A whack job, liberal, CNN contributer, decided that it was appropriate to make train wreck jokes about the GOP after an accident where someone died. These are the same people who made jokes about hunting republicans after Scalise was shot by one of their own.
Yet Dan only has criticism for those he disagree with. Not surprised at all.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
It’s been suggested..,
We’re seeing an increasing number of people suggesting that we should have completely open borders and no restrictions on immigration. This seems irresponsible, because there are clearly people who would like to cross our borders who would not be positive additions to our nation. This notion goes back quite some time.
Last year, when going through some things at my mom’s house, we found a fascinating immigration document from my grandfather. He came into the country as a child in the early 1900’s ( thank goodness I can’t be held responsible for my slave owning ancestors on that side), but when he was an adult he had to sign a document that affirmed the following three things;
1. That he renounced any affiliation with the queen/king of England.
2. That he wasn’t personally or part of a religion or sect that advocated polygamy.
3. That he wasn’t an anarchist.
On the one hand, the last two are kind of amusing. On the other hand, the concept that we expect immigrants to renounce their allegiance to their country of origin and replace it with allegiance to the US, and that we expect some adherence to the societal norms, seem like reasonable expectations for those who immigrate.
Last year, when going through some things at my mom’s house, we found a fascinating immigration document from my grandfather. He came into the country as a child in the early 1900’s ( thank goodness I can’t be held responsible for my slave owning ancestors on that side), but when he was an adult he had to sign a document that affirmed the following three things;
1. That he renounced any affiliation with the queen/king of England.
2. That he wasn’t personally or part of a religion or sect that advocated polygamy.
3. That he wasn’t an anarchist.
On the one hand, the last two are kind of amusing. On the other hand, the concept that we expect immigrants to renounce their allegiance to their country of origin and replace it with allegiance to the US, and that we expect some adherence to the societal norms, seem like reasonable expectations for those who immigrate.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
DACA
As the DFL whines about the "children" and refuses to consider compromise because they don't want to give Trump a political "win", here's what is getting ignored. No one seems to mention that P-BO chose to make DACA a temporary executive fiat, instead of a permanent legislative fix. The o nly reason why we're even having this debate is because P-BO decided to do an end run around the legislative process and chose to make DACA a short term band aid.
Just one more example of the negative results of P-BO using executive orders to implement policy instead of legislation.
Just one more example of the negative results of P-BO using executive orders to implement policy instead of legislation.
Objective Morality
http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2013/02/a-case-for-secular-morality-objective.html
The above link is to a reasonably good attempt to justify the existence of objective morality that is not grounded in a theistic worldview.
So, Dan, let's see if you can demonstrate that this gentleman is objectively wrong.
The above link is to a reasonably good attempt to justify the existence of objective morality that is not grounded in a theistic worldview.
So, Dan, let's see if you can demonstrate that this gentleman is objectively wrong.
Monday, January 29, 2018
Many times those on the left (like Dan) will tell us we need to adopt the laws of other nations when it comes to their pet issues. So, let’s look at how other nations regulate abortion.
Abortion on-demand laws:
—Greece: 12 weeks
—Austria: 12 weeks
—Germany: 12 weeks
—France: 12 weeks
—Italy: 12 weeks
—Spain: 14 weeks
—South Korea: illegal
—Ireland: illegal
—Poland: illegal
—Sweden:18 weeks
—Norway: 12 weeks
—Denmark: 12 wks
Dems oppose 20 weeks. Who is extreme?
So, we’ve got liberals saying stuff like this.
I always find these pro-life vs pro-choice hilarious because both sides are egregiously wrong. The only sane man's position is pro-eugenics. How much money has been funneled out of the middle and working class to pay for genetically defective burdens in the last century?”
While Dan insists that it’s just a “bad choice” to abort the potentially disabled.
Let’s take a look at how the enlightened European’s handle their disabled adults, but it’s not devaluing them at all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-many-botched-cases-would-it-take-to-end-euthanasia-of-the-vulnerable/2018/01/24/bf311400-0124-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html?utm_term=.
Abortion on-demand laws:
—Greece: 12 weeks
—Austria: 12 weeks
—Germany: 12 weeks
—France: 12 weeks
—Italy: 12 weeks
—Spain: 14 weeks
—South Korea: illegal
—Ireland: illegal
—Poland: illegal
—Sweden:18 weeks
—Norway: 12 weeks
—Denmark: 12 wks
Dems oppose 20 weeks. Who is extreme?
So, we’ve got liberals saying stuff like this.
I always find these pro-life vs pro-choice hilarious because both sides are egregiously wrong. The only sane man's position is pro-eugenics. How much money has been funneled out of the middle and working class to pay for genetically defective burdens in the last century?”
While Dan insists that it’s just a “bad choice” to abort the potentially disabled.
Let’s take a look at how the enlightened European’s handle their disabled adults, but it’s not devaluing them at all.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-many-botched-cases-would-it-take-to-end-euthanasia-of-the-vulnerable/2018/01/24/bf311400-0124-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html?utm_term=.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
Demands
What level of fear is it that makes people demand things of others without being willing to engage in the very thing they demand others do? What level of fear is it that deleting comments, then lying about the content of those comments, gives comfort?
Why would I accede to a demand, when previous attempts have proven pointless.
I’m perfectly willing to engage in the conversation and make the case, once the one making the demand demonstrates a willingness to engage in a significant manner.
Despite what’s being said, I have indicated that all that stands between the demand bring met are a couple of minor things to demonstrate good faith.
1. Answer the questions that have been dodged since November.
2. Either correct the lie about answering questions in the last two threads, or answer the unanswered questions.
3. Pick one of specific issue from the list of books and articles I provided the last time I was faced with a similar demand, and address that one issue thoroughly.
In closing, I find it reprehensible that any human being who claims to be “extremely moral”, would be able to refer to the use of the word “retard” as “vile, oppressive”,and various other adjectives, can only muster, in my opinion it’s a “bad decision” to abort those who might be born with a disability. To shire that morality is based in subjective consensus by a society, while trying to impose his version of morality on others.
Mostly, it’s just sad to see one who claims to follow Jesus engaging in these attempts to silence those whose disagree, and impose his personal opinions on others.
As always, all are welcome, but some have some work to do before their comments can stay.
Why would I accede to a demand, when previous attempts have proven pointless.
I’m perfectly willing to engage in the conversation and make the case, once the one making the demand demonstrates a willingness to engage in a significant manner.
Despite what’s being said, I have indicated that all that stands between the demand bring met are a couple of minor things to demonstrate good faith.
1. Answer the questions that have been dodged since November.
2. Either correct the lie about answering questions in the last two threads, or answer the unanswered questions.
3. Pick one of specific issue from the list of books and articles I provided the last time I was faced with a similar demand, and address that one issue thoroughly.
In closing, I find it reprehensible that any human being who claims to be “extremely moral”, would be able to refer to the use of the word “retard” as “vile, oppressive”,and various other adjectives, can only muster, in my opinion it’s a “bad decision” to abort those who might be born with a disability. To shire that morality is based in subjective consensus by a society, while trying to impose his version of morality on others.
Mostly, it’s just sad to see one who claims to follow Jesus engaging in these attempts to silence those whose disagree, and impose his personal opinions on others.
As always, all are welcome, but some have some work to do before their comments can stay.
Monday, January 22, 2018
Lobsters
What does it say about the nature of our current society that we’re more concerned for the “pain” lobsters suffer, than the pain human fetuses suffer.
Saturday, January 20, 2018
“Logic”
I saw a picture of a sign at one of the women’s rallies that said “Vaginas brought you into this world, vaginas will vote you out”. This raises a few thoughts.
1. This is pretty much a classic case of denial of science.
2. If a vagina is the defining character of a woman, why do people consider Bruce Jenner a woman?
3. In what way does it empower and elevate women to define them simply as vaginas?
There was one sign I agreed with. It was about keeping government out of women’s reproductive systems. I agree. The government should not be subsidizing abortion or birth control. Women should control their vaginas, not be defined by them.
I also have to note the fact that the left has shown more interest and concern for the one poem star that allegedly slept with Trump than the several who have committed suicide.
1. This is pretty much a classic case of denial of science.
2. If a vagina is the defining character of a woman, why do people consider Bruce Jenner a woman?
3. In what way does it empower and elevate women to define them simply as vaginas?
There was one sign I agreed with. It was about keeping government out of women’s reproductive systems. I agree. The government should not be subsidizing abortion or birth control. Women should control their vaginas, not be defined by them.
I also have to note the fact that the left has shown more interest and concern for the one poem star that allegedly slept with Trump than the several who have committed suicide.
What is it about...
What is it about the debate on immigration that lends itself to blatantly false claims.
Two come immediately to mind.
1. The existence of a “Muslim ban”, I’ve asked in vain for evidence of this alleged ban, yet those questions have gone unanswered for months.
2. The existence of a “closed border policy”, I’ve asked for evidence that there is anyone advocating for this, and shockingly, gotten no answer.
I guess it’s more about pushing a narrative, rather than speaking the truth.
PS, it appears that the whole DACA excuse for the shutdown was just that. A cynical ploy to exert leverage in January using something that doesn’t end until March.
Truth is clearly a casualty here.
Two come immediately to mind.
1. The existence of a “Muslim ban”, I’ve asked in vain for evidence of this alleged ban, yet those questions have gone unanswered for months.
2. The existence of a “closed border policy”, I’ve asked for evidence that there is anyone advocating for this, and shockingly, gotten no answer.
I guess it’s more about pushing a narrative, rather than speaking the truth.
PS, it appears that the whole DACA excuse for the shutdown was just that. A cynical ploy to exert leverage in January using something that doesn’t end until March.
Truth is clearly a casualty here.
Friday, January 19, 2018
That's what I thought
I've noticed a trend over the last few years among some on the progressive christian side of things, and it goes like this.
The speaker or author will continually express thoughts that lead those who hear or read them to reach certain conclusions based on what they say ot write. For example, someone might spend years explaining how everyone is saved, yet people refer to them as a "universalist", they deny it. This charade goes on for months or years until one day, they finally admit their universalism.
It makes me wonder why people just aren't honest about their beliefs and don't just admit that their readers and listeners have correctly characterized their position correctly, and that they've been either unwilling to admit the reality or that they've been dishonest about their beliefs. If you are going to advocate for a position, just own your position and take the heat.
The speaker or author will continually express thoughts that lead those who hear or read them to reach certain conclusions based on what they say ot write. For example, someone might spend years explaining how everyone is saved, yet people refer to them as a "universalist", they deny it. This charade goes on for months or years until one day, they finally admit their universalism.
It makes me wonder why people just aren't honest about their beliefs and don't just admit that their readers and listeners have correctly characterized their position correctly, and that they've been either unwilling to admit the reality or that they've been dishonest about their beliefs. If you are going to advocate for a position, just own your position and take the heat.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Immigrants
It seems as though we're seeing a trend on the anti-Trump side of things to equate country of origin with race. In effect, if you are from X country, then you must be Y race.
While this may have some degree of truth, it's not really a worthwhile conclusion in the context of immigration policy.
What Trump seems to be saying is that we need to eliminate the current country based quota system in favor of a system that prioritizes other factors.
The problem, as I see it, boils down to this. If you are in favor of the country based quota system, and if you are arguing that country of origin equals race, then you are essentially arguing for a race based/racist system. Personally, I fail to see how basing anything of value on one's race is helpful in any way.
To my mind, there are four broad categories of immigrants.
1. Refugees, these are people who are motivated by humanitarian issues, be they persecution, war, famine, natural disaster etc. Like the guy I know who was forced to leave Africa because some members of the religion of peace decided to kill him for apostasy. These cases should be decided on a case by case basis and be unrelated to anything but alleviating suffering. The refugee status should also not necessarily be premanant.
2. Immigrants who add value to the US. These are people who bring specific skills, educations, or qualifications to the table and who should be evaluated based on the need for those skills and talents.
3. Those who are simply seeking undefined opportunity. This category is pretty broad and undefined, but should take into account the ability of the immigrants to (eventually) support themselves and their willingness to assimilate. There should most likely be some sort of cap on the total per year, but this shouldn't take race or country of origin into account.
4. Those who seek to immigrate for nefarious purposes.
The common factor is that we should move away from these race based (country ot origin) quotas and towards a system that is focused on individuals and case by case approval.
While I understand the necessity and desirability of immigration. The fact is that unless the skilled, motivated, high level people are willing to stay and work for the betterment of their country of origin, then those countries are going to continue to decline. Which doesn't really help anyone. Why shouldn't the goal of US (and the rest of the world) be to strengthen and improve the situation in these countries that will allow the people to be safe and successful where they're from? Wouldn't a stable, strong, responsible Haiti be in the best interests of Haitians as well as with the rest of the world?
I was talking to a young Haitian ophthalmologist once, and I asked him why he didn't join his family members in the US and pursue his studies and practice there where it would be more lucrative and easier. His response, "I'm Haitian.". He is the kind of people that these thrid world countries need to keep, because they're the hope of better things.
As long as we keep focusing on the symptoms, we'll never cure the disease.
While this may have some degree of truth, it's not really a worthwhile conclusion in the context of immigration policy.
What Trump seems to be saying is that we need to eliminate the current country based quota system in favor of a system that prioritizes other factors.
The problem, as I see it, boils down to this. If you are in favor of the country based quota system, and if you are arguing that country of origin equals race, then you are essentially arguing for a race based/racist system. Personally, I fail to see how basing anything of value on one's race is helpful in any way.
To my mind, there are four broad categories of immigrants.
1. Refugees, these are people who are motivated by humanitarian issues, be they persecution, war, famine, natural disaster etc. Like the guy I know who was forced to leave Africa because some members of the religion of peace decided to kill him for apostasy. These cases should be decided on a case by case basis and be unrelated to anything but alleviating suffering. The refugee status should also not necessarily be premanant.
2. Immigrants who add value to the US. These are people who bring specific skills, educations, or qualifications to the table and who should be evaluated based on the need for those skills and talents.
3. Those who are simply seeking undefined opportunity. This category is pretty broad and undefined, but should take into account the ability of the immigrants to (eventually) support themselves and their willingness to assimilate. There should most likely be some sort of cap on the total per year, but this shouldn't take race or country of origin into account.
4. Those who seek to immigrate for nefarious purposes.
The common factor is that we should move away from these race based (country ot origin) quotas and towards a system that is focused on individuals and case by case approval.
While I understand the necessity and desirability of immigration. The fact is that unless the skilled, motivated, high level people are willing to stay and work for the betterment of their country of origin, then those countries are going to continue to decline. Which doesn't really help anyone. Why shouldn't the goal of US (and the rest of the world) be to strengthen and improve the situation in these countries that will allow the people to be safe and successful where they're from? Wouldn't a stable, strong, responsible Haiti be in the best interests of Haitians as well as with the rest of the world?
I was talking to a young Haitian ophthalmologist once, and I asked him why he didn't join his family members in the US and pursue his studies and practice there where it would be more lucrative and easier. His response, "I'm Haitian.". He is the kind of people that these thrid world countries need to keep, because they're the hope of better things.
As long as we keep focusing on the symptoms, we'll never cure the disease.
Convenience
One thing I’ve seen recently that deserves comment is how some self-described christians adopt the language of Orthodoxy when it’s convenient to make a political point. A couple of examples.
1. Seeing those who don’t believe in an Orthodox view of creation, those who place Darwin and Science above God when it comes to the subject of origins, all of a sudden embrace the idea that people are “created in the image of God”.
2. Seeing those who deny or minimize the concept of Jesus being God incarnate, jump all over the “God was born in a...”.
3. Seeing people try to separate MLK’s faith from his social activism, and who only give his heirs attention when they agree with certain political positions.
I spent the weekend with someone who blows away many of the stereotypes about how African Americans view many of the hot political topics of the day. I guarantee that if I was to attribute many of her comments to a white person, the comments would be labeled racist. Certainly her view of scripture would draw fire from many self-identified christians.
Finally, to those who make demands while refusing to live by the standards you demand of others, your actions undermine your words.
1. Seeing those who don’t believe in an Orthodox view of creation, those who place Darwin and Science above God when it comes to the subject of origins, all of a sudden embrace the idea that people are “created in the image of God”.
2. Seeing those who deny or minimize the concept of Jesus being God incarnate, jump all over the “God was born in a...”.
3. Seeing people try to separate MLK’s faith from his social activism, and who only give his heirs attention when they agree with certain political positions.
I spent the weekend with someone who blows away many of the stereotypes about how African Americans view many of the hot political topics of the day. I guarantee that if I was to attribute many of her comments to a white person, the comments would be labeled racist. Certainly her view of scripture would draw fire from many self-identified christians.
Finally, to those who make demands while refusing to live by the standards you demand of others, your actions undermine your words.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
November 10, 2017
Back on November 10, Dan made some unsupported claims about a “Muslim Ban”. At that time I asked him a series of questions designed to ascertain his understanding of current immigration law. At that time he chose to abandon that thread ( some might draw other conclusions), and to avoid answering the questions asked. I think we now know why.
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
The Utah senate race
I would like to get on this train early, so I’m calling for Mia Love to replace Orrin Hatch as the US senator from Utah. I’d much rather see a relatively new fresh face in that role than Mitt Romney.
But that’s just me.
But that’s just me.
I wonder
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can support him in his position on the resistance in Iran?
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can admit that the increasing number of companies who are raising wages, giving bonuses, and promising billions of dollars of spending, is an objectively good thing for their employees and the economy?
I wonder if the anti/Trump crowd can acknowledge the objective facts regarding the continuously improving economy?
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can acknowledge that the actions of this administration have contributed to the economic growth?
The reason I wonder these things, is that for all the negative things that happened during the P-BO years, even his detractors were able to acknowledge the fact that positive things happened.
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can admit that the increasing number of companies who are raising wages, giving bonuses, and promising billions of dollars of spending, is an objectively good thing for their employees and the economy?
I wonder if the anti/Trump crowd can acknowledge the objective facts regarding the continuously improving economy?
I wonder if the anti-Trump crowd can acknowledge that the actions of this administration have contributed to the economic growth?
The reason I wonder these things, is that for all the negative things that happened during the P-BO years, even his detractors were able to acknowledge the fact that positive things happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)