If someone says that they will do something. If they specifically say "I will do thus and so...", and then fail to do what they said they would do, how does one refer to that?
Is it a simple oversight to be ignored?
Is it a lie?
Is it just confusion?
What if they fail to do what they said, then they act as if they did? Does that make any difference?
I'm just curious as I am in a situation where this is happening and I don't know how to deal with it and how far I should push it.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Shakira was right.
A few years ago Latin pop star Shakira had a hit song called "Hips Don't Lie". As I have reflected on the recent controversy over folks who claim to be a different gender than their biology might indicate, the truth of Shakira's claim struck me.
One of the many biological differences between those who are male and female is the skeletal structure, especially of the hips.
I find it strange that so many who elevate Science to an almost god like entity and who so fervently grab on to what Science tells us, are perfectly willing (in certain cases) to completely abandon the hard science of biology and the numerous undeniable biological differences between male and female (down to the cellular level) in favor of advancing a political agenda with virtually no hard science behind it.
So to put this in pop culture terms. Folks have chosen to ignore the scientific fact that "Hips Don't Lie" in favor of "Man, I Feel Like a Woman".
One of the many biological differences between those who are male and female is the skeletal structure, especially of the hips.
I find it strange that so many who elevate Science to an almost god like entity and who so fervently grab on to what Science tells us, are perfectly willing (in certain cases) to completely abandon the hard science of biology and the numerous undeniable biological differences between male and female (down to the cellular level) in favor of advancing a political agenda with virtually no hard science behind it.
So to put this in pop culture terms. Folks have chosen to ignore the scientific fact that "Hips Don't Lie" in favor of "Man, I Feel Like a Woman".
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Science
"Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and
its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that
transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex
change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual
reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental
disorder."
Wow, that's pretty harsh. One must wonder what kind of person would make those sorts of comments
Wow, that's pretty harsh. One must wonder what kind of person would make those sorts of comments
Ahhhhhhh, life in the Peoples Republic
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/25/minnesota-parents-sue-to-get-trans-classes-in-kindergarten/
It would appear that a couple of progressive, liberated, forward thinking parents in St Paul have decided to indulge their 5 year old child in it's desire to "be" a girl. Not only that, but they are demanding that the child's school adopt their preferred curriculum and protect the child from bullying. Now the school has a "no bullying" policy and so far there is nothing that I've seen that clearly demonstrates that the school has not followed the existing policy on bullying in this case.
But, just for now, let's leave aside the ridiculousness of parents demanding that the school teach a curriculum of the parents choice. Let's leave aside the controversy over the entire "transgender" issue. Let's leave aside the fact that "transgendered" folks have a disproportionately high suicide rate. Let's focus on one simple fact.
This is a flippin' 5 year old child. On what planet do responsible parents indulge a 5 year old in whatever feelings they happen to have on any given day. Most rational folks would agree that a 5 year old does not have the mental capacity to fully comprehend all of the myriad ramifications stemming from their feelings. There is a reason why we don't allow our children to make certain decisions until they are 18 (unless it's certain forms of elective surgery in which case they are not only allowed but encouraged to make life and death decisions without parental involvement). There is a reason why we don't throw 12 year old's the keys to the Benz and say go have fun. There is a reason why we have an age of consent.
Part of the job of parents and society is to protect children from bad decisions based on their lack of maturity. Part of the job of parents and society is to help teach children how to make wiser decisions as they get older and to encourage an increasing level of decision making and responsibility on the part of the child as they grow older and more mature.
(HYPERBOLE ALERT)
As far as I'm concerned, a case could be made that these parents are engaging in behavior which is the equivalent of child abuse.
One wonders what else these parent of the year candidates are williong to indulge their 5 year old in.
It would appear that a couple of progressive, liberated, forward thinking parents in St Paul have decided to indulge their 5 year old child in it's desire to "be" a girl. Not only that, but they are demanding that the child's school adopt their preferred curriculum and protect the child from bullying. Now the school has a "no bullying" policy and so far there is nothing that I've seen that clearly demonstrates that the school has not followed the existing policy on bullying in this case.
But, just for now, let's leave aside the ridiculousness of parents demanding that the school teach a curriculum of the parents choice. Let's leave aside the controversy over the entire "transgender" issue. Let's leave aside the fact that "transgendered" folks have a disproportionately high suicide rate. Let's focus on one simple fact.
This is a flippin' 5 year old child. On what planet do responsible parents indulge a 5 year old in whatever feelings they happen to have on any given day. Most rational folks would agree that a 5 year old does not have the mental capacity to fully comprehend all of the myriad ramifications stemming from their feelings. There is a reason why we don't allow our children to make certain decisions until they are 18 (unless it's certain forms of elective surgery in which case they are not only allowed but encouraged to make life and death decisions without parental involvement). There is a reason why we don't throw 12 year old's the keys to the Benz and say go have fun. There is a reason why we have an age of consent.
Part of the job of parents and society is to protect children from bad decisions based on their lack of maturity. Part of the job of parents and society is to help teach children how to make wiser decisions as they get older and to encourage an increasing level of decision making and responsibility on the part of the child as they grow older and more mature.
(HYPERBOLE ALERT)
As far as I'm concerned, a case could be made that these parents are engaging in behavior which is the equivalent of child abuse.
One wonders what else these parent of the year candidates are williong to indulge their 5 year old in.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
I just found this in my draft folder. It's a post from way back when. It's one of the posts where I went through multiple questions from Dan and answered all of them in one place. I realize it's out of context, but I did all the work and figured that one more example of answering questions is always a good healthy thing.
One more in the series of answers for Dan, this one picks up on Oct. 17, 2014 and hopefully will get through the current discussion thread as of Oct. 29, 2014.
1. "What do you think it is a literal term for?" Actually, it is an English translation of the Greek work “Theopneustos” which is more literally translated “given by inspiration of God,”. So, if it is a metaphor, then it’s a metaphor for “given by inspiration of God”.
2. "But by all means, demonstrate using your intense knowledge of babies what they are guilty of? Shitting their diaper?" I would agree with the historic Christian doctrine of Original Sin which suggests that all of humanity is born with a sin nature and that "all have sinned" means what it says.
3. "But “wow,” what? You find it somehow amazing that people have this CRAZZZZZZZZY notion that babies are, by definition, innocent and have not committed a sin? That IS NUTSO, eh? This questions misrepresents my position, and therefore is not worth any further attention.
4. "Can you admit your error there?" No, because I cut/pasted your actual words and responded to your declaration.
5. "Can you admit your error here?" Again, I have not made an error here to admit.
6. "Or are you having a problem with reality?" You seem to be suggesting that your hunch is equal to reality, how can this be? can you demonstrate that your hunch is in fact reality?
7. "Understand the error now?" Obviously I've dealt with this already, but by including it I hope to make the point that virtually no questions have been ignored.
8. "Who says I need God’s definition of innocence to communicate an idea in English?" Since the idea you seem to be trying to communicative is that God considers babies innocent, it would only make sense that you understand what God considers innocent. Further, you have not established the fact that God is somehow bound by any English language definition.
9. "So, why would you or I not use English words with their given definitions to communicate in English? What are you suggesting I/we do?" If your point is only that you, using an English definition of innocent. opine that babies are innocent in your eyes there is no problem. Where the problem lies is that were talking about how God views babies and there sin. Once you cross that line, then you have to provide something to underpin your hunch. You haven't.
10. "Am I mistaken?" Not in your mind.
11. "What is it you want me to “prove…”? That MW defines words as I’ve cited?" No, I would like to to demonstrate that your hunch is anything more than your hunch. You are suggesting that it is an objective fact that babies are innocent in the eyes of god, so demonstrate that your assertion is something other than your personal opinion.
12. "I suspect that you all just want to bully people into accepting whatever definition you humans are assigning to these words as being equal to “fact” and/or “god’s word…” but why would we do that?" This appears to be rhetorical, so I'm treating it as such.
13. "On. What. Basis?" On.The.Basis.That.You.Should.Defend.Claims.You.Have.Made.
14. "What claim do you think I made?" That babies are factually, objectively, 100% innocent and free from all sin from God's perspective.
15. "By what authority do I say that a baby is innocent as defined in the dictionary?" OK you can read the dictionary, so what does a 2014 dictionary definition have to do with God commanding the Israelites to engage in certain actions? Again, we're talking about what God thinks, not the dictionary.
16. "Innocent means what it means. What the hell are you asking?" How many times must I repeat myself?
17. "Look, do you even recognize how crazy it sounds to say (if you are saying it) that babies are guilty of some crime/misdeed? They have not done anything but be born, poop and eat… what could they possibly have done? Are you suggesting that pooping is a crime/misdeed?? What have they done?" Why must I answer these things over and over?
18. "Do you not recognize how insane that sounds?" I realize that it sounds insane to you that i might think that God has a different way to look at guilt or innocence than you do. But how things sound to you isn't really the point, is it? Do you realize how insane it sounds for to to demand that God be limited to a dictionary definition that you've cherry picked to try to bolster your hunch?
19. "Do you disagree that, just rationally, it would be insane to punish someone for something they did not do?" I think it's insane to try to limit the criteria that God might or might not use for judgement based on your definition of fair.
20. "Do you have a different guess?" I'll go with the historic doctrine of Original Sin, as well as the scriptural support you ignored earlier.
21. "Do you think God holds babies accountable as “sinners” for doing nothing/making no conscious decision to do wrong?" Asked and answered.
22. "Do you speak for God when you make your guesses?" No, I believe that the Bible speaks clearly enough on many things that to accept Biblical teaching is tantamount to God speaking for Himself.
23. "Are your guesses equivalent to facts?" No.
24. "If so, on what basis would we grant that belief any credibility?" After you refute the Biblical/historical case I made at John's then we can discuss this. As long as you ignore things, I see no reason for mindless repetition.
25. "By what authority are you not understanding what I said?" I do understand what you said, I'm taking your words at face value.
26. "By what rationality are you dodging reasonable questions?" I've answered well over a hundred of your direct questions, while you haven't reciprocated. You continuing to make this accusation after being corrected is simply continuing to lie.
27. "Do you disagree? If so, what wrong has a 1 day old child committed?" Asked and answered.
28. "On what basis would you make such a crazy claim?" I haven't made the claim, you keep insisting I have. It seems crazy to keep insisting that I have made a claim I haven't made.
29. "And do you not realize how detached from reality this line of grilling is on your part?" I was unaware that you have been deputized to define reality. It seems that insisting that I have made a claim that I have clearly not made, ignoring my explanations of why you are wrong, then repeating the wrong claim is truly divorced from reality.
30. "Who says that God is the only judge of ultimate innocence or guilt?" I'd start with the Bible. Do you have another option"
31. "Who says God has a “standard” by which he judges innocence and guilt?" One would presume that a judge would have a standard that is used to make judgements.
32. "And regardless, what does that have to do with what I’ve said?" You keep insisting that babies are innocent, and that God (by ordering the killing of entire populations) wouldn't order the killing of innocents. For your hunch to be true, you must demonstrate that the babies in question as innocent in according to God's standard. Failure to do so, renders your entire hunch unsupported guesswork.
33. "So, in your opinion, God IS the only judge of guilt or innocence?" Who else would you suggest? I'd suggest that there is ample Biblical evidence to support the contention that God is the ultimate judge. Of course, if you deny this, it screws up your beloved Matthew 25 interpretation.
34. "Is your opinion on this matter equal to fact, or is it just your opinion?" I never said it was.
35. "On what basis would you presume to say your opinion is fact?" Since I didn't make the claim, I see no reason to defend a claim I didn't make.
36. "What is the support for such a claim?" Already provided
37. "Has God told you this?' In so far as the Bible is "the Word of God", the answer is yes.
38. "On What Basis?" Why don't you provide some basis for your hunches and stop asking this stupid question.
39. "John, Craig, Marshall: Are newborn babes guilty of something? Of what?What did they do? Demonstrate, please with some hard data.On what basis would you claim that babies are guilty of something? Where is your support? Do you not recognize how crazy that sounds, how detached from reality?" Asked and answered.
As I went through and did some formatting I was struck by the fact that Dan is still asking the same questions today that he was when this was put together. I was also struck by the fact that in this post alone (not to mention the others from the same time) I sought out and answered 39 questions from a series of posts in an effort to demonstrate the falseness of Dan's "No one even answers my questions." claims. I'll leave decisions of his veracity to others ("I answer 95% of the questions asked of me."), but I decided since I did the work on this post I should go ahead and put it out.
1. "What do you think it is a literal term for?" Actually, it is an English translation of the Greek work “Theopneustos” which is more literally translated “given by inspiration of God,”. So, if it is a metaphor, then it’s a metaphor for “given by inspiration of God”.
2. "But by all means, demonstrate using your intense knowledge of babies what they are guilty of? Shitting their diaper?" I would agree with the historic Christian doctrine of Original Sin which suggests that all of humanity is born with a sin nature and that "all have sinned" means what it says.
3. "But “wow,” what? You find it somehow amazing that people have this CRAZZZZZZZZY notion that babies are, by definition, innocent and have not committed a sin? That IS NUTSO, eh? This questions misrepresents my position, and therefore is not worth any further attention.
4. "Can you admit your error there?" No, because I cut/pasted your actual words and responded to your declaration.
5. "Can you admit your error here?" Again, I have not made an error here to admit.
6. "Or are you having a problem with reality?" You seem to be suggesting that your hunch is equal to reality, how can this be? can you demonstrate that your hunch is in fact reality?
7. "Understand the error now?" Obviously I've dealt with this already, but by including it I hope to make the point that virtually no questions have been ignored.
8. "Who says I need God’s definition of innocence to communicate an idea in English?" Since the idea you seem to be trying to communicative is that God considers babies innocent, it would only make sense that you understand what God considers innocent. Further, you have not established the fact that God is somehow bound by any English language definition.
9. "So, why would you or I not use English words with their given definitions to communicate in English? What are you suggesting I/we do?" If your point is only that you, using an English definition of innocent. opine that babies are innocent in your eyes there is no problem. Where the problem lies is that were talking about how God views babies and there sin. Once you cross that line, then you have to provide something to underpin your hunch. You haven't.
10. "Am I mistaken?" Not in your mind.
11. "What is it you want me to “prove…”? That MW defines words as I’ve cited?" No, I would like to to demonstrate that your hunch is anything more than your hunch. You are suggesting that it is an objective fact that babies are innocent in the eyes of god, so demonstrate that your assertion is something other than your personal opinion.
12. "I suspect that you all just want to bully people into accepting whatever definition you humans are assigning to these words as being equal to “fact” and/or “god’s word…” but why would we do that?" This appears to be rhetorical, so I'm treating it as such.
13. "On. What. Basis?" On.The.Basis.That.You.Should.Defend.Claims.You.Have.Made.
14. "What claim do you think I made?" That babies are factually, objectively, 100% innocent and free from all sin from God's perspective.
15. "By what authority do I say that a baby is innocent as defined in the dictionary?" OK you can read the dictionary, so what does a 2014 dictionary definition have to do with God commanding the Israelites to engage in certain actions? Again, we're talking about what God thinks, not the dictionary.
16. "Innocent means what it means. What the hell are you asking?" How many times must I repeat myself?
17. "Look, do you even recognize how crazy it sounds to say (if you are saying it) that babies are guilty of some crime/misdeed? They have not done anything but be born, poop and eat… what could they possibly have done? Are you suggesting that pooping is a crime/misdeed?? What have they done?" Why must I answer these things over and over?
18. "Do you not recognize how insane that sounds?" I realize that it sounds insane to you that i might think that God has a different way to look at guilt or innocence than you do. But how things sound to you isn't really the point, is it? Do you realize how insane it sounds for to to demand that God be limited to a dictionary definition that you've cherry picked to try to bolster your hunch?
19. "Do you disagree that, just rationally, it would be insane to punish someone for something they did not do?" I think it's insane to try to limit the criteria that God might or might not use for judgement based on your definition of fair.
20. "Do you have a different guess?" I'll go with the historic doctrine of Original Sin, as well as the scriptural support you ignored earlier.
21. "Do you think God holds babies accountable as “sinners” for doing nothing/making no conscious decision to do wrong?" Asked and answered.
22. "Do you speak for God when you make your guesses?" No, I believe that the Bible speaks clearly enough on many things that to accept Biblical teaching is tantamount to God speaking for Himself.
23. "Are your guesses equivalent to facts?" No.
24. "If so, on what basis would we grant that belief any credibility?" After you refute the Biblical/historical case I made at John's then we can discuss this. As long as you ignore things, I see no reason for mindless repetition.
25. "By what authority are you not understanding what I said?" I do understand what you said, I'm taking your words at face value.
26. "By what rationality are you dodging reasonable questions?" I've answered well over a hundred of your direct questions, while you haven't reciprocated. You continuing to make this accusation after being corrected is simply continuing to lie.
27. "Do you disagree? If so, what wrong has a 1 day old child committed?" Asked and answered.
28. "On what basis would you make such a crazy claim?" I haven't made the claim, you keep insisting I have. It seems crazy to keep insisting that I have made a claim I haven't made.
29. "And do you not realize how detached from reality this line of grilling is on your part?" I was unaware that you have been deputized to define reality. It seems that insisting that I have made a claim that I have clearly not made, ignoring my explanations of why you are wrong, then repeating the wrong claim is truly divorced from reality.
30. "Who says that God is the only judge of ultimate innocence or guilt?" I'd start with the Bible. Do you have another option"
31. "Who says God has a “standard” by which he judges innocence and guilt?" One would presume that a judge would have a standard that is used to make judgements.
32. "And regardless, what does that have to do with what I’ve said?" You keep insisting that babies are innocent, and that God (by ordering the killing of entire populations) wouldn't order the killing of innocents. For your hunch to be true, you must demonstrate that the babies in question as innocent in according to God's standard. Failure to do so, renders your entire hunch unsupported guesswork.
33. "So, in your opinion, God IS the only judge of guilt or innocence?" Who else would you suggest? I'd suggest that there is ample Biblical evidence to support the contention that God is the ultimate judge. Of course, if you deny this, it screws up your beloved Matthew 25 interpretation.
34. "Is your opinion on this matter equal to fact, or is it just your opinion?" I never said it was.
35. "On what basis would you presume to say your opinion is fact?" Since I didn't make the claim, I see no reason to defend a claim I didn't make.
36. "What is the support for such a claim?" Already provided
37. "Has God told you this?' In so far as the Bible is "the Word of God", the answer is yes.
38. "On What Basis?" Why don't you provide some basis for your hunches and stop asking this stupid question.
39. "John, Craig, Marshall: Are newborn babes guilty of something? Of what?What did they do? Demonstrate, please with some hard data.On what basis would you claim that babies are guilty of something? Where is your support? Do you not recognize how crazy that sounds, how detached from reality?" Asked and answered.
As I went through and did some formatting I was struck by the fact that Dan is still asking the same questions today that he was when this was put together. I was also struck by the fact that in this post alone (not to mention the others from the same time) I sought out and answered 39 questions from a series of posts in an effort to demonstrate the falseness of Dan's "No one even answers my questions." claims. I'll leave decisions of his veracity to others ("I answer 95% of the questions asked of me."), but I decided since I did the work on this post I should go ahead and put it out.
Two different things
I finally realized something this morning. I realized that so much of what gets discussed on blogs is because people are talking about two different things.
I start from the place that God exists, that He is sovereign, that He is personal, that He wants us to be able to know things about Him and about His nature.
When I start from there I realize that certain things must be objectively true or objectively false.
God either created everything from nothing of He didn't.
God either gave us the Bible to communicate His truth or He didn't.
What the Bible records as history is either accurate or it isn't.
What I want to do is to do, as best I possibly can, is to align myself and my thinking with God's reality. I don't want to settle for "opinion" or" seems to be" or "feelings", I want to seek after the reality no matter what that ends up being.
If I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of giving God the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to try to impose my limits on God. It seems silly to say "I believe that God can do anything", but in the next breath announce "But, He didn't do....". Who are we to set limits on what God can or did do.
To me, it seems that the simplest least complicated answer is that God is capable of doing anything regardless of whether or not it makes sense to us.
I guess I will just never understand folks who are willing to settle for a God that makes sense to them. I guess I'll never understand that limited perspective that says God didn't do it that way.
I just want to seek after the God who spoke and the universe came into existence, yet the same God who knows everything about everyone and who provides humans the opportunity to relate with Him in an intimate and personal way.
I start from the place that God exists, that He is sovereign, that He is personal, that He wants us to be able to know things about Him and about His nature.
When I start from there I realize that certain things must be objectively true or objectively false.
God either created everything from nothing of He didn't.
God either gave us the Bible to communicate His truth or He didn't.
What the Bible records as history is either accurate or it isn't.
What I want to do is to do, as best I possibly can, is to align myself and my thinking with God's reality. I don't want to settle for "opinion" or" seems to be" or "feelings", I want to seek after the reality no matter what that ends up being.
If I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of giving God the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to try to impose my limits on God. It seems silly to say "I believe that God can do anything", but in the next breath announce "But, He didn't do....". Who are we to set limits on what God can or did do.
To me, it seems that the simplest least complicated answer is that God is capable of doing anything regardless of whether or not it makes sense to us.
I guess I will just never understand folks who are willing to settle for a God that makes sense to them. I guess I'll never understand that limited perspective that says God didn't do it that way.
I just want to seek after the God who spoke and the universe came into existence, yet the same God who knows everything about everyone and who provides humans the opportunity to relate with Him in an intimate and personal way.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Racism
I find it interesting that virtually any time a conservative public figure says anything that could remotely be considered as being even the slightest bit racist, that there is a feeding frenzy of folks who come out of the woodwork and pounce. Even more interesting is how many of those folks are white liberals.
Yet somehow, when Hilary and DiBlasio pull out a scripted and planned racist joke at a campaign stop, the silence from those easily offended white liberals is deafening.
Shoot, let any of the conservative bloggers where Dan lurks say anything that he percieves as even slightly racist, he's quick to react. But again, in this case, silence.
I guess it's a good thing for the African American community in the US that they have such intellectually consistent defenders out there watching out for their best interests.
Yet somehow, when Hilary and DiBlasio pull out a scripted and planned racist joke at a campaign stop, the silence from those easily offended white liberals is deafening.
Shoot, let any of the conservative bloggers where Dan lurks say anything that he percieves as even slightly racist, he's quick to react. But again, in this case, silence.
I guess it's a good thing for the African American community in the US that they have such intellectually consistent defenders out there watching out for their best interests.
Monday, April 11, 2016
Data
Data is an interesting thing. Beyond the weird cyborg ish guy on Star Trek, data seems to often be misunderstood. Many people ask for data, but then ignore it. Many people suggest that their lack of awareness of data signifies that the data does not exist.
What do we know about data.
1. Data is not proof.
2. There is data that supports ones contention, and data that doesn't. Yet both are data.
3. Being unaware of data does not mean that the data does not exist.
This confusion over data plays out in several ways.
1. When people cling to beliefs despite the presence of data that suggests that they are wrong.
4. When people act as if simply asserting their personal experience is sufficient data to extrapolate larger conclusions.
Personally, when I ask someone to provide some data to support their claim, I almost always read what they provide. Interestingly enough, I have noticed that on more than one occasion that upon closer examination the data provided does not actually support the claim made, and on occasion actually refutes the claim being made.
The last interesting things about data is when people pick and choose which times they will accept the authority of people who are more qualified than they to draw specific conclusions. For example, when someone argues that people undergoing gender reassignment is a "healthy" and "good" thing despite that mounting evidence from medical professionals to the contrary, I find that strange that someone would put their own politically motivated opinion over that of those who in the medical field. Or those that suggest that anal sex is not physically harmful, despite significant medical data to the contrary.
I'll be the first to admit that it's sometimes hard to follow data when it leads you away from your starting position or suggests that your deeply held politically correct position du jour is not quite as true as you'd like it to be. But at some point doesn't one have to stop dismissing the data that exists, to actually look at a broad range of the data out there (even data from people who you disagree with), examine it with an open mind and follow it where it leads?
Hey, if you want to be like the Trump folks and live in this fantasy land in; which a candidate with 69% negatives,who has already alienated at least 30% of the party which is is running as a part of, and who is consistently polling 12% behind any of the democrat candidates, is somehow going to miraculously get elected president go right ahead. Just don't claim that you're hope is based on good data.
EDIT
I was listening to a radio interview this morning with an economist who had done a study on the effects of our high state taxes on our economy. In short that IRS data shows pretty convincingly that people earning between $100,000-$200,000 are leaving the state in significant numbers which is adversely affecting the amount of income taxes collected. Further IRS data shows that there is a significant exodus of people from high tax states into low/no tax states. One listener responded to this data by saying that she would never pay attention to anything that came from the Koch brothers. this is the same kind of thing I've seen where someone dismissed something from Francis Scheaffer simply because they perceived that he (Scheaffer) was "too Calvinist". This concept of dismissing data because of the "source" is simply beyond ridiculous. It's an indication that the person employing the excuse is either too closed minded, lazy, or afraid to actually consider the possibility that there might be data that proves them wrong.
EDIT II
Why is it that people demand "data" to support any argument against their position, yet when "data" is provided simply ignore it?
What do we know about data.
1. Data is not proof.
2. There is data that supports ones contention, and data that doesn't. Yet both are data.
3. Being unaware of data does not mean that the data does not exist.
This confusion over data plays out in several ways.
1. When people cling to beliefs despite the presence of data that suggests that they are wrong.
- A. There are a number of Trump supporters who continue to support him despite increasing amounts data that suggest that he will lose badly in the general election.
- B. People make or repeat an assertion (99.9% of Muslims support terror/It's only a tiny minority of Muslims who support terror), yet when data is supplied that calls that claim into question, it's ignored and the subject is changed.
- C. When a claim is made about how vital the peer review process is to science, and much contrary data is supplied and the original claimant simply ignores the conversation as if pretending that the data isn't there somehow makes it go away.
- A. The "I studied this topic once a long time ago and I believe that I have a thorough enough understanding of all of the possible arguments and data to avoid looking at anything beyond what I remember from years ago." rationale.
- B. The "I'm not familiar with any contrary data therefore it must not exist." rationale.
4. When people act as if simply asserting their personal experience is sufficient data to extrapolate larger conclusions.
Personally, when I ask someone to provide some data to support their claim, I almost always read what they provide. Interestingly enough, I have noticed that on more than one occasion that upon closer examination the data provided does not actually support the claim made, and on occasion actually refutes the claim being made.
The last interesting things about data is when people pick and choose which times they will accept the authority of people who are more qualified than they to draw specific conclusions. For example, when someone argues that people undergoing gender reassignment is a "healthy" and "good" thing despite that mounting evidence from medical professionals to the contrary, I find that strange that someone would put their own politically motivated opinion over that of those who in the medical field. Or those that suggest that anal sex is not physically harmful, despite significant medical data to the contrary.
I'll be the first to admit that it's sometimes hard to follow data when it leads you away from your starting position or suggests that your deeply held politically correct position du jour is not quite as true as you'd like it to be. But at some point doesn't one have to stop dismissing the data that exists, to actually look at a broad range of the data out there (even data from people who you disagree with), examine it with an open mind and follow it where it leads?
Hey, if you want to be like the Trump folks and live in this fantasy land in; which a candidate with 69% negatives,who has already alienated at least 30% of the party which is is running as a part of, and who is consistently polling 12% behind any of the democrat candidates, is somehow going to miraculously get elected president go right ahead. Just don't claim that you're hope is based on good data.
EDIT
I was listening to a radio interview this morning with an economist who had done a study on the effects of our high state taxes on our economy. In short that IRS data shows pretty convincingly that people earning between $100,000-$200,000 are leaving the state in significant numbers which is adversely affecting the amount of income taxes collected. Further IRS data shows that there is a significant exodus of people from high tax states into low/no tax states. One listener responded to this data by saying that she would never pay attention to anything that came from the Koch brothers. this is the same kind of thing I've seen where someone dismissed something from Francis Scheaffer simply because they perceived that he (Scheaffer) was "too Calvinist". This concept of dismissing data because of the "source" is simply beyond ridiculous. It's an indication that the person employing the excuse is either too closed minded, lazy, or afraid to actually consider the possibility that there might be data that proves them wrong.
EDIT II
Why is it that people demand "data" to support any argument against their position, yet when "data" is provided simply ignore it?
The 1%
Over the last several years there has been an increasing level of negativity directed to those who are perceived to be in the to 1%. I've always found this ludicrous on several levels, primarily because those doing the criticizing are themselves a part of the to (at least)5% of the wealthiest people in the world. So whether it's Bernie and Hilary who want to tax the 1% out of existence or the "simple lifestyle" folks who complain about those who don't live up to their perception of a properly "simple' way of life while using their 4G smartphones to comment on blogs. It's just a symptom of people wanting (through tax policy or shaming) to control others and to force others to adopt their personal preferences.
But, I was given the opportunity the other night to see these folks through a different lens, I work for a non profit organization that is involved if providing affordable housing for low income families as well as access to affordable repair and maintenance services to those in need along with other services. Over the years thousands of people have benefited from these services. Unfortunately, this kind of thing costs money, and is becoming more and more expensive. So once a year we invite several hundred people, businesses, and faith organizations together to ask them to commit financial resources to moving our mission forward.
At one point in the evening after dinner and an auction, there was a request for people to step up and make a financial commitment to our shared vision withing seconds roughly 15-20 individuals committed to donate $20,000 each, then a similar number jumped in to commit $10,000 each, and on down the line. Within minutes well over $340,000 was raised all from these 1%ers who those on the left are so willing to blame for most of the bad things that are happening in our country.
This parallels what I've seen from a small number of doctors who have donated/invested tens of thousands of dollars in money, medical supplies and equipment, and time in order to bring high quality eye care to the population of the poorest, most under served zone in the country of Haiti.
When I see all of the kinds of things that folks on the 1% (and those greedy evil corporations as well) engage in on an ongoing basis in order to facilitate tangible measurable improvements in the lives of real people engaged in real struggles, I cannot help but thank God for the people who have been blessed with the skills and ability to reach the level of financial success necessary to write a $20,000 check to provide housing for those in need. Or buy the land, fund the construction costs, purchase the equipment and supplies, and pay for a Haitian ophthalmologist to provide ongoing eye care for the poorest of the poor. I can't help but wonder what those on the left think will be done better of they tax or shame these folks out of the financial resources they've earned.
Obviously, there are ample examples of those in the1% who are not nearly as willing to use their wealth to help others. But, you know what, that's their decision and who am I to suggest that they be taxed or shamed into doing something they would prefer not to do. Or to do something in a way other than that they would prefer.
I know that I'm a little biased because I'm blessed enough to be associated with some amazingly generous folks who are willing to share what they've earned with people in need. But, I just can't see how taxing or shaming people out of their wealth in the name of "equality" or whatever, actually really helps people in their real life situations.
Just a though, but how about we just maybe encourage these 1% folks when they use their wealth for good, instead of criticizing them for not paying enough taxes or living as simply as some random people think they should. I'm just going to guess that the more money taken from these folks in taxes, is going to leave less money for them to use to support worthy causes of their choice.
One last shout out, not only were there some folks writing some big checks the other night, but there were an even larger group of people (of much lesser means) writing checks for $500, or $100, or $50 also. It encourages me to see that we live in a place where we can gather a group of folks together to raise a total of over $700,000 (counting all the auction items as well as ticket sales) to provide affordable housing to those who need it.
FYI, over the next few months we will be rolling out two initiatives with a total fundraising goal of around $130,000,000 in order to significantly expand access to affordable housing and to provide access to mortgage products to a segment of the population who is currently not served in the traditional mortgage market. Virtually every dollar raised will be coming (voluntarily) for private individuals, corporations, and faith groups. You know, the people Bernie, Hilary and their supporters say "don't pay their fair share".
But, I was given the opportunity the other night to see these folks through a different lens, I work for a non profit organization that is involved if providing affordable housing for low income families as well as access to affordable repair and maintenance services to those in need along with other services. Over the years thousands of people have benefited from these services. Unfortunately, this kind of thing costs money, and is becoming more and more expensive. So once a year we invite several hundred people, businesses, and faith organizations together to ask them to commit financial resources to moving our mission forward.
At one point in the evening after dinner and an auction, there was a request for people to step up and make a financial commitment to our shared vision withing seconds roughly 15-20 individuals committed to donate $20,000 each, then a similar number jumped in to commit $10,000 each, and on down the line. Within minutes well over $340,000 was raised all from these 1%ers who those on the left are so willing to blame for most of the bad things that are happening in our country.
This parallels what I've seen from a small number of doctors who have donated/invested tens of thousands of dollars in money, medical supplies and equipment, and time in order to bring high quality eye care to the population of the poorest, most under served zone in the country of Haiti.
When I see all of the kinds of things that folks on the 1% (and those greedy evil corporations as well) engage in on an ongoing basis in order to facilitate tangible measurable improvements in the lives of real people engaged in real struggles, I cannot help but thank God for the people who have been blessed with the skills and ability to reach the level of financial success necessary to write a $20,000 check to provide housing for those in need. Or buy the land, fund the construction costs, purchase the equipment and supplies, and pay for a Haitian ophthalmologist to provide ongoing eye care for the poorest of the poor. I can't help but wonder what those on the left think will be done better of they tax or shame these folks out of the financial resources they've earned.
Obviously, there are ample examples of those in the1% who are not nearly as willing to use their wealth to help others. But, you know what, that's their decision and who am I to suggest that they be taxed or shamed into doing something they would prefer not to do. Or to do something in a way other than that they would prefer.
I know that I'm a little biased because I'm blessed enough to be associated with some amazingly generous folks who are willing to share what they've earned with people in need. But, I just can't see how taxing or shaming people out of their wealth in the name of "equality" or whatever, actually really helps people in their real life situations.
Just a though, but how about we just maybe encourage these 1% folks when they use their wealth for good, instead of criticizing them for not paying enough taxes or living as simply as some random people think they should. I'm just going to guess that the more money taken from these folks in taxes, is going to leave less money for them to use to support worthy causes of their choice.
One last shout out, not only were there some folks writing some big checks the other night, but there were an even larger group of people (of much lesser means) writing checks for $500, or $100, or $50 also. It encourages me to see that we live in a place where we can gather a group of folks together to raise a total of over $700,000 (counting all the auction items as well as ticket sales) to provide affordable housing to those who need it.
FYI, over the next few months we will be rolling out two initiatives with a total fundraising goal of around $130,000,000 in order to significantly expand access to affordable housing and to provide access to mortgage products to a segment of the population who is currently not served in the traditional mortgage market. Virtually every dollar raised will be coming (voluntarily) for private individuals, corporations, and faith groups. You know, the people Bernie, Hilary and their supporters say "don't pay their fair share".
Monday, April 4, 2016
Tiny Minority
Below is a summary of actual survey results describing what Muslims opinions on terrorism and the like. It seems as though the 99.9% of Muslims don't support violence might be wrong.
There are more stats and links in the original story linked at the bottom.
Palestinian Areas. A poll in 2011 showed that 32% of Palestinians supported the brutal murder of five Israeli family members, including a three-month-old baby. In 2009, a poll showed that 78% of Palestinians had positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden. A 2013 poll showed 40% of Palestinians supporting suicide bombings and attacks against civilians. 89% favored sharia law. Currently, 89% of Palestinians support terror attacks on Israel.
Pakistan. After the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Gilani Foundation did a poll of Pakistanis and found that 51% of them grieved for the terrorist mastermind, with 44% of them stating that he was a martyr. In 2009, 26% of Pakistanis approved of attacks on US troops in Iraq. That number was 29% for troops in Afghanistan. Overall, 76% of Pakistanis wanted strict shariah law in every Islamic country.
Morocco. A 2009 poll showed that 68% of Moroccans approved of terrorist attacks on US troops in Iraq; 61% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan as of 2006. 76% said they wanted strict sharia law in every Islamic country.
Jordan. 72% of Jordanians backed terror attacks against US troops in Iraq as of 2009. In 2010, the terrorist group Hezbollah had a 55% approval rating; Hamas had a 60% approval rating.
Indonesia: In 2009, a poll demonstrated that 26% of Indonesians approved of attacks on US troops in Iraq; 22% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan. 65% said they agreed with Al Qaeda on pushing US troops out of the Middle East. 49% said they supported strict sharia law in every Islamic country. 70% of Indonesians blamed 9/11 on the United States, Israel, someone else, or didn’t know. Just 30% said Al Qaeda was responsible.
Egypt. As of 2009, 87% of Egyptians said they agreed with the goals of Al Qaeda in forcing the US to withdraw forces from the Middle East. 65% said they wanted strict sharia law in every Islamic country. As of that same date, 69% of Egyptians said they had either positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden. In 2010, 95% of Egyptians said it was good that Islam is playing a major role in politics.
United States. A 2013 poll from Pew showed that 13% of American Muslims said that violence against civilians is often, sometimes or rarely justified to defend Islam. A 2011 poll from Pew showed that 21 percent of Muslims are concerned about extremism among Muslim Americans. 19 percent of American Muslims as of 2011 said they were either favorable toward Al Qaeda or didn’t know.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/04/myth-tiny-radical-minority/
There are more stats and links in the original story linked at the bottom.
Palestinian Areas. A poll in 2011 showed that 32% of Palestinians supported the brutal murder of five Israeli family members, including a three-month-old baby. In 2009, a poll showed that 78% of Palestinians had positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden. A 2013 poll showed 40% of Palestinians supporting suicide bombings and attacks against civilians. 89% favored sharia law. Currently, 89% of Palestinians support terror attacks on Israel.
Pakistan. After the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Gilani Foundation did a poll of Pakistanis and found that 51% of them grieved for the terrorist mastermind, with 44% of them stating that he was a martyr. In 2009, 26% of Pakistanis approved of attacks on US troops in Iraq. That number was 29% for troops in Afghanistan. Overall, 76% of Pakistanis wanted strict shariah law in every Islamic country.
Morocco. A 2009 poll showed that 68% of Moroccans approved of terrorist attacks on US troops in Iraq; 61% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan as of 2006. 76% said they wanted strict sharia law in every Islamic country.
Jordan. 72% of Jordanians backed terror attacks against US troops in Iraq as of 2009. In 2010, the terrorist group Hezbollah had a 55% approval rating; Hamas had a 60% approval rating.
Indonesia: In 2009, a poll demonstrated that 26% of Indonesians approved of attacks on US troops in Iraq; 22% backed attacks on American troops in Afghanistan. 65% said they agreed with Al Qaeda on pushing US troops out of the Middle East. 49% said they supported strict sharia law in every Islamic country. 70% of Indonesians blamed 9/11 on the United States, Israel, someone else, or didn’t know. Just 30% said Al Qaeda was responsible.
Egypt. As of 2009, 87% of Egyptians said they agreed with the goals of Al Qaeda in forcing the US to withdraw forces from the Middle East. 65% said they wanted strict sharia law in every Islamic country. As of that same date, 69% of Egyptians said they had either positive or mixed feelings about Osama Bin Laden. In 2010, 95% of Egyptians said it was good that Islam is playing a major role in politics.
United States. A 2013 poll from Pew showed that 13% of American Muslims said that violence against civilians is often, sometimes or rarely justified to defend Islam. A 2011 poll from Pew showed that 21 percent of Muslims are concerned about extremism among Muslim Americans. 19 percent of American Muslims as of 2011 said they were either favorable toward Al Qaeda or didn’t know.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/04/myth-tiny-radical-minority/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)