The Tolerant, Accepting American Left

I was just reading the comments on a Facebook post about Cecil the lion, and one commenter suggested that the dentist be stripped naked, equipped with a tracking collar and hunted down.    There were plenty of other folks who want the guy dead, but this was the most creative.

Just for grins, let's say that I posted a comment on Facebook detailing how we should take Cecile Richards (or any/all of the PP hierarchy), and against her will and without anesthesia, crush both her head and her lower extremities, then remove all of her salable organs and part her out so as to receive the maximum amount of remuneration for the parts.

How long do you think it would take for me to be labeled as every which kind of vile, sick and twisted person.   I'd guess pretty quick.

But, hey you want to strip a guy naked, take him to Zimbabwe, put a tracking collar on him and hunt him down and no one in the thread even bats an eye.

My goodness, isn't tolerance a wonderful (if a bit selective) thing?

More dangers of indoctrination.

As we have watched the tragic tale of Cecil the lion unfold over the last few days, one almost inescapable conclusion is that the political left is (at least on certain things) so indoctrinated as to have given up any semblance of common sense.

What we have is a bunch of people attacking this dentist for engaging in an activity that was legal.  Now, it appears that there was an element of the hunt (we don't know if he knew this or not) that went beyond the bounds of legality, but as a general rule it is legal to hunt lions in Zimbabwe.  If laws were broken, then those who broke them should be punished appropriately.   Having said that.

We have a group of people marching on this guy's office threatening him with death, in some cases things like being skinned alive.   How is it that the tolerant, peace loving American left is willing to abandon thise closely held beliefs at the drop of a hat, because of one dead lion?  Oh, and if you watch the local coverage, these folks are really upset about the fact that the guy is "rich".   Class envy anyone?

So, while the lynch mobs are out in full force against the dentist let's see what they are ignoring.

1.  The unfolding Planned Parenthood selling body parts in violation of federal law.
2. The killing of 5 elephants which are much more endangered than Cecil
3.  The fact that economic growth in the US is officially "tepid", yet the administration continues to try to spin the situation otherwise, and no one questions them.
4.  The fact that the MN governor condemns this dentist while in the same breath advocating an increase in state spending to increase the fish population (so that said fish can be baited and killed much like Cecil) and to compensate a bunch of rich resort owners who might not make as much profit because the fish shortage might mean an early end to the season.
5.  The fact that these people are more concerned about 1 lion, than they are about the economic conditions in Africa generally and Zimbabwe specifically that might motivate the native guides to violate the law in search of economic gain.
6.  The fact that the witch hunt against the dentist is going to put any number of other people out of work, you know the ones who aren't "rich" but actually make the office function.
7.   How hypocritical is it to threaten death to this hunter, then heading out the Burger King for a Whopper.   I hate to bring this up, but that cow didn't go willingly.
8.  The AFL-CIO in CA attempting to get an exemption for their members to the new minimum wages that they spent millions of dollars campaigning for.
9.  The graduation rates for minorities (as well as the ability of students to read at grade level) of both the Minneapolis and Saint Paul school districts are abysmal.  But we see no protests about that.

It just mystifies me that all these sheep jump on whatever Facebook or Twitter bandwagon is trending and actually think that liking a post, forwarding a tweet, or commenting is actually doing anything real.    These folks just buy in and repeat whatever the eruption du jour is without even taking the time to think it through.

Personally the thought of hunting has never appealed to me, and the though of simply shooting anything as a trophy is even less appealing.   But, as long as these things are legal and done within the scope of local laws all stuff like this does is to focus attention on a fake crisis, while allowing these supposedly caring compassionate people to ignore real crises that are out there.     There is a degree of political blind loyalty at play as well, it is all to obvious that the American political left is going to ignore and actively try to bury the PP story because maintaining and expanding access to abortion is critical to their political future and to do anything to upset the narrative would be unthinkable.  

In the end what we have is the angry lynch mob that is willing to kill a guy because he shot a lion, is willing to support the continued taxpayer funding of PP even though they are in clear violation of federal law.

It seems as though indoctrination can indeed be a bad thing.

Gossip, Slander, and Lies

Disclaimer:   This is going to be a bit strange because of the limitations of Dan's ability to comment here due to his refusal to answer certain specific questions in a post a while back.

Dan has been on a bit of a rampage lately because of a post Stan wrote about fairness.   Dan (is essence) doesn't think that God's view of what is fair and just should be different from Dan's opinion.   At several points over a couple of threads Dan pulls out his standard complaint that people are engaging in "gossip" "slander" and "lies" when they express opinions about the views he spouts.    The problem is that he doesn't seem to have a problem is wrongly characterizing the opinions of others in such a way that he can attack people for not responding to his false characterization of their position, rather than their actual position.    What I'm going to do is to copy/paste comments Dan has made that are either false, unsupported, or flat out lies. 

"I do tend to answer questions, unlike you guys."

Given Dan's a priori refusal to answer the specific list of questions that got his commenting privileges restricted, it's safe to say that in my opinion (based on specific interactions with him) this is just a self serving lie.

"Your position (that god is a monster who would condemn someone to eternal torture for one minor sin - and thus, you slander God by saying God is neither just nor perfect, but childish and whimsical and immoral as hell) is not one that can be defended rationally."

 "So, when reasonable questions arise from your insane sounding argument, you absolutely CAN NOT defend your position or answer the questions because, well, your position is insane and immoral. So, I would run and hide and refuse to answer questions, too, if I were called on such a crazy arguments."

These three are from a comment at Stan's.  The problem with the two above, is that they do not in any way resemble a position that has been taken, and cannot be supported.

 "You are using "justice" in a non-standard English way."

This is a common complaint, that is unsupported.   It also presumes (and we know Dan won't defend his presumptions, or at least hasn't so far)

"2. That because God is perfectly just, the reasoning goes, God can not "abide" or put up with ANY sin.
3. So, because God is SO "just," even one little lie is sufficient cause for God to send a person to an eternal torment and torture, as a matter of "justice..."

Neither of these is an accurate representation of either that position of anyone with whom Dan has actually conversed, nor do they represent Orthodox Christian theology or doctrine.

 "Part of the notion of justice includes proportionate punishment for sins/mistakes/crimes."

This is interesting because no one is denying the concept of proportionate justice.  What is being said is that sin is an active rebellion against the God who created and rules the universe and to try to minimize that willful rebellious aspect of sin by writing it off as a "mistake" is in itself seriously out of proportion.

 "So, while human beings are all sinful or imperfect in nature, do most of us do something so monstrous in our life as to merit an eternity in torment as an equitable "just" punishment?"

Again, this is a (willful) distortion of the Orthodox Christian position, as well as of the position in the post that started all of this.

 "Or, consider that we have been created imperfect by God (for those who believe we are created by God...) Is it rational or just that God creates us imperfect and then demands that we be perfect or else we'll be punished with eternal torment for being imperfect, as God made us!?"

I'm not even going to deal with the seeming denial of God as creator.   But, this is a complete (intentional?)  distortion of the Orthodox Christian position as well as the position of anyone who has interacted with Dan.

"God becomes whimsical, monstrous, unjust, uncaring... not the God most believers think of as a loving God."

As to the first sentence, no one is or has suggested that, as to the second I wasn't aware that God's nature is defined by how humans think of Him.

 "I would ask Stan or others who have made these sorts of statements:..."

There is a claim that "Stan or others" have made specific statements which correlate with the claims Dan has made about those alleged statements.   Of course, those specific statements are not quoted or referenced in any way that would allow someone to check the accuracy of Dans characterizations of the alleged statements.   So, Dan has attributed a lot of "statements" to "Stan and others" without actually proving the existence of the statements.

 "Every human is grossly immoral and JUSTLY deserving of eternal torture."

One more that can't be supported



I think that I have demonstrated a fairly consistent pattern with the above quotes and see no reason to add more of the same.

I am quite sure that there will be cries that it is not fair for me to post this about Dan without allowing him to respond.   I will respond by saying the following.

1.  Dan is well aware of what he needs to do in order to regain his commenting priveledges.
2.  Once Dan does what has been asked of him he will get those privileges back
3.  If Dan can provide specific documented (quote with a link for context) instance where any of his characterizations are correct, I will allow the comment to stand, edit the original post to remove my comment, and apologize for my error.

Terry Bean is the kind of person the American political left loves

Terry Bean is a native Oregonian, successful real estate developer, and President and CEO of Bean Investment Real Estate, a private company that trades and invests in commercial real estate as well as large residential complexes.  Along with these badges of honor, Terry Bean is often first recognized as a pioneer in the national civil rights movement, promoting full equality for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer/questioning communities. (GLBTQ)
Terry Bean is so well regarded as an activist that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski declared August 23, 2008, to be “Terry Bean Equality Day” in recognition for the work he has done on LGBT rights causes since the 1970’s.
A pioneer in the movement, Terry Bean, started advocating politically for gay rights in the early 1970′s in Eugene, Oregon. Early successes resulted in the passing of a city gay rights ordinance, which, while was later overturned by voters, set the framework for grassroot organizations and strategies which quickly followed—establishing a pattern of victories which have continued well into the new millennium.
In 1979, Bean helped to organize the National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, the first such highly visible effort to empower a minority while educating a majority.
After the march on Washington, Terry Bean turned his focus to the national level co-founding the Gay Rights National Lobby and the Human Rights Campaign Fund. These groups merged to become today’s Human Rights Campaign – HRC.

The Human Rights Campaign is the nation’s largest gay rights organization.


P-BO and Hilary have both praised him, I suspect Dan and his little enclave down in KY probably think he's a pretty good guy as well.

The Dangerousness of Indoctrination and the Unwillingness to Acknowledge it When it Hurts You Politically.

Apparently indoctrination is bad, so when we see this, I guess we must conclude that some folks are so indoctrinated that they are devoid of rational thought.

http://dailybruin.com/2015/07/20/free-tampons-would-slow-flow-of-gender-inequality/

It would seem that darling Zoey, is so indoctrinated into the government must pay for everything mentality of the American left that she can spew this kind of crap.

"To most government officials, feminine hygiene products are a luxury item. But, every day, women are being poisoned by their own bodies because they lack access to even the most essential health products."

 "Although still greatly outnumbered and underpaid compared to their male counterparts, women have made so much progress. Yet inequality still lies in the most basic areas of human well-being. Women are still facing unequal treatment when it comes to health care and are paying out of pocket for necessary female health products, particularly tampons and pads."

 "It’s about time that the federal government recognizes that even the most basic health care needs to start subsidizing the cost of tampons and pads for women, or covering the cost completely."

Seriously, doesn't the Daily Bruin fact check before they publish?

Slippery Slope

 Many folks get all worked up when you point out that if you follow certain actions or lines of reasoning to a logical conclusion that you sometimes end up with unsavory unintended consequences.   Let's take the push for "gay marriage".   At least that what it started out as.  It was this lice little picture of a metrosexual gay couple in a loving, happy, lifetime, monogamous marriage to each other.   Then we see that a significant portion of the "gay marriage" folks aren't really interested in the whole life time thing, nor the whole monogamy thing.   Some folks (not that it took any great predictive power) predicted this, and were laughed off as "That's a slippery slope fallacy".    Then the goal posts move slightly to "marriage equity for everyone" and the "why do you want to stop people from loving each other".    Of course the question is raised, well if you really mean "everyone", then you realize what that opens the door to, right?    Once more, we get that "slippery slope" response.   Yet we now see the pedophile community (they need a snappy acronym that isn't NAMBLA), trying to go mainstream, and the various plural folks are all over reality TV.    But now we have below a quote from the NY Times which points out what some of us have been saying for quite a while.

"NOW that the dust is settling from the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a right to same-sex marriage, there are new questions. In particular, could the decision presage a constitutional right to plural marriage? If there is no magic power in opposite sexes when it comes to marriage, is there any magic power in the number two?…
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell did not focus primarily on the issue of sexual orientation. Instead, its main focus was on a “fundamental right to marry” — a right that he said could not be limited to rigid historical definitions or left to the legislative process. That right was about autonomy and fulfillment, about child rearing and the social order. By those lights, groups of adults who have profound polyamorous attachments and wish to build families and join the community have a strong claim to a right to marry…
So the real force of the polygamy question is a lesson in humility. We should not assume that our judges have all the answers. And we should not assume we have them either. Instead we should recognize that once we abandon the rigid constraints of history, we cannot be sure that we know where the future will take us."

What is going to happen is that the same folks who insisted that the line would be drawn at "gay marriage" will gradually but inexorably fall in line behind whichever of these causes  seems most likely to come to a head first.   Well hear the exact same word for word arguments that they made to justify "gay marriage", and they will eventually frame it as a civil rights issue.   Best of all they will still keep pretending that they are not happily rolling right down that slippery slope, and indignantly criticize anyone who dares to suggest that there might be a problem down the road.  

I guess the slippery slope argument is only a logical fallacy until it switches from prediction to description of reality.   

Liberal lamentation about the evil of selling human body parts, or lack thereof

Just wondering: Can anyone find a conservative blog that is lamenting the tragic turn of events in which we find that Planned Parenthood (supported by both liberals in general as well as funded by liberals with tax dollars) is selling the body parts of aborted human children or otherwise speaking out about this great evil?




I ask because I've looked around and cannot find any.

If not, why not?

I find it disgusting that the left can get worked up over slavery as it might have existed 4,000 years ago, but not about this monstrous behavior.

I find it reprehensible that the when the left responds to acts of evil like the shooting in SC or in CT, they are quick to blame flags or guns and call for the banning of inanimate objects as if those objects are the problem. Yet when faced with the systematic evil of Kermit Gosnell or the now multitude of things from Planned Parenthood (hiding rape, giving advice on how to turn kids into sex slaves, selling human body parts for profit), they can't even work up enough gumption to suggest that we ban forceps or scissors.

It seems obvious that the American left is so much more interested in protecting and advancing abortion, that they are willing to ignore or defend this type of reprehensible behavior.

You do have to love the fact that this little scheme does have the effect or rendering the "It's just a clump of cells" argument even more foolish than it previously was.

Assumptions

What is it about people, that allows them to form a set of assumptions with little or no support then to use those assumptions as the basis to make assertions which they expect others to accept.

For example, I listened to bits of Hillary's interview with the CNN reporter.   I was honestly surprised that the reporter asked some specific, tough questions and then followed them up.

What didn't surprise me was the Hillary did not answer any of them.  She just trotted out the same old lame talking points "vast right wing conspiracy", "just because someone says something, you have to ask questions", etc.      At one point, she flat out lied about the number of "devices" she had while SECSTATE (hint: she has already said that she had a Blackberry for official business and an iPhone for personal).

The point here is that her response is not based on the facts of the situation, or on a desire to actually answer that question.  It's based on the fact that her supporters will accept uncritically these talking points because their underlying assumptions condition them to do so.  While at the same time Hillary's underlying assumption is that anything that diverts attention from her and blames her "enemies" is what people really want to hear, not actual answers to actual questions.

I have also seen this recently on Facebook, the fact that people will uncritically post a comment or meme from someone simply because they assume that the content is correct, not because they checked it out, but because they agree with the person they got it from.

I suspect that we are all guilty of this to some degree.  I myself have pointed out when my opinions on a particular matter might be driven by my underlying assumptions and not by principle or the desire to be intellectually consistent.   I'm pretty confident that we all have this desire.

But how do we respond when those assumptions are directly and specifically challenged?

Do we take the time to go back and examine our assumptions, and are we able to provide some rational reasons why those assumptions should be assumed?

Do we, as I have done, sometimes admit that our assumptions are not always consistent and explain why?

Do we simply continue to assume that our assumptions are correct and ignore challanges to them?

At some point probably all of the above.

 Where it becomes problematic is when someone defines the terms of a discussion on the basis of their personal assumptions without providing any  sort of support that explains why their particular assumptions should be accepted as the basis for any conversation.   From that point it becomes difficult to move forward if there is no willingness to actually discuss and support those assumptions.    

I suspect that a lot of it comes down the the fact that it is just easier to operate on the basis that your assumptions are correct, and that they make sense for everyone else as well, and an unwillingness to actually put forth the effort to reexamine and support your assumptions.   So, it seems as if the default position is to just ignore it when those assumptions are questioned.

How's this going to work ? (edited)

I was just reading a blog post by a mainline ordained pastor who identifies as bi-sexual.  She was talking about how amazing it is that her denomination had changed it's definition of marriage from "a man and woman" to "two people", and how cool it was that queers (her word not mine) can get ordained.   While I'm sure this is all very exciting, especially in light of the SCOTUS decision, I was left with a question.   How will this work?   Given the fact that this entire campaign has been portrayed as being about lofty things like love, equality, equity, and justice, how can we arbitrarily grant justice to one group, while denying it to others?

This particular young woman identifies as bisexual, so how does a bisexual achieve marriage equity/equality?   It seems that there are three options.  One can marry one other person (of either sex), then engage in am extra marital affair with a person or persons of the other sex.  One can marry a person of each sex.  One can simply marry and divorce a series of individuals depending of their current preference.

It seems to me that each of these is problematic.

The first is problematic in that traditionally one component of marriage is the concept of monogamy, obviously this one is not shared by many in the GLBTQXYZPDQ community, but in a Christian marriage ceremony it talks about "forsaking all others" etc.  Again, it seems that entering into a marriage with the intent of engaging in a sexual relationship outside of the marriage kind of defeats the purpose.

The second, is probably the closest to equity/equality for the bisexual, and is probably one of the next bridges to fall.  But for now, the definition of marriage still reads "two people".  So, it seems like this one is out as well.

The third option has the benefit of seeming to fit with the popular culture in general which doesn't seem to see much problem with marriage and or divorce at will.   It does seem problematic to go into a marriage agreeing to the vows, all the while knowing that you'll divorce this one for someone of the other gender when you feel like a change.

It seems clear that the current push for "marriage equity" is the first step down a path.  How can we grant marriage to the person of one's choice to gay people, but not to bisexuals?  The PR is it's all about marrying who you love, right?   If that's the case, the obvious next question is why limit it to two people who love each other? 

So, how is this going to work when the bisexual folks realize that they are still getting less equity than the G and L initial folks are getting?