifically counseled Bunnycatch3r to “avoid her rants”. Though I do appreciate the walkback from what you originally said, and your statement that you are “all for free speech”.

    Of course, the moment those words left your computer, you proceeded to qualify them almost into meaninglessness. I agree with you on the topic of defamation, by the way. That is a matter that can be proven, is objective, and is suitable for court determination. But what of “hate speech”? Who gets to define the term, other than the dreaded “PC Police”, whom you consider to be “c0mpletely fascist”? And isn’t the very purpose of labeling something “hate speech” to avoid having to confront certain ideas? And whatever gave you the idea that the Courts will provide a “wise man” (ooh, sexist “hate speech” :-) ) to adjudicate these things? Not to mention that the human rights commissions in Canada are comprised of bureuacrats which have nothing to do with the courts, and probably very little intersection with wisdom. I take little comfort in the fact that Steyn and Macleans were “exonerated”, as you say. For it took the better part of a year, many hours and dollars of both Macleans and government resources, and gave sanction to the idea that government has any right whatsoever to define what is and is not appropriate speech. An abominable development, which bodes ill for the future of a free society.

  • DonS

    Louis @ 79: With all due respect, I cannot fairly interpret this comment: “…but in previous threads she (yes, she) has shown herself to be prone to racial anaylsis and all kinds of dubiousness, so do try and avoid her rants, will you? It can make this environment quite, hmm, flammable, if you get my drift.” to mean “…not that Bunnycatch3r should ignore sg, but not raise the subject of race in a conversation with her”. You specifically stated that it is SG that is “prone to racial analysis” and you specifically counseled Bunnycatch3r to “avoid her rants”. Though I do appreciate the walkback from what you originally said, and your statement that you are “all for free speech”.

    Of course, the moment those words left your computer, you proceeded to qualify them almost into meaninglessness. I agree with you on the topic of defamation, by the way. That is a matter that can be proven, is objective, and is suitable for court determination. But what of “hate speech”? Who gets to define the term, other than the dreaded “PC Police”, whom you consider to be “c0mpletely fascist”? And isn’t the very purpose of labeling something “hate speech” to avoid having to confront certain ideas? And whatever gave you the idea that the Courts will provide a “wise man” (ooh, sexist “hate speech” :-) ) to adjudicate these things? Not to mention that the human rights commissions in Canada are comprised of bureuacrats which have nothing to do with the courts, and probably very little intersection with wisdom. I take little comfort in the fact that Steyn and Macleans were “exonerated”, as you say. For it took the better part of a year, many hours and dollars of both Macleans and government resources, and gave sanction to the idea that government has any right whatsoever to define what is and is not appropriate speech. An abominable development, which bodes ill for the future of a free society.

  • Louis

    No DonS – I did not “qualify them into meaninglessness”. I qualified it once – at no 36. Then I restated the qualification, as you somehow misread it, at #79. But I understand what you want to say – you are operating on a hairtrigger because of PC’ism, real or perceived, and I operate on a hairtrigger towards racism, and I try hard to avoid the perceived part, although I’m probably overdoing it at times. Simple, really. But since you missed it (you did not comment then), here is the thread which started it all: http://www.geneveith.com/horror-in-mexico/_6261/#comments
    Judge for yourself. Unless questioned, I’ll leave the matter there.

  • Louis

    No DonS – I did not “qualify them into meaninglessness”. I qualified it once – at no 36. Then I restated the qualification, as you somehow misread it, at #79. But I understand what you want to say – you are operating on a hairtrigger because of PC’ism, real or perceived, and I operate on a hairtrigger towards racism, and I try hard to avoid the perceived part, although I’m probably overdoing it at times. Simple, really. But since you missed it (you did not comment then), here is the thread which started it all: http://www.geneveith.com/horror-in-mexico/_6261/#comments
    Judge for yourself. Unless questioned, I’ll leave the matter there.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Todd,
    You deleted the comment to which I was responding:

    Kerner said:
    “We can either sign them up and thereby hope to remain a dynamic culture, or follow the Japan model and decline, only to be overwhelmed by hostile foreign cultures in the future.”

    I replied:
    “Why wait to have them destroy you later, when you can invite them in to destroy you now?

    “If you think they will play nice later because we kindly allowed them to immigrate, you are dreaming. They will be resentful that they cannot achieve what we have and they will blame and punish us for it. Look around. That is what is happening right now. Plenty of groups want to blame the schools they don’t even pay for because their kids can’t learn. It is utter madness.”

    Pretty obvious I was responding to his assertion about the threat of hostile foreign cultures in the future. Taking the position of inviting in hostile foreign cultures and hoping for the best strikes me as just stupid. That must be why the Japanese aren’t doing it.

    Moral Blindspot: Blaming teachers for student failure.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Todd,
    You deleted the comment to which I was responding:

    Kerner said:
    “We can either sign them up and thereby hope to remain a dynamic culture, or follow the Japan model and decline, only to be overwhelmed by hostile foreign cultures in the future.”

    I replied:
    “Why wait to have them destroy you later, when you can invite them in to destroy you now?

    “If you think they will play nice later because we kindly allowed them to immigrate, you are dreaming. They will be resentful that they cannot achieve what we have and they will blame and punish us for it. Look around. That is what is happening right now. Plenty of groups want to blame the schools they don’t even pay for because their kids can’t learn. It is utter madness.”

    Pretty obvious I was responding to his assertion about the threat of hostile foreign cultures in the future. Taking the position of inviting in hostile foreign cultures and hoping for the best strikes me as just stupid. That must be why the Japanese aren’t doing it.

    Moral Blindspot: Blaming teachers for student failure.

  • Porcell

    Todd, And why is that ironic?

    Simply due to Ghana being a Third World nation that is far behind any nation in the West in terms of intellectual, political, and economic development. One of their human “rights” problems is that the primitive animistic religionists are discriminated against by the Christians and Muslims.

    Of course politically correct emporiums, like Princeton, just adore, the Ghanaian, Appiah, and the Australian, Singer, because they bring just that right “multi-cultural” perspective to we dense Americans.

  • Porcell

    Todd, And why is that ironic?

    Simply due to Ghana being a Third World nation that is far behind any nation in the West in terms of intellectual, political, and economic development. One of their human “rights” problems is that the primitive animistic religionists are discriminated against by the Christians and Muslims.

    Of course politically correct emporiums, like Princeton, just adore, the Ghanaian, Appiah, and the Australian, Singer, because they bring just that right “multi-cultural” perspective to we dense Americans.

  • Norman Teigen

    May I suggest that in these matters of social and civil concern that we Lutherans take off our religious beliefs caps and put on secular ones? For those who seek a reason for this, consult Article XXXVIII of theAugsburg Confession and study up on the concept of the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.

  • Norman Teigen

    May I suggest that in these matters of social and civil concern that we Lutherans take off our religious beliefs caps and put on secular ones? For those who seek a reason for this, consult Article XXXVIII of theAugsburg Confession and study up on the concept of the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.

  • Louis

    Porcell @ 86 – So a man’s statements should be judged based on the country he comes from? And how is that not bigoted?

    But, I wanted to post his earlier: Since you quote Solzhenitsyn, but love demonising people opposed to you, you should consider the following:

    “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

    - from “The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956″.

  • Louis

    Porcell @ 86 – So a man’s statements should be judged based on the country he comes from? And how is that not bigoted?

    But, I wanted to post his earlier: Since you quote Solzhenitsyn, but love demonising people opposed to you, you should consider the following:

    “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

    - from “The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956″.

  • DonS

    Louis @ 84: No, you misunderstood what I was saying. My comment that “you proceeded to qualify them almost into meaninglessness” referenced your comment that “I myself am all for free speech”, and had nothing to do with SG or Bunnycatch3r. What I was saying is that you claim to be all for free speech, but your alleged support for free speech is belied for your support of a concept known as “hate speech”. Moreover, you assert that it is proper for “hate speech” to be adjudicated by the government. I’m sorry, my friend, but such a concept is incompatible with free speech.

    The original point I was making is that speech codes comprise an abominable present day policy which I sincerely hope will be repudiated by future generations. Your comment merely reminded me to write it down on this thread. For a free society is a messy thing, and people having the right to free speech will occasionally inflame tensions. Such a result is well worth the risk, however, compared to the alternative of a government having the power to control your speech by defining as “hate” speech it does not condone.

  • DonS

    Louis @ 84: No, you misunderstood what I was saying. My comment that “you proceeded to qualify them almost into meaninglessness” referenced your comment that “I myself am all for free speech”, and had nothing to do with SG or Bunnycatch3r. What I was saying is that you claim to be all for free speech, but your alleged support for free speech is belied for your support of a concept known as “hate speech”. Moreover, you assert that it is proper for “hate speech” to be adjudicated by the government. I’m sorry, my friend, but such a concept is incompatible with free speech.

    The original point I was making is that speech codes comprise an abominable present day policy which I sincerely hope will be repudiated by future generations. Your comment merely reminded me to write it down on this thread. For a free society is a messy thing, and people having the right to free speech will occasionally inflame tensions. Such a result is well worth the risk, however, compared to the alternative of a government having the power to control your speech by defining as “hate” speech it does not condone.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Moral Blindspot: Blaming teachers and schools for student failure.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

    “For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, “You can’t solve educational problems by throwing money at them.” The education establishment and its supporters have replied, “No one’s ever tried.” In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.

    “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil–more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.

    “The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise;”

    My point is we have to love our neighbor even if he has problems we cannot fix.

    “Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    the courage to change the things I can, and
    the wisdom to know the difference.”

    — Saint Francis of Assisi

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Moral Blindspot: Blaming teachers and schools for student failure.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

    “For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, “You can’t solve educational problems by throwing money at them.” The education establishment and its supporters have replied, “No one’s ever tried.” In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.

    “Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil–more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.

    “The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise;”

    My point is we have to love our neighbor even if he has problems we cannot fix.

    “Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    the courage to change the things I can, and
    the wisdom to know the difference.”

    — Saint Francis of Assisi

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Porcell

    You parade your limited knowledge of Greek and cosmology …

    I’m sorry, is there any other kind of knowledge of Greek or cosmology? And “juvenile”? How so?

    Meanwhile a real woman, sg, who has arrived at what she believes to be some meaningful truths through experience and thought takes you to the cleaners with her argument.

    What argument? What were her points?
    And please do trot out some long winded quote of Tocqueville. He amusingly seems relevant in almost every discussion.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Porcell

    You parade your limited knowledge of Greek and cosmology …

    I’m sorry, is there any other kind of knowledge of Greek or cosmology? And “juvenile”? How so?

    Meanwhile a real woman, sg, who has arrived at what she believes to be some meaningful truths through experience and thought takes you to the cleaners with her argument.

    What argument? What were her points?
    And please do trot out some long winded quote of Tocqueville. He amusingly seems relevant in almost every discussion.

  • Louis

    DonS – that’s your libertarianist slip slowing: If I were to advocate that all red-headed people were to be discriminated agaisnt, that they are worthless, and that we should ship them off to some frozen wilderness, would you allow me , no prtoect me from my detractors while saying this? Or, if I erected massive billboards along the highway, cursing all libertarian baptists (or whatever yor denomination is, I’ can’t remember for sure), will you stop the government from taking it down? Will you? Or, maybe if someone were to ercte a giant screen floating above the city, broadcasting lewd images, would you defend their right to free speech? Would you? Really? Am I ridiculous? Or is it simply that the libertarian philosophy has wrenched freedoms from their societal context and made them into stand-alone idols?

  • Louis

    DonS – that’s your libertarianist slip slowing: If I were to advocate that all red-headed people were to be discriminated agaisnt, that they are worthless, and that we should ship them off to some frozen wilderness, would you allow me , no prtoect me from my detractors while saying this? Or, if I erected massive billboards along the highway, cursing all libertarian baptists (or whatever yor denomination is, I’ can’t remember for sure), will you stop the government from taking it down? Will you? Or, maybe if someone were to ercte a giant screen floating above the city, broadcasting lewd images, would you defend their right to free speech? Would you? Really? Am I ridiculous? Or is it simply that the libertarian philosophy has wrenched freedoms from their societal context and made them into stand-alone idols?

  • Porcell

    Louis: For it took the better part of a year, many hours and dollars of both Macleans and government resources, and gave sanction to the idea that government has any right whatsoever to define what is and is not appropriate speech. An abominable development, which bodes ill for the future of a free society.

    You have this radically wrong. Mark Steyn in his MacLean’s article told some home truths about radical Islam with his inimitable, trenchant, prose. The politically correct British Columbia “Human Rights” Commission prosecuted Steyn and MacLeans and lost their case at a higher Canadian level.

    What finally happened in this case was that Steyn and MacLeans were vindicated in their right to free speech against a government body that tried to limit their speech.

    Mark Steyn is a bright fellow with superb backbone.

  • Porcell

    Louis: For it took the better part of a year, many hours and dollars of both Macleans and government resources, and gave sanction to the idea that government has any right whatsoever to define what is and is not appropriate speech. An abominable development, which bodes ill for the future of a free society.

    You have this radically wrong. Mark Steyn in his MacLean’s article told some home truths about radical Islam with his inimitable, trenchant, prose. The politically correct British Columbia “Human Rights” Commission prosecuted Steyn and MacLeans and lost their case at a higher Canadian level.

    What finally happened in this case was that Steyn and MacLeans were vindicated in their right to free speech against a government body that tried to limit their speech.

    Mark Steyn is a bright fellow with superb backbone.

  • Louis

    Porcell – I’m not sure why you are adressing the comment to me – you are quoting DonS. As far as Mark Steyn is concerned – I made a general comment. I didn’t study the particular case, and I’m not weighing in on it. But I was correcting/informing DonS, who was apparently not aware of the outcome of the case.

  • Louis

    Porcell – I’m not sure why you are adressing the comment to me – you are quoting DonS. As far as Mark Steyn is concerned – I made a general comment. I didn’t study the particular case, and I’m not weighing in on it. But I was correcting/informing DonS, who was apparently not aware of the outcome of the case.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Hey Bunny, still waiting for the rational analysis for equality based on evolutionary heritage.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Hey Bunny, still waiting for the rational analysis for equality based on evolutionary heritage.

  • DonS

    Porcell @ 93: You are quoting me, I’m not sure why. Because I doubt that you really disagree with my point.

    Louis @ 94: To clarify the record, I am well aware of the outcome of the Mark Steyn case. The point was that he and his publisher were forced to undergo the arduous and expensive process at all, merely for exercising the right to free speech which you claim to support.

  • DonS

    Porcell @ 93: You are quoting me, I’m not sure why. Because I doubt that you really disagree with my point.

    Louis @ 94: To clarify the record, I am well aware of the outcome of the Mark Steyn case. The point was that he and his publisher were forced to undergo the arduous and expensive process at all, merely for exercising the right to free speech which you claim to support.

  • bunnycatch3r

    Hey SG
    I responded to your premise in #42.

  • bunnycatch3r

    Hey SG
    I responded to your premise in #42.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@85), I didn’t “delete the comment”, I linked to the whole stupid thread! I assumed you and anyone else was clever enough to work out the context for themselves.

    Anyhow, I’m not interested in rehashing the debate on immigration here. My point was merely to counter your assertion (@71) that all you do is “post data tables and ask questions”, without any interpretation, which you claimed in apparent objection to my saying that you make “interpretations of statistics”. You seem unaware of the interpretation you add to the data you view, and how this colors your thoughts. In fact, you seem to think that data can be viewed purely objectively, without any interpretation or bias in the analysis.

    Porcell (@86), you seem inclined to burden Appiah with any and all problems from the country were he was raised. That Ghana is a “Third World nation … far behind any nation in the West” is completely beside any point that Appiah is making, and yet you insist on bringing it up. It appears you’d rather find reasons to not have to listen him, however unrelated to what he’s actually saying. Should I just label you a Massachusettian and be done with your arguments now and forever? Because your own comments on this blog make clear that you in no way approve of the moral, political, etc. decline of that state. Should you be judged by it?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SG (@85), I didn’t “delete the comment”, I linked to the whole stupid thread! I assumed you and anyone else was clever enough to work out the context for themselves.

    Anyhow, I’m not interested in rehashing the debate on immigration here. My point was merely to counter your assertion (@71) that all you do is “post data tables and ask questions”, without any interpretation, which you claimed in apparent objection to my saying that you make “interpretations of statistics”. You seem unaware of the interpretation you add to the data you view, and how this colors your thoughts. In fact, you seem to think that data can be viewed purely objectively, without any interpretation or bias in the analysis.

    Porcell (@86), you seem inclined to burden Appiah with any and all problems from the country were he was raised. That Ghana is a “Third World nation … far behind any nation in the West” is completely beside any point that Appiah is making, and yet you insist on bringing it up. It appears you’d rather find reasons to not have to listen him, however unrelated to what he’s actually saying. Should I just label you a Massachusettian and be done with your arguments now and forever? Because your own comments on this blog make clear that you in no way approve of the moral, political, etc. decline of that state. Should you be judged by it?

  • Porcell

    bunnycatc3r, at 91What argument? What were her points?

    sg, at 69:Even if women are equal, why do they need to vote? Is there any evidence they have voted for policies that have benefitted them or society? Is there any evidence that women voted significantly different from men? If they vote exactly the same as men, then there is little argument that their participation is necessary. If they vote differently, do they vote more responsibly? If not, why not? If yes, why? Come on, think. Evidence?

    You haven’t come close to refuting that.

    >I’m sorry, is there any other kind of knowledge of Greek or cosmology? And “juvenile”? How so?

    Having majored in Classics in college and followed the current debate on cosmology, I respect serious scholars who know their field. So far your arguments display the truth that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

    As to Solzhenitsyn, he like all orthodox Christians understood that evil runs through all human hearts. He would abhor your statement that you are skeptical of any objective or subjective truths, as it was exactly this Nietzschean nihilism that brought on the rise of 20th century fascism and communism that caused him to spend years in the Gulag. Should you be serious about Solzhenitsyn, read his best novel, The First Circle

    Solzhenitsyn, having lived in America for awhile understood the juvenility of American religious skeptics.

  • Porcell

    bunnycatc3r, at 91What argument? What were her points?

    sg, at 69:Even if women are equal, why do they need to vote? Is there any evidence they have voted for policies that have benefitted them or society? Is there any evidence that women voted significantly different from men? If they vote exactly the same as men, then there is little argument that their participation is necessary. If they vote differently, do they vote more responsibly? If not, why not? If yes, why? Come on, think. Evidence?

    You haven’t come close to refuting that.

    >I’m sorry, is there any other kind of knowledge of Greek or cosmology? And “juvenile”? How so?

    Having majored in Classics in college and followed the current debate on cosmology, I respect serious scholars who know their field. So far your arguments display the truth that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

    As to Solzhenitsyn, he like all orthodox Christians understood that evil runs through all human hearts. He would abhor your statement that you are skeptical of any objective or subjective truths, as it was exactly this Nietzschean nihilism that brought on the rise of 20th century fascism and communism that caused him to spend years in the Gulag. Should you be serious about Solzhenitsyn, read his best novel, The First Circle

    Solzhenitsyn, having lived in America for awhile understood the juvenility of American religious skeptics.

  • DonS

    Louis @ 92: Thank you for the compliment.

    The answers to your questions are “yes”, “yes”, and “no”. I’ll take them singly:

    1) If I were to advocate that all red-headed people were to be discriminated agaisnt, that they are worthless, and that we should ship them off to some frozen wilderness, would you allow me , no prtoect me from my detractors while saying this? — yes, I believe you have the right to advocate that policy. It is stupid, it is ignorant, it is racist, and I would be the first to tell you so. But, you have the right to say it. Where your right stops, however, is where you begin to act on your idea, by conspiring with others or by taking action yourself, to physically endanger the redhead whom you are advocating against. You are right that this is a ridiculous example. But, when you crack the door open by saying that it is OK for government to stop such speech by labeling it “hate” and enforcing action against those who say it, it is inevitable that the definitions will be expanded until a pastor who preaches that homosexuality is a sin, or a Mark Steyn publishes a journalistic column on Islam are dragged before “human rights commissions”.

    2) “Or, if I erected massive billboards along the highway, cursing all libertarian baptists (or whatever yor denomination is, I’ can’t remember for sure), will you stop the government from taking it down? Will you?” — I don’t know what you mean by “cursing” — for I do believe in obscenity laws, as you will see below. But, you certainly have every right to post a billboard denouncing libertarian baptists. Of course, the private companies who own the billboards also have the right to refuse your advertisement. Again, the issue here is that unsavory speech should be fought with better ideas, not the jackboot.

    3) “Or, maybe if someone were to ercte a giant screen floating above the city, broadcasting lewd images, would you defend their right to free speech?” — No. I have never considered obscenity/pornography to fall within the intended boundaries of the Constitutional right to free speech. The citizens, and especially their children, have the right not to be exposed to that which is universally considered to be obscene and offensive. It has always amused me that pornographers seem to enjoy a wide-ranging freedom of speech under the First Amendment, while those engaging in political speech are severely restricted on the basis of “campaign finance reform”. Don’t we have things exactly backward? Political and religious speech was the very reason for passage of the First Amendment.

    “Or is it simply that the libertarian philosophy has wrenched freedoms from their societal context and made them into stand-alone idols?” — I think I have explained to you the context of my belief in upholding the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Unfortunately, my understanding is that Canadians do not enjoy this same right, and that is a shame for the future of a free society.

  • DonS

    Louis @ 92: Thank you for the compliment.

    The answers to your questions are “yes”, “yes”, and “no”. I’ll take them singly:

    1) If I were to advocate that all red-headed people were to be discriminated agaisnt, that they are worthless, and that we should ship them off to some frozen wilderness, would you allow me , no prtoect me from my detractors while saying this? — yes, I believe you have the right to advocate that policy. It is stupid, it is ignorant, it is racist, and I would be the first to tell you so. But, you have the right to say it. Where your right stops, however, is where you begin to act on your idea, by conspiring with others or by taking action yourself, to physically endanger the redhead whom you are advocating against. You are right that this is a ridiculous example. But, when you crack the door open by saying that it is OK for government to stop such speech by labeling it “hate” and enforcing action against those who say it, it is inevitable that the definitions will be expanded until a pastor who preaches that homosexuality is a sin, or a Mark Steyn publishes a journalistic column on Islam are dragged before “human rights commissions”.

    2) “Or, if I erected massive billboards along the highway, cursing all libertarian baptists (or whatever yor denomination is, I’ can’t remember for sure), will you stop the government from taking it down? Will you?” — I don’t know what you mean by “cursing” — for I do believe in obscenity laws, as you will see below. But, you certainly have every right to post a billboard denouncing libertarian baptists. Of course, the private companies who own the billboards also have the right to refuse your advertisement. Again, the issue here is that unsavory speech should be fought with better ideas, not the jackboot.

    3) “Or, maybe if someone were to ercte a giant screen floating above the city, broadcasting lewd images, would you defend their right to free speech?” — No. I have never considered obscenity/pornography to fall within the intended boundaries of the Constitutional right to free speech. The citizens, and especially their children, have the right not to be exposed to that which is universally considered to be obscene and offensive. It has always amused me that pornographers seem to enjoy a wide-ranging freedom of speech under the First Amendment, while those engaging in political speech are severely restricted on the basis of “campaign finance reform”. Don’t we have things exactly backward? Political and religious speech was the very reason for passage of the First Amendment.

    “Or is it simply that the libertarian philosophy has wrenched freedoms from their societal context and made them into stand-alone idols?” — I think I have explained to you the context of my belief in upholding the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Unfortunately, my understanding is that Canadians do not enjoy this same right, and that is a shame for the future of a free society.

  • Louis

    DonS – we have to agree to disagree. You seem to view the concept of government as 98% evil Me – only 49.9% …. :)

    Porcell – I think you are missing things now. I was the one quoting Solzhenitsyn, not Bunnycatch3r. Maybe, since you approve of him, and we are taling about blindspots, how’s this for a corker:

    “Freedom! To fill people’s mailboxes, eyes, ears and brains with commercial rubbish against their will, television programs that are impossible to watch with a sense of coherence. Freedom! To force information on people, taking no account of their right not to accept it or their right of peace of mind. Freedom! To spit in the eyes and souls of passersby with advertisements.”

    Or even this one:

    “Do not pursue what is illusory – property and position: all that is gained at the expense of your nerves decade after decade and can be confiscated in one fell night. Live with a steady superiority over life – don’t be afraid of misfortune, and do not yearn after happiness; it is after all, all the same: the bitter doesn’t last forever, and the sweet never fills the cup to overflowing. “

  • Louis

    DonS – we have to agree to disagree. You seem to view the concept of government as 98% evil Me – only 49.9% …. :)

    Porcell – I think you are missing things now. I was the one quoting Solzhenitsyn, not Bunnycatch3r. Maybe, since you approve of him, and we are taling about blindspots, how’s this for a corker:

    “Freedom! To fill people’s mailboxes, eyes, ears and brains with commercial rubbish against their will, television programs that are impossible to watch with a sense of coherence. Freedom! To force information on people, taking no account of their right not to accept it or their right of peace of mind. Freedom! To spit in the eyes and souls of passersby with advertisements.”

    Or even this one:

    “Do not pursue what is illusory – property and position: all that is gained at the expense of your nerves decade after decade and can be confiscated in one fell night. Live with a steady superiority over life – don’t be afraid of misfortune, and do not yearn after happiness; it is after all, all the same: the bitter doesn’t last forever, and the sweet never fills the cup to overflowing. “

  • DonS

    Louis @ 101: No, I really don’t consider government to be 98% evil. It is an essential institution, and has many important functions. However, it is the only institution in our society which has the absolute power of coercion over its citizens. So we need to tread very carefully when we cede to it powers that are not, strictly speaking, appropriate governmental powers. For even a government that is only 49.9% evil, having the power of coercion, can wreak a lot of havoc and eliminate a lot of liberty.

    A good discussion, for which I thank you, Louis. :-)

  • DonS

    Louis @ 101: No, I really don’t consider government to be 98% evil. It is an essential institution, and has many important functions. However, it is the only institution in our society which has the absolute power of coercion over its citizens. So we need to tread very carefully when we cede to it powers that are not, strictly speaking, appropriate governmental powers. For even a government that is only 49.9% evil, having the power of coercion, can wreak a lot of havoc and eliminate a lot of liberty.

    A good discussion, for which I thank you, Louis. :-)

  • Porcell

    Todd. at 98, I’m actually proud to come from Massachusetts, where my paternal ancestors came in 1635 and where we still have some of the best colleges, industry, and financial institutions in the country; further where its people elected Scott Brown to the Senate and some of its Congregational churches have, also, held to to Reformed Calvinism. We, also, have a strong Catholic church at work.

    One thing for sure is you wouldn’t catch me in Ghana lecturing its people on moral values.

    I might add that sg has nailed you on your penchant to bring up side points and merely question others points without stating your own views on the salient issues of the thread.

  • Porcell

    Todd. at 98, I’m actually proud to come from Massachusetts, where my paternal ancestors came in 1635 and where we still have some of the best colleges, industry, and financial institutions in the country; further where its people elected Scott Brown to the Senate and some of its Congregational churches have, also, held to to Reformed Calvinism. We, also, have a strong Catholic church at work.

    One thing for sure is you wouldn’t catch me in Ghana lecturing its people on moral values.

    I might add that sg has nailed you on your penchant to bring up side points and merely question others points without stating your own views on the salient issues of the thread.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Bunny, the argument you offered is not for equality, it is for complementary status. This is generally offered by religionists. Certainly women should not be admitted to engineering schools based on their childbearing ability. Women should have to compete for a place in a program based on achievement on the same measures. So, this is not an argument for utilitarian equality. This is the argument for moral equality. I am fine with that. Shall I assume you concede men outperform women on cognitive and the other physical measures? Let’s not be misandrists and deny men their due.

    Moral blindspot: Misandry

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Bunny, the argument you offered is not for equality, it is for complementary status. This is generally offered by religionists. Certainly women should not be admitted to engineering schools based on their childbearing ability. Women should have to compete for a place in a program based on achievement on the same measures. So, this is not an argument for utilitarian equality. This is the argument for moral equality. I am fine with that. Shall I assume you concede men outperform women on cognitive and the other physical measures? Let’s not be misandrists and deny men their due.

    Moral blindspot: Misandry

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Porcell
    I didn’t think sg’s questions at 69 were that interesting. She stated that her motivation in asking them is “utility”. The same line of questioning could be used to disavow the voting rights of almost any group. Instead of women insert blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc. At what point does “utility” dictate that society commit mass murder or enslave those “less equal” than the rest. I didn’t respond to this argument because it represents a rabbit hole that I have no interest in exploring.

    Having majored in Classics in college and followed the current debate on cosmology….
    So, you have a limited knowledge in Greek and Cosmology as well. Or are you arguing that it is complete?

    Concerning my skepticism of objective or subjective truth ~I’m not comfortable with it either. That is why I was very pleased to have such an audience help me work through my concerns.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @Porcell
    I didn’t think sg’s questions at 69 were that interesting. She stated that her motivation in asking them is “utility”. The same line of questioning could be used to disavow the voting rights of almost any group. Instead of women insert blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc. At what point does “utility” dictate that society commit mass murder or enslave those “less equal” than the rest. I didn’t respond to this argument because it represents a rabbit hole that I have no interest in exploring.

    Having majored in Classics in college and followed the current debate on cosmology….
    So, you have a limited knowledge in Greek and Cosmology as well. Or are you arguing that it is complete?

    Concerning my skepticism of objective or subjective truth ~I’m not comfortable with it either. That is why I was very pleased to have such an audience help me work through my concerns.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You seem unaware of the interpretation you add to the data you view, and how this colors your thoughts. In fact, you seem to think that data can be viewed purely objectively, without any interpretation or bias in the analysis.”

    What analysis? I posted data tables.

    What coloring of thought?

    When you look at the data, what do you see?

    I mean, when I look at the SAT Math stats men vs. women, I see men outnumbering women 2:1 among the highest scores. I see Asians outperforming whites. So what? Where is the bias in supposing men and Asians will disproportionally go into science and technology? That is what happens, and we all benefit from it. It is not some sinister racism. It is just facts. Where is the subjective distortion? Why should we all fall all over ourselves to try to come up with some baloney cultural explanation?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You seem unaware of the interpretation you add to the data you view, and how this colors your thoughts. In fact, you seem to think that data can be viewed purely objectively, without any interpretation or bias in the analysis.”

    What analysis? I posted data tables.

    What coloring of thought?

    When you look at the data, what do you see?

    I mean, when I look at the SAT Math stats men vs. women, I see men outnumbering women 2:1 among the highest scores. I see Asians outperforming whites. So what? Where is the bias in supposing men and Asians will disproportionally go into science and technology? That is what happens, and we all benefit from it. It is not some sinister racism. It is just facts. Where is the subjective distortion? Why should we all fall all over ourselves to try to come up with some baloney cultural explanation?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “At what point does “utility” dictate that society commit mass murder or enslave those “less equal” than the rest. I didn’t respond to this argument because it represents a rabbit hole that I have no interest in exploring.”

    From the utility point of view, it seems universal suffrage is not a check against any of these abuses. In fact, I would guess likely nothing could serve to absolutely prevent such abuses.

    The point of voting is for stakeholders to determine policies. When people with nothing to lose can vote themselves other people’s private property and enslave future generations in debt, we have tyranny of the majority.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “At what point does “utility” dictate that society commit mass murder or enslave those “less equal” than the rest. I didn’t respond to this argument because it represents a rabbit hole that I have no interest in exploring.”

    From the utility point of view, it seems universal suffrage is not a check against any of these abuses. In fact, I would guess likely nothing could serve to absolutely prevent such abuses.

    The point of voting is for stakeholders to determine policies. When people with nothing to lose can vote themselves other people’s private property and enslave future generations in debt, we have tyranny of the majority.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @105
    Oooopss, just spilled an entire bottle of blockquote. Sorry for the mess!

  • bunnycatch3r

    @105
    Oooopss, just spilled an entire bottle of blockquote. Sorry for the mess!

  • Louis

    Bunnycatch3r – this is the point by which sg’s arguments fall – “At what point does “utility” dictate….” Exactly. In previous debates, like the one about racism, she characterised the Hispanic population of the US is exactly the same way as the Irish were vilified over a century ago. Ham-handed use of statistics can prove to be the gateway for a lot of things. In fact, this approach si what I would call, “simplified modernism”, or “uninformed modernism”, whereby judgements are made and policies decided based merely on statistical outcomes or even pseudo-scientific foppery.

    One of the books that really opened my mind to a lot of this is Chesterton’s “Eugenics and other Evils”. I would really encourage anybody to read that, and see where this so-called “scientific” mindset leads, and what it implies: You’ll think twice about arm-waving charachterisations. Project Gutenberg has a free download at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25308

  • Louis

    Bunnycatch3r – this is the point by which sg’s arguments fall – “At what point does “utility” dictate….” Exactly. In previous debates, like the one about racism, she characterised the Hispanic population of the US is exactly the same way as the Irish were vilified over a century ago. Ham-handed use of statistics can prove to be the gateway for a lot of things. In fact, this approach si what I would call, “simplified modernism”, or “uninformed modernism”, whereby judgements are made and policies decided based merely on statistical outcomes or even pseudo-scientific foppery.

    One of the books that really opened my mind to a lot of this is Chesterton’s “Eugenics and other Evils”. I would really encourage anybody to read that, and see where this so-called “scientific” mindset leads, and what it implies: You’ll think twice about arm-waving charachterisations. Project Gutenberg has a free download at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25308

  • bunnycatch3r

    @sg
    Is this what we’re discussing? I ask because (my apologies) I’m not at all familiar with the argument and would like to look in to it a little.

  • bunnycatch3r

    @sg
    Is this what we’re discussing? I ask because (my apologies) I’m not at all familiar with the argument and would like to look in to it a little.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The same line of questioning could be used to disavow the voting rights of almost any group. Instead of women insert blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc.”

    No, it can’t. All those groups contain women. The point of voting rights is more of one vote per household of property owning, tax paying, stakeholders. Basically folks who can’t manage their own households should not be making decisions that will affect the whole community. Voters elect representatives who will spend the money they contribute. They will enact laws regulating commerce, trade etc.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The same line of questioning could be used to disavow the voting rights of almost any group. Instead of women insert blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc.”

    No, it can’t. All those groups contain women. The point of voting rights is more of one vote per household of property owning, tax paying, stakeholders. Basically folks who can’t manage their own households should not be making decisions that will affect the whole community. Voters elect representatives who will spend the money they contribute. They will enact laws regulating commerce, trade etc.

  • Louis

    I don’t know bunnycatch3r, one would have to ask sg and co. I for one oppose it.

  • Louis

    I don’t know bunnycatch3r, one would have to ask sg and co. I for one oppose it.

  • Louis

    sg – you are not getting Bunnycatch3r’s point. You are using arguments regarding brain capacity etc to argue for disenfranchising females. What bunnycath3r is saying is that it is possible to yank any sort of statistic to support disenfranchisement of any given group. I recently saw a statistic showing that non-believers (ie atheists, agnostics) on US campuses have a higher average IQ than believers. Used simplistically, that would call for the elimination of belief systems. Turns out that on closer examination, there are many sociological and anthropological factors that renders this statistic quite immaterial.

  • Louis

    sg – you are not getting Bunnycatch3r’s point. You are using arguments regarding brain capacity etc to argue for disenfranchising females. What bunnycath3r is saying is that it is possible to yank any sort of statistic to support disenfranchisement of any given group. I recently saw a statistic showing that non-believers (ie atheists, agnostics) on US campuses have a higher average IQ than believers. Used simplistically, that would call for the elimination of belief systems. Turns out that on closer examination, there are many sociological and anthropological factors that renders this statistic quite immaterial.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Is this what we’re discussing? I ask because (my apologies) I’m not at all familiar with the argument and would like to look in to it a little.”

    Ha, you found me out! The old ‘is-ought’ problem. I thought I was so clever back in high school when I used to tell my mother that ‘should’ and ‘is’ are not related! Then I found out I was only a couple hundred years late to the philosophical party!

    Anyway, women are consistently less informed, more easily swayed by advertising and more likely to vote than men. This is not a winning combination for voting in the best representatives, judges etc.

    Obviously we can’t get rid of women’s suffrage, but we don’t have to pretend that it is great or has helped society in the absence of some evidence. Either men and women have voted the same or they haven’t. If they have, women’s participation is superfluous. If they have voted differently, has it been decisively beneficial? I would argue it has not. In those elections in which women’s votes were decisive, they generally went the wrong way against liberty and for bigger more oppressive government.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Is this what we’re discussing? I ask because (my apologies) I’m not at all familiar with the argument and would like to look in to it a little.”

    Ha, you found me out! The old ‘is-ought’ problem. I thought I was so clever back in high school when I used to tell my mother that ‘should’ and ‘is’ are not related! Then I found out I was only a couple hundred years late to the philosophical party!

    Anyway, women are consistently less informed, more easily swayed by advertising and more likely to vote than men. This is not a winning combination for voting in the best representatives, judges etc.

    Obviously we can’t get rid of women’s suffrage, but we don’t have to pretend that it is great or has helped society in the absence of some evidence. Either men and women have voted the same or they haven’t. If they have, women’s participation is superfluous. If they have voted differently, has it been decisively beneficial? I would argue it has not. In those elections in which women’s votes were decisive, they generally went the wrong way against liberty and for bigger more oppressive government.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I recently saw a statistic showing that non-believers (ie atheists, agnostics) on US campuses have a higher average IQ than believers. Used simplistically, that would call for the elimination of belief systems.”

    No, it wouldn’t.

    If you stop believing it doesn’t make your brain grow. Duh.

    However, smart people are more likely to be atheists. Getting rid of religion won’t make dumb religionists smart.
    Come on, people, think!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I recently saw a statistic showing that non-believers (ie atheists, agnostics) on US campuses have a higher average IQ than believers. Used simplistically, that would call for the elimination of belief systems.”

    No, it wouldn’t.

    If you stop believing it doesn’t make your brain grow. Duh.

    However, smart people are more likely to be atheists. Getting rid of religion won’t make dumb religionists smart.
    Come on, people, think!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You are using arguments regarding brain capacity etc to argue for disenfranchising females.”

    No, I am not. Check the comments. I made the point that men and women are not equal strictly speaking based on biological differences.

    Voting rights should be based on paying taxes and functionally limited to one per household, just as they were when the country was founded.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You are using arguments regarding brain capacity etc to argue for disenfranchising females.”

    No, I am not. Check the comments. I made the point that men and women are not equal strictly speaking based on biological differences.

    Voting rights should be based on paying taxes and functionally limited to one per household, just as they were when the country was founded.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “In previous debates, like the one about racism, she characterised the Hispanic population of the US is exactly the same way as the Irish were vilified over a century ago.”

    No, I didn’t. I linked Dept. of Justice incarceration data tables. That is not vilification. It is evidence. My point was that the current immigration laws should be enforced because those who come in legally are screened for criminal background.

    How is it a data table of incarceration numbers constitutes vilifying? People who are incarcerated are villains! What, I am vilifying villains? Hilarious!

    US citizens have the right to regulate, control and even prohibit immigration through their duly elected representatives. It is all very democratic and just.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “In previous debates, like the one about racism, she characterised the Hispanic population of the US is exactly the same way as the Irish were vilified over a century ago.”

    No, I didn’t. I linked Dept. of Justice incarceration data tables. That is not vilification. It is evidence. My point was that the current immigration laws should be enforced because those who come in legally are screened for criminal background.

    How is it a data table of incarceration numbers constitutes vilifying? People who are incarcerated are villains! What, I am vilifying villains? Hilarious!

    US citizens have the right to regulate, control and even prohibit immigration through their duly elected representatives. It is all very democratic and just.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell, are you feeling okay? First you quote Don as if he were Louis. Then you reply to Bunnycatch3r about Solzhenitsyn, even though Louis had quoted him.

    And now you say (@103) to me that “sg has nailed you on your penchant to bring up side points and merely question others points without stating your own views on the salient issues of the thread.” Um … where did SG say that? That’s something that you complain about, and it still makes no sense, as I’m replying to points that other people have brought up. This conversation got derailed well before I ever showed up, anyhow.

    As to your claim (@103) that “I’m actually proud to come from Massachusetts”, you do know that your comments on this blog can be searched, right? You once called Massachusetts “this sickly liberal state”[1]. You also referred to “Massachusetts and other wing-nut American states.”[2] Among other complaints about your state. So it seems that your pride is somewhat fair weather, Porcell. But back to the point at hand. If we take it as a given that Massachusetts is a sickly liberal wing-nut state, what does that say about people from there and their opinions? Please answer this question in light of your opinion on what Appiah’s being from Ghana has to do with his ideas.

    [1]geneveith.com/will-republicans-blow-their-big-chance/_6458/#comment-91665
    [2]geneveith.com/states-rights-and-gay-marriage-2/_5925/#comment-86315

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell, are you feeling okay? First you quote Don as if he were Louis. Then you reply to Bunnycatch3r about Solzhenitsyn, even though Louis had quoted him.

    And now you say (@103) to me that “sg has nailed you on your penchant to bring up side points and merely question others points without stating your own views on the salient issues of the thread.” Um … where did SG say that? That’s something that you complain about, and it still makes no sense, as I’m replying to points that other people have brought up. This conversation got derailed well before I ever showed up, anyhow.

    As to your claim (@103) that “I’m actually proud to come from Massachusetts”, you do know that your comments on this blog can be searched, right? You once called Massachusetts “this sickly liberal state”[1]. You also referred to “Massachusetts and other wing-nut American states.”[2] Among other complaints about your state. So it seems that your pride is somewhat fair weather, Porcell. But back to the point at hand. If we take it as a given that Massachusetts is a sickly liberal wing-nut state, what does that say about people from there and their opinions? Please answer this question in light of your opinion on what Appiah’s being from Ghana has to do with his ideas.

    [1]geneveith.com/will-republicans-blow-their-big-chance/_6458/#comment-91665
    [2]geneveith.com/states-rights-and-gay-marriage-2/_5925/#comment-86315

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Anyway, I actually agreed with Mr. Appiah on most of his points except the criminals. I think we should outsource prisons. Just build prisons in lower wage countries and create jobs for the people in those countries. They would earn more than they do now and have stable employment and we would save money on buildings and salaries. Maybe it would be a deterrent as well. A win-win-win. Will future generations feel sorry for the elderly? Ooh. Don’t know. They may be too angry at the economic/social/environmental mess they were left to have much sympathy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Anyway, I actually agreed with Mr. Appiah on most of his points except the criminals. I think we should outsource prisons. Just build prisons in lower wage countries and create jobs for the people in those countries. They would earn more than they do now and have stable employment and we would save money on buildings and salaries. Maybe it would be a deterrent as well. A win-win-win. Will future generations feel sorry for the elderly? Ooh. Don’t know. They may be too angry at the economic/social/environmental mess they were left to have much sympathy.

  • Porcell

    Todd, I’m as well aware of Massachusetts faults as of its virtues. On this thread, since you attacked Massachusetts, I thought it worth defending.

    As to Appiah, I regard him as yet another liberal Third-World moralist with little understanding of the virtues of the West, who from his perch at Princeton gets off with high toned platitudes.

  • Porcell

    Todd, I’m as well aware of Massachusetts faults as of its virtues. On this thread, since you attacked Massachusetts, I thought it worth defending.

    As to Appiah, I regard him as yet another liberal Third-World moralist with little understanding of the virtues of the West, who from his perch at Princeton gets off with high toned platitudes.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg at 119

    do you actually interact with people like this in person. you sound like an over the top talk radio host.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg at 119

    do you actually interact with people like this in person. you sound like an over the top talk radio host.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    “… a look at the past suggests three signs that a particular practice is destined for future condemnation” The author then suggests 3 diagnostics.

    I would suggest that Lutheran diagnostics would look quite different

    1) does the law or practice or aprobation or tradition reflect the fact that there is nothing anyone does on earth that has eternal consequences? No? Idolatry and works righteousness. Yes. What Lutherans teach.

    2) does it harm anyone in a creaturely way? yes? God disapproves. No? this is a good start but is still not righteousness because there is still not evidential love. but love cannot exist if this is not true. “do no harm” is not righteousness.

    3) Does it look like love in a tangible, sensible or evidential way (earthly righteousness does not require faith remember, it is about doing rather than believing)? does it improve the creaturely material lives of people? Make them happier. help them flourish? Yes? God approves. This God calls love or earthly righteousness. No? God does not approve. This is called sin. Missing the mark. This is contrary to God´s word which says that love is the entire sum of the law.

    These would be the 3 Lutheran diagnostics. and this would be based on a proper distinction between law and gospel. how? It is in that phrase “there is nothing we do that has eternal consequences.” This is the necessary corellary to the fact that we are saved by faith. Alone. apart from any works.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    “… a look at the past suggests three signs that a particular practice is destined for future condemnation” The author then suggests 3 diagnostics.

    I would suggest that Lutheran diagnostics would look quite different

    1) does the law or practice or aprobation or tradition reflect the fact that there is nothing anyone does on earth that has eternal consequences? No? Idolatry and works righteousness. Yes. What Lutherans teach.

    2) does it harm anyone in a creaturely way? yes? God disapproves. No? this is a good start but is still not righteousness because there is still not evidential love. but love cannot exist if this is not true. “do no harm” is not righteousness.

    3) Does it look like love in a tangible, sensible or evidential way (earthly righteousness does not require faith remember, it is about doing rather than believing)? does it improve the creaturely material lives of people? Make them happier. help them flourish? Yes? God approves. This God calls love or earthly righteousness. No? God does not approve. This is called sin. Missing the mark. This is contrary to God´s word which says that love is the entire sum of the law.

    These would be the 3 Lutheran diagnostics. and this would be based on a proper distinction between law and gospel. how? It is in that phrase “there is nothing we do that has eternal consequences.” This is the necessary corellary to the fact that we are saved by faith. Alone. apart from any works.

  • Porcell

    FWS, sg is interacting with “persons” rather well on this thread. She tries to get them to back up their pieties with facts and logical argument. As with you, she has reduced her politically correct interlocutors to ad hominem bluster.

  • Porcell

    FWS, sg is interacting with “persons” rather well on this thread. She tries to get them to back up their pieties with facts and logical argument. As with you, she has reduced her politically correct interlocutors to ad hominem bluster.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “One of the books that really opened my mind to a lot of this is Chesterton’s “Eugenics and other Evils”… Project Gutenberg has a free download at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25308

    Louis, thanks for the link. I love Chesterton. If you are trying to paint me as endorsing genetics, you missed. I am totally against abortion. It should be illegal in virtually all cases. Here in the US minorities have the highest abortion rates. Killing their children is not the way to help people. I would argue against Bunny on the point of Christian indoctrination of children. I think that all children regardless of ethnicity can learn good moral values from the Bible and good Christian teachers. Abortion is worse than child abuse. It is murder. Christian indoctrination is not child abuse, rather hearing the word of God is the only hope for any individual.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “One of the books that really opened my mind to a lot of this is Chesterton’s “Eugenics and other Evils”… Project Gutenberg has a free download at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25308

    Louis, thanks for the link. I love Chesterton. If you are trying to paint me as endorsing genetics, you missed. I am totally against abortion. It should be illegal in virtually all cases. Here in the US minorities have the highest abortion rates. Killing their children is not the way to help people. I would argue against Bunny on the point of Christian indoctrination of children. I think that all children regardless of ethnicity can learn good moral values from the Bible and good Christian teachers. Abortion is worse than child abuse. It is murder. Christian indoctrination is not child abuse, rather hearing the word of God is the only hope for any individual.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 124

    ” I would argue against Bunny on the point of Christian indoctrination of children. I think that all children regardless of ethnicity can learn good moral values from the Bible and good Christian teachers”

    so now we know more about what sg feels it is that children need to be indoctrinated in to be christians?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 124

    ” I would argue against Bunny on the point of Christian indoctrination of children. I think that all children regardless of ethnicity can learn good moral values from the Bible and good Christian teachers”

    so now we know more about what sg feels it is that children need to be indoctrinated in to be christians?

  • Louis

    Porcell, which thread are you reading? I think it goes to show that people read into something what they want to read into it. Sg wilfully ignores clear examples, careful illustrations etc (she for instance misses the main thrust of my comment at #113 completely/willfully?).

    You are also masterful at missing the point, as your interaction with Todd shows. I will be happy to analyse any of my viewpoints here with the “tests”, if you will, that fws proposes at #122. I don’t believe your jingoism, or sg’s racial obsession, will hold up.

    It is clear though that both of you are happy to alienate fellow believers with your stanpoints, and here I am talking about Ghanains, Mexicans etc etc.

    As somebody who has firsthand experience on how racial characterisations, jingoism and all that can damage the cause of the Gospel, it saddens me a lot.

  • Louis

    Porcell, which thread are you reading? I think it goes to show that people read into something what they want to read into it. Sg wilfully ignores clear examples, careful illustrations etc (she for instance misses the main thrust of my comment at #113 completely/willfully?).

    You are also masterful at missing the point, as your interaction with Todd shows. I will be happy to analyse any of my viewpoints here with the “tests”, if you will, that fws proposes at #122. I don’t believe your jingoism, or sg’s racial obsession, will hold up.

    It is clear though that both of you are happy to alienate fellow believers with your stanpoints, and here I am talking about Ghanains, Mexicans etc etc.

    As somebody who has firsthand experience on how racial characterisations, jingoism and all that can damage the cause of the Gospel, it saddens me a lot.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Louis, so, what is the point I missed at 113?

    Also, the idea that other Christians have to agree with all of your views or they are damaging the cause of the Gospel is baloney. I am just not that powerful. The Gospel survived far worse than my citing a few data tables. When I see religionists I disagree with, I don’t chalk it up to the religion they follow. I give other people the same credit. The notion that someone will reject God’s grace because they disagree with one Christian on one point is pretty lame. If that were true how could anyone believe? Anyway, this is just more shaming tactics trying to get me go along with your view because your view is more popular not because it is more accurate. I could play the same game and claim you are damaging the cause of the Gospel because rational people will be turned off by your rejection of objective data, but I won’t. It would be the same nonsense from the other direction. Rather, I think you mean well but are so obsessed with race that you seem to assume I wish certain folks ill just because I have seen the data on differences and don’t try to explain it away with a bunch of convoluted and unsupported conjectures. Consider the possibility that someone could see differences but not harbor ill will.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Louis, so, what is the point I missed at 113?

    Also, the idea that other Christians have to agree with all of your views or they are damaging the cause of the Gospel is baloney. I am just not that powerful. The Gospel survived far worse than my citing a few data tables. When I see religionists I disagree with, I don’t chalk it up to the religion they follow. I give other people the same credit. The notion that someone will reject God’s grace because they disagree with one Christian on one point is pretty lame. If that were true how could anyone believe? Anyway, this is just more shaming tactics trying to get me go along with your view because your view is more popular not because it is more accurate. I could play the same game and claim you are damaging the cause of the Gospel because rational people will be turned off by your rejection of objective data, but I won’t. It would be the same nonsense from the other direction. Rather, I think you mean well but are so obsessed with race that you seem to assume I wish certain folks ill just because I have seen the data on differences and don’t try to explain it away with a bunch of convoluted and unsupported conjectures. Consider the possibility that someone could see differences but not harbor ill will.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Louis, so, what is the point I missed at 113?

    Also, the idea that other Christians have to agree with all of your views or they are damaging the cause of the Gospel is baloney. I am just not that powerful. The Gospel survived far worse than my citing a few data tables. When I see religionists I disagree with, I don’t chalk it up to the religion they follow. I give other people the same credit. The notion that someone will reject God’s grace because they disagree with one Christian on one point is pretty lame. If that were true how could anyone believe? Anyway, this is just more shaming tactics trying to get me go along with your view because your view is more popular not because it is more accurate. I could play the same game and claim you are damaging the cause of the Gospel because rational people will be turned off by your rejection of objective data, but I won’t. It would be the same nonsense from the other direction. Rather, I think you mean well but are so obsessed with race that you seem to assume I wish certain folks ill just because I have seen the data on differences and don’t try to explain it away with a bunch of convoluted and unsupported conjectures. Consider the possibility that someone could see differences but not harbor ill will.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Louis, so, what is the point I missed at 113?

    Also, the idea that other Christians have to agree with all of your views or they are damaging the cause of the Gospel is baloney. I am just not that powerful. The Gospel survived far worse than my citing a few data tables. When I see religionists I disagree with, I don’t chalk it up to the religion they follow. I give other people the same credit. The notion that someone will reject God’s grace because they disagree with one Christian on one point is pretty lame. If that were true how could anyone believe? Anyway, this is just more shaming tactics trying to get me go along with your view because your view is more popular not because it is more accurate. I could play the same game and claim you are damaging the cause of the Gospel because rational people will be turned off by your rejection of objective data, but I won’t. It would be the same nonsense from the other direction. Rather, I think you mean well but are so obsessed with race that you seem to assume I wish certain folks ill just because I have seen the data on differences and don’t try to explain it away with a bunch of convoluted and unsupported conjectures. Consider the possibility that someone could see differences but not harbor ill will.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “so now we know more about what sg feels it is that children need to be indoctrinated in to be christians?”

    fws, What is your point? Do you just want to make a snarky comment?

    Yes, I think ideally ever kid on the planet would be best served if he got a Christian education complete with Christian doctrine.

    Are you going to argue against it just because I said it?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “so now we know more about what sg feels it is that children need to be indoctrinated in to be christians?”

    fws, What is your point? Do you just want to make a snarky comment?

    Yes, I think ideally ever kid on the planet would be best served if he got a Christian education complete with Christian doctrine.

    Are you going to argue against it just because I said it?

  • John C

    sg at 119
    I think we should outsource prisons. Just build prisons in
    lower wage countries……………

    It worked for Australia. It only took 120 years for the colonies to form a federation — partly inspired by the constitution of the US. I would suggest Africa or somewhere in Sth America. Maybe the moon.
    Those states in the US with large prison populations may object to the loss of income and employment but they are just blind to the gains in efficiency.

  • John C

    sg at 119
    I think we should outsource prisons. Just build prisons in
    lower wage countries……………

    It worked for Australia. It only took 120 years for the colonies to form a federation — partly inspired by the constitution of the US. I would suggest Africa or somewhere in Sth America. Maybe the moon.
    Those states in the US with large prison populations may object to the loss of income and employment but they are just blind to the gains in efficiency.

  • Grace

    130 – John C “It worked for Australia. It only took 120 years for the colonies to form a federation — partly inspired by the constitution of the US. I would suggest Africa or somewhere in Sth America. Maybe the moon.
    Those states in the US with large prison populations may object to the loss of income and employment but they are just blind to the gains in efficiency.”

    You certainly appear willing to step back into a dark part of history, to accomplish a hellish prison system.

    “Efficiency” – there are all kinds of that ‘brand’ sold every day in this country. Who’s “efficiency” ? -

  • Grace

    130 – John C “It worked for Australia. It only took 120 years for the colonies to form a federation — partly inspired by the constitution of the US. I would suggest Africa or somewhere in Sth America. Maybe the moon.
    Those states in the US with large prison populations may object to the loss of income and employment but they are just blind to the gains in efficiency.”

    You certainly appear willing to step back into a dark part of history, to accomplish a hellish prison system.

    “Efficiency” – there are all kinds of that ‘brand’ sold every day in this country. Who’s “efficiency” ? -

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @129

    snarky. popular word here these days. nope. no snark.

    it appears that to you the most important point of “christian indoctrination” or at least an essential part of it , is to instill morals in children. ” it also seems that you feel that only “christian ” indoctrination can truly make children or others truly moral.

    You are not saying this as a Lutheran.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @129

    snarky. popular word here these days. nope. no snark.

    it appears that to you the most important point of “christian indoctrination” or at least an essential part of it , is to instill morals in children. ” it also seems that you feel that only “christian ” indoctrination can truly make children or others truly moral.

    You are not saying this as a Lutheran.

  • Grace

    132 – fws – - “it appears that to you the most important point of “christian indoctrination” or at least an essential part of it , is to instill morals in children. ” it also seems that you feel that only “christian ” indoctrination can truly make children or others truly moral.”

    A Christian parent instills at the earliest age, those truths from the Word of God, and that would include moral values.

    No parent can “make children or others truly moral” … we instruct them, and from there, they will choose. As Believers we are to guide our children, according to the Word of God.

  • Grace

    132 – fws – - “it appears that to you the most important point of “christian indoctrination” or at least an essential part of it , is to instill morals in children. ” it also seems that you feel that only “christian ” indoctrination can truly make children or others truly moral.”

    A Christian parent instills at the earliest age, those truths from the Word of God, and that would include moral values.

    No parent can “make children or others truly moral” … we instruct them, and from there, they will choose. As Believers we are to guide our children, according to the Word of God.

  • John C

    Grace, my post was more sarcasm than my original intent, parody.
    However, there are echos in my post of more recent Australian history.
    In 2001, the Conservative Government sought to deter refugees from seeking asylum by incarcerating them on tiny Pacific Island states such as Nauru.
    This policy of locking up men, women and children in the tropical heat, away from public scrutiny and access to Australia law, deeply divided the community and with the election of a Labor Government in 2007, it was abandoned.
    In the 2010 election, the Conservatives revived the policy and the Nauru leadership were only too willing to offer their services as an island prison.
    During the election the Labor Government countered the Opposition by making an offer to East Timor. A proposal still under consideration.
    In conclusion, construction and operation of detention centres on tiny island states is incredibly expensive — there is no efficiency gains in this policy.
    Labor won government with a majority of one. Today is the first sitting day of parliament and as I write, the Government’s numbers will be tested on the floor of parliament. We are heading for uncharted waters.

  • John C

    Grace, my post was more sarcasm than my original intent, parody.
    However, there are echos in my post of more recent Australian history.
    In 2001, the Conservative Government sought to deter refugees from seeking asylum by incarcerating them on tiny Pacific Island states such as Nauru.
    This policy of locking up men, women and children in the tropical heat, away from public scrutiny and access to Australia law, deeply divided the community and with the election of a Labor Government in 2007, it was abandoned.
    In the 2010 election, the Conservatives revived the policy and the Nauru leadership were only too willing to offer their services as an island prison.
    During the election the Labor Government countered the Opposition by making an offer to East Timor. A proposal still under consideration.
    In conclusion, construction and operation of detention centres on tiny island states is incredibly expensive — there is no efficiency gains in this policy.
    Labor won government with a majority of one. Today is the first sitting day of parliament and as I write, the Government’s numbers will be tested on the floor of parliament. We are heading for uncharted waters.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “it appears that to you the most important point of “christian indoctrination” or at least an essential part of it , is to instill morals in children. ” it also seems that you feel that only “christian ” indoctrination can truly make children or others truly moral.”

    Baloney. Just read the catechism. It says for the head of the household to teach his family. We also have a whole network of Christian schools designed to assist parents in their duty to train up their kids. I think you are just nitpicking my phrasing. It is just plain petty. You are hardly giving me the benefit of the doubt and just playing gotcha. The best education for any child anywhere is a good Christian education. Kids need to be taught to do right, and about forgiveness through Christ. I am not saying anything bizarre or unchristian and you know it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “it appears that to you the most important point of “christian indoctrination” or at least an essential part of it , is to instill morals in children. ” it also seems that you feel that only “christian ” indoctrination can truly make children or others truly moral.”

    Baloney. Just read the catechism. It says for the head of the household to teach his family. We also have a whole network of Christian schools designed to assist parents in their duty to train up their kids. I think you are just nitpicking my phrasing. It is just plain petty. You are hardly giving me the benefit of the doubt and just playing gotcha. The best education for any child anywhere is a good Christian education. Kids need to be taught to do right, and about forgiveness through Christ. I am not saying anything bizarre or unchristian and you know it.

  • Porcell

    FWS, while you’re right that the Cross absolves truly repentant folk from sin, Christ, also, made clear that, while He came to purify the moral Law, he hardly abrogated a jot or tittle of it. Lutheran churches are correct to teach the Commandments of the Law as well as the forgiveness of the Cross, which is no excuse breaking the Law.

    Luther hardly wrote the Short Catechism as an academic exercise. He condemned the antinomian, Agricola.

  • Porcell

    FWS, while you’re right that the Cross absolves truly repentant folk from sin, Christ, also, made clear that, while He came to purify the moral Law, he hardly abrogated a jot or tittle of it. Lutheran churches are correct to teach the Commandments of the Law as well as the forgiveness of the Cross, which is no excuse breaking the Law.

    Luther hardly wrote the Short Catechism as an academic exercise. He condemned the antinomian, Agricola.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “The Cross absolves truly repentant folk from sin” (@136). I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that FWS would have issues with your using those words to characterize his position. But only FWS can say for sure.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “The Cross absolves truly repentant folk from sin” (@136). I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that FWS would have issues with your using those words to characterize his position. But only FWS can say for sure.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @ 136 and Todd @137

    Porcell, Todd knows exactly in minute detail what I believe. This is a secred Lutheran trick Porcell. We just KNOW what each other believes at a level of detail that can fill a book with hundreds of pages. It is sort of the Lutheran secret yet unsecret handshake by which we recognize each other as Lutheran. He knows what I believe in such amazing detail because I believe exactly what the Book of Concord says. Exactly. This is why he is able to guess that I would have a problem with how you phrased things. No crystal ball was necessary. And because he too believes what the Book of Concord says, you notice that I pay very careful attention to what he has to say when he needs to correct me, and you will notice that I actually welcome that correction as a token of love and affection. Interesting stuff eh? I get to enjoy all that love down here now in portuguese!

    Now if you can show me that what you phrased is, in fact, what the Book of Concord teaches , then I will have to reconsider very seriously! You can find a downloadable pdf version of the Book of Concord, Bente edition at http://www.bookofconcord.com It will let you do word searches. I use it all the time. I will be interested to see what you come back with dear brother.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @ 136 and Todd @137

    Porcell, Todd knows exactly in minute detail what I believe. This is a secred Lutheran trick Porcell. We just KNOW what each other believes at a level of detail that can fill a book with hundreds of pages. It is sort of the Lutheran secret yet unsecret handshake by which we recognize each other as Lutheran. He knows what I believe in such amazing detail because I believe exactly what the Book of Concord says. Exactly. This is why he is able to guess that I would have a problem with how you phrased things. No crystal ball was necessary. And because he too believes what the Book of Concord says, you notice that I pay very careful attention to what he has to say when he needs to correct me, and you will notice that I actually welcome that correction as a token of love and affection. Interesting stuff eh? I get to enjoy all that love down here now in portuguese!

    Now if you can show me that what you phrased is, in fact, what the Book of Concord teaches , then I will have to reconsider very seriously! You can find a downloadable pdf version of the Book of Concord, Bente edition at http://www.bookofconcord.com It will let you do word searches. I use it all the time. I will be interested to see what you come back with dear brother.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Porcell @136

    PORCELL “… {Jesus] hardly abrogated a jot or tittle of it [ie the Law]. Lutheran churches are correct to teach the Commandments of the Law as well as the forgiveness of the Cross, which is no excuse breaking the Law.”

    FWS Where would you find this in the Lutheran Confessions dear brother Purcell?

    PORCELL Luther hardly wrote the Short Catechism as an academic exercise.

    FWS It is called the Small Catechism. There is a Large Catechism too. Why did Luther write the Small Catechism Porcell? Why do you suppose he Put the section on the 10 Commandments first? You know Luther also said that the 10 Commandments do not apply to Christians and that they apply only to the Jews? Yet they are a part of the Lutheran Confessions. Why is that? Can you help me understand why that is from the Confessions?

    PORCELL He condemned the antinomian, Agricola.

    FWS “Antinomian”. What is that exactly? How would I recognize an antinomian? And why is it that Luther thought that Antinomianism was such a bad thing? What was the danger of antinomianism that Luther most opposed? It was not the fear that everyone would become libertines. So what was it?

    i found these links. what do you make of them Porcell?

    http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    What would be helpful would be for you to help me find how all this is expressed in the Lutheran Confessions, since, as you know, the writings of Luther are not binding on a Lutheran´s conscience. The Confessions are.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Porcell @136

    PORCELL “… {Jesus] hardly abrogated a jot or tittle of it [ie the Law]. Lutheran churches are correct to teach the Commandments of the Law as well as the forgiveness of the Cross, which is no excuse breaking the Law.”

    FWS Where would you find this in the Lutheran Confessions dear brother Purcell?

    PORCELL Luther hardly wrote the Short Catechism as an academic exercise.

    FWS It is called the Small Catechism. There is a Large Catechism too. Why did Luther write the Small Catechism Porcell? Why do you suppose he Put the section on the 10 Commandments first? You know Luther also said that the 10 Commandments do not apply to Christians and that they apply only to the Jews? Yet they are a part of the Lutheran Confessions. Why is that? Can you help me understand why that is from the Confessions?

    PORCELL He condemned the antinomian, Agricola.

    FWS “Antinomian”. What is that exactly? How would I recognize an antinomian? And why is it that Luther thought that Antinomianism was such a bad thing? What was the danger of antinomianism that Luther most opposed? It was not the fear that everyone would become libertines. So what was it?

    i found these links. what do you make of them Porcell?

    http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    What would be helpful would be for you to help me find how all this is expressed in the Lutheran Confessions, since, as you know, the writings of Luther are not binding on a Lutheran´s conscience. The Confessions are.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @135

    dear sister. I am not trying to play gotcha. “it seems” is a flag for this. “it seems ” means “it looks like you are saying, but it is not clear, please clarify” right?

    Why do you feel moral indoctrination is important for children sg? Or anything for that matter? Is there something eternal at stake in this? I do not mean this as a challenging question. as in something aggressive or unfriendly.

    I am trying to get to know you better actually and understand the basics of where you are coming from dear sister. Please take me to be sincere.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @135

    dear sister. I am not trying to play gotcha. “it seems” is a flag for this. “it seems ” means “it looks like you are saying, but it is not clear, please clarify” right?

    Why do you feel moral indoctrination is important for children sg? Or anything for that matter? Is there something eternal at stake in this? I do not mean this as a challenging question. as in something aggressive or unfriendly.

    I am trying to get to know you better actually and understand the basics of where you are coming from dear sister. Please take me to be sincere.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why do you feel moral indoctrination is important for children sg?”

    I am going to share a pet peeve with you. I really object to discussing anything based on how I feel. I can’t imagine anyone cares how I feel, even I don’t care when it comes to a topic that is not about me. It is not interesting. It is not pertinent. Now I understand, that sounds like nitpicking because it is. I just hate referencing stuff in terms of myself or my feelings. You tend to phrase stuff that way. I will assume you aren’t purposely being annoying or impertinent, but I have to admit it really is annoying.

    Okay, I hope you can just see that is a difference in communication style.

    Anyway, the point I am making is that ideally everyone will learn the Bible and it’s truth from his parents and teachers and that the Bible will be taught faithfully. That is the ideal. I don’t believe Christians disagree with that. I don’t think you disagree with that. That is it. That is my whole point. There is nothing else. If I had never been born and never had any feelings about anything ever, it would still be good for all kids to get a good Christian education.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why do you feel moral indoctrination is important for children sg?”

    I am going to share a pet peeve with you. I really object to discussing anything based on how I feel. I can’t imagine anyone cares how I feel, even I don’t care when it comes to a topic that is not about me. It is not interesting. It is not pertinent. Now I understand, that sounds like nitpicking because it is. I just hate referencing stuff in terms of myself or my feelings. You tend to phrase stuff that way. I will assume you aren’t purposely being annoying or impertinent, but I have to admit it really is annoying.

    Okay, I hope you can just see that is a difference in communication style.

    Anyway, the point I am making is that ideally everyone will learn the Bible and it’s truth from his parents and teachers and that the Bible will be taught faithfully. That is the ideal. I don’t believe Christians disagree with that. I don’t think you disagree with that. That is it. That is my whole point. There is nothing else. If I had never been born and never had any feelings about anything ever, it would still be good for all kids to get a good Christian education.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 141

    wow. “how do you feel about” maybe is sort of a midwestern form of speech… not sure. It means “what is your opinion on” or such. I don´t know that anyone who says it is asking someone how they emote on a certain issue. In itself it is not an annoying form of speech except for those who choose to feel annoyed and center around their own feelings right? ( I hope you are smiling now sg and not so serious …)

    “…ideally everyone will learn the Bible and it’s truth… and that the Bible will be taught faithfully. … I don’t believe Christians disagree with that. I don’t think you disagree with that. That is it. That is my whole point. ”

    Ok sg. I guess I should have been clear on my point eh? Thanks. My bad. My observation is this. it is not really a point. …

    You do not need to be a christian to say what you said. Jehovahs witnesses say this. Mormons would not have a problem with what you said. I am wondering what it is that defines someone or something as “christian”. does that label need to include our behavior and things we do? Ie morality?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 141

    wow. “how do you feel about” maybe is sort of a midwestern form of speech… not sure. It means “what is your opinion on” or such. I don´t know that anyone who says it is asking someone how they emote on a certain issue. In itself it is not an annoying form of speech except for those who choose to feel annoyed and center around their own feelings right? ( I hope you are smiling now sg and not so serious …)

    “…ideally everyone will learn the Bible and it’s truth… and that the Bible will be taught faithfully. … I don’t believe Christians disagree with that. I don’t think you disagree with that. That is it. That is my whole point. ”

    Ok sg. I guess I should have been clear on my point eh? Thanks. My bad. My observation is this. it is not really a point. …

    You do not need to be a christian to say what you said. Jehovahs witnesses say this. Mormons would not have a problem with what you said. I am wondering what it is that defines someone or something as “christian”. does that label need to include our behavior and things we do? Ie morality?

  • Grace

    fws – 142

    – - “You do not need to be a christian to say what you said. Jehovahs witnesses say this. Mormons would not have a problem with what you said. I am wondering what it is that defines someone or something as “christian”. does that label need to include our behavior and things we do? Ie morality?” – -

    fws – you need “Christian” defined?

    Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons do not come close to believing as we who are “Christians” believe. If you think differently, you have never studied these cults, the Watchtower, is the JW guide – the Book of Mormon, is given to any perspective new convert, then comes Official LDS/Mormon doctrine and the book’s that contain the LDS/Mormon doctrine. It would appear that the last two are the same, but they are not, one is “Official” and the other is historical.

    Christian Believers look to the Word of God as their instruction, it is the inspired inerrant Word of God. Yes, you can say there are a number of different doctrines, but the Bible is the source, there is no other book (and there should not be) that would sit along side the Bible.

  • Grace

    fws – 142

    – - “You do not need to be a christian to say what you said. Jehovahs witnesses say this. Mormons would not have a problem with what you said. I am wondering what it is that defines someone or something as “christian”. does that label need to include our behavior and things we do? Ie morality?” – -

    fws – you need “Christian” defined?

    Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons do not come close to believing as we who are “Christians” believe. If you think differently, you have never studied these cults, the Watchtower, is the JW guide – the Book of Mormon, is given to any perspective new convert, then comes Official LDS/Mormon doctrine and the book’s that contain the LDS/Mormon doctrine. It would appear that the last two are the same, but they are not, one is “Official” and the other is historical.

    Christian Believers look to the Word of God as their instruction, it is the inspired inerrant Word of God. Yes, you can say there are a number of different doctrines, but the Bible is the source, there is no other book (and there should not be) that would sit along side the Bible.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @143

    dear sister I would humbly suggest yóu missed my point. true perhaps I did not articulate my point well. ok…

    I agree that JW and mormon are not christian. But my point is that, even though they are NOT christian, they would not have a problem with what was said. Meaning that being able to say, even sincerely “I believe in the bible and that it is God´s Word ” is not what makes one a christian. Heck, the bible itself points out that satan knows that the bible is God´s Word and is true doesn´t it?

    So then my question was this What exactly IS it that uniquely qualifies that word “christian ” to be applied to someone or something? Since it is not “someone who believes in the Bible or that it is God´s Word”?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @143

    dear sister I would humbly suggest yóu missed my point. true perhaps I did not articulate my point well. ok…

    I agree that JW and mormon are not christian. But my point is that, even though they are NOT christian, they would not have a problem with what was said. Meaning that being able to say, even sincerely “I believe in the bible and that it is God´s Word ” is not what makes one a christian. Heck, the bible itself points out that satan knows that the bible is God´s Word and is true doesn´t it?

    So then my question was this What exactly IS it that uniquely qualifies that word “christian ” to be applied to someone or something? Since it is not “someone who believes in the Bible or that it is God´s Word”?

  • Grace

    fws – “So then my question was this What exactly IS it that uniquely qualifies that word “christian ” to be applied to someone or something? Since it is not “someone who believes in the Bible or that it is God´s Word”?”

    If they don’t believe in God’s Word, what would be your answer fws?

    What would they believe in without the Word of God to tell them who He is, who is Son is, who the HOLY Spirit is? – what book would tell them, if it isn’t the Bible?

  • Grace

    fws – “So then my question was this What exactly IS it that uniquely qualifies that word “christian ” to be applied to someone or something? Since it is not “someone who believes in the Bible or that it is God´s Word”?”

    If they don’t believe in God’s Word, what would be your answer fws?

    What would they believe in without the Word of God to tell them who He is, who is Son is, who the HOLY Spirit is? – what book would tell them, if it isn’t the Bible?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Grace @145

    But again, Jehovah´s Witnesses and Mormons claim to hold the Bible to be God´s Word, even God´s inerrant word. And they claim even to believe that Jesus is Savior. So what is it that makes something or someone a “christian”?

    What makes some thing “christian”? Is there such a thing as “christian” morality for example? If you think the answer to this is yes, then how are the actions of christians any different than the actions or morality of pagans for example?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Grace @145

    But again, Jehovah´s Witnesses and Mormons claim to hold the Bible to be God´s Word, even God´s inerrant word. And they claim even to believe that Jesus is Savior. So what is it that makes something or someone a “christian”?

    What makes some thing “christian”? Is there such a thing as “christian” morality for example? If you think the answer to this is yes, then how are the actions of christians any different than the actions or morality of pagans for example?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 146

    Let me try another way:

    What is it, alone, that only a christian could do or say that no one else could.

    Second question that looks like the first that looks like the first question but is not…..

    What is it alone that makes one a christian? Or is there a list of several things? What is the difference between a christian and any other believer?

    Finally, since this is where I questioned our dear SB….

    Are there thing that can be said that no non christian would ever ever assent to, our would even be repulsed by? What would that list look like?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @ 146

    Let me try another way:

    What is it, alone, that only a christian could do or say that no one else could.

    Second question that looks like the first that looks like the first question but is not…..

    What is it alone that makes one a christian? Or is there a list of several things? What is the difference between a christian and any other believer?

    Finally, since this is where I questioned our dear SB….

    Are there thing that can be said that no non christian would ever ever assent to, our would even be repulsed by? What would that list look like?

  • Grace

    fws –

    You have asked many, many questions – of which I have given answers (albeit you don’t like, or are unwilling to accept )

    YOU do not answer questions, instead, you come back with a few more, second time around – not to clever fws.

  • Grace

    fws –

    You have asked many, many questions – of which I have given answers (albeit you don’t like, or are unwilling to accept )

    YOU do not answer questions, instead, you come back with a few more, second time around – not to clever fws.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @148

    ok so I am not clever. That is not new news. Shallow end of gene pool when it comes to brains. Guilty. ok.

    what questions do you have for me dear Grace?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @148

    ok so I am not clever. That is not new news. Shallow end of gene pool when it comes to brains. Guilty. ok.

    what questions do you have for me dear Grace?

  • Grace

    fws -

    Questions? you can’t read them? – they have question marks (?)after the question.

  • Grace

    fws -

    Questions? you can’t read them? – they have question marks (?)after the question.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @150

    Yes i keep asking the same questions. I guess there might be a reason. Not alot of questions. the same ones. I will leave you be. I dont want to be unfriendly. Hit me back if you are really interested in engaging me dear grace.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    grace @150

    Yes i keep asking the same questions. I guess there might be a reason. Not alot of questions. the same ones. I will leave you be. I dont want to be unfriendly. Hit me back if you are really interested in engaging me dear grace.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X