Weekend Open Thread
Paper apologizes, to some, over Obama cartoon
Demonstrators led by civil rights activist Al Sharpton chanted "End racism now!" outside the parent company's skyscraper in midtown Manhattan and called for the jailing of Rupert Murdoch, whose international media conglomerate News Corp owns the Post.
Have a wonderful weekend.
Submitted by Ender on Fri, 2009-02-20 11:11
Tags:
Comments :
I have the feeling that if...
Brady Quinn, white QB on Cleveland Browns roster, was traded. And a Cleveland paper after a Chimp was shot in Erie, Pennsylvania, ran the same cartoon, with the caption, "We'll I guess he won't throw any more interceptions." Al Sharpton, and others, would find a way to think the cartoon was a scathing jab at Romero Crennel, who happens to be black.
Elaine: So Mom and Pop's plan was to move into the neighbohood, establish trust for 40 years, then run off with Jerry's sneakers?
Kramer: Apparently
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
...and called for the jailing of Rupert Murdoch...
The first (or the 2nd) ammendment apparently just isn't all that popular with some liberals.
No so fast
Not all speech is protected.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
That cartoon certainly was.
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Agreed there
Even under SCOTUS jurisprudence that wasn't a call to violence, and I tend to be even more liberal than them with the "free speech" provision.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Just as a little heads up
Rupert Murdoch has gotten somewhat more liberal in his old age, especially since he married a younger woman, who has softened him on some of his hardline positions.
Murdoch is absolutely livid with the guy the put that cartoon in the paper, said the guy who wrote is biography.
If the monkey had been labeled 'Congress', and been hanging from a rope, it still does not negate the fact that ropes have a certain race specific symbolism as do monkeys.
If the face eating gorilla had been hung by a rope, the day before the cartoon, that is still no excuse for the blatant racism that is evident in this cartoon, that is specifically directed at the President of the United States.
Yes free speech is alive and well. The Post published the cartoon. Folks that don't like it are protesting. That is free speech and the protesters have as much right to their free speech as the cartoonist.
Inflammatory rhetoric is alive and well. Calling for Murdoch to be jailed..... yeah it's over the top, but is anyone drawing a cartoon with a symbolic picture of him being shot be the cops.
You can hate someone if you like, but advocating for their death with a cartoon is abhorant.
Even if you want to play wiggle the pointer, having a picture of cops shooting, all of Congress, is way over the top and promotes violent acts.
Are we saying that it is ever so groovy to just shoot folks who you disagree with?
If the cartoonist doesn't like the reaction he is getting, tough. Free speech works both ways.
I'm only half stupid
Touche, touche means your'e wrong right?
Serious?
...it's a political cartoon.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Exactly, and the way the Post responded to the chorus of...
...liberal saints expressing their outrage was perfect, they apologized to those it may of offended, and pointedly did not to those that were just seeking a target to point their partisan finger.
Case closed next case.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Careful
The Left doesn't have a monopoly on false outrage, but I agree that they're trying to corner the market here.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It's a political cartoon
that promotes violence, as in murder.
That's my beef.
I'm only half stupid
Now you just made me quote John Stossel
Gimme me a break
And this cartoon says that Dick killed Padme and is working with Palpatine
, I'm aghast.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Come on, Brutus
That's beyond a stretch. The cartoon of cheney compares him to a fictional character, it doesn;t even show him killing someone else, much less he himself beign killed.
Look I think the cartoon was in terribly poor taste and the people who posted it had to know it had seriously disturbing racist overtones (and if they are stupid enough not to see that they really shouldn't be running anews paper anyway).
That said I do think the cartoon falls under first amendment rights (although it starts to skirt the realm where the Secret Service should be involved). COmparing that to the cheney carton is just insulting though. They aren't even remotely the same thing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Were you expressing your "beef" over this movie?
Cause I bet not...probably got quite a giggle
...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
wel...
from the wikipedia article on that film. That film was a take on an alternative history based on Bush being assassinated, it wasn;t celebrating the idea the way the cartoon really just is. That said Clinton, obviously one of the foremost democratic politicians at the time still openly condemned the film's imagery.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
It was directrd to ML, who has a "beef" with the cartoon...
...thanks for all the superfluous additional background though... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Yes.....!
In each case the violence depicted towards our public leaders is despicable.
I don't condone the violence in either instance.
I guess that some folks can make the claim, regarding the cartoon, that they have been 'liberated' from the racial stereotype that blacks are animals and look like monkeys. That still doesn't negate the fact that the stereotype still exists, or that just because its a 'political cartoon' that depicting violence against political leaders is acceptable.
I'm only half stupid
Was it racist when they drew Bush as a chimp?
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The right loses DOug Kmiec completely
Kmiec writes in the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0217gopfeb17,0,1788854.story
and it goes on...
Kmiec was formerly a high profile social conservative who grew disenchanted with the Bush Whitehouse, appalled by some of their sins. Apparently he's come to believe the problem wasn't confined to just Bush. The loss of people like Kmiec and Powell is symptomatic of the death spiral they are in.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
1. Total opposition is the
1. Total opposition is the only politically viable option.
2. I don't think it hurts to have a party representing the idea of not adding what amounts to something like $10,000 per houshold of national debt onto on of $60,000 - eventually we've got to stop.
3.
Kmiec is absolutely right here. I think what's really hurt the party is that they've been stuck on a simplistic always less spending ( which of course hasn't been followed) and less taxing. This of course would logically lead to anarchism. The public needs to see Republicans actually giving a critical look at what level spending and taxes should be, rather than just stuck on what direction they're going.
4. Kmiec is a Catholic Conservative. He probably figures with some justification that Republicans aren't going to do anything on abortion. And Dems line up with him more on issues of peace and poverty - that's my reading of it anyway.
Laffer
The problem isn't that the Laffer curve is incorrect (it is)*, it is that there is absolutely no evidence that we're on either side of the peak even if it was true.
The Laffer model is incorrect because macroeconomics is much more complex than a simple parabola. It looks more like this
.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Why so little mention of...
..this?
Whether you are for it or against it, at least they have the cojones to admit a human is a human regardless of age. I always found that such a preposterous argument, that a human is not a "real" human until it reaches some arbitrary age where it then could no longer be justified to be murdered.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Really?
Personally I find it preposterous that this:
...is a human being.
As for North Dakota, I have no idea if their senate will pass the bill (I assume ND has a similar arrangement to most states, maybe I'm wrong). If it is I have very little concern that it will be upheld in light of Roe and Casey. This is an attempt to put the abortion fight in the front pages, but I'm not sure that's a wise idea for abortion opponents given the economic woes. I suspect people are less sympathetic to "pro-life" arguments than yusual right now.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why do you have a problem?
It is as human as you or I are, you looked just like that at some point, just because it looks different later doesn't change that fact.
Here' s what it looks like 11 weeks later;
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
No I never looked like that
because when "I" looked like that "I" wasn't me. If you see my point.
It is not as human as you or I, it is as human as any tissue in your body (or mine) because that's all it is; a tissue. Part of a whole.
This point of view is just as valid as yours (yours is not a fact, contrary to your statement).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
No it is not just a tissue...
...A liver tissue is part of a... "liver"...a brain tissue is part of the.."brain"...and in a pregnant woman after conception an embyo tissue is part of....a seperate human baby.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Sperm and eggs are part of that human
You don't find calling a zygote a human, and not calling a sperm or egg a human, a millisecond before conception, just as arbitrary?
I've always found the secular "pro-life" argument pedantic and just as arbitrary as some on that side say the "pro-choice" crowd is.
It seems like someone throwing a house party and saying, murder is a crime, I won't kill, but that only applies to those already at the party.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The arbitrary nature of being.
I don't think conception is a particularly arbitrary point to call something human - it is at that point genetically indistinguishable from a fully grown adult, which is not true of sperm and egg. But then again, I don't think it is even remotely close to the point where it should be considered a human being. That point almost has to be arbitrary and subject to opinion, I think, which is why there is such a debate over the issue. Reasonable people disagree - conception, development of neural tissue, viability, birth, first laugh, development of a sense of self - any of these could be the beginning of what makes a human a human being.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sperm and egg
are absolutely genetically distinguished from the mother and father that produced them. Very much so considering one is haploid (having one set of chromosomes) and the other diploid (having two sets).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes, we agree on that
That is what I said - it is after conception that it becomes genetically indistinguishable from an adult.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
lol, well brutus....
...that is how we are created...got to have that egg and that sperm...not much happening without them.
But they are parts of two people, not part of a human, and once they join, it is a third individual, and without terminal intervention will thrive as a human functions.
So yes, I think the millisecond before conception, no life, the millisecond after, life.
Seems much more specific than the truly arbitrary x weeks unless this or that trimester with this exception.
I think this is a absurd issue for anyone to debate, it boils down to grasping at straws on the part of the left. it is as clear as the nose on your face, which was at one time the very thing you claim is not life?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You have to justify this, RW
Why is it that the sperm and egg are parts of another person but the fertilized egg is a whole new person?
I also think this is an absurd issue, funny thing is I think it's *your* position that is the absurd one. Who would have thought? The idea of personhood starting at conception is a legacy of the catholics trying to decide when god breathes a soul into a child. It is no more rational than the old catholic belief that every sperm had a tiny human being in it that would then grow inside the mother.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Oh Brother...
....here you go on with your catholic crap?
Look, it is just what it is, throughout mans history, when early in a pregnancy the man and woman come to the conclusion that the woman was pregnant, and thus ensue hugs and the wonderful revelation that...there's a zygotic cyst in her womb?
No.
Come on, be real, they know they have created life, a baby, a human.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
And then...
...that couple watched the "sun [literally] rise"
It's more likely for them to know of Pluto, than to know when there was a zygote.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
There is no need for them to know...
...calling it a zygote, or a fetus, is no different than calling it a teenager, or a senior citizen, or any other nomenclature one calls a human at any other point in its life.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's not reasoning RW
that's just asserting.
They are excited that a process has started which is possible to result in their havig a kid. They are excited abotu the end result not the current state. By your logic if the woman miscarries they must have been really wanting that. Of course they weren't, they wanted a child, the process simply got messed up.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I did not claim it was reasoning...
... but it is not an assertion, it is an anecdote for the sake of illustrating a point that has otherwise previously been adequately made.
But you make it better than I thank you very much.
Indeed, they are celebrating the FACT that a child has been conceived.
The rest of your post concerning a miscarriage is convoluted and about as far from reasoning as one can get.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That's not what I said
nor is it a fact.
Conception is the start of a process that leads to a child. Just as an outline is the start of a process that leads to an essay. That does not mean you can call an outline an essay. There's a reason it is a process; because you don't have the end result yet.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Guys, the point at which "human life" truly begins
is a pointless debate.
There's nothing available to end the argument 100%....although I think the stronger argument is still with the pro-choice crowd since a fetus is considered a "potential life" for as long as it cannot survive outside the womb. That's the court ruling. And I think it's correct...or at least the best answer to the issue.
Of course, the pro-life argument is instantly undermined once the pro-lifers start making concessions on the grounds of incest, rape, danger to the mother or whatever. If all unborn life is truly a valid life, then these exceptions shouldn't be on the table for a consistent position about "murder".
Then again, to me, it's simply a private matter and none of state's business because it is a potential life and not a full fledged human life AND it's the women's body and it's her choice.
That's my position and I won't debate it. Thanks.
Aren't most, if not all, left-right issues
ultimately pointless debates by this measure though?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not really.
The foundation of the abortion debate is about the question of life. The arguments are simple and very easy to understand for both sides. There's no ambiguity or misunderstanding. There's no unvarnished evidence anywhere on this earth to decide the debate.
You either choose to accept one definition of life or the other and there's no way to convince...in theory or reality...anyone to change their mind.
This makes this argument unique with few equals. The Death Penalty may be another.
I don't know it kind of sounds like its the same
take tax rate issues. The issues are easy to understand but there's a fundamental disconnect in whether you believe government exists to serve people or not. If not then you don't want any money going to government that doesn't absolutely have to, if so then you are going to be fine with taxation to support social policies. Either way there's no empirical right answer, you see government one way or the other.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You see,
THAT'S different.
There's no way to be steadfast in an opinion without making an assertion of "fact".
The abortion debate has "two-headed fact" for each side's root argument: When Life begins.
Tax rates are totally a matter of opinion. There are no "Facts" about what the right rate is and so on at the heart of any argument.
Another thing,
BTW, on taxes:
That's not THE paradigm. That's YOUR paradigm and you're imposing it on others as if their opinion has to fall along that paradigm somewhere and as if anyone's opinion on tax rates is held with your paradigm in mind. It's not so.
BTW, this is not an opinion. The fact that I don't look at the level of tax rates as hinging on "whether I believe government exists to serve people or not" is just that...a FACT. That is not in play in my mind when I look at tax rates. That may be in play for YOU but that's YOU. You shouldn't assume it's as black and white for others.
You see: in this case, unlike abortion, there's no set and clear rationale for how one forms his opinion on tax rates and why. Furthermore, "serve" can mean different things to different people.
And since I also believe the government exists to serve the people while most likely holding a different opinion on the level of taxes needed than you do, there's obviously something wrong or lacking with paradigm you offer.
BTW, if you choose to respond, please keep it within the topic...which is not about what level of taxes is best.
Notice what I said though
I specifically said "left-right arguments." I acknowledge that there are political views that aren't on that spectrum (libertarianism, one of them) but I think I correctly stated the matter in terms of the left vs right iew of the topic.
I really don't see the distinction you are drawing between this case (just as an example) and the abortion debate. In both cases RW and I have our subjective views of what isbest, and our arguments about why those views are best. in neithercase are their facts to establish when life begins or the propoer role of government, merely subjective beliefs.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Even so, Tlaloc
I'm not so sure it's fair to apply your paradigm as the only "Left-Right" way of looking at tax rates.
Your wording of "serve the people or not" is actually kind of typical of the Left way of framing the issue...as if that's the paradigm through which everyone sees it on the Right (simply because people on the Left do). I don't see that. I think it's a little more nuanced than that.
As for abortion, I don't think it's the same. If pro-lifers weren't so ardent about defining valid human life as beginning at conception, their argument of defending all "citizens and human life" against murder would be rather weak, don't you think? Likewise, if the pro-choice crowd weren't so ardent about defining fetus as a potential human life and not a actual life, their pro-choice argument would weaken as well.
Human life is designed as too not require it to be...
...self sufficient outside the womb John, of course by that standard a new born is not a human either because it can not survive without the same benefits it received in the womb, food warmth, etc.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Defined by whom?
-nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
By the if it was born today it wouldn't survive definition...
...of life.
By that very definition a full term baby is not a human.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You're changing my obvious intent.
A baby can live and breathe without the mother's help. An underdeveloped fetus simply cannot.
Let's not conflate nurturing with what I'm referring inside the womb.
Well I have to ask you then...
...people justify abortions on a variable timetable.
Some babies are born premature and need help breathing because their lungs are a under developed.
I would submit a newborn requires exactly the same nurturing it gets inside the womb, outside of it as well. And the moment of birth has little to do with anything.
And in terms of viability, just because a premature baby has to be assisted in breathing makes no difference, anymore as does the old man with emphysema.
They are both just as human, do we pull the plug arbitrary on the old man because a family member thinks he's an inconvenience?
Of course not. So...?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm smiling, RW
Because this is the problem with this discussion.
The ruling is that a fetus is a potential life and therefore doesn't have the same rights as a born person living outside the womb. I agree.
If you want to tell me that a zygote is the same as a person, go ahead. I don't agree and never will.
Now, as a person with a conscience and personal opinions and inclinations...the law be damned...,I think there's more of an argument (though not leak proof) for late term cases since the fetus is viable outside the womb. Also, I'd have to say to anyone women deciding to wait til late term on a whim to terminate a pregnancy:
What the hell are you waiting so long for to make up your damn F'in mind?!?! Make up your mind, you idiot!!
A women that has MONTHS to make this decision is a fool for making this choice so late in the term without a very, very, very good reason. That's just callous. But that's just my opinion. Like I said, that has nothing to do with the law.
I'm sure many pro-choice people would agree that there's a certain revulsion to seeing irresponsble women deciding to terminate a fetus in the last couple months because, well....just because.
Ya, I was just messing with you...;-)
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm Catholic and pro-choice.
And I'm telling you that that factor has nothing to do with it.
Catholic clergy is pro-life. Yes. But the clergy of all Protestant denominations are as well.
From there, ther is no dependable way to guess who within the congregations are pro-choice or pro-life.
My mother is very Catholic and goes to church every Sunday (I hardly ever go, BTW) and she is grudgingly pro-choice. Does she abhore abortion? Yes. Does she think abortion should be an illegal avenue for women who don't want to bring a pregnancy to term? No.
Actually, no member of my immediate family is pro-life and almost none in my extended family is pro-life either...and they are all Catholic with varying degrees of devotion. My bible-beating Aunt is pro-life...but she was also in the small percentage of people on the side of leaving Terry Schiavo plugged in and siding against the Husband. My mom and other aunt (all of whom are sisters) are church-going religious catholics but they are on the opposite side of this issue from the bible-beating aunt who is basically the caricature of a Southern Baptist Republican. I remember that Easter quite vividly. Watching my non-political mom and aunt side against the bible-beating, highly political aunt made me smile. The rest of the family (all Catholics) in the adjacent room were quielty and whisperingly put off by my bible-beating aunt's strident positions on these matters....while pretending to not be listening in. ;)
Does that mean that no Catholics are pro-life? Of course not. But obviously, being Catholic in and of itself is not the deciding factor. There's more at play than just religious labels.
I actually recall my liberal days and was a bit taken aback even back then at the animosity toward christians in general and seeing "christians" and "catholics" used as perjorative terms. I said back then that it doesn't help the liberal cause to speak in that tone. Being a Catholic and having gone to Catholic school from K-8, I couldn't help but point out the gross overgeneralizations taking place. Moreover, my impression was always that protestant sects like the Baptists were far more hard-line on such matters.
Catholics are among the loosest (on all the tradtional religion-based issues like abortion and science)...regardless of what the Pope or Bishops say on these matters. The fact that Catholics are also among the most evenly split between D and R should serve as a proxy for that.
I can still remember being in Catholic school and learning about evolution and dinosaurs from nuns and priests in both science class and religion class....and with no conflicts.
Faith and science, according to the Catholic church at least, are not at odds with eachother. The bible is not an empowering tool to ideas like ID and creationism over science.
Oh but it does.
It isn't about guessing, it is about understanding the history. In 1974 you have the "Declaration on Procured Abortion."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_...
That document and the proclamations leading up to it are the genesis of the pro-life movement as we know it. Roe (1973) posed a question, and the declaration was the Catholic answer.
Catholicism was the bedrock of the pro-life movement, a wide variety of protestant churches are ambivalent or pro-choice. Besides which Protestant churhes lack the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church.
Now granted over the last few decades the Catholic Chuch in America has become fairly disconnected from the main body. As a result you have Evangelical Protestants moving into the role of the most ferverent supporters. That doesn't change the fact that the basis for the pro-life movement's arguments all comes from Catholic sources. The Pro-life movement believes life comes starts at conception because the guy with the biggest hat said so. It's really just that simple.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Like I said,
the clergy is Pro-life. I agree. That's obvious and said as much in my post. But that doesn't change what the congregation thinks.
The pope and his hierarchical underlings are not a dictatorship but rather a guide. They cannot tell people what to think.
Some follow his word to letter, others don't. Yet others couldn't care less what he says.
Again, I don't deny what the clergy says. I'm simply saying that what the clergy says and what actual catholics opine are two different things.
The Pope can go and on and on until he's blue in the face. It doesn't mean that all catholics are lock and step behind him....not even close. When I see "Catholics", I think of the people more than the leadership. The people are as diverse a group as there is.
A guide?
Acording to Catholicism the Pope is infallible. That's a lot more than a guide. I understand that American Catholics have moved pretty far from this understanding but in traditional Catholicism the Pope is very much a benevolent dictator. His edicts cannot be questioned. You don;t get much more dictatorial than that.
You're talking about the lay people and I totally agree that they exhibit a wide variety of beliefs, but at the same time that very variety is antithetical to traditional Catholicism. Catholicism is not based on having a personal relationship with god (that's the baptists), it is about having a relationship through the Church. You don't interpret god's will, the Church does that for you. You don't get absolution straight from god, you only get it through the priest as an intermediary.
Catholicism is probably the most rigidly heirarchical religion ouside of mysteries religions like scientology. That a great many people who call themselves Catholic don't accept this is to their credit, but in all honesty they really aren't Catholics anymore.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Vague
"according to Catholicism"? That's pretty vague.
According to official Catholic doctrine from the Vatican? Yes.
BTW, thanks for the lesson about the rigid, hardcore interpretation of Catholicism. ;)
If most Catholics agreed with your hardcore take on what it means to be Catholic, the church's numbers would dwindle by 90%....give or take.
Like most Catholics...especially Modernist Catholics...we smile politely at such fire and brimstone talk and laugh it off when the priest isn't looking.
Vague? It's *Dogma.*
Catholicism isn't an open philosophy where it can mean different things to different people. It is a rigid dogmatic religion with very highly dileneated roles and authority structutres. Calling yourself Catholic while not accepting the Pope's infallibility is like calling yourself an American if you aren't a citizen (or naturalized alien). It may sound nice but it just isn't so. There is one authority who determines exactly what is and what isn't Catholic, just as there is law that determines who is and who isn't an American. If you don't accept his rules that doesn't change them, it just means you are out of the group (even if you pretend otherwise).
I don't mean this to be offensive or demeaning but you can't accurately describe yourself as Catholic and not accept Catholic dogma. The term Catholic has specific meaning based on acceptance of that dogma. Without that acceptance the term has no real meaning (or more precisely an alternate meaning; it means someone who sits in a Catholic church but does not follow the religion).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well that's a form of equivocation
Catholic can mean lots of things. Make the 'C' lower case and it means "universal".
However I take your point on "being Catholic". I love the doublethink that Catholics undergo. The case in point is right here: The Pope is God's representative on Earth, but he gets it wrong on condoms.
Catholics are free to believe as they wish about birth control or any other moral issue. However, they have to concede based on their very own belief system, they are challenging God himself on the issue.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Bah.
Most Catholics would laugh at all this.
It borders on concern troll territory.
Not that I think you're a troll or anything.
I just find it funny because the things you and Tlaloc are saying are the kind of things that non-catholics say about catholicism....but not the kinds things most catholics would seriously say themselves.
Agree
It amazes me how non-religious types think they know what religion is. I fall into the category of pro-choice free-thinking free-willed Catholic as well, and cannot help but chuckle when I hear the atheist and agnostic tell me with such absolute certainty what my beliefs and attitudes should be to be considered a Catholic.
I think it's an important enough disconnect to be discussed when necessary, even if it feels like beating one's head against a brick wall; many Catholics and other religious types are a much more natural fit within the Democratic party yet are openly ridiculed by many on the left as being, er, semi-insane robotic Omipotent Oaken One followers ;-) I don't really understand the resistance to learning about the reality of religion. Developing an understanding of something that is foreign to one's belief system is not scary. I have a conceptual understanding of Islam; that doesn't make me a Muslim.
I appreciate someone else taking up this topic on occasion. And I think you've explained the nuances pretty well. Thanks, John.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
It amazes me that
When someone states they follow statements such as:
The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.
The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
By virtue of Divine Right the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.
The individual bishop receives his pastoral power immediately from the Pope.
...but then they definitely have the appearance that they carry on as if the above are just guidelines.
It appears like someone saying they are an astronaut, but they've never have and never will go into space. And the non-astronauts just don't get it.
It definitely appears like the platform of "90%" of Catholics
, doesn't really mean they are Catholics when it comes down to it, since they don't bother too hard to follow the Pope.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
And thus you prove my point
I doubt very seriously that you comprehend what the section you bolded actually means. You read it and see it through your personal paradigm. For example, do you know of anything the pope has spoken on in, say, the last five years, as ex cathedra where such a decree would be considered infallible? Have you read the full exposition of such a decree and do you agree or disagree with its reasoning?
Same for church discipline and government of the church: do you know what that means?
These are rhetorical questions, btw.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
It still looks bad.
To anyone not Catholic:
The Pope cannot be wrong when he's making "official" statements on matters of faith and morals, but outside of "official" decrees he can be dead wrong on the subject and any other.
Excuse me if visions of Seer Stones, DC-8's, an old man behind a green curtain, and Palpatine talking about saving Padme are dancing in my head.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Rationalization is afoot!
Forgive us for reading the dogma of the Catholic church and taking it at face value. Apparently the Pope isn't infallable? He's just some guy who won an election? Enlighten us. Please. As Tlaloc says, I don't think you can truly be a Catholic and not follow Catholic dogma any more than you can be a Muslim and not believe that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet."
Sam Harris made the point that the reason why people are religious moderates is because they've allowed reason to "infect" their faith. We know the Earth isn't 5000 years old, so Genesis must be read as an allegory or the "years" are years in "God's time" (whatever that is). Almost all of Leviticus is horrific to us. Why? Not because of religion, but because we intuitively know that stoning people to death is disgustingly wicked. The Catholic church was out in front on evolution, but the explanation is still that the Bible is God's work, just that we're interpreting it incorrectly.
The correct and reasonable interpretation is that it is a storybook written by human beings designed to scare (or entice) people into living in peace with their neighbors. It also was a handy manual for personal hygene and keeping rivals in check (sleeping around spreads disease, and pulling out doesn't increase the size of the tribe).
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Three final points
First, like any complex topic, reading two sentences and drawing a sweeping conculsion is not the best way of discerning the truth. Think "climate change" as an example of how people use their preferred filters to selectively read and interpret information. If you wish to read the dogma, it is available online
in its entirety. There is an entire section devoted to explaining how the Bible is interpreted.
Second, yes, it is a question of interpretation, as you yourself admit in your final paragraph. And you are no doubt aware that Catholic theology tends to place a different emphasis on the Old Testament than some Protestant denominations do.
Third, I do like your final paragraph, minus its snarky intent. I personally think that that is the function that all good "religions" (aka philosophical frameworks) provide to humanity --reasons and social conventions that smoothe over the inevitable frictions of everyday existence . Most people like to operate within a framework, be it rationalism, liberalism, the discipline of the military, a religion, or whatever personal philosophy they adopt.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
You should go into the priesthood.
You sound just like the hardliner priests that people in the congregation roll their eyes at.
Like I said, if all Catholics truly believed the *dogma*, took it to heart and thought the buck stopped there, the number of Catholics would shrink by 90% or so and they would all run to some more accepting religion.
I have had less than 10 serious discussions about religion face to face with friends and family.
One of them was loosely on this topic with my devout Catholic uncle who is also a deacon (and kind of weird). He'd be part of that 10% of Catholics that fit your description of what a Catholic should be and that would stay after The Great Cleansing.
I basically told him that the hierarchy is not infallible and that they are human and do not have any greater insight than he or I did. He disagreed. I disagreed with him.
I told him I know the gist of what Jesus said and it's good and it's clear to see. I don't see where Popes and priests and the lot get all the authority and gumption to go way beyond that message and take such poetic license to exercise control of people that they clearly don't deserve. They are all flesh and blood and fallibly human...just like me.
My uncle smiled and shook his head. I smiled and shook it right back. I was ready for him to say that maybe I should leave the church (but he didn't). If he had, I was ready to kindly suggest that the clergy leave and take their man-made dogma with them.
Luckily, he just smiled, patted me on the shoulder and told me I was "a piece of work". Indeed.
It would shrink
and rightly so. The problem is that Catholicism is extremely good at conditioning people so that those who explicitly no longer believe in the things that are the bedrock of the faith still call themselves "Catholic." It's not entirely unlike a long time prisoner who becomes habituated to the system such that once freed they are scared to actualy leave.
What you are ignoring is that accroding to Catholicism your uncle is right and you are wrong. No ifs ands or buts, because Catholicism is NOT open to interpretation. It is what ever the Church says it is. This is a "their way or the highway" kind of situation, John. You're on the highway, you just are telling yourself otherwise.
Catholicism is an organization, not a philosophy.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
As you will.
I'm still Catholic as are a lot of other people who think more like me.
Like I said, my the standard you impose, there aren't that many Catholics....including my mom.
The case still is.
The Catholic Church decides who is in the Church and who has an increased chance of getting into heaven...and fafter urther reading I cannot help but see the uncanny parallels to Zoroastrism.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Let it go, Brutus
You're interest in going after the stiffs in the upper reaches of the Catholic Church is stronger than my desire to defend them or the church or anyone.
Perhaps it makes me a "bad Catholic" or defiant "faux Catholic" (let the priest come and tell me so and I'll share a few choice words with him) but I simply don't agree with what you just said. If you and church hierachy feel this strongly about it, well good for you guys. ;)
I'll join the rest of those impure and unholy Catholics in the majority who find this all a tad quaint and comical.
Seriously, I don't take this stuff all that seriously. The passion and drive I see from attackers of the church induces no more/no less eye-rolling in me than the kooks who actually fit the caricature you cling to. And I'm far from alone in that respect.
The Church decides who gets into heaven? OK. That's news to me. And even if they think that, they are off their rocker and doesn't change much else on my end.
Perhaps my lack of respect (or concern) for the dogma of the hierarchy makes me a catholic in name only in your eyes or in the eyes of the clergy. So be it. I'll give it all more weight, concern or interest if a priest ever tries to ex-communicate me for my opinions.
Man, I've spoken more about religion on this thread than I have in years. I had no idea how "knowledgeable" and authorative devout aethists were on matters of religion and what it should mean to others. Being that religion is a private matter to me and that I rarely think about it or discuss it seriously, I find myself in an odd place right now discussing this. I'm actually giggling and grinning at the level of interest in religion from the non-religious as I type this last sentence.
I'd attack people that thought Chumbawumba was a good band too
The sacrament and such.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
So what's the difference?
The church passes the memo along to God and tells Him my chances are better or increased?
Or the church writes me a letter of reccomendation to give to God?
Not sure I follow.
Sacraments
The Church decides which person looking to get into heaven they "help" to get into heaven, and who they don't help.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
So some say.
...mostly people who aren't Catholic and the few that actual buy into that crap about "the church" deciding or helping.
It's very authoritarian
in my opinion and paternal.
I'm only half stupid
Yes it is.
...
It's also complete crap.
No, not really
As far as the Church is concerned, anyone "on the highway" is still a Catholic. Once you are baptised, you are always a Catholic, barring excommunication of course.
Because, well, they are still Catholic. You almost seem to be contradicting yourself. Either the Church is accepting of semi-believers (how else does one "condition" them to still consider themselves Catholics, unless they are readily accepted), or it's a "their way or the highway" situation. It can't be both.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No, those on the highway are *lapsed* Catholics
a nice way of saying "failed Catholics."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Maybe I'm a failed Catholic.
Oh No!
Jeez, I hope St. Peter can forgive me at the gate.
...
...
I might be screwed!
...
Don't get me wrong
I have no love for the Catholic Church and don't regard being lapsed Catholic as anything to be ashamed of. I just want us to be accurate about the matter. As before the Church is an organization not a philosophy. If you don't follow the by-laws you aren't part of the club.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Pass that memo on to my local Priest
I'll make a special trip to mass to give the priest the middle finger during the sermon if makes eye-contact with me.
I met him a few times for various reasons...I don't like him anyway. He's actually quite the A-hole.
I'd rather get religious advice from my puppy.
That's a different kettle of fish
What you have been describing previously is not a lapsed Catholic. Someone who goes to mass a couple of times a year, uses contraception, and voted for Obama is not a lapsed Catholic. A lapsed Catholic is someone who has decided to leave the Church - doesn't go to mass at all, probably doesn't even think of himself or herself as Catholic. But that said, such a person would still be welcome to come to mass again any time they choose, to once a gain be fully a part of the Church. And the Church still considers them to be Catholic.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Oh they certainly are lapsed.
Anyone who doesn't follow the rules of the Church is lapsed because they have failed to followe the faith. Use of contraception is failing to follow the rules. Voting for Obama isn't.
A person who is lapsed can certainly go sit in a pew, but what does that mean? I can do that too. To be considered to have rejoined the Church a Lapsed Catholic has to go through RCIA. Without doing so they remain lapsed.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
hehehehe
I don't think I've ever even met a priest who shares your zeal.
My favorite priest growing when I was an alter boy used to let us drink wine and eat unblessed hosts before mass. He also cursed a lot.
Cool guy.
I hear he's a pastor now. Good for him.
Maybe by your definition
But not the Church's. And I am pretty sure that RCIA is not required. It might be a good idea for the person who really wants to get back into the religion in a big way, but a simple confession is probably good enough for God. :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Indeed.
The God I learned about is all forgiving and all loving.
Live a decent life, be good to your fellow man. The rest takes care of itself, IMO.
The fire and brimstone crap is for the birds...and Southern Baptists and Mormons from what I hear.
Thanks, SL
Your spiritualness and ability to take matters of religion with light heart does you credit.
If I took religious dogma as seriously as some of these guys, I'd hiding under my bed and trembling with a rosary while waiting for Judgement Day.
Good Grief...
The problem John
is that the faith you claim to ascribe to takes these matters that seriously and you are just pretending it doesn't. I don;t know how to make this clearer- on matters of deciding what is and is not Catholic the pope wins and you lose. You're belief in the matter is explicitly wrong because Catholicism has one person qualified and annointed to make that decision and he says you are wrong.
I can't imagine why you try to stay in a faith you obviously don't really belong to. It'd be like me saying I'm Christian except I don;t believe in Christ. Well, no, you can't be a Christian and not believe in Christ because that's the most basic element of faith of Christianity. Without that you are something else. Maybe you share a lot of views with Catholicism. But from what you've said here you don't believe in the faith.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
yeah, yeah, yeah
I know, I know, Father Tlaloc. You remind me of the caricature of breathless priest beating the pulpit with his fist telling the congregation that they're all going to hell if they don't do XYZ. I find that caricature to be impotent and too self-serious.
I really don't care. You're barking up the wrong tree on this. Pretend I'm the Joker and you're Batman in terms of attitude and level of concern. It's really kinda pointless.
My views are not as rigid nor black and white as yours. I also don't worry about what popes and priests say. What Jesus said is clear as day in the bible. I spend little time worrying about what rules and proclamations men posing as annointed messengers of God have pulled out of their arses over the centuries. They don't know any better than I do.
Blasphemy? Maybe to some. I don't care.
If I really thought it was so, I would go through the trouble of officially renouncing being Catholic.
But since I'm more privately spiritual and unzealous and not really a "company man", I'll stay home and watch TV instead.
Game of Telephone
And if modern interpretations can be wrong, what's the stop Paul and the rest to mess up the story 70 years after the fact. Or for the story to be poorly translated or for translated words to change meanings..
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Well, because if you believe in the Bible...
...it is the inspired word of God.
I don't personally, but that's what I gather. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Have you seen translations of the original Greek & Hebrew
versions? I mean the software that gives you the original text (in Greek &/or Hebrew) and split screen is the translation & then next to that is the modern equivalent of what they meant. In both Greek and Hebrew, the written form & the meaning has changed over time, evolved if you will (I know you'll hate that part).
It gives some of the parabols of the old testament such a different point of view than the Kings James version that most church's use.
So when you say, the Bible is the literal word written directly from God......well, what you say it means IS what is up to interpretation & your opinions, no matter how widely shared, do not create 'a lock' on what the message is that is being conveyed. I mean, since the Bible you use has been cross translated from original old greek about 5 times. Greek to latin to modern latin to english to modern english. I mean, it's kind of funny to hear you say it's the literal truth because it's the direct word of god.....6 degrees removed though. Each time tweeked by the interpreter.
Take for instance abortion & the time during gestation when the fetus becomes ensouled. You say it's immediately & I say it's well on down the line. I think abortion while distasteful is not killing another human & I feel unblemished morally in thinking so...even though you disagree.
I'm right for me just as surely as you are right for you. The trouble comes down when you see that if I force my beliefs on you you are still left with the choice of whether to have an abortion or not, while when you force your views on others, they have no choice at all. You feel completely comforatable making others decisions for them. And that's just another example of the conservative hypocrisy I have always found odd.
Wow...
Umm, I don't believe in the bible as the inspired word of God, I just know that is the answer to the question.
I am a meditator, not a bible thumper.
As for your opinion regarding abortion, great I hope it works for you.
I was okay with you until when you couldn't stand it and had to go here;
Listen, breathe when you read, I never have told anyone to do, or not do, anything.
I do have a view of the life issue, and as you have here, I have a right to express it. Whether that would stop me personally from advocating the termination of a pregnancy I was a part of creating, I think depends on many factors, so that's why I have not done what you have done, and judge someone.
I would say a considerable bit more, however I am trying not to endulge idiots like yourself.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Still big on the insults I see. Doesn't speak much for you
ya know.
Funny how you're impudence vieled as summary...
...is supposed to get a pass?
If you want to deal on the level, deal.
If you want to be a smart ass, be prepared to be dealt with as such.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
impudence...you're funny.
parody. your contradictions make good parody.
Perfect example...
I'm moving along, minding my own business, and here you comealong and flat out insult me, and when I call you on it, you post some trivial double talk...
I'll defer to my earlier posts.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Now now.
You can certainly take offense at kindness' first post, where he calls out a conservative hypocrisy and assumes that it is your position, but there's no way that qualifies as a "flat out insult." You even responded relatively civilly, until you called kindness an idiot. Which clearly is a flat out insult. So don't play the victim here, Red_Wing.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well, that's a risk we all take, isn't?
The Golden Rule about sums it up for me.
Blessed are the cheesemakers
Are you implying "atheist" interested in the topic are just pedantic?
Is it close to:
Those "90%": The coffee table is 3' long
non-theist: Huh, I tried measuring it, at it keeps on coming out to being closer to 2'7"
90% : Jeez, don't take it so literally.
&
90% : I don't really "believe" believe.
non-theist: Thanks for letting those 10% a soap box and helping them to think they are in the majority.
90%: Hey it's not our fault
or
Door #2
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
iI'm not sure anymore.
sorry.
I totally side with Tlaloc on this one, Red_Wing.
First of all, the Roe v. Wade ruling and abortion/fetus have absolutely NOTHING what. so. ever to do with the subject right at hand.
Secondly, the fetus is not a true-blue human being until it's born.
Thirdly, the cartoon was in reference to a human being who was a grown adult, and, although it's not a funny cartoon, I don't advocate jail for Rupert Murdoch. That's over the top, imho.
Two different things IM...
I say the cartoon is just a political satire, and is protected by the 2nd ammendment.
And in another conversation all together, I believe a human is a human at conception. That doesn't mean I think we should overturn RvW, we have not touched on that, but it is in my opinion a corageous thing for the ND legislature to admit the obvious fact that once a human is concieved it is a human for reasons stated above.
So 2 different trains of thought going on here dear.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Two things, Red_Wing:
A) While the cartoon may very well be meant as a political satire, that doesn't change the fact that it's offensive. Yet, if indeed that something like that is protected under the free speech amendment, people have just as much right to rebut it and protest it. I wouldn't advocate rioting outside a building over it, but I would advocate writing or telephoning, or even emailing, to express my opinion.
B) On the second thing: regarding Roe v. Wade; I say we can agree to disagree on this one, Red-Wing. Since I'm adamantly pro-choice and don't believe in forcing a woman to carry through with an unwanted pregnancy, I stand by all that I've said and the positions that I've taken on this matter.
Ok...
...we agree on A then, I think they can protest it all they like.
And B, I never said I want or advocate banning abortion, I just believe it is absurd for anyone to argue that life does not begin at conception. :-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That still doesn't make the 11-week old fetus a fuctioning human
That still doesn't make the 11-week old fetus a functioning human being. It's not a functioning human being until it's born, fullterm and outside the womb. There's no excuse for depriving a woman of the right to control her own body and make her own decisions about whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Forcing a woman or girl to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is unconscionable, not to mentional criminal, and, bringing unwanted children into this world is, imho, the biggest crime that one can commit against humanity, and it's the most selfish. Even the tiniest newborn baby knows whether or not it's wanted, and, children who're unwanted very often grow up to be extremely traumatized and miserable human beings.
Also, if people cannot or will not accept the responsibility for taking care of children, then, dammit, they shouldn't be having them.
Also, Red_Wing, what about a young teenaged girl who gets raped, and ends up pregnant? Should she be penallized for that? No, she shouldn't.
Also, far too many teens are sexually active and ending up pregnant, which they shouldn't either.
It is a functioning Human Being...
...functioning just perfectly as it was designed to function, just as a newborn functions differently than a 5 year old, etc. And if you do not KILL it, it will be born, and live, and grow old as it was designed to do from conception.
As far as social problems like teen pregnancy, or rape, those are just that, social dysfunction, and may be a "rationalization" for abortion, but certainly they are not an adequate reasoning for it.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I disagree with you, Red_Wing.
Rape is NOT the fault of the victim, and she should not be penalized for it. Neither should a teenager, who's either been raped or coerced into sex by an older person (which is often the case with teenaged pregnancies), and then became pregnant as a result. These two reasons ARE legitimate reasons for an abortion. To say that aborting a baby is done because it's inconvenient isn't true. Better birth-control methods are in order, and, as I've pointed out earlier, bringing unwanted children into our society and into the world at large is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest crime that one can commit against another human being.
Ship of Theseus
I can find some quotes that disagree with that statement, and from several different sources.
And I don't know why people think a zygote is a full fledged human, but the sperm and egg being manipulated so they cannot join could be considered something completely different by some of them.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I respect that position
In fact, that's the only pro-life position I respect, because it takes the "one cell is a human being" premise to its logical conclusion. Otherwise, you're just drawing the line at a different point than I do, and your line is no better than mine.
I always hear "even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother". The blob of cells is no less a human if it's father is a rapist, is it's grandfather, or both. If you really believe life starts at the moment of conception, you can't be for any exceptions except for the life of the mother (and I do mean life, not health).
I take the life of the mother exception as internally consistent because any abortion would be in self-defense.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I am comfortable with that as well.
And you know, I have not resolved for myself the abortion issue really, I am just looking at the facts of life as I can best identify them.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
At the very least
I know we agree that it is a state matter.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Libertarianism and Abortion
freedomdemocrats.org/node/3026
Is that one of your baby pictures?
:)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It looks just
like the picture of my unborn dog.
I'm only half stupid
That's offensive.
Why are you comparing Tlaloc to a dog? Speciesist.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Pats Tlaloc on head.
Good boy, Tlaloc.
Taking you fellas on is a big job, but I think Tlaloc is up to the task.
I'm only half stupid
You're making this way too easy ML...
(Biting his lip as he says it)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Meh..
Personally I'm a bit tired of the argument. I saw this story. Good for North Dakota.
My prediction will be if it makes it to the Supreme Court (it probably will) I see no reason for the court to now go "OK, now let's call the law constitutional" with no major differences since the last time a major abortion case came before them. It may fall to the states and that's the day social conservatives lose a national issue to rally around. some states will have it, others won't.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Medical Jargon
Pet peeve when journalist don't know what they are talking about.
Immediately after conception, there is no fetus, none
Zygote
Embryo
Fetus
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Interesting how that goes huh? lol...
...newborn, child, adolescent, young adult, mature adult, senior...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
birth is not an "arbitrary age"
Birth is not an "arbitrary age"--it is a process that fundamentally changes the relationship between the fetus/baby and every other human.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
What a crock.
I just don't understand why anyone thinks the chimp reference is directed at Obama. It's ridiculus. What in that cartoon suggests anything about Obama? As Brutus points out, Obama didn't write that bill, Congress did. (Although contrary to Brutus' argument I believe that the President can write a Bill and send it to Congress even though that didn't happen in this case.)
This is nothing more than a publicity stunt for Sharpton and friends.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4bullseye!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Ugh
I find myself in the vaguely uncomfortable position of agreeing with GoRight and Red_Wing. :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
ditto
Does that mean I have to turn by bar red? I see that RedWing already abandoned the yellow bar, so I can't meet him halfway.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Airforce demos directed energy weapon
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=159909
I'm actually kind of surprised they're going with a chemical laser design. A free Electron Laser has some substantial advantages in terms of tunability (by finding a frequency best absorbed by the target you go a long ways toward improving the damage capacity of the weapon).
In other related news apparently work has been going for some time to weaponize ball lightning (or, more accurately, to create a weapon that simulates ball lightning):
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/02/great-balls-of.html#more
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The Tesla coil is coming..C&C Red Alert lives! n/t
.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Build some V2 and Mamouth Tanks to knock those out
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
One of my professors was part
One of my professors was part of the development team for that project. The chemical laser is used because of energy storage constraints, iirc.
Are Society and the State the Same Thing?
I say no.
Are taxpayers and the state the same thing?
That one's seems more murky but I say to that as well.
David Henderson says no to both as well
.
The root of this matter is a comment made by Paul Krugman about a statement made by John Boehner about Fannie and Freddie being rewarded with more taxpayer money. Krugman calls Boehner "stupid" for saying this.
See link for details.
But here's David's reaction:
Krugman and his ilk are the ones driving the wedge...
...between the two.
I am stunned, Krugman is a foreign agent of some sort it seems...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Meh
Or perhaps he was struggling to come up with a topic for the day.
Which explanation do you think is more plausible-- mine or yours? ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Krugman was playing with semantics
Let's say that Boehner said the following (substitute "expand" for "reward")...
...would his meaning have been any different? Is Boehner really concerned about the incentives here, or is he concerned about dumping money into a dysfunctional institution? I think it is the later (for instance, would we want to reward FM after reforming them?).
Boehner is talking like a politician, not a scientist...he's a bit sloppy and is conflating some concepts that are often associated with each other.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
That implies that expansion
That implies that expansion and reward are mutually exclusive. How can one reward FM without expanding them? How can one expand FM without rewarding them? That's a steep hill to climb when talking about a government institution. Making that assertion is going to require a pretty good explanation.
not at all
Expansion and reward typically coincide. I even suggested that by saying that they are associated with each other. However, they are not synonymous. Even if one typically follows the other, they can at least be separated as concepts.
My point is that I don't think that the Congressman is really concerned with reward. Indeed his comment doesn't make any sense if he is really thinking about rewards.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Yes it does. My point is
Yes it does.
In the case of those businesses propped up by TARP, while the money may not have made them profitable again it can still be seen as a reward despite not having expanded them. The same is true for Fannie and Freddie. The management of those two organizations made tremendous mistakes and while they may not be as strong as they once were, giving Fannie and Freddie 200 billion would be more accurately described as a reward than expansion. So I still think you've got to have a better explanation as to why it's not reward but something else. The comment makes perfect sense when thinking about rewards.
We the people
is a collective.
Taxation without representation.
Representation without taxation.
OH wait, is this the Las Vegas mentality. The market free for all. We just did that and it didn't work out too well. Remember?
I'm only half stupid
So what's your answer?
I'm assuming you were just thinking out loud in random thoughts there.
Any state
is a collective, and yes the people make up the state and the taxes that they pay their elected representatives is the government.
The word collective ( read govt paid for by taxes ) is assumed to be a pejorative by the rightists, as if Stalin's return is around the corner. I think that is ridiculous hyperbole.
On the whole the goal is to have a government that is accountable to it's people. If the people pay the bills theoretically we are the boss, and we can bitch and vote if we don't like what we see.
When you pay taxes you want representation.
Representation without taxation.... and how does that work. A dictatorship? Authoritarian rule? Prison?
I'm only half stupid
So what's your answer?
It's yes or no and why.
Yes and no
Why not?
*just having fun* ;-)
I'm only half stupid
Having fun?
Glad I could help.
I'm also having fun watching you do anything and everything short of directly addressing the topic.
Sorry,
I have to go to work shortly. Free lancing a bit.
I will be making some income that will pay some taxes that will be used as a bridge loan to FF, so that eventually maybe some of the big banks will benefit by someday having the debt behind their toxic assets turn into capital, that supports the pensions funds of the longshoreman in Norway. That's collectivism.
Or I could chose to not report the income and keep it all for myself. That's individualism.
I'm only half stupid
Good for you...
maybe while you're working, you can think of an answer to the question.
Oh goody goody
Did you really expect less than a pugnacious response, when the implication of your friend Henderson's statement is that Paul Krugman is a communist, 'collektivist' in the most negative sense? Give me a break!
"Every human being has ideological, moral and political views. To pretend to have none and to be purely objective must necessarily be either self-deception or a device to deceive others. A candid writer will make his preconceptions clear and allow the reader to discount them if he does not accept them. This concerns the professional honour of the scientist. [economicst] ~ Joan Robinson"
The definition of state vs collectivism could have many meanings. Since I am familiar with your ideological leanings I assume your definition is filtered through the lens of Austrian economics.
I don't know what your definition is, but there are reams of views on the history of the state and its exact meaning.
I assume you mean legitimate state power as in a legitimate government. (?!?) Is it legitimate to claim that people that pay taxes is directly related to the legitimacy of the state. I say yes to that. The taxes represent the people and the state. The collected payments fund government functions. The representatives have to answer to and be voted in by the people who pay their salaries.
You could also claim that there are stateless groups, still a form of state in the tribal sense, with a cohesive political affinity.
You can say al_Queda is a stateless sponsor of terrorism.
Or you could state the Austrian school of thought is a stateless movement that promotes liberty.
Etc.
With the mention of collectivism, I am not clear how you define that either, but since your friend is describing Krugman as a communist, etc. I assume that your meaning is a state that is governed by a centralized authority to whom people pay taxes. The Austrian theory sees this as a tyranny and infringement on all individual liberty.
I can say our country is a collective. Yes, as in 'We the People", "for the greater good" people paying taxes to the government is a form of collective. The elected representatives of the government collects monies to run the country. My definition of our country as a collective is 'for the greater good, and towards a more perfect union. My view of the loose yet cohesive collective nature of my country is that it is a good thing generally.
I don't know if that is what you are looking for, but I think our definitions are not equal.
My understanding of the Austrian theory is that only individualism can create a more perfect union in conjunction with relative markets that distill freedom to an essence of contracts between parties for monetary gain, without the burden of 'collectivism' or centralized government of any sort.
So from the non-objective view of an Austrian economist any form of control other than monetary exchange and business contracts is an impediment to liberty and therefore collectivism. Taxes contriibute to the tyranny of govt for the greater good that creates malincentives.
Essentially our definitions are different. To claim that Krugman is a fascist or a collektivist in my view is ridiculous hyperbolic rhetoric. It provokes a sense of anger that this man who is trying to do the best he can for his country is being defamed.
From your point of view, calling Krugman a collektivist makes perfect sense.
I doubt that will satisfy you, but that's my answer. It depends on the definitions.
I'm only half stupid
So it's a matter of perspective.
In the same way that support for the evil people of our past was simply a perspective. The people who followed Hitler were not bad, they just thought their perspective was the correct one.
Now I'll let that sink in a bit. Because that's what you just said. You said it depends on the definitions.
With that, anything can be justified. Let me put it more simply. If you wrote that as an answer to John's question in a philosophy class, you would fail.
Also, Austrian Economic theory is not the basis for anything more than the functions of an economy. They are derived from, not the source of, classic liberal theory.
Fail works for me...
I said the definition of state means different things to different people.
I said the definition of collective means different things to different people.
I said one can always assume that no person comes from a perfectly objective point of view.
When your deductive reasoning leaps from different definitions of how the state is defined, to Hitler, then it is difficult to take you seriously.
I'm only half stupid
Well, that was quite a survey of interesting random thoughts
and some eye-brow-raising assertions. I don't quite remember Henderson calling Krugman a communist...but whatever. I don't wish to detract from the main point and purpose of the original post I made.
So I'll ask you again:
What's your answer to the question?
Scroll back up and look at the question. Hint: It's in the title line of my original post.
Nevermind.
You want the answer you want, which is completely typical of the Austrian School.
You are open to no other interpretations, which makes asking the question, essentially pointless.
I'm only half stupid
No. I would like an answer to the question.
Austrian School? Irrelevant.
You're too fixated on things that don't matter (and not even mentioned!) in the topic at hand. You're all over the place.
I can see how it's hard for you to answer a simple question on a simple philosophical topic when every question and every topic is always about....everything. Must be tough being you.
Disclaimer:
**I do realize that by typing anything other than what's in the title line that I am providing more words for you to latch on to and thereby setting up myself for yet another post that doesn't address the question. But that's a chance I'm willing to take.
No really nevermind
You can give me an F also. I will consider that a compliment.
I am done.
I'm only half stupid
we're not in class
no grades to give out, my dear.
But since you want to do anything except answer a simple question, I'm not sure what else I can add since you haven't made the slightest effort to do the simplest thing required to start a real dialogue...which is:
to answer the friggin' question.
Finally, you take the first step...LOL!
Admit you don't have any answers, and your very best thinking only got you here, where you have to admit you don't have any answers. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It's not my problem
that you can't read.
Or that your brain is trapped in a box filled with preconceived platitudes that are dull, and ordinary because they have been used so often they are no longer interesting or thoughtful.
I'm only half stupid
Or...maybe not...
Too bad.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What are you talking about?
Really. What are you talking about? I'm serious.
You don't even have the slightest idea what the "Austrian School" is. The buzzwords you throw out to diffuse the argument are incredibly annoying. Please spend more time reading and less time blabbering. And that's the kindest description I can give to what it is you do here.
MissL on the Austrian School:
She made some comments a few open threads ago with Austrian School in the same sentence.
See Here
I believe this was the 3rd or 4th time in thread that I asked:
I'm still waiting.
She seems to like bringing it up without really saying anything about it.
I have no problem talking about "it" when it comes up but she uses it as some murky synonym for something else that is very political and has nothing to do with economic issues.
Puzzling.
Book list...?
..whenever you have time, no hurries, just trying to not forget. Thx.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'd start with Keynes'
I'd start with Keynes' Treatise on Money and then Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Also consider Hans-Hermann Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.
But overall I'd just check in to sites like mises.org where you can find a lot of literature that's free to read. My public library lacks quite a few of the "good" works on libertarianism and they don't respond too well to books that probably won't be checked out all that often. So I resort to what I can find free and a meager book budget (since buying books leads to buying bookshelves and the downward spiral starts...)
Ah, I see..
...I have read Hayek, road to serfdom, and the constitution of liberty, and I have read keynes general theory on employment interest and money.
I do frequent Mises.org and really enjoy it.
I have not reaad any Hans-Hermann Hoppe that I can remember, I know I don't have any myself.
I am a book guy, it's sick, I am a fairly varacious reader, but will never read everything I have. So why not look for more right...yikes?
Ok, well I thought maybe you guys knew of some treasures I hadn't heard of.
Thanks.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
libertarianism involves no
libertarianism involves no secret books or special handshakes. It's all pretty much out there for anyone who wants to read about it. I really would recommend reading Keynes, though. The best counterarguments are made by those who fully understand the argument itself.
I will, it's been a long time since, so thanks...
I realize it's not secretive, and have been around it enough where I get the idea, but in anything there's always cool stuff to be exposed to, right, so that was my interest.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What kind of books are looking for?
What subject?
Economics, politics...
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
here are a few
Socialism
by Mises.
refutation of socialism on all kinds. Mainly economics but also sociological/philosophical at times....depending on the chapter.
Liberalism
This one is mainly poltical/philosophical about a free society.
Just Economics:
Prices and Production
by Hayek
Pure Theory of Capital
by Hayek
Competition and Entrepreneurship
by Kirzner
Mainly economics with some philosophy:
Individualism and Economic Order
by Hayek
His Nobel Prize is rooted in the some of the ideas in this book.
Of course, there's always Human Action by Mises if you really, really like to read (1000 pages)
Right on, thanks, I will work on those!
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Is Israel a 'collective'
Table of Israeli Tax Rates
http://www.nbn.co.il/site/kb/questions/317/Tax+Rates
This assertion that ALL taxes equal collectivism is nonsense. ALL taxes are a transfer of wealth (hint: they always have been). ALL taxes will lead to some xxxxx (insert boogeyman ideology here)
That populist meme by the rightists is used to work folks up into a lathered hysteria. Such rhetoric is extremist blather.
---------
Henderson's conclusion is at least as stupid as Boners. Perhaps more so. Boner has an excuse he's a politician.
This is what Krugman actually wrote.
I'm only half stupid
Assertion?
You're right. That assertion is nonsense. Only Henderson didn't say that.
That's the implication
isn't it behind all this government spending is bad rhetoric.
Spending will grow the government into a huge socialist monster that controls your life. The government is collectivism. The government is coming to get you. Taxes support the government. Therefore paying less taxes means less government and therefore more freedom.
I'm only half stupid
Well, you misread the implication
...now back to the topic if you choose to offer an answer....
I gotta go against Krugman on this one
With our government as big as it is, and with the fierce competition amongst various agencies for scarce government funds, an individual agency of government can most certainly be "rewarded" with additional funds, or punished by the withholding of funds for that matter. Krugman is nitpicking, and I don't even think there's a nit here to pick.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Agreed. And as I said in the comments through the link
to EconLog:
I highly doubt it.
I don't see Krugman's collectivism here
I've seen evidence of Krugman's collectivism in his writing overall, but there is nothing particular in this piece.
Even if you take an individualist perspective, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "rewarding" what is effectively a non-profit institution. A reward to an institution is implicitly a reward to its owners (actual individuals). The management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may recieve a "reward" by expanding their fiefdom, but that is only relevant if the current managers are the same ones who drove those institutions into the ground.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
You just nailed, 100%, the
You just nailed, 100%, the problem in creating an organization like Fannie Mae.
Those who invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were protected from the loses associated with investing in a poorly managed company because they were government backed. And everyone "knew" it. Fannie Mae is also not
a not for profit organization but they did give 
nonprofits a lot of money. (And just so we're clear, not for you so much but for other people on this board, Fannie Mae was run by a former Clintion White House Budget Director, not anyone involving Bush while a lot of these bad decisions were being made...) We might have been better off if it had been non profit. And I don't think you've appropriately addressed the fact that it was not implied the reward, in the case of this article, was meant as reward for specific employees rather than the entity Fannie Mae itself.
then Krugmann's just lying
If Fannie Mae has not been fully nationalized, then Krugman is just lying about it being "taxpayer owned". If so, my mistake for trusting him, and the NYTimes needs to dump him.
As for management, it seems that most of the senior team has been replaced
(and Mudd has subsequently been replaced as CEO 
), so this funding would not be rewarding the people who screwed up -- it's just hiring some people to do a job.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Fannie and Freddie
were placed into Federal conservatorship 4 months ago, however they were not fully nationalized. Dividends were eliminated but the previous outstanding private common and preferred stock remains private. However, as part of Housing, Recovery Act passed last summer, which Boehner voted for, the deal was for the Treasury to infuse the GSE's with liquidity in exchange for a significant equity stake; so there is now both public and private equity stake in the GSEs, but the private equity stake is junior to the Treasury Stake. The agreement basically stipulates for the GSE's to buy up crap until the end of 2009 and then gradually unload such retained portfolios to the tune of 10% a year, all the while, of course, continuing their roles as a mortgage security intermediary according to whatever new federal guidlines are put in place(which i'm not exactly clear on). I'm also not precisely clear how much of the 75 billion dollar homeowner assistance is geared toward conforming loan performance as opposed to subprime, non-conforming paper performance.
I still don't think you've
I still don't think you've addressed this properly:
I said specifically:
There's no reason to believe the author meant anything beyond floating a company that failed when he said "reward".
I guess you are the collectivist then
That was exactly my point in the other thread where I discussed the Congresman's comment.
If you think that an institution can be "rewarded" separately from the individuals that constitute it, then we apparently have different ideas of what "reward" means. To me, reward has all types of psychological and social implications that don't make any sense when they are applied to an institutional shell.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
We'll make you a libertarian, yet.
That's why libertarians don't like subsidization as a rule.
I don't believean organization and it's members are separate. But you made an important point in separating the "average joe employee" from the CEO, CFO, etc.
An organization can be rewarded without rewarding the bad actors.
But I don't see how any of that makes me a collectivist. You'll have to elaborate.
I was being snide
You seemed to be treating individuals and groups as morally/functionally equivalent, so I made a comment that I knew would get your goat. I hope you can forgive me (darn, there I go being snide again!)
FWIW, I actually have libertarian sympathies and associations, and John has encouraged me to "go gold". I've stuck with neutral purple both because I dislike identifying with a team, and I also have liberal (blue) and anarchist (black) sympathies. To round it out, I would also need to add a little bit of green, and some methodological (not ideological) conservatism.
Overall, I'm probably somewhere between Henry George and Benjamin Tucker.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I think we're close to talking about the same thing.
I don't mean to, if that's how it seems. I'm not talking about reward for any individual specifically. I am talking reward on a more broad, business sense. As in they are allowed to continue to exist because we, the tax payers, through our leadership, Congress and the President, would be providing them the capital necessary to continue to exist despite the fact that the decisions made were not condusive to "staying in business".
actually, Krugman is being stupid
First, the notion of "taxpayer ownership" is nonsensical. There is no connection between paying taxes and controlling FM. It might make sense to say "citizen owned", but "taxpayer owned" is just wrong. Even if we controlled those institutions directly through popular elections/referenda, there is no connection. Citizens can vote without paying taxes. Non-citizens can pay taxes without having the right to vote.
Second, Krugman seems to be applying the "unitary actor" model to government institutions. Political science has long rejected this model as ridiculously simplistic, such that it has almost no utility in explaining social behaviors. If Krugman is not aware of the problem with this model, then he is stupid.
By calling Krugman a collectivist, Henderson makes it seems like this is a moral dispute regarding the relative worth of individuals vs. groups, or about the obligations that individuals have to each other. However, there is no need to bring that moralizing into the discussion -- the idea of "rewarding" FM can be interpreted in an emperical, practical manner. In this case Krugman is being stupid.
However, the most likely explanation is that he is just a hack.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Oh, LOL! The New Boss Is SO Much Like The New Boss!!!!!
Snickering uncontrollably!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I don't know why that's
I don't know why that's debateable. I don't think there' s anything in the constitution that would suggest anybody but citizens have constitutional rights. That's not to say I don't think they have God given human rights, and that we aren't obligated to treat them as such, but that the constitution applies to citizens I think is pretty clear.
Well JM?
Most liberals were not of like mind, they were thrilled when America decided to grant the detainee's at Gitmo the same rights American citizens have
...
But now Barry is doing what he does best it seems, reversing himself...LOL!
But I agree with you.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
constitutional rights for "persons" and "the accused"
Look at the fifth and sixth amendments to the Constitution -- they do not mention citizenship as a condition for protection of those rights. In fact, the fifth amendment uses the term "person" which I have never heard used as a synonym for "citizen".
The obvious difference between Bagram and Gitmo is that the former is inside of a soverign state, and therefore US law does not apply. Gitmo is US territory for all practical purposes.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Enlightening
You have taken a complicated problem and made it easy to understand why both cases seem so obviously similar yet are so obviously different. Much appreciated.
I'm only half stupid
They're military combatants Adam...
...they have no right to habeas under any circumstance.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
On abortion and Whether John's a Catholic
It seems I missed some good conversations so for those interested ( and you all should be :-)) I put my thoughts in one comment below.
Abortion
Tlaloc says he sees no reason to differentiate between a fertilized egg and a sperm and the unfertilized. This seems extremely obvious to me. A sperm and egg together can have all the biological information necessary to grow into a human being, a zygote is distinct from any other cell in a person's body in that it has the DNA of two people. This seems to make it clear that its the cell of a separate distinct human, not that of the mother. Now it can be argued that there's no reason to draw the line here, as this cell is not yet a valuable human life. However, is there any purely logical reason to value human life as sacred and distinct from other life? I think science makes it clear that a distinct human is formed at conception, and my faith makes it clear that all humans should be valued, so its not my faith, as Tlaloc would suggest that tells me when a new human is formed, it is however, my faith that tells me to value that new human. Spiritual Lefty illustrates the dangerous slippery slope of this issue - as he states that certain places to draw the line could be a first laugh, or ideas of self consciousness. What's to stop us from drawing the line at ability to speak and communicate after all isn't that one of things that differentiates us from the animals which we feel free to slay. IM for some reason draws the line at birth - I find the idea that a child who is identical to another newborn who happened to be born two weeks earlier could be a candidate to be torn from limb to limb, to be deplorable. The other idea, which John brings up is that of viability. This I don't get at all, as all that changes at viability is where the child can survive, the fact that it is totally dependent on other humans has not changed at all. The one somewhat logical place to draw the line that I see besides conception is the beginning of some ability to have consciousness. We argue that people are dead when they no longer have brainwaves and it could be argued that they are not yet alive when they do not have them. However, I believe all humans have a right to life and draw the line at conception.
As John wipes a tidal wave of sweat from his forehead...
WHEW!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, Brother John.
You don't know how hard it was for me to sleep last night.
I was about to go down to the local rectory and throw myself at the front door begging for mercy.
;)
It all depends on what "Catholic" means
I take it you go to mass at least every so often. If going to mass makes you Catholic, I'm Catholic whenever I begrudgingly go to mass with my mom.
You can say you're "cuturally Catholic", which I don't know if I'd even call myself that. My mother and stepfather didn't start going to mass in earnest until I lived with my father.
To me, being "Catholic" at the very least means going to mass regularly. However, I don't understand why someone would go to mass if they didn't believe in the core components of Catholicism. A large part of Catholicism is papal infallibility, the sacrements, etc. If someone didn't believe any of that, then why are they at mass to begin with? It seems like they'd be more at home in any number of Protestant churches.
I suppose being a Catholic that doesn't believe all the hubbub is like being a liberal Republican -- why bother? Just switch sides already.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Really?
That's one of the last things that crosses my mind.
Yes really
In fact, I'd have to say that the Pope is the defining feature of Catholicism. The corruption of the Pope and the abuses of his authority were a main reason why there are Protestants.
Taking the Pope out of Catholicism is like taking the British Monarch out of the Anglican Church.
Do you care to provide a definition on what makes someone Catholic? Tlaloc and I have offered ours.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Several:
1. Being born of Catholic parents and baptized in the Catholic Church.
Of course, this makes even John Gotti a Catholic. It also means all the Kennedy boys are/were Catholic...faults and all. But it doesn't change the fact that on any form where they had to mark a choice under "religion", they would mark: Roman Catholic...even if Gotti marked it five minutes after ordering the whacking of someone or JFK marked it while he was banging Marilyn Monroe....that latter one makes a funny image BTW. :)
It also makes every babtized person from the worst to the most wholesome and saintly "A Catholic" regardless of any personal views or opinions...including yours truly.
This is the technical definition of being a Catholic that John Mark pointed out above.
Now, of course, someone can fit this description and grow to question whether Jesus even existed...let alone anything else about basic doctrine. He may still be recognized as a Catholic on the technicality of his baptism but his most fundamental view on Jesus would mean he's basically a Catholic in name only....and will continue to be unless he officially renounces his baptism.
2. Someone who believes all the Catholic dogma...every word...and takes it 100% seriously. Now this person is a practicing Catholic...yet...without being baptized....is technically not a member of the church since he is not baptized. Of course, that can easily be changed by joining the church and being baptized.
Now, in either case, there are indeed differences of opinion among different people.
The funny thing about this entire discussion...as John Mark and PF have pointed out...is the absolutism on these matters from people who don't even consider themselves Catholic...let alone religious on even the most basic level.
Maybe it speaks poorly for most Catholics today but most, IMO, don't think about these things they way you guys seem to. Many are moderates or modernists like me who are basically christian in a very general sense...whether they actively practice their faith or not (and I don't).
Nearly any Catholic would tell you that the pope is the leader of the church. Yes.
Many...and I mean many...would not elevate him to the extreme level of unquestioned infallibility that dogma says he must have. Many might not even be AWARE of this concept.
Does that mean they are not catholics? No.
Does that mean they are not the poster-boy example of perfect and devout hardline catholic? Yes.
Does that mean they don't fit your strict qualification for being Catholic? Obviously
Would the Pope say they are not catholic? I'm not sure....and I don't care. Maybe he would say they are "lacking" or "lost"...yet still catholic. Again, not sure. (and yes, saying "I don't care" doesn't disqualify me from being Catholic.)
Stinerman's argument sounds a
Stinerman's argument sounds a bit like a David Cross bit where he basically says that he's Jewish because his mother was Jewish despite the fact that he's an atheist. Funny bit...
Abortion is an issue where there will never be agreement along
moral lines. That's because every person holds by their own moral stance on the issue, and the agreement or disagreement of others on that person's stance do not matter to the person. They don't make that person's stance any more moral or less moral.
There will eventually be agreement on the availability of abortions as it will be dictated for all to follow by the law. And that's where the battle lies right now. I'm not certain there will ever be a 'forever settled' state because opponents of abortion will fight until no one can have one ever & supporters of individual choice will fight for their rights as well. In the long run, it's the anti-abortion folks that will be most unhappy as I really don't ever see abortions becomming illegal. Restrictions, sure, illegal, no.
is DNA sacred?
So? I don't see why we should give any special consideration to an unique collection of DNA within a particular type of cell.
For what it's worth, I think your argument would be more sound if you focus on the developmental potential of the zygote, rather than the uniqueness of the DNA. Otherwise you may reach some strange conclusions for cloned individuals, or identical twins, or chimeric individuals.
I don't see a slippery slope -- I see people with different standards (e.g. Peter Singer
has different standards, but they are still standards). The slippery slope accusation seems to be based on the presumption that your own standards are the only valid standards.
This emphasis on DNA and "unique human life" also seems problematic in how it relates to modern species concepts. When did non-human primates suddenly become "human" and deserving of different treatment from the animals that we slay? There is nothing in our DNA that says "human"--there is just a large collection of small changes, which appeared to accumulate over a long period of time.
From earlier conversations, I know that you are uncomfortable with letting evolutionary theory impact our conception of humanity, but you did appeal to scientific authority in the above comment ("science makes it clear"), so it seems relevant.
But more fundamentally, I see a similarity in your objection to the slippery slope and your objection to scientific theories about human origins. Both of these objections give the impression that you have already decided on what conclusions you want to reach, and that you are simply searching for some logical system that will justify your prejudices. If you have already reached your conclusions, then less talk about why you have those conclusions rather than dwell on these empty rationalizations.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
abortion, essentialism, existentialism, and emergence
One thing that strikes me about your essay is that you are seeking some sort of inherent quality that defines a human. If that is the case, then my disagreement with you is quite radical--I look for meaning in relationships, not in inherent traits. I'm not a philosopher, but I think they refer to these perspectives as "essentialism" and "existentialism". I suspect that a solid majority of humans hold an essentialist viewpoint, so your arguments (as described above) are probably valuable in general...I just wanted to note that they do not even begin to address how some people disagree with you.
I came to my non-essentiallist perspective basically by philosophical means, but I think that much of modern biology also undermines the essentialist viewpoint when it is applied to living beings. Essentialism has been undermined in two manners -- first was the biochemical rejection of vitalism, and the second was the evolutionary rejection of the species as an ideal type.
There's a webpage that I like which may be relevant. It's called Exploring Emergence
and includes a brief tutorial and simulation describing the study of complex systems. You may find it interesting or not, but I think it is really cool and provides some illustration of some of the general issues here.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Marijuana legalization more popular than Conservative leaders:
yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/marijuana_legalization_more_popular_than_key_conservative_leaders.php
Matt Yglesias has a bar graph up showing public support for: legalizing marijuana(41%), John Boehner(17%), Mitch McConell(22%), Rush Limbaugh(28%), dubya(32%), Republicans in Congress(33%).
Too funny. Maybe pot should run for Congress...just think of the chicken in every pot twists you could take.
Gee, over at Think Backwards huh? Surprising!
I wonder how much funnier it would be if they put that same graph up against their own Pelosi and Reid's
even more abysmal single digit ratings...
Now that would be FUNNY!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
An argument on substance
That would have been an excellent retort if only it were true. A link to a 2-month old rating of congress-as-a-whole is not a rating of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid today. Added to that is the fact that more recent polls have shown Congressional approval skyrocketing
in February. The most current polls 
(warning! link goes to the Great Orange Evil) of Pelosi and Reid have them at 43% and 33%, respectively.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Hmm...I'll check back then next week after the DOW loses...
...a few hundred more points then, or maybe I'll wait a couple more when the unemployment number skyrockets a half a dozen percentage points, or when the stimulus is gone in that big black hole and inflation is running a muck...
...but for now I guess the American people are happy this Democratic congress was able to do anything, even if it is the wrong thing.
Enjoy it will it lasts... Bah-ha-ha-hah.
Oh, and pollingreport.com ...Matt's favorite polling stop and go...well let's just say there's a reason for that.
They are listed as a reference on anti-Bush blogs and liberal webites as a place to get material, I believe they are affiliated with Moveon.org, so take that crap for what its worth.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I believe it will continue to go down.
The FDIC is going to assume management of BofA & Citigroup more than likely. When that happens you'll be able to get auditors to verify what their holdings are actually worth, not what they are claiming they are worth. With that, they'll be able to look over all the mortgage backed securities they own & what they are actually worth. Then they can sell the items, making the market private again at a rate that everyone agree's its worth.
With the confidence built, others will follow. Right now the problem is no one can sell alot of paper out there because they don't believe what folks tell them it's worth.
The markets will go down for a bit. But they'll get better.
Now if I could only get the Obama administration to stop supporting the bush43 Administrations executive priveledge & national Security claims in courtrooms. Then I'd start feeling better.
Good Video
If you like tech, innovation and listening to an industry guru, you'll like this:
http://www.jacklail.com/blog/archives/2009/02/marc-andreessen-the-game-i...
Yep...very cool.
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I agree
Always great to hear from Andreessen.
Surprised that RW was interested in what a liberal like Andreessen has to say.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Oh man... Didn't they have any extra credit classes...
...I'll pay. ;-)
As far as the video, it's not an us or them kind of deal, I just dig to hear super bright, passionate, people gig on their thing.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Back from time away in Utah (without internet access)
Got a lot of posts to catch up on... but I want to say this:
Utah is a very beautiful place.
The people of Utah, overwhelmingly mormon, are the least fun (and somewhat creepiest) people on earth.
Being in Utah is like being an extra in the Stepford Wives.
Every smile seems faked. Nobody is outwardly sad - yet nobody really seems "happy" either.
There's no "realness" to them. Very shallow.
With a few exceptions..... the italian dude that was teaching the course I was taking, he was VERY cool. But he's not a native. The maitre D/Bartender at the mexican restaurant I frequented on the outskirts of Salt Lake City, was very cool. She was an awesome hispanic woman with an infectious and warm laugh.
But the natives.... whoo boy. I live 45 miles from West Virginia, and I always joke about native WV-ians being inbred idiots. But they're mensa material compared with native Utah-ans.
The good news... the skiing is GOOOOD.
The other good news.... 120 miles west on I-80 is a fantastic little casino town on the Nevada/Utah border called Wendover.
All the people at the poker tables there agree with me about Utah. ;-)
This is a very un-PC post by me.... I realize that. I realize I am painting with a very broad brush that is probably unfair and colored by my already strong bias against cultish religious types.
But mormons are freakin' scary in a way that catholics and traditional protestants are not.
Combine mennonites, amish, and southern baptists into a mixed cocktail of religious excentricism - throw in a little wacky scientology-like doctrine, and viola.....
Salt Lake City and surroundings.
I survived the Bush Administration
I could never live there because I like beer too much. :)
n/t
I was able to get beer at most restaurants...
...except on Sunday.
But I DO think the alcohol content was lower....it seemed to take more beer to achieve a buzz. ;-)
Why do you think I drove 120 miles west to Wendover, NV so many times?? haha....
Now THAT town knows how to party.
And one more thing about Utah..... finding a decent radio station was a chore. At night, on the open road, I actually picked up a pretty good station from Nebraska.
There was ONE good sports talk station in Utah, but they seemed to spend 90% of the time talking about the Jazz - and I'm not a big NBA fan.
I really wish my rental car had a satellite radio. Thank Jesus and John Smith for my IPOD. ;-)
Seriously though.... spending time in Utah gave me insight into why religious conservatives are so damn prudish and angry all the time.
They get to have NO fun, and dashgummit, they're going to make sure nobody else does either.
Like I said... God bless Nevada. ;-)
As a side note.... I saw a thread on Slashdot a year or so ago that had google stats that showed that the google string "men kissing men" had more hits per capita in Utah than in any other state in the country.
Repressing sexuality actually leads to MORE deviance from the norm, it seems. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
The alcohol content and the
The alcohol content and the number and order in which liquors can be served is my understanding of the extent of their control. But most of the beers I drink or sample are not made in the "grocery store" 3.2% variety. I like the good stuff!
Got to love the "tolerance" of liberals. NT.
NT.
Heh
Two "broad brushes" don't make a right. PM doesn't speak for all liberals.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Point taken skymutt. NT.
NT.
Saying that a group of people are strange is NOT intolerant...
I wasn't rude to anyone and I would definitely go back.
But a large percentage of the mormon people in Salt Lake City that I ran into were creepy.
It's not intolerant of them to call them weird. I would have to try to limit their lifestyle in some way to be "intolerant". I would have had to ACT on my feelings about them to be "intolerant".
It's not like I tossed my drinks in their faces and shouted "you people are nuts!" I sat silently and observed.
Mostly observed a lot of weirdness. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Good so you won't consider it
Good so you won't consider it racist when I say I went into a black neighborhood and the people were like totally creepy. I mean they pretended to be friendly, but you could tell it was fake and deep inside they were angry and looking for a way to steal from me. Totally creepy people.*
Of course that statement wasn't racist because I didn't throw water in their or insult them to their face.
* As a matter of fact I've had done work distrubuting literature in both black and white sections of St. Louis, and the Black population seems to be much more friendly and giving. That may sound bigoted toward white folks, but that actually is based on objective observation rather than PM's peering into the soul of Utahan's and seeing that there is no happiness.
+5 JM!
Way to see thru the liberal double talk.
Keep your BS goggles firmly affixed!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Lie to Me
PM could just be more perspective than most. Not all lying through communication is verbal.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Or he could just be
Or he could just be a shallow religous bigot, who thinks any happiness deeper than booze and poker is fake.
Do you get extra chits
at the Pearly Gates for being a martyr?
I'm only half stupid
There is DEFINITELY happiness deeper than booze and poker
You have to include sex.
;-)
My personal heaven is a strip poker game with my wife, followed by getting drunk and playing a round of golf, capping the evening with wild sex while someone else watched the kids.
The good news for me, is that most of that is the personal heaven for my wife as well... just substitute the golf and poker with watching a chick flick.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
I wonder what the reaction
I wonder what the reaction would be if I visited an atheist country like Czech and wrote the same thing about atheists.
Fancy some fish and chip?
Or the UK.
And I always get the feeling that Amish are prideful of them not showing their pride. Mennonites are the way to go.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
No reaction from me
Your reactions are based on your experiences.
If the people of Czech were strange to you, and you said so... I'd either agree with you or not.
Who would I be to judge your observations?
I'm just saying, the only difference I see between John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard is 100 years. They both started fraudulent religions in order to make themselves rich. John Smith was a little more successful.... but he's had a century's worth of a head start.
I maintain that Mormons are strange people.
Exhibit A: Glenn Beck. Exhibit B: Anyone with Romney or Osmond as their last name.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Glenn Beck the Infotainer
Jeez, I didn't know Glenn Beck didn't believe in the Holy Trinity like over 70% of Americans.
Get that guy out of here, he's UnAmerican.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Glenn Beck is definitely my
Glenn Beck is definitely my favorite talk-show host. He's too simplistic Red-Blue in his thinking like all the talkshows. But he's by far the most entertaining, and seems more genuine and personable than many of the talk-show hosts.
I love Utah
...but then again my idea of a good vacation is hiking and climbing around on rocks and not seeing much of anybody. Utah is a beautiful, varied state.
As for your reaction to the people of Utah, all I can say is that I find some irony in the fact that you call the people of Utah "shallow", yet you seem to have no use for anyone who is not "fun". It's pretty shallow to want to associate only with those who "know how to party", those who entertain you.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ah, interesting observation skymutt...
Utah is an awesome state, we go skiing at Park City every year we can, and have developed many friends from Utah. I find the people quite the opposite of PM, many of them are rooted in family, and most appear genuine and happy to me.
I don't think the locals in Utah are weird at all, I think it's weird PM convinced himself all the locals fit in some twin peaks episode. (No need to post a video Brutus... ;-)
I only imagine what the locals thought of him! LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I admitted I was painting with a broad brush...
...you are absolutely right about the geography of Utah.
Absolutely stunningly beautiful.
And admittedly, the sample set of people I ran into were all near Salt Lake City. Maybe it's different in Provo or Ogden or other parts (just like Austin is much different than Houston Texas).
It wasn't that they were just different in what entertained them... it was that they were creepy. Red Wing's "Twin Peaks" reference was spot on, unintentionally by him.
They're spooky..... like that "Bob" guy in the Extenz commercials. Forced smiles.
Hard to describe. And maybe that just the devout mormons that were prominent in the area I was in (Bountiful, Utah).
I survived the Bush Administration
I'll tentatively 2nd the original comment
When I take a call from people in Utah they are incredibly nice and patient. In fact, they're too nice. They must have some sort of angle they're trying to work.
Now when I get a call from someone in the Bronx...
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well here's the thing...
...and feel free to tell me that I'm way off base here, but I doubt that you really determined that the "creepy" people that you ment were the "devout" ones... I'm guessing that you are projecting your negative views of "cultish" religions onto the situation, and that is causing you to assume that the people that you meet that are "creepy" are also the most devout, or that they are even mormon at all. Utah's population is only 70% mormon and Salt Lake City is only about 50% mormon according to this
.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Why'd you have to do that
Here we were having a good time stereotyping people we don't know and you had to bring reason and logic into it.
You spoilsport.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I said as much in my first post on the subject
My anti-mormon bias no doubt colors my views. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
Alright, fair enough, except...
When you said that, in that post, you sounded like my elderly neighbor, who will say stuff like "I know this is going to sound really prejudiced, but..." and then she usually launches into something against group X that is... very prejudiced! So in a sense, she just uses that qualifier to excuse herself for saying any old racist thing she wants to say, and it really doesn't mitigate the unfairness of what she's saying. That's why I just kind of ignored the fact that you admitted that you were painting with a broad brush, and went ahead and criticized your statements as if that part weren't even there.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Twin Peaks
Thanks for reminding me that I was going to borrow that from the Library!
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
My theory
Anyone that is happy isn't paying attention or is in denial.
Yes, I'm in another one of my moods right now, but this is how I always think.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That's classic, cause I always say...
Anyone that isn't happy isn't paying attention or is in denial.
;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Must be nice
to be an optimist.
I don't mean to sound sarcastic or snarky. I really mean to say it must be nice to have that kind of world view.
I like to call myself an "idealistic pessimist". We, as a species, can do much, much better, but we won't any time soon because a select few ruin it for the rest of us. In this case the select few are the brutal dictators of the world who oppress their own people and refuse to live in peace with their neighbors.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Take the long view, Stiney
and be a little pragmatic and realistic about outcomes...all things considered.
If you do these two things, you;d clearly see how things really do get better over time.
We're moving in the right direction though it's not a perfect straight line:
Fewer dicitators
more free peoples
less poverty
more comforts
better and better sharing of ideas
It goes on and on. Sure, we can look for the negative but any generation can always leave plenty to be desired. But honest look always acknowledges the progress too.
How old are you?
Certainly not my age with that attitude.
We demand change yesterday and instant gratification. It is both a flaw and our saving grace.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You are what you wish to be
You are what you wish to be. You are not just some label someone slaps on your generation. It may fit you, but if so, it is only by your choice. They may draw the box, but only you can step inside it.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I just turned 36
But I'm so sure how much that even matters.
We all may want instant gratification and change to happen yesterday....but then there's what we realistically expect. And that difference...and the degree of that difference...is partly influenced by age I suppose. But a larger part of it is simply perspective and world view.
progress -- it's getting closer to midnight!
Check out the doomsday clock
.
For those of us born in the late 70's, here's what we've experienced.
1) Our childhood was in the 80's -- the thought of nuclear armaggedon was constantly introduced into our minds (but no "duck and cover" drills!)
2) We came of age in the 90's, and everything was looking good.
3) Now, we're getting pretty close to midnight. While the chance of a nuclear explosion has gotten fairly high, the chance of a full-scale, global nuclear war is pretty slim. Let's see how Russia handles the current economic situation.
But aside from this one issue, I'd say "it's getting better all the time"
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Wow, the doomsday clock...
...hadn't seen that one for a long time...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
fewer free people...
According to Freedom House, the expansion of freedom has hit a roadblock recently. Also, the near future, with its economic problems, could see some sudden changes in the total amount of human freedom (for better or worse).
From Freedom in the World
:
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
These are indeed rough times
hopefully, hindsight will show it to be a slight dip on an ever ascending line.
not trying to be a sourpuss
I too expect scientific, technological, and economic progress.
However, I'm not too sure about political progress (more freedom, fewer dictators, less corruption). Political shifts seem to involve a large number of one-time events, either increasing or decreasing freedom. Through the 1990's we saw the reform of the Stalist countries, which was great...but that phase seems to be over. There's still room for improvement around the world, but I don't see anyplace where I have high confidence in there being improvement in the near term.
I hate to admit it, but the best prospects seem to be with Iraq...possibly leading to reforms in other traditionally secular Arab states.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.