Wednesday Open Thread
British PM Gordon Brown will be in town to urge Congress to free their markets and give up protectionism. That's right. The leader of the Labour Party in the UK is telling Congress to be less socialist.
Twenty percent of Americans with mortgages on their home are underwater -- that is, the balance of their loan is more than the estimated value of the property. Florida, California, and Nevada were the worst hit.
Submitted by stinerman on Wed, 2009-03-04 10:35
Tags:
Comments :
Austrian vs. Keynesian...Cliff notes style
...or even "a Cliff Notes version Cliff Notes"...or perhaps even just the blurb...by Arnold Kling
....
(Kling BTW is NOT an Austrian)
Very straightforward and to the point.
The context is the discussion of points made by Michael Mandel
in which he says that much of gains from 1997 to 2007 were illusory.
Pay those taxes - cause we rollin - we won - and we rollin...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
lol. Do you have link to the
lol. Do you have link to the source?
Bus Beheading Suspect Pleads
And just who the hell are we to say that God didn't tell him to do it, or that it was unreasonable (let alone "insane") for him to believe that his sense that God was telling him to do it was false?? I mean, many people claim that God tells them things (including one fellow SCer whom I happen to like and who is very intelligent, rational and sensible in all other matters), and they have no more proof and no more reason to believe that their sense of such communication reflects reality, so why should anyone presume that God didn't actually tell this guy to kill, behead and eat the other dude?
(heck, not that the preceding sarcastic argument depends on it, but according to most "persons of faith" it wouldn't be the first time God told someone to kill someone else, even to kill an innocent person)
Who's telling him that God didn't tell him to do it?
Nobody as far as I can tell. Maybe God did tell him to do it, who's to say? Either way if the jury finds that they believe that "he believed God told him to do it" then they are likely to not convict him, right? And is this not the exact outcome God would likely endorse under those circumstances? Funny how that works out, isn't it?
God truly does work in mysterious ways! :)
Disclaimer: I am actually agnostic, the only truly rational position to take since atheists are just as insane as the believers.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Who's telling him that God
Put two and two together, GR (or more precisely, draw the obvious inference). His lawyers and a psychiatrist are saying that he is severely mentally ill -- schizophrenic -- apparently largely or completely on the basis that he believed God told him to do it. Inherent in that conclusion is the premise that God did not actually tell him to do it, but rather than he just imagined that communication and falsely sensed it to be real.
And in your scenario...
...the jury would be saying so, too.
You are factually incorrect.
You are claiming that they are telling him that God didn't tell him to do it. There is nothing in the story where they say that. If there is, please highlight the direct quote for it.
What they are saying is the he is mentally ill. Why are they telling him that? Because a psychiatrist has judged him to be schizophrenic. I sincerely doubt that the psychiatrist came to this conclusion based solely on his claim that "God told him to do it". I am sure a psychological examination was performed, so to claim that the sole basis (or even a significant portion of the basis) for this diagnosis was his appeal to God is just silly on its face.
If all someone had to do to "beat the wrap" was to claim God told them to do it then everyone would be doing it, yet we know that isn't the case. Besides, the whole stabbing and dismembering of someone you don't even know is a pretty decent clue to mental illness as well, wouldn't you say, I mean rationally speaking? And that doesn't even require an appeal to God.
Are you an atheist?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4People with Mental Illness don't get the benefit of the doubt?
But they're still assuming that just because he's schizophrenic, that he was just having a schizophrenic episode, they're not accepting his personal testimony.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
to claim that the sole basis
to claim that the sole basis (or even a significant portion of the basis) for this diagnosis was his appeal to God is just silly on its face.
No, GR, that statement of yours is what is silly. It is quite reasonable and sensible, based on that paragraph in the article, to connect the claim that God told him to do it to the diagnosis of mental illness, schizophrenia in particular.
As for whether I'm an atheist or agnostic, I consider myself an agnostic, but I have heard some definitions of atheism that might include me. I don't assert that there is no deity or other supernatural force that created the universe. I don't know, and I think it's unknowable. That's my view because I can't conceive of the beginning of time, but I readily (and frequently) qualify that view by admitting that I haven't read up on The Big Bang, and it's quite possible that there could be a beginning of time. If / when I ever get around to reading up on it, and if I am satisfied that there could be a beginning of time, perhaps I'll become what I consider an atheist. But it's not high on my to-do list, because even if there is some "creator", it's a huge, irrational jump from there to believing any (or anyone's) version of what it is, what it has done, what it wants me to do, etc.
Actually, I think GR is
Actually, I think GR is probably right and the defense has to be basing their defense on something besides the man's claim to hear God telling him to kill the guy. Generally schizophenia is not so compartmentalized as BR imagines. Schizophrenics have a breakdown in critical thinking where they accept anything that comes to mind without any critical thought (I realize this is what BR thinks I do inre to religion, but its not such a localized thing, if I were under psychosis I would not likely be doing reasoned conversation), they also have syptoms of flight of thought and a complete lack of order to their conversation. While religous faith and schizophrenia are arguably the same inre to relation to reality ( they're not but for the sake of arguement...) they're are most clearly quite different than anyother form of mental illness, and that is something a critical thinking atheist should consider.
BTW, a very close familly member of mine suffered from brief reactive psychosis, so I have a bit of an extra interest in the topic. It also caused me deal with religion as illusion... even though BR is seems rather convinced I've never had serious doubts.
Only for the rationally (and mentally?) challenged ...
There is no way that he was diagnosed as schizophrenic simply based on his claim to have been told to do it by God. That is ridiculous on its face. Again, if it were that easy to get off on an insanity plea everyone would be doing it. They aren't.
Even so, you remain factually incorrect. No one appears to have told him that he was wrong about having heard God.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Doesn't follow
If the lawyers thought he talked to God and God ordered for the killings, they couldn't use the mental defect defense. His mental defect would be irrelevant.
By the mere fact that they are issuing the mental illness defense, they are saying that he didn't receive those commands from God.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You're right ... what you are saying doesn't follow ...
Saying someone is mentally ill does NOT imply that they cannot have heard God. He can certainly be mentally ill AND still have heard God, no?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm agreeing on the latter point dude
The lawyers obviously don't believe he talking to God on the bus.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
We don't know that.
They are lawyers after all, they say what is expedient for their client not necessarily what they believe.
For the rationalists on the jury, they are saying "look, this guy is mentally ill" because that is the rationale that that group will accept to acquit.
For the spirtualists on the jury, they are saying "God told him to do it" because that will have sway with them and hopefully get them to acquit.
It all makes sense when you think about it! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4small clarification
The lawyers don't believe their client if the client is still saying God made if do it. Otherwise they wouldn't be issuing the defense.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
This is clearly not true.
They are lawyers. They are not hampered by the bounds of truth. If they thought saying their client believed that Pigs can Fly they'd say it. *
-----------------------------------------------------
Side note: Pigs really can fly, btw. So can people. They do it every day (the people, not necessarily the pigs)!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Please stay away from straw
Please stay away from straw men or inadvertent shading of my argument. You seemed to (perhaps) get it right the first time (you referred to the "sole basis (or even a significant portion of the basis) for this diagnosis"), so I assume you know I wasn't saying their diagnosis was necessarily "simply based" on his claim that God told him to do it. But again, a very reasonable, sensible understanding of that paragraph is that the diagnosis of schizophrenia was based in large part on that his perception of God telling him to do it and the presumption/conclusion that this was a hallucination on his part. It's also possible that this hallucination was just one among many factors on which the diagnosis of schizophrenia was based, but that the hallucination was nevertheless a symptom of this schizophrenia. In either case the lawyers are implicitly claiming that God did not, in fact, tell him to do it.
They aren't orthogonal
I'm an agnostic atheist. I have no idea if there is a Creator or not, but of what I can tell there isn't. I may be wrong.
There is no reason to belittle anyone who hypothesizes that there is no God. There is plenty of reason to belittle someone who is sure there is no God.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
1. Religion is the reason we
1. Religion is the reason we know what this guy was wrong, if we're all animals, than killing is just a part of nature that brought to us where we are today, stronger nations should be killing weaker nations in the name of progress...
2. Saying someone had spiritual illusion so all spiritual reality is an illusion, is like pointing to someone who has halucinations and saying basing any view of reality on what we see must be false.
3. I probably don't have time to get into an extended conversation on the topic, so be forewarned...
Is your #1 just a version of
Is your #1 just a version of that same old absurd contention by some "persons of faith" that people cannot or will not act morally (i.e., act in any way but out of pure self-interest) without religious doctrine and fear of some big, bad guy in the sky who's always watching? If so, well, believe it or not, I wouldn't mug an old lady for her money even if I was virtually certain I could get away with it, and I'm the first guy on the subway to give up my seat for an old lady (not to single out old ladies, but I may as well maintain some symmetry in my examples).
I thought of your #2 before posting. It's hard to explain why one should be able to distinguish between perceptions of actual physical stimuli through the senses (e.g., actually hearing some voice) vs. imagining such stimuli (e.g., imagining some voice), except to make the perhaps circular argument that an inability to distinguish between the two is generally regarded as a form of insanity*. One difference is that there is corroborating evidence through which much of reality can be verified reliably in all sorts of ways by anyone and described/measured with whatever degree of precision the tools of observation and measurement allow. Certainly perceptions of actual physical stimuli vary somewhat, and certainly persons of faith can imagine similar things (particularly if coached, as they generally are), but there really is no comparison between the two in terms of reliability of verification of at least certain key aspects of an actual physical occurrence or dynamic vs. "perceptions" of supposed metaphysical occurrences, particularly if proper controls are applied (and I mean reliability in the scientific sense -- that the observation or measurement can be repeated by anyone and get essentially the same result if done the same way).
* Out of curiosity, when you think God is talking to you, do you think you are hearing an actual audible voice that others could here if they were present? Does it "sound" any different to you than when a person speaks to you in terms of your sense of hearing (and do you "hear" words at all, or is it some other form of communication or influence)?
1. No, its just the logical
1. No, its just the logical application of Darwinism. We don't get from one species to another by being nice. I appreciate that there are naturalistic people that have good morals, but I think if one were to take philosophical naturalism to its full conclusion, than there really is no morality: first, there likely is no choice ( and kudos to you for taking your logic all the way here), 2. Even if there was choice, selfish action is just nature's way of advancing life.
2. The only way you can verify your senses is by your senses.
As to your last point, I am no prophet, I do not hear the voice of God, see visions... God has given me faith, and internal awareness of His giving of the Bible as truth, I've also had impressions a few general impressions effecting my life such as a call the Ministry, and perhaps certain applications of His word in my life, however, I've never had any prophetic revelations.
That's a misconception
altruism occurs in nature because it is often a viable strategy to propagate the species. Mammals for instance put a lot of effort into care for their young because it means the young can be a lot more complex leading to more complex and adaptable adults. Its an investment that pays off and darwinism or really evolution often finds those paths advantageous.
There's a difference between saying there is no universal morality and saying there is no morality period. Some system of universal morals most likely requires a supernatural source.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You are correct in your
You are correct in your recollection and application of my point that free will does not really exist and thus in the truest sense one does not deserve credit or blame for the morality/immorality of his actions, but of course I meant "selfish" and "moral" in the conventional sense of those words. If you were not implying that religious faith is necessary for us to act unselfishly or morally (in the conventional sense), then what was your point #1? Was it that without religious doctrine we cannot have any sense of morality, that it cannot be something we value in ourselves and in others, and that we cannot judge the morality of an act?
Re: #2, You may be missing my point re: the difference between the reliability of verification of (presumably real) physical stimuli vs. the reliability of verification of someone's claim that God told him to do something, as well as the admittedly hard to describe and perhaps circular point I made that the ability to distinguish between perceptions of (apparently) actual physical stimuli (e.g., a person's voice) vs. imagined sensations (e.g., imagining a person's voice) being part of sanity.
Re: your last paragraph, how would you assess the credibility of someone who claimed that God spoke to him (he "heard the voice of God") and told him something in particular?
Do you have any view of the likelihood that God actually told that guy in Canada to kill, decapitate and cannibalize the other guy (if that's what he's claiming -- and assuming for the sake of argument that he really believes it) ?
Aye, now there's the rub, eh?
Is this presumption on your part anything more than an article of faith in your own personal world view?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4oh geez. Tiresome, GR. We've
oh geez. Tiresome, GR. We've been through this before. Yeah, yeah, yeah -- it's possible that all of life or any part thereof is a mere illusion and we have no way of ultimately knowing anything with certainty. Now go ahead and make the absurd jump from there to the conclusiong that we can't distinguish between the perception of a clear, severe psychotic and your perception that what you see in front of you really exists and is really there. Happy now?
I just want you to admit ...
that your belief system is based just as fundamentally on faith as the religious folk that you seek to deride. Thanks for admitting as much above. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ya, but
My faith in that no one is after my lucky charms is better than someone's faith that the Reptilian Humanoids are here to stay.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Hate to break it to ya', but
Hate to break it to ya', but you're far from the first person to come up with that absurd assertion of equivalence, although it usually comes from a "person of faith" whose reason is clouded when discussing this stuff (by definition). Unfortunately for you (as an agnostic), you have no such excuse
I think its possible to have
I think its possible to have some idea of morality on a somewhat objective basis. For example, I think an eternally burning hellfire would certainly be immoral, the way I look at morality regardless of the fact that God created the hellfire. However, don't think there is any real "should" or "ought" in a purely naturalistic system, anymore than hurricane shouldn't take lives, well yes of course it would good if it didn't, but there really is no "should"
As to how I would judge a person who believed God spoke to him. I would use the Bible as a guide. I also believe that a general breakdown in reasoning and the order of thought would be a sign that it is not of God as God is not the author of disorder.
[I] don't think there is any
I'm not sure if I'm just not understanding what you mean or if that statement is tautologous. By "purely naturalistic system" do you mean simply the absence of a deity or something else? If the former, are you saying that the concept of morality -- that there are things that people should do and should not do, acts that are right or wrong, moral or immoral -- would be inapplicable, that I would have no reason, for example, to feel morally obligated to give up my seat to an old lady on the subway, or for that matter not to mug her for her money if I thought I could get away with it? Or am I just missing what you're saying?
Can you elaborate? Would there be some general criteria in terms of fit with some aspect or elements with the Bible?
What do you mean by "a general breakdown in reasoning and the order of thought"? I mean, to me, not only would that describe someone thinking that some imaginary guy in the sky is talking to them, but would also describe someone just
believing
in some particular imaginary guy in the sky (with particular traits, history, behavior, desires, etc.). But what do you mean by it?
"What do you mean by "a
"What do you mean by "a general breakdown in reasoning and the order of thought"? I mean, to me, not only would that describe someone thinking that some imaginary guy in the sky is talking to them, but would also describe someone just
believing
in some particular imaginary guy in the sky (with particular traits, history, behavior, desires, etc.). But what do you mean by it?"
First of all there's a lack of order to the thinking. While you find my thinking on religion to irrational, I do not that you would say its inarticulate or without order. I'm not good at coming up with examples, but believe me if you had seen real psychosis up close as I have, you would not be comparing it to religous faith, well maybe you would but that wouldn't speak much for you.
Second of all, its not localized. The person who struggles with mental illness isn't insane when they discuss music, and then totally normal when you change the conversation.
ok, but what if a guy says he
ok, but what if a guy says he sees God up in the sky and God speaks to him, and he also sees and hears all sorts of other things that no one else apparently sees and hears? In other words, in my view he suffers from some psychosis that produces or involves hallucinations, but if contend (and I'm not sure if you do) that no one can really know if his own or someone else's perceptions of sight, sound, etc. are "real", then how would you assess the credibility of that guy's claims?
"If the former, are you
"If the former, are you saying that the concept of morality -- that there are things that people should do and should not do, acts that are right or wrong, moral or immoral -- would be inapplicable, that I would have no reason, for example, to feel morally obligated to give up my seat to an old lady on the subway, or for that matter not to mug her for her money if I thought I could get away with it? Or am I just missing what you're saying?"
No you've have reasons for not mugging her, of course you might have much better reasons for mugging her (what if you're going to give to a much needed charity...) , however, I'm sure you're a great moral guy, however, I don't think that all follows logically. One thing that you lack with your worldview is clear lines, for example, killing humans is different than killing chimps only in degree. The other problem is that there is no freewill, so you're going to do what you're going to do anyway. But I don't feel particulary inclined to get into a discussion on free will so I'll leave it at that.
Well, I'll be more than glad
Well, I'll be more than glad to put aside the matter of free will (or lack thereof) for the purposes of this discussion. I don't think it's essential to the discussion.
What are you saying doesn't follow logically? I don't think it makes sense to say that just because one applies a very general criterion/criteria to determine the morality of an act as I do rather than relying blindly, lazily and quite possibly irresponsibly and thus immorally on a deontological approach (moral absolutes, regardless of circumstances and anticipated consequences), that is somehow illogical. Quite the contrary. Although it may be easier and for some people (stupid people) more conducive to moral behavior to mistake useful rules of thumb or default assumptions for absolutes, it really is absurd. Is killing an innocent person immoral? It depends. Is deliberately killing a clearly innocent person immoral? Even that depends. What are the possible consequences in terms of harms and benefits and the associated probabilities. If you think one need not consider potential/likely consequences but can instead just blindly consult and follow some rulebook, then that is an immoral approach to morality. So either I'm really misunderstanding what you're saying or it just makes no sense.
Well, clearly morality
Well, clearly morality doesn't logically follow if you don't believe in... oops I'm dropping that :-)
I'll concede that its possible to rationally obtain some morality on the basis of pure reason ( only because God created reason and observation to be somewhat reliable), however, I don't think it goes far enough. Religion draws certain lines in the sand, and gives value to things we might otherwise not, it also helps to point to what we might be able to see is logical and reasonable, but are clouded to by our selfish natures. Of course you think its wrong to base morality on religion, as you think its imaginary. However, don't you think that if I was right and there is an all-knowing, all loving God it would makes sense to follow his will as moral?
don't you think that if
Well first of all, as you know, I think that not only is such a thing unknown, but it is inherently unknowable, even if we think of "knowing" as merely believing something is highly likely. But that aside, just going with your hypothetical, there would still be the problem of determining what its will is. There's quite a big gap between believing in an "all loving God" and some particular set of rules that someone or some book says represents its will. And I don't see what rational basis there would be to make that determination. And blindly, unalterably applying some set of rules that someone or some book claims are the sole, unquestionable basis for determining morality because they are the word of some deity of the sort to which you refer, even though I have no rational basis for such a belief, would itself be highly irresponsible and potentially reckless, and very harm-producing (and probably in a selfish attempt to gain some possible reward and/or avoid some possible punishment if indeed this deity exists and has those demands), and thus would be highly immoral. That's why I call it an "immoral approach to morality".
Example(s)?
Please prove to me ...
using observations and data gathered with your senses, of course, that you are not merely an experiment in artificial intelligence (used loosely in this case) running inside a computer somewhere being fed artificial stimuli through your artificial senses.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Apologetics
1: Book of Job? Deuteronomy 20:17?...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
So how would have you in your
So how would have you in your infinite wisdom dealt with the Amorites...
Not sure, the Hebrews seemed
Not sure, the Hebrews seemed to go with the stronger nation killing the weaker nation "as the LORD" commanded though.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
<!--[if gte mso 9]>
<!--[if gte mso 9]>
<!--[if gte mso 9]>The original God (Old Testament) was a real a**hole:
Genocide as a means of terrorism for a political objective (God killing of every first-born Egyption boy as the tenth plague), genocide as a means of ethnic cleansing to conquer lands (God instructing his people to kill all the inhabitants of Canaan [Deuteronomy 20:11-17]; Also Joshua 6:16-21), slavery (again Deuteronomy 20:11-17 among other places).
But from what I hear from some Christians, he got nicer in the sequel (New Testament). I think that's the deal, supposedly. In the Old Testament days God just wasn't himself, kind of like (according the excuses people make) a guy who sometimes gets drunk and beats his wife and then makes nice.
Well they weren't purely
Well they weren't purely political purposes, they were obviously religous purposes. Also God worked within human culture, I think's that why he allowed slavery but made rules for getting it to be more humane. Its sort of like, I think abortion is mass infanticide, but I don't blow up abortion clinics - I work within the system. Also according to any orthodox theology God doesn't change, I don't know what wacky (okay, maybe they're just liberal) Christians you've been talking to but... Some will say the Father is full of wrath and Jesus is merciful, However, that isn't the truth of the Bible.
(Kinda wish I had had more
(Kinda wish I had had more time to try to fix the formatting problem in my comment)
Not sure what your point is re: political vs. religious purposes. Telling his "chosen people" to commit genocide is holy indeed -- a**holy. Do you agree? And God himself killing all those innocent Egyptian boys and all the children in the flood (the Noah stuff) -- a**holy, no?
As for the "evolution" (pardon the term) of God, I thought the line was that once Jesus came and died for our sins God or Jesus (heck, I don't know if they're supposed to be the same, different, two thirds of a three-part entity, or what), whoever is in charge could start dealing with people in a more moral, less atrocious way.
As for not blowing up abortion clinics, why don't you. If you consider abortion "mass infanticide", doesn't that make an abortion clinic the moral equivalent of a Nazi gas chamber (for infants specifically or generally)? And if so, would you consider it moral or immoral to blow up a Nazi gas chamber if it would probably save innocent lives? Is the only reason you "work within the system" rather than blowing up abortion clinics because you think working within the system is a more effective strategy, or do you see it as moral and the blowing up strategy immoral (or less moral) independent of considerations of respective effectiveness?
Not sure what your point is
Of course I don't think what God has done is wrong. 1. Life is God's, so when God takes life its more like me taking back money I loaned to you. 2. God had a grand purpose in mind that involves eternity, putting your ideas on the reality of religion aside I think you could agree that causing affliction in the present could be a good thing if it meant eternal benfit. We can never know exactly why God does what he does, because we're not God. There are reasons though.
You might want to consider getting your Christian Theology lessons elsewhere. Obviously there are different views. But I'll try to give you a bit of the conservative and I think evangelical view on it(and BTW evangelical Christians are conservative one's, but that doesn't mean all conservative Christians are evangelical). God has always been just and loving. The penalty of sin is death ( this may not seem just, but if one considers that a world in which man is his own God, as we have now, is really hell, then it makes sense), Jesus died on the cross to pay that penalty for all who would accept his life changing grace. God's grace has been availble to all, even before he died. So God didn't really change his character due to Jesus' death. God doesn't have a chosen nation anymore, so we don't see Him telling people to drop A-bombs on people like he did back in the day, but his Mercy and Justice are the same. Also as to Jesus inre to the Godhead he is part of three persons which make up the trinity (trinity means three in one) or God, he is God and is part of the trinity which is the One true God.
Is the conservative view your
Is the conservative view your view? If not, I'd like to know your view. I'll assume it is your view and proceed on that assumption.
So "God has always been just and loving", yet it ordered it's "chosen people" to commit genocide, which you say it doesn't do anymore because it no longer has a "chosen nation". Gee, that's nice, but not a particularly "just" reason to stop telling some people to commit mass murder of innocent people, is it? Oh yeah, as long as God has a "chosen nation" there's nothing wrong or unjust or unloving about God telling his chosen people to slaughter innocent men, women, and children to take their land (and not have to live among them -- the ethnic cleansing objective). And more generally, we simply cannot ever judge the morality of any act by God because we're just not capable of doing so -- we can't know enough to do so, and anyway anything anyone has is his to give an take, so, well, the children getting their throats slit can just go suck an egg. OK, actually we can just assume that whatever is happening to them, it's just (by the way, does that justness just apply when God is ordering or executing the murder, or should we not shed a tear for anyone who seems to be suffering, since God will ensure redemption -- since God is so just and loving -- or does that only apply to those who feed God's supposed ego by acknowledging and appreciating it?) Oh, it's all so confusing. I guess the bottom line is: God does it = good, no matter how morally wrong it looks to us. That's the all-encompassing, "one size fits all" bottom line, right?
Hey, maybe if that Canadian murderer/beheader/cannibal can just convince the jury that God really did tell him to do it, he can -- and SHOULD! -- get an acquittal by jury nullification. At the very least, anyone who ends up convinced that God told him to do it will believe it was the right thing to do and that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, because we simply can't judge the morality of God's actions, but must presume them to be good, just and loving, right?
Boy, this all sure makes all this morality mumbo jumbo real easy. I mean, there's still the task of learning and interpreting some book (or having someone tell you what the book says), but it's something of a relief to know that there's a rulebook instead of having to try to think through and try to balance potential/likely consequences (degrees and distribution of harms and benefits, and associated probabilities) of an act. And some things are just real easy and clear, like: Homosexuality bad. Beginning of personhood? Conception (or implantation or some other nonsensical criterion). Genocide? If God ordered it, good. Deliberately flying commercial aircraft into civilian buildings? If God ordered it, good. Cutting off the head of the guy sitting next to you on the bus and eating it? If God ordered it, good (not Kosher, but that's soooo Old Testament).
Booooo!
By the way, I hear what you're saying (in other comments) re: psychosis. I mean to say that religious faith at least resembles the thinking of an insane person, even if/though it does not imply clinical insanity. It's more akin to an extremely irrational form of fantasy or denial, like if I convinced myself (and derived a great deal of emotional benefit from and developed a great deal of emotional dependence on the belief) that Jessica Alba knows of me and has steamy dreams of me every night and is hoping to marry me someday. Would I have to be insane to confidently believe that? I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I'm just a guy who somehow, on some level, willingly suspends his normal rational approach to assessing the credibility of notions (which he applies to just about everything else in his life) because of this emotional benefit or fear/aversion to the emotional pain of acknowledging that it's almost certainly just a fantasy.
What do you think about the
What do you think about the morality of Atom bomb? I don't know what I think, but I allow for the possibility of its morality. That meant innnocent chilren who had nothing to do with the war being snapped out of existence, but the end may have justified the means. Its the same thing with what the Israelites did, the end being related to things of eternal nature.
John, are you dodgin' my
[edit: I mistook your comment as a reply to my abortion clinic question, so I'm deleting my first paragraph]
My general view should be already quite clear to you. Any act could potentially be the right thing to do morally -- depending on the potential and likely consequences and one's ability to assess the relevant magnitudes and probabilities of harm and benefit. The A-bomb (Hiroshima and, with another level of complexity, Nagasaki) is a very complex moral issue, not something I would want to comment on without the kind of discussion it warrants. I think that reasonable people can disagree on it's morality, but that that reasonableness relates more to how someone arrives at their conclusion -- what factors they consider, how they weight them and why -- than to which conclusion they reach. But the relevant point here is that for someone like me who applies the only really sensible framework for morality -- consequentialism -- there is no act that is inherently, always, necessarily right (moral) or wrong (immoral).
Napalm vs A-bomb
Japan started WWII, and the US was fire bombing cities for years, using a nuclear fission bomb almost seems more humane. And we're talking about the country that systematically gang raped thousands upon thousands Chinese women, not some country that had the wrong deity.
So it's not a choice of whether the A-bomb was the right thing to do, it's whether is was better than dropping napalm on cities and then the biggest sea landing in the history of man.
And the framing of the statement that the Israelites were just defending themselves, leaves the door wide open for the justification for otherwise atrocious acts. If a group of people is out to eternally get you, it's ok to systematically concentrate them into smaller areas and kill them under that rationale.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Mitt Romeny and Glenn Beck disagree
One could just as well say that God made Jesus and then Jesus made the world, and they know this for a fact, they've had personal experience that they had that told them for a fact that there is no Holy Trinity. A pair of young adults may have told you something similar before.
Belief in the Book of Mormon and belief in the Holy Trinity are mutually exclusive.
Right there, the The Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church fundamentally disagree on a statement of facts derived from personal testimony. At least one of them has to be wrong. It doesn't mean they are both wrong, but any argument for personal testimony leaves the door open for Jim Jones, Rollen Stewart, or Sun Myung Moon is wrong either.
Plus there is the history of Apologetics, the story of how the Satan/Lucifer/devil/morning star/the beast got his tail, geographical trends in the spread and creation of religions, and the history of exploiters of their knowledge of trends such as John Edward.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Wow! Thanks Brutus. I had no
Wow! Thanks Brutus. I had no idea that people have different beliefs. Not everyone believes in the trinity?! I..I...I.. I'm just shocked! What not everyone believes the same as a Seventh Day Adventist Christians? Oh no! What shall I do?! My beliefs are shattered!
That wasn't the main point
That wasn't the main point that that the believe different things, it's that one of their main reasons for belief
It was that so-called personal testimonies directly contradict other people's personal testimonies.
If 2 people come to contradictory purported "truths" through the same means. At least one of them has to be wrong.
When those truths take the shape of a nontritarian for a Mormon, and the "truth" of the Holy Trinity for nearly every other denomination, one has ample reason to at least seriously doubt the validity of any personal testimony on that fact alone.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Brutus, although I haven't
Brutus, although I haven't read every word of the exchange you guys are having, seems like the simple answer/explanation/whatever is that everyone is pretty sure his "truth" is THE "truth" and is confidently atheistic (so to speak) with regard to anyone else's claimed truth. Surely you know that.
I know
I just have visions of Palpatine, of Star Wars, dancing in my head.
Supreme Chancellor: Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis "the wise"?
Anakin Skywalker: No.
Supreme Chancellor: I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life... He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.
Anakin Skywalker: He could actually save people from death?
Supreme Chancellor: The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.
Anakin Skywalker: What happened to him?
Supreme Chancellor: He became so powerful... the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. It's ironic he could save others from death, but not himself.
Anakin Skywalker: Is it possible to learn this power?
Supreme Chancellor: Not from a Jedi.
[we can find the truth, if only we work together]
Sure the Chancelloer could be telling the truth....
Sure just because a recipe doesn't end well at sea level, doesn't mean it won't work in the Himalayas. The recipe could be mighty tasty and nutritious, but if it looks like tripe, I'm not biting down.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Again with respect Brutus
Again with respect Brutus that a big duh!. People come to different religous conclusions. That's hardly an arguement against all arguements, I'm color blind and don't see the same colors as most people, that doesn't mean its wrong to believe in eyesight.
*arguement against all
*arguement against all religion.
"As for not blowing up
"As for not blowing up abortion clinics, why don't you. If you consider abortion "mass infanticide", doesn't that make an abortion clinic the moral equivalent of a Nazi gas chamber (for infants specifically or generally)? And if so, would you consider it moral or immoral to blow up a Nazi gas chamber if it would probably save innocent lives? Is the only reason you "work within the system" rather than blowing up abortion clinics because you think working within the system is a more effective strategy, or do you see it as moral and the blowing up strategy immoral (or less moral) independent of considerations of respective effectiveness?"
Yes, of course if blowing up Abortion clinics would actually seriously reduce abortions it well might be worth it. However, I don't think it would, and it think it actually harms that cause. Just like it would have been great to end slavery in 4,000 BC, but God telling them to stop it wouldn't have necessarilly stopped it (as we do have free-will) , and so it was better for God to set up laws to improve slavery.
What if staff (the
What if staff (the physicians, secretaries, janitors, etc.) and patients were always in the abortion clinics (or just if bombing them with those people in them would be far more effective than bombing them when they were empty). If, hypothetically, bombing the abortion clinics with those people in them would be far more effective in stopping abortions nationwide or worldwide, would that be the right thing to do morally? (assume just for simplicity that you can somehow save the embryos/fetuses even though the pregnant women would die)
In other words, is the morality of killing anyone involved in the operation of the clinic, plus the pregnant women who are planning to murder their "unborn babies" simply a function of how many more abortions it would prevent vs. a strategy that would not involve killing?
Yes, I could see a logical
Yes, I could see a logical reason to kill people for the sake of stopping abortion. There are some who believe that it is breaking the sixth commandment to kill anyone if you are not doing it directly under God's command as the Israelites did, however, I do not yet hold that position. If I'm not mistaken you think there's only one logical point ( the point of having consciousness?) to consider the begining of human life, therefore, you would consider it immoral to kill for any earlier stage. However, I don't think there is any logical place to draw the line based on your perspective, and think conception is as logical a place as any. I think it is clearly ( from a scientific perspective) when a new human is formed, and the Bible teaches to respect all humans, therefore I oppose abortion from the point of conception. But this is whole other debate, maybe we should limit the debates. :-)
Yes, I could see a logical
ok, thanks for the answer. I assume you are saying that you can see a moral justification (or perhaps even moral imperative) for doing so, at least hypothetically.
There are some who believe that it is breaking the sixth commandment to kill anyone if you are not doing it directly under God's command as the Israelites did, however, I do not yet hold that position.
Isn't death God's prescribed punishment for murder? Would that not suffice as "God's command"? If not, what would it take -- someone thinking God spoke directly to him and specifically ordered the hit?
If I may, I think you may be using the term "logic" imprecisely or inappropriately, unless what you are contending is that I am contradicting myself in some way or jumping to some conclusion not supported by my own premises. I don't know exactly at what point (in terms of gestation or even brain activity) personhood begins, but I think it's hard to reasonably say that we are people without cognition*. Our thoughts and feelings are what makes us people, after all. Remove my brain and puree it in the Cuisinart, and I'm gone, man, whether or not my body can be kept "alive". So I don't see how it's reasonable to consider a zygote or a blastula a person. It's "human life" because it obviously has human DNA and it's obviously living, but it's not a person. And personhood is the point at which we obtain the rights of a person (morally speaking; not making a legal argument).
* In the case of the "brain dead" patient, whether or not that patient is a person at the moment, he/she has established personhood previously and as long as there is a chance of recovering some particular level and type of cognitive function, should be considered a person for all intents and purposes, although people can argue over how infinitesimal the "chance" would have to be to qualify as a real chance.
Redstate freaks over Leahy's "truth commission"
Sen Leahy wants to put together a commission to get to the bottom of all the accusations of unconstitutional and illegal behavior by the Bush administration. Readstate of course freaks out:
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2009/03/04/democrats-may-live-to-...
Fortunately the precedent of "if you aren't guilty you have nothing to fear from massive intrusive programs with no oversight" was already established by the republicans with their warrantless wiretapping program, so alright. Nothing to fear.
I think the right way to handle the matetr is to appoint an independent prosecutor rather than a partisan commission. That said the neocon (read neo-fascist) wing of the GOP has exactly 0 room to bitch.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hey Tlaloc
Have you heard of the new crazy micro- biological treatment for MS and other auto immune disorders ----- worms. I kid you not. There is actually scientific evidence to support the theory! Maybe you should check into it if you haven't already.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PainManagement/Story?id=4454748&page=1
David Pritchard is the researcher
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E6DD1138F932A35754C0A...
I'm only half stupid
Eww.
I'm not a terribly squemish person but I draw the line at intentionally infesting myself with a parasite.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Dude check it out
You would be surprised, especially since there are scientific reasons to back up the theory. Plus test cases.
I'm only half stupid
arrgg
Not only does the link script not work..... but things double post!!!!
I'm only half stupid
RedState(http://www.redstate.
RedState(http://www.redstate.com/e_pluribus_unum/2009/03/04/dems-attacking-rush-trying-to-rob-gun-stores/#comment-2093
)seems to be under the false impression that the Obama team has criticized Rush for the sake of shutting him down. While this is possible, I find it unlikely. Obama is smart enough to know that publicly mentioning a talk-show host is only going to help the show, he's also knows that an independent listening to Obama and seeing him as a symbol of the Republican Party is an independent not voting for the Republicans.
Obama trying to make Limbaugh the symbol of the Republican Party isn't really fair as we did everything in the last primary to tell Limbaugh to jump in a lake, however, I guess all is fair and love in politics.
BTW you can see one of my rare RS comments in that thread under PopulistConservative.
at 538
they make the argument that the focus on Rush is an attempt to keep the three senators who voted for the stimulus available for future votes. I'm not sure I buy into that reasoning. Personally I think the point is simply to tie Rush to the GOP. Rush is certainly a popular entertainer but i think a lot on the right mitake popularity for agreement. Rush is essentially a political shock jock and a lot of people enjoy being offended and shocked because it gets the adrenaline going.
A lot of peope listen to Howard Stern, that doesn't mean they'd want him leading one of the two major parties.
In addition Rush's bloated salary and drug hypocrisy makes him a pretty ideal front for the GOP as far as the Dem's are concerned.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Vladmir Limbaugh
If you are a GOP politician or work in politics and you don't kiss his Vladmir Rush's ass on the unpatriotic meme that you "hope the President' fails, then you either apologize to Rush or lose the support of his conservative base.
Michael Steel the RNC head was persuaded to apologize to Rush for criticizing the dear leader.
It cracks me up that Rush says Obama represents the tyranny of the left, when the reality is that it is his pompous self that demands loyalty to the great Limbaugh, because he is after all a true conservative
That's tyranny.
I'm only half stupid
I must say while I am clearly
I must say while I am clearly no Limbaugh fan, Obama calling him out seems below the office of the presidency.
Obama didn't call him out
he merely said that Limbaugh seemed to be the leader of the Republican party.
On the other hand, having Limbaugh repeatedly say that he wants Obama to fail seems below the status of a citizen of America.
Here is a handy standardized form for those who might offend Rush at sometime in the future.
http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry
I'm only half stupid
Why do you have to pick the
Why do you have to pick the worst two reasons to dislike Rush Tlaloc. We could been together in our rush bashing, but no you had to pick the worst two reasons. First of all, I don't think anybody should be criticized for getting hooked on drugs which they took to relieve pain. Second, nobody, but people like you care about drugs. Third I don't think its wrong to be rich. looks like I'm stuck defending Rush on SC, and attacking him on RS.
Seem like decent reasons under the circumstances
1) The criticism is not for him gettign addicted to a pain reliever but that, rather than say going into rehab which he could absolutely afford, he proceeded to go and get the drugs illegally. COmbine that with his scathing attacks on illegal drug users in his program and yes he absolutely deserves condemnation for that.
2) And this one cracks me up, during his drug trial who helped him out with an amicus brief asking the court not to pry into his medical records? The ACLU. Has Limbaugh shown any gratitude or even recognized that he was all too willing to take their help when it was his rights being infringed?
3) As far as the salary... in a time of economic hardship it doesn't help you appeal to people who are facing double digit unemployment and a possible depression when it was very public news that you got a *nine* figure contract. Whether you think that should hurt Rush or not, it does.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well, hypocrite or not, being
Well, hypocrite or not, being in the familly of someone who has struggled with drugs in the past, and recently with painkillers I can't get myself to criticize someone for it. Even if you're right, the issue is dead now, Obama isn't trying to elevate Obama because he's an ex-druggie, he's doing it because Rush is seen as a hyper-partisan windbag to most non-Repubs (and a great deal of us Republicans too for that matter), drugs or no drugs.
As to money, I don't get how Obama gets a pass on being rich. I guess if you're a liberal politician you get by with wealth. The same could be said about this as about the drugs, this isn't the main thing that hurts Rush, he's in trouble because he's a hyper-partisan windbag.
I wouldn't expect the WH to bring it up
but you have to assume the drug issue is one they assume (rightly) will come up again.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Really?
1) Please provide us with these many "scathing" attacks RL has made against drug users.
2) Rush had more than adequate representation in his case, and never requested or encouraged the ACLU to be involved in that case.
3) God Bless a guy who can go out and earn that kind of dough. That is encouraging and inspiring, unlike the hardships Obama is currently inflicting on our economy and people in disguise.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Sure
1) http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1159
2) At the same time he didn;t ask them not to get involved. He was perfectly happy to take their help in defending his hypocrisy and then go back on the air demonizing them.
3) Celebrities being overpaid isn't inspiring, it's rather disgusting (and that goes for movie stars, sports stars, and all the rest). Paying any single human being enough to sustain some thousands of people when we have serious poverty issues is an indication that the system needs serious reform.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Too bad you had to get
Too bad you had to get yourself banned from Redstate BR, you could support me in this argument. BTW you guys ought to look at my debating on RS, it sheds a different light on me. I tend to be contrarian, so when I'm in a site filled with Dawksonian atheists, I probably come across a bit like a Mike Huckabee theocrat. However, take a look at RS and you'll see me as John McCain, the 2,000 version. :-)
I did take a look
and i thought you made a fair case. I also thought it was a lost cause though. RS seems to have lost any connection with reality the last couple years.
I think these two graphs help tell the story:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/favorableunfavorable_views_of.php
and
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php
Obama has a net favorability of about +32 rright now, while Limbaugh's is around -22. If the dems can make the story Obama vs. Rush then they'll win with the overall public.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
"Obama has a net favorability
"Obama has a net favorability of about +32 rright now, while Limbaugh's is around -22. If the dems can make the story Obama vs. Rush then they'll win with the overall public."
That's what you get when you attack the 70% of the country who disagrees with you, as being the enemy of all that is good. It's funny some at RS think that if Indys will listen to Rush they will brought over. I'm imagining what this line of thinking would go like, "Oh boy, I didn't realize what a squish I was, and that my brain was so full of mush, I'd better go be a conservative".
heh, well, if we're to
heh, well, if we're to believe Moe Lane (which I would never recommend), I "got myself" banned from RS for making a homophobic comment (I said that Ann Coulter will lose here mass audience the day she wears a minidress so short you can see her nutsack). Moe banned me with no warning, apparently on the basis that my comment was homophobic, which was pretty laughable considering how vigorously I argued for equal marriage rights for same-sex couples (and contended that homosexuality is not immoral), which is much closer to the real reason I was banned, of course. Didn't help that I burst their bubble re: the whole myth that "tax cuts increase revenues [always/generally and/or in the case of the Bush tax cuts]". And of course, calling people on their blatant evasiveness didn't win me any friends. I know you know all of that, but I'm describing it for others here.
I think you're right in that comment at your link. I just saw Rahm Emanuel on some news show essentially saying that Rush is the leader of the Republican party. Their strategy is pretty transparent. and you're right. It's good for Rush (unless there's a backlash), good for the Democrats, and bad for the quality of political discourse in the nation at this critical time.
Oh, and for whatever my opinion is worth to anyone else here at SC, I encouraged John (John Mark) to come to SC despite my opinion of religious faith (which he obviously has in abundance) because he's a very good independent, critical thinker (at least on secular matters), and not at all one of those mindless, cookie-cutter, talking-point, ideologically/intellectually-inbred, hyperpartisan Republicans/conservatives so abundant on RedState (the "separated at birth" twins of their counterparts on the left).
In my best attempt to be non-partisan...
...I can still only assume that Barack Obama must be the single worst judge of character, or has the worse sense of political horse flesh if you will in US history, as evidenced by this
, his latest colossal miss-step in appointmentgate.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Who?
For what minor post I never heard of? Ten blogging points if you can name ANY past Chariman of the National Intelligence Council... ever! (without Googling)
Small potatoes. And what's the colossal offense? Appointing someone who had an unpopular opinion, 20 years ago.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Replies:
Rather, than reply to all comments above, I'm going to try and put all the questions into one comment. Sorry if this is not a comprehensive reply to everybody, but I feel like wrapping up the blogging and doing something more productive, or watching "Alias Smith and Jones". As to you saying that even if you did beleive that there were an all-knowing and all loving God you think it would be immoral to base you morality on his words, this does not seem at all logical. You say that it wouldn't be right to do things based on a future reward, but it wouldn't be be just for a future reward as what such a deity would tell you do would be quite clearly what was best ( think about it, he's all knowing and all loving.), there would be no conflict between doing what was best for yourself and your heavenly reward. Also consider the fact that if there is heaven this far outweighs whatever goes on, in the temporal world, however long we live its always going to be an infinity short of eternal. You repeat all your points about not believing in God, but that misses my point, my point is that for someone who does believe in God as I do, the next logical conclusion is that its right to do what he says. You may not agree with the underlying premise of believing in God, and I can't prove that premise on pure human reasoning to you. However, I do think its quite logical, and should even be to an agnostic that if there was an all-loving all knowing God, doing his command would be what's best for everyone, and therefore, what is moral.
You and Brutus seem to think that perhaps the A-bomb is justified, but somehow you know all the intricate details of the circumstances (including eternal consequences) to say that the Hittites should have been left to live. There's a big problem with using something like God's commands regarding the Hittites to disprove God. If I believe in God, than I'm going to believe that he knows what is best, and even if the reasons aren't clear to me, I'll figure there are unknown reasons. It only makes sense as an arguement if you don't believe in God. It's sort of like me trying to prove God to you by saying " The Bible says it" Of course, it doesn't even take knowing in God to believe that we might not be able to judge the actions of people thousands of years ago.
As to abortion. The begining of human thought is a somewhat reasonable place to draw the line, but not entirely. If a human has no value a part form his consciousnes then what is his value when asleep, than he only has the potential for consciousness. Also what's the fundamental difference in the inteligence of a newborn and an ape? Sure we might be able to tell a difference, but who's to say that difference requires respect?
Unbelievable!
From here
.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Actually radical Islam is a
Actually radical Islam is a fact of life, as is nationalism (since when are conservatives against nationalism though?), as even is Nazism, and fascism, Cuban missles not so much. I don't know what the conclusion of the article is, but they're right that we're not going to wipe out radical islam and we should learn what is necessary to keep it contained and insignificant as much as possible while not wasting endless resources on some effort to eventually wipe it out.
Instead of just reducing it
Instead of just reducing it to a bumper sticker, perhaps you could read the column (if you haven't yet), state what you think it is advocating, and, if you disagree, say why.
Too tired BR...bumper sticker is all you're getting tonight...
;-)
What are you two doing - tag team comentary now days...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
no tag team, just overlap.
no tag team, just overlap. Plus John and I both tend to prefer thoughtful comments to loud, hyperpartisan, bumper sticker talking points. If / when you want, I'm sure you can provide some substance. I haven't read the column yet, but I plan to within the next few days...maybe sooner if you comment substantively on it, just so I know enough to be a pain in the ass.
I was surprised to read about your experiences with Moe...
...and RS.
Granted it can be the deep end of the pool in terms of group thought, but they certainly have standards that eclipse those of D/Kos, of course that's not saying much I suppose.
I think they went through a gay issue's over sensitivity moment there a year ago or so that has since dininished, but for a couple of seconds it was a no no to discuss gay issues at all almost, I weighed in on a thread just stating my, not so uncommon position, and was taken to the woodshed so to speak, but still say what I feel whenever I want, and never encounter any real sensorship.
Doesn't sound like that was your experience though.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I don't know why you're
I don't know why you're surprised. It wasn't uncommon for Moe Lane to apply some blatant double standard to someone whose views were unpopular (particularly if they challenged him -- he's a real baby -- but in general) to create some pretext for banning someone ostensibly for some reason other than their views.
Generally speaking, most of the regular commenters at RS, and some of the contributors, are not just knee-jerk hyperpartisans, but, well, ain't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed. And there's a huge discrepancy between their perception vs. the reality re: their level and quality of understanding of issues (and their ability to understand and debate the issues. So basically most there are robotic, stupid, ignorant, oblivious and ironically (considering those other traits) snarky. Other than that, they're a great bunch!
I wouldn't go that far BR,
I wouldn't go that far BR, I think you just tended to bring out the worst in them. :-)
I would go that far AND say I
I would go that far AND say I tended to bring out the worst in them
LOL! Don't hol back BR, tell us how you really feel! ;-)
I think otherwise.
I certainly believe there are a handful of those that meet that criterion, but there are many other bright articulate passionate conservatives that do not fall into that category.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Just flip that ratio and
Just flip that ratio and you'll have it right.