Contradiction

Craig- "Is Truth somehow diminished or less True because some subset of people don't believe it or deny it?"

Dan- "Nope."

 Craig... " If you can't agree that an objective Truth exists"

Dan- "GOOD God almighty! YES!

"I AGREE THAT OBJECTIVE TRUTH EXISTS.
I AGREE THAT THERE IS OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
I HAVE ALWAYS STATED THAT I BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH!"

"Truth is True, no matter where it comes from."

Dan-"These are competing Truth claims, thus, I refer to the multiple Truth claims."

Dan- "But I've always been quite clear that I believe in THE TRUTH. I've never obfuscated or been unclear about this.  So, you really have no room now to say that Dan does not believe in One Truth, because I've clarified what was already clear."

Craig- " So, you are claiming that we can know the Truth?"

Dan- "YYYYESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!  ONE MILLION TIMES, YES!"

 Craig- "Personally, I see absolutely zero value in a worldview that is based on anything except the Truth."

Dan- "Me, either."




Dan- " Sometimes we use the term Truths to refer to literal multiple truths"

Dan- " “There are five - seven different topics, with five - seven different objective truths, presumably”

Dan- " These are multiple, infinite Truths because there are multiple, infinite questions."

Dan- " He is referring to MULTIPLE Truths"

Dan- " YES, 1+1=2 and 1+2=3 ARE two distinct Truths. But more apt, 1+1=2 and Joe owns a Hyundai are ALSO two distinct Truths.  There are multiple Truths in this world and that is an observable objective fact."

Dan- " hose are TWO diverse/distinct Truths in one real world. "




Ok, I could post more, but this is representative.  What we've seen is multiple adamant references to The Truth (singular), then a bizarre switch to "truths" plural.   I think the most telling contradiction is
 "So, you really have no room now to say that Dan does not believe in One Truth,".

This raises several distinct possiilities.

1.  Dan decided that talking about objective Truth was headed down a road that he didn't like and decided that changing course and denying what he had been affirming was a good strategy to derail things.
2.  One of Dan's contradictory positions is not True.
3.  Dan decided that it was critical to introduce a version of subjective morality into the conversation because the notion of some sort of Objective Truth opens the door to an objective morality.
4.  Dan is a person who believes that whatever he says or writes in literally True in the moment that he says or writes it, but once he says or writes something else then that becomes True.


I could come up with all sorts of imaginary motivations for Dan contradicting himself, buy it's pointless.  It's most likely one of the semantic games he delights in and he'll go to increasingly imaginative and creative ways to explain this contradiction.

I can’t even come up with a title

“There are five - seven different topics, with five - seven different objective truths, presumably”

I’m probably going to regret this, (I’m putting it in its own thread so I can abort it if necessary) but I’m going to ask anyway.

What in the hell are these 25-49 different truths?

This

“Something good is going to come out of this season. If you asked me to prove it, I couldn't. Not yet anyway. I don't have evidence. All I have is faith, this small, barely there at times, glimmer of belief. But that's more than enough for today. (Expect to see this tomorrow too!)

John Acuff

There are too many people out there who deny anything that doesn’t live up to their standard of proof.   I can’t help but think that being limited to a world where you sacrifice faith and hope on the alter of proof, must be a sad way to live.

Thanks John!

Harm is an interesting thing.

https://aristake.com/post/AB5?fbclid=IwAR1KjJLFa7Qdcd0DbLTW7ASeg6OqvNM5BdPp4Q17QkjyLw2LEy7tqRaM76k


The above was something that my cousin posted a while back about a new law in CA.  He's a musician and he and other musicians are convinced that this law is going to cause them significant harm.

https://twitter.com/johnstossel/status/1237402301784088578

John Stossel covered it here.

It seems strange to see a state run by progressives passing a law with so much potential to harm people.  It seems immoral.

Of course, what's interesting from those complaining, is that they have the solution to the problem, they just choose not to avail themselves of it.

Remember... (Updated)

...when Trump was being vilified (and Cuomo was ignored) for suggesting that Chloroquine might be effective in fighting the Wuhan virus?  Remember when Trump was blamed for a couple of people who decided to skip all the consulting a physician nonsense and self medicate with fish tank cleaner?  Well, it looks like science is catching up with Trump and Cuomo.

A French Dr is having virtually a 100% success rate with Chloroquine.

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-researcher-in-Marseille-posts-successful-Covid-19-coronavirus-drug-trial-results

Novartis is preparing to donate 130,000,000 doses and Reuters reports the following.

"Novartis Chief Executive Vas Narasimhan said his Sandoz generics unit’s malaria, lupus and arthritis drug hydroxychloroquine is the company’s biggest hope against the coronavirus, Swiss newspaper SonntagsZeitung reported on SundayNovartis has pledged to donate 130 million doses and is supporting clinical trials needed before the medicine, which U.S. President Donald Trump also has been promoting, can be approved for use against the coronavirus.

“Pre-clinical studies in animals as well as the first data from clinical studies show that hydroxychloroquine kills the coronavirus,” Narasimhan told Swiss newspaper SonntagsZeitung."

The French are on board as well.

“The French government has officially sanctioned prescriptions of chloroquine to treat certain coronavirus patients,” France 24 English reported Saturday.
“This ensures continued treatment of patients who have been treated for several years for a chronic condition with this drug, but also allows a temporary authorization to allow certain patients with coronavirus to benefit from this therapeutic route,” said Jérôme Salomon, France’s director general of health.
According to a report from Trustnodes, France’s move comes after infectious disease specialist Didier Raoult announced new clinical results… that show 78 out of 80 patients treated with chloroquine recovered within five days."

Oh, look the FDA...

"On Sunday night, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, drugs often used to treat malaria and recently touted by President Donald Trump as a possible “game-changer” in the fight against the China-originated novel coronavirus, or COVID-19.
The United States Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced in a statement on Sunday that the FDA will allow the drugs to be “donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be distributed and prescribed by doctors to hospitalized teen and adult patients with COVID-19, as appropriate, when a clinical trial is not available or feasible,” a Politico report said.
The statement noted that “Sandoz donated 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine to the stockpile and Bayer donated 1 million doses of chloroquine.”
Trump made it clear weeks ago that his administration would work to fast-track promising drugs like hydroxychloroquine with the FDA, all in an effort to combat COVID-19."

 Back to Cuomo

" Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is on the same page as President Trump when it comes to the popular anti-malaria drugs, permitting trials of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and azithromycin to commence in his state.  “Let’s see how it works,” Trump said Sunday, with regard to the New York trials. “It may. It may not.”



The New York Post reports:

"Two coronavirus patients in New York City are off ventilators and out of intensive care after they received an experimental drug to treat HIV and breast cancer.
[…]The drug, leronlimab, is delivered by injection twice in the abdomen, the Daily Mail reported.
Of seven critically ill patients who received the drug in New York, two were removed from ventilators and two showed significant improvement.
[…]CytoDyn, the drug’s manufacturer, could get FDA approval in six weeks if leronlimab continues to show promise. No drugs currently have FDA approval to treat the novel coronavirus."

So, will be be hearing or seeing all the folks who said Trump had blood on his hands retracting and apologizing?   Will we see the acknowledgement that Trump is following the advice of doctors and scientists and that by cutting the FDA red tape might actually lead to lives saved?   Will we see all the people decrying Trump's comments about being open by Easter, admit that they were wrong?  (Remember, they weren't criticizing the timeline, they were criticizing him for not following the advice of experts)  FYI, I personally think the new deadline is too much and am hoping that he'll be willing to pull it back if circumstances warrant. 

I think I know the answers to these questions, and I hope I'm wrong.  I really hope that the media gets away from pushing a narrative, starts reporting the news, and admits that they were wrong.



It's easier to post the one link to WK's post, which contains multiple links to sources for this, so here it goes.


 https://winteryknight.com/2020/04/07/so-much-good-news-in-the-battle-against-the-chinese-wuhan-virus/


Here is my question.   If Chloroquine and/or Zithromax have any prophylactic effect at all, wouldn't it be cheaper to prescribe a course to everyone in the country and start lifting all the quarantine restrictions?

Since Dan is obsessed

"I BELIEVE that a progressive, Christian, welcoming, grace and justice-oriented worldview best explains the world we live in."


With the acknowledgement that you've jumped multiple steps ahead of the discussion I was trying to have, I'll put your Truth claim to the test.

If the worldview you just espoused is the best at explaining the world we live in, how does it explain the following?

The transition from the absolute existence of nothing to the existence of all of the matter in the universe in an instant?

The origin of the vast amounts of information encoded into our DNA?

The fine tuned nature of the universe?

A natural order based on the survival of the fittest?


Anything other than a clear, direct, specific, answer to the question exactly as asked will end up somewhere else.  The only questions I will answer on this thread are questions asked to clarify specific aspects of the questions asked, do not expect answers to anything else.  This is your opportunity to prove how well your worldview aligns with the world we live in.  Do you your inability to stop jumping ahead, my usual rule of posting all of your comments might be suspended for this post.

Clearly there’s a comprehension problem

Due to a conflict between my promise to post Dan’s comments, as opposed to his random deletions of comments, and my desire to focus one particular post on the specific topic of that particular post I’ll be copying his off topic, and or expletive filled rants here.

Dan TrabueMarch 29, 2020 at 8:28 AM
A sampling of the many things you all THINK I think but you're mistaken about...

Craig... I'm going to start be questioning the assumption that the goal of morality is to "find common ground".  

This is not anything I've said. What I HAVE said is that it helps us as a society to find common ground on questions of morality. Thus, one goal of a SOCIETY is to find common ground on morality, or what rules we will live by. Is slavery okay? Can I rape "slutty" women (as Marshal and rapists call them)? How about taking things that don't belong to me, is that okay?

Societies HAVE to find some common ground on rules, which is to say, morality, because otherwise, we'd have a hellish anarchy.

1. Do you disagree with what I'm ACTUALLY saying?

Marshal... The entire quote was an attempt by Dan to dodge the initial question of how he determines an objective morality.

It is not. You're just factually mistaken. There is NO dodge and I clearly DO strive to determine morality. BUT, we can't objectively prove our opinions about morality as an objective fact. I DO recognize that reality. And it is reality. If it's not, you all are welcome to prove objectively your opinions about morality are objectively factual.

2. Craig, at one point at least, acknowledged that his opinions are not facts, they are his opinions on morality. Do you still affirm that, Craig? Because you appear to waffle back and forth on the question.

3. Marshal, if you can PROVE objectively your opinions about morality are objective facts, please do so.

Marshal... a morality that exists regardless of whether or not we do.

I do, too. You keep acting like I don't, but I've been quite clear on the point.

4. Do you recognize that reality?

Craig... Those preconceptions include his assertions that various things “can’t” be proven and that there certain things that can’t be know with any certainty.

Craig, I would LOVE if you can prove your opinions about morality are objectively provably factually correct. Even if it's contrary to something I believe in currently. Why? Because I value morality and want to be moral.

5. Can you objectively prove your opinions on morality are authoritatively objectively factually correct?

6. If so, please do so. IF NOT, please admit it clearly. Stop waffling (I don't view such waffling to be very moral.

More...
ReplyDelete



Dan TrabueMarch 29, 2020 at 8:28 AM
Craig... Unfortunately he doesn’t start be asking what is True. He acknowledges that some sort of Truth exists, but that it’s absolutely impossible for us to know that Truth.

Bullshit. This is utterly ridiculous vomit.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO KNOW TRUTH. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.

7. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?

Rather, I have said that much about morality is SELF-EVIDENT and ABUNDANTLY CLEAR and JUST NOT THAT DAMNED DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, and certainly not as difficult as you all appear to think it is.

8. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?

I DO ASK THE QUESTION, "WHAT IS TRUE?" and do so regularly.

9. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?

I've just noted the reality that, no matter how self-evident and relatively clear it is, we can't PROVE AS AN OBJECTIVE FACT that your opinions about moral questions are authoritatively objectively factual.

There is a difference between ABUNDANTLY CLEAR and OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE.

An increasing majority of the world thinks it is abundantly clear that gay and lesbian folk marrying is a holy, beautiful, glorious great moral good and a joy to all. However, in spite of that abundance of clarity, some Muslims and Christians would still think it's okay to jail or kill or outlaw such activity, because they hold a contrary opinion. BUT the opinion that Marshal and some extremist Muslims hold that it is NOT immoral to kill people for adultery or homosexuality is not a provable one. Indeed, it is a great immoral atrocity and that much is clear. Just not provable.

10. Craig, do you agree with Marshal that it's NOT a great immorality to kill adulterers and people engaged in homosexual acts or do you agree with me that this would be a great immoral atrocity?

Ten questions that will almost certainly go ignored.

Especially the one about SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM IF you are going to claim that you can objectively prove your opinions about morality.
ReplyDelete





Dan TrabueMarch 29, 2020 at 9:05 AM
Look, it seems like we're having two different conversations, here.

One (yours in your post here) is that there are some Truths that are better than others and that some Truths (and sets of morality) will clash and disagree and even "exclude others..." That is without a doubt, true and factual.

Of course I think some Truths and morality are better than others. I disagree with you all (conservatives) regularly because I think the Truths and morals that I'm advocating are stronger, better, more ideal than yours and that, in some cases, your truths and morals are just bad/wrong.

Marshal, for instance, can not condemn the idea of killing adulterers or those engaged in homosexual acts as a great immorality. I find such a set of Truths that would allow him to consider such atrocities a potentially moral action (or at least that would render him unable to say it is immoral) is a pathetic "truth" system and one in conflict with basic decency and valuing human rights. Some extremists in other nations even support jailing gay folk or killing them. Of course, I find such "truth systems" and values to be reprehensible and immoral.

Maybe you do, too, Craig? Feel free to take a stand.

The point is, if the question is, Do some philosophies and religions have "bad Truths" and morals? The answer is yes and we are almost certainly all in agreement there.

Am I right?

So, when you're arguing that some philosophies/religions are worse than others, you're not arguing against anything I'm saying.

The SECOND argument (what I've been talking about) are what rules do we have in a diverse culture and what is the basis for those rules?

I'm saying (going back to your argument here) that some religions and philosophies - especially the ones who think they hold "objective truths" and who think that their god would encourage denying rights to some people and think they are objectively "right" to think this - are NOT a good basis for determining morality in the public space. I'm saying that the best criteria/guidelines for establishing common rules in a diverse society is the Golden Rule/Do No Harm/Human Rights criteria.

Do you disagree?

Blame

There’s been a lot of blame thrown out over the Wuhan Virus, and honestly, a lot of it strikes me as people complaining that X,Y, or Z wasn’t able to predict with perfect accuracy what an unknown and unstudied virus would do and how it would affect people,

It seems clear that the Chinese have been less than honest about the disease and have been shipping faulty medical supplies around the world, so they probably deserve some blame.

The idiots who aren’t taking this seriously and who are engaging in risky behaviors, probably deserve some blame.

The question is, does Bill DiBlasio deserve s significant amount of blame for the spread in NYC?

As recently as March 13, he was publicly encouraging New Yorkers to go about their normal lives and not modify their behavior.   After finally imposing some restrictions, he and his wife are shown violating them, as well as his much publicized trip to a health club.  

I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Bill does deserve some degree of blame for the spread in NYC.

I think

"Because my religion says..." is a very limiting way to try to define morality. That's fine for the 30% of the world that agrees with the particular tenets of your particular version of your particular religion, but it doesn't fit everyone, nor does the appeal have much of a way to unify everyone.
Additionally, you have humans (traditionally throughout most of history, powerful men) deciding, "This is what I think God calls moral..." and humans are famously oftentimes mistaken about what the gods believe. 
After all, of the dozens of other gods and religions in the world, most of us  no doubt don't place any credence in what these other religions teach to be moral, do we? We can just agree that OUR God's rules/teachings are right... and even then, "we" in "our" group regularly disagree with one another on many rules even within our group.
On what rationed consistent basis would we choose one religious group (or, some subsets of one religious group, since religions often don't agree with each other even within one religion) to be the authorities on what is and isn't moral?
Appeals to one particular subset of one particular religion is very limiting and would perforce exclude many others (as opposed to help us find common ground)." 

I believe that the above excerpt lies at the very heart of Dan's problems with an objective moral code that can be known by humans.    

I'm going to start be questioning the assumption that the goal of morality is to "find common ground".  This is one of those assumptions we often see from Dan that he treats as "reality" without actually establishing any basis to do so.   

Of course every religion is "limiting" and "excludes", those are pretty much goven when we compare religions.  For example, if someone has grown up as a christian and decides to leave the Church to believe something else (or nothing), there's nothing that would stop someone from doing that.  (Data tracking the rise of the "nones" demonstrates that frequently)   Yet, on a regular basis ex Muslims are put to death for leaving Islam.  So, yes there are things about religions that are mutually exclusive.   Again, that's pretty much a given.

So, given that reality, where does that leave us.

It seems as though the question that needs to be answered is not "Do religions disagree and exclude others?", that's clearly the case.  It also seems that "Is finding "common ground" the ultimate goal in life or religion?" isn't particularly helpful either.  Undeniably, it's possible to find some level of "common ground" even between religions that are diametrically opposed to each other.   But that's just how adults operate.   So, what is the real underlying question that might actually help?

How about this?

Can there be a worldview that is most closely aligns with what is True?
Can there be a worldview that best explains the world we live in?

If we start with these basic questions, and lay some additional groundwork, we can then ask the the following questions.

Which worldview is True?    Which worldview best explains the world we live in?

But absent agreement that it's  possible that such a worldview exists, then any further questions are pointless.

It's clear that we live in a society that is significantly post religious.  Other worldviews compete to fill the role that religion has traditionally filled on society.   
If one  worldview is True, then does it really matter if that worldview limits, excludes, or doesn't foster "common ground"?

If one worldview is True, does the Truth of that worldview depend of the ability of individuals or groups of people to fully understand or prove that Truth to skeptics?

Isn't Truth, by it's very nature exclusive, and counter to "common ground"?

Is Truth somehow diminished or less True because some subset of people don't believe it or deny it?

It seems that the very basis of all of these discussions comes down to "Does Truth exist?"

We're not going to get sidetracked by anything else at this point.    Because IF there is a Truth, and IF there is a worldview that most closely aligns with the Truth, then does it really matter of that Truth and that worldview exclude those whose beliefs don't align with the Truth?

For example, I think that we can all agree that the earth is round is a statement that is True.   Yet there are people who make convincing, well reasoned arguments arguing for a flat earth.  Why should those who acknowledge the Truth be concerned with those who exclude themselves by choosing not to acknowledge that Truth?

More fake news

www.pjmedia.com in a piece titled What the Media Isn't Telling You About the United States' Coronavirus Case Numbers, takes an interesting look at a different form of fake news.   How some in the media switch from raw numbers, to per capita numbers depending on what message they want to convey.

Of course, this’ll be defended by some.

Remember when?

Remember when we were told that government needs to stay out of decisions between doctors and patients?

“Tuesday in Nevada, Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak issued an executive order which banned the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients.”

I guess that’s only when you intend to end a life.

I’m confused

I seem to remember that “Believe all women.”, was a thing for a while.   Did that change and I missed an announcement?

“During the Kavanaugh hearings, it was said that when a woman accuses a man we should "start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real"

EASTER MASSACRE

 Dear President Trump and the White House Coronavirus Taskforce,

This week, you called on the nation to reopen by Easter. We, as Christian faith leaders (lay and clergy) from across the country, want to register our deep disappointment and strong disagreement with this irresponsible message. We ask you to voice strong support for social distancing and to use the Defense Production Act to marshal vital equipment to health care workers, social workers and faith-based ministries serving at the front lines of the pandemic. 

 THE ABOVE WAS SENT OUT THIS WEEK AS A PETITION TO BE SIGNED AND SENT BACK TO TRUMP AND THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE WUHAN VIRUS RESPONSE.    IT WAS SENT OUT UNDER THE BANNER OF "EASTER MASSACRE".

THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS WITH THIS PETITION.

1.  IT COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY CASTS WHAT TRUMP SAID FALSELY.  TRUMP WAS QUITE CLEAR IN HIS COMMENTS THAT HE "Hopes" that the country could be "opened up" by Easter.  "
“I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter,”.  WERE HIS EXACT WORDS.   ONE REASON HE GAVE WAS THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF EASTER AND THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE PACKED CHURCHES.   IF ONE LOOKS AT THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, BOTH BY TRUMP AND HIS ADVISORS, IT'S INARGUABLE THAT HIS "HOPE" TO HAVE THINGS "OPENED UP" BY EASTER IS EXACTLY THAT, A "HOPE".    TO USE THE PHRASE "CALLED ON" IS SIMPLY A FALSE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT HE SAID.

2.  THE TITLE.   INSINUATING THAT  THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF "OPENING THINGS UP" BY EASTER WILL CAUSE A "MASSACRE" IS UNCONSCIONABLE.

UNFORTUNATELY, AS MANY CLERGY SHOW AN INCREASING DESIRE TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES IN LEFT WING POLITICS, WE'LL SEE MORE OF THIS OVERREACTION AND FEAR MONGERING.

 

Stupid claims

"When I left the United States senate, I became as professor."

"Having won both races, Biden made a point of holding off his resignation from the Senate so he could be sworn in for his seventh term on January 6, 2009.^[216] He became the youngest senator ever to start a seventh full term, and said, "In all my life, the greatest honor bestowed upon me has been serving the people of Delaware as their United States senator."^[216] Biden cast his last Senate vote on January 15, supporting the release of the second $350 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.^[217] Biden resigned from the Senate later that day."


So, to be clear, Biden "became a professor" at the same time he was serving as Vice President?

It looks like Shuck got a new job...

https://shuckandjive.blogspot.com/2020/03/night-is-coming-sermon.html

...apparently Winterfell needed a "christian atheist" pastor of gloom and doom.

Good Take

https://winteryknight.com/

Fake News

It is my opinion, based on Dan's unwavering defense of the media whether they're wrong or not and his tendency to excuse virtually every instance of fake news as a "mistake",  that Dan likes to believe the fiction that the mainstream media operates under the unbiased, facts only code of ethics from back in the day. 

Apparently this started with Buzz Feed News under the headline, "A Man Died After Self Medicating With A Drug Promoted As A Potential Treatment For The Coronavirus".  The first paragraph of the actual story is also misleadingly written.

At some point, an NBC reporter goes on social media with a misleading story about the potential for Chlorquine to be helpful against the Wuhan Virus,  no one on the left gets too upset about that fake news.

The point is that burying the lede, deep in the story with a misleading headline IS fake news, as is a headline that doesn't actually accurately represent reality.  

But, as usual, the Dan's of the world will stay silent, or at best offer some sort of bland generalities.

Self described journalist Tara Haelle, when reporting on this story chose to use a picture of  blister pack of pills to accompany the story in Forbes.   The story itself was similarly misleading in it's early paragraphs.

In a world, where people read headlines, and possibly the first paragraph or two on their phone (maybe only until they hit the first ad), burying the lede until the end of the story is clearly an example of fake news.

““I want them to be appreciative,” the president says of governors who are criticizing the federal response.”

NYT reporter Maggie Haberman


Actual, entire quote.

“"I want them to be appreciative. We've done a great job. And I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about Mike Pence, the task force, I'm talking about FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers.”

I’m sure Dan has an excuse for that too.


“Trump on what he wants from governors: "I want them to be appreciative. We've done a great job."

Peter Baker NYT

Screw You

It’s sounding like the DFL is blocking the virus relief bill because they want unemployment benefits instead of direct payments.   Essentially they’re telling everyone who’s self employed, works in the gig economy screw you.  Just like they did in CA to screw musicians and artists, they’re perfectly willing to tell millions of people that they just don’t give a rat’s ass about them.

This is an early take and it could change.

So, it’s sounding like the D’s were involved in writing this bipartisan (according to Chuck Schumer) bill, but defeated it on a party line vote.   They clearly don’t understand two things.  1.  The majority of corporations aren’t huge, 2). These corporations employ lots of people.   If these corporations aren’t around, all those people are unemployed.

I’d like to see a list of how much money the DFL senators take in contributions from these corporations.

No, thinking that the federal government should have a role in mitigating some of the fallout from actions the federal government have taken in an extraordinary situation is not socialism.  

Because what’s needed right now is prompt strong action to help the PO, the abortion industry, and revamp voter regulation rules.

Just some of the demands from Pelosi.   These are all things that will directly impact that current medical and economic situation.    What's the saying about not letting a god crisis go to waste?  Clearly the DFL isn't going to let this good crisis go to waste when they can try to achieve things that they can't achieve otherwise.


Here’s a list of their demands:

1. Corporate pay statistics by race and race statistics for all corporate boards at companies receiving assistance.
2. Bailing out all current debt of postal service
3. Required early voting
4. Required same day voter registration
5. 10k bailout for student loans
6. For companies accepting assistance, 1/3 of board members must be chosen by workers
7. Provisions on official time for union collective bargaining
8. Full offset of airline emissions by 2025
9. Greenhouse gas statistics for individual flights
10. Retirement plans for community newspaper employees
11. $15 minimum wage at companies receiving assistance
12. Permanent paid leave at companies receiving assistance

 There's been a lot of discussion about what's true and what's not true.  Especially when it comes to religious beliefs.  I'm going to copy a portion of a post from Wintery Knight's blog with some questions, and post the link to the actual post below.  The full post has a link to a lecture by J.P. Moreland that addresses the questions asked. 

"Topics:

• Is it intolerant to think that one religion is true?
• Is it more important to be loving and accepting of people regardless of worldview?
• How should Christians approach the question of religious pluralism?
• How does a person choose a religion anyway?
• Who is Wonmug, and would you like to be like Wonmug?
• Is it enough that a belief “works for you”, or do you want to believe the truth?
• Can all the religions in the world be true?
• Is it wise to pick and choose what you like from all the different religions?
• Is it possible to investigate which religion is true? How?
• Which religions are testable for being true or false?
• How you can test Christianity historically (very brief)

I’m posting this, because I’ve noticed that there’s an awful lot of cultural Christianity in red states. Basically, if you ask someone if they are a Christian, and they say yes, they don’t usually mean that they think it’s true and that they’ve investigated whether it’s true. They usually just mean that they like it, or it makes them feel good, or that’s how they were raised, etc. My worry about this is that if Christianity isn’t adopted because it’s true, then no one is going to do any work or self-sacrifice for it. And I think that Christianity won’t survive the challenges of the secular culture if parents and pastors don’t understand that Christianity will require work, if it’s going to be presented to people as TRUE in a persuasive way.
Why is truth important? People are willing to invest in projects self-sacrificially if they think that they are involved in something true. So, you might enroll in a chemistry program in college because you expect to come out with true beliefs about chemistry. You’ll do the work and solve the problems because you think that chemistry is real. But if you think that chemistry is just made up nonsense with no use at all, you’re probably not going to work at it and sacrifice for it. You’ll probably just find something else to do with your life that’s easier and more fun. That’s why the truth question is really important."


 https://winteryknight.com/2020/03/20/j-p-moreland-asks-does-truth-matter-when-choosing-a-religion-7/

Proverbs 27

3 Stone is heavy and sand a burden,
    but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both.

¹¹ Be wise, my son, and bring joy to my heart;
    then I can answer anyone who treats me with contempt.

¹² The prudent see danger and take refuge,
    but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.

 ²² Though you grind a fool in a mortar,

    grinding them like grain with a pestle,
    you will not remove their folly from them.

It may be early

I saw multiple stories about multiple senators who appear to have sold large amounts of stock in response to briefings that they received regarding the Wuhan Virus.

If they actually sold stock based on the information they got during the briefing, then they deserve the absolute most severe punishment that can be imposed on them. Without a doubt that would be reprehensible behavior.

However, if it's possible to prove that there was no direct connection, that would be a different story.

I fully understand and agree that sometimes the appearance of impropriety is bad enough to warrant negative consequences.  But, we live in a world where we claim to believe that innocent until proven guilty is a thing.

From my experience, it's difficult to impossible to sell stocks without some sort of record of the stock owner asking their financial person to do so.  Further, many if not all, elected officials give up control of direct management of their investment portfolios while they are in office.

How about we stop the partisan calls for vengeance,  let the appropriate authorities investigate, then we can decide on a response.  I know that in this hyper partisan world, this will draw some scorn, but it's literally the right way to go about this.


It does seems strange that there isn't a rule that would mandate that anyone at a certain level of government service be required to turn over management of their investments to a third party to avoid this sort of thing altogether.  

Another interesting moral take

This is a slightly different take on the morality conversation.  But it's interesting that gentleman was advocating a moral code yet was unaware of  what the data showed about the harm that his moral code was causing.




https://winteryknight.com/2020/03/19/my-conversation-about-morality-with-an-atheist-millennial-man/



A quote from a debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Craig

" WC moral argument: it’s not epistemology it’s the ontology – have you got a foundation for moral values and duties?
CH i do not, it’s just evolution, an evolved standard based on social cohesion."


Hitchens denies the moral argument for the existence of God, by declaring that morality evolved.   He's essentially arguing that science provides an adequate explanation for morality.

OK, I'm not

Someone who goes in for conspiracy theories, but I do read a lot.  One thing I've noticed is that often authors come up with plots that end up being very similar to reality. 

Consider this.  If Brad Thor or Kyle Mills wrote a book about China trying to damage the US by releasing an unknown virus during an election year, most readers would think that it was plausible and realistic.   I'm not suggesting that this is actually what's happening, but it's certainly not unthinkable that the leadership in China might think it's worth it to get Biden elected.   The more I think about it, it's kind of perfect.  This virus is potentially more disruptive than deadly and ...

Anyway,  it's an interesting thing to consider.

I always like to help

I just checked in on my favorite "Atheist Christian" unemployed  minister, and found this gem.   If you read this, beware, your IQ may drop or you might hit the pantry for some tinfoil.




https://progressivespirit.net/2020/03/17/a-sermon-for-conspiracy-theorists/

Straight cash, homie.

It sounds like there will be checks in in the mail soon from the Federal government.

I don’t really have much on an opinion about the policy, but I do have a question.

For all y’all who complain about everything Trump does, and who insist that he’s going to destroy the country, will you keep the cash?

If not, let me know, I’ll be happy to keep the tainted money from befouling you.

If this alleged check ever actually shows up, I'm seriously considering a trip to the gun store.  Who knows how long it'll be until the peoples republic up here decides to follow Philadelphia and stop enforcing the law.

What if?

In addition to the Wuhan virus news, I've seen more and more stories that indicate that there is increasing evidence that homosexuality and gender identity are not the fixed, unchangeable things we've been told for years.

I'll start posting links to the various studies at some point, but for now.

What if the narrative about homosexuality and being "born this way" and being unable to change is wrong?  

Virtually all of the political and social changes around this issue have been built on the assumption that homosexuality just is, and that trying to change is wrong and harmful.

What if we've made decades of policy on information that's wrong?

Oh look, more quotes and links about alternative moral systems.

Apparently the previous list of alternatives to Dan's moral code either wasn't enough, or he's already demonstrated the superiority of his hunch, but has hidden it somewhere else.  So, I thought I'd give him some more things to consider.   I suspect, he'll complain that I haven't provided anything for him to address or that this is all "fringe".  I'm waiting for him to prove those.

Just for fun I actually included some actual fringe options.



"Our beliefs systems are very valuable to who we are as persons, but not all religious or legal viewpoints coincide with what is the morally right thing to do. This is the domain of ethics and as such we should be systematic and objective in our application."

Morality might not be objective, but ethics is?

 http://sites.stedwards.edu/ursery/class-resources/what-is-a-moral-system/

San Diego University with 6 Moral Theories.  Hint Dan's isn't even in the top six.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/gender/MoralTheories.html

"We'll never truly be able to distinguish between "right" and "wrong" actions. At best, we can only say that morality is normative, while acknowledging that our sense of right and wrong will change over time.

At any given time in history, however, philosophers, theologians, and politicians will claim to have discovered the best way to evaluate human actions and establish the most righteous code of conduct. But it's never that easy. Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like a universal morality or an absolutist ethics. The Golden Rule is great (the idea that you should treat others as you would like them to treat you), but it disregards moral autonomy and leaves no room for the imposition of justice (such as jailing criminals), and can even be used to justify oppression (Immanuel Kant was among its most staunchest critics). Moreover, it's a highly simplified rule of thumb that doesn't provision for more complex scenarios. For example, should the few be spared to save the many? Who has more moral worth: a human baby or a full-grown great ape? And as neuroscientists have shown, morality is not only a culturally-ingrained thing, it's also a part of our psychologies .

What should the goal be? Maximising happiness, minimizing pain, etc.? "Maximising morality" or "minimizing immorality" are bad ideas here, because then you have to define morality/immorality- which is what the goal is supposed to be to begin with."

 https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_best_moral_system_Is_there_such_a_thing

 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

 https://listverse.com/2015/05/05/10-completely-unorthodox-systems-of-morality/

"

c. Modern Morality

The two main moral theories of modern virtue ethics (or neo-Aristotelianism) are Kant’s deontological ethics and utilitarianism. Both theories have been adopted and modified by many scholars in recent history in order to make them (more) compatible with the latest demands in ethical reasoning and decision-making, in particular, by meeting the objections raised by modern virtue ethics. The following briefly depicts Kantianism in its original form and the main features of utilitarianism.

i. Kantianism

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant is the founder of deontological ethics. His ethics, which he mainly put forth in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals (1797), is one of the most prominent and highly respected theories in modernity. Kant’s ethics is deontological in the sense that one has to obey the duties and obligations which derive from his supreme principle of morality, that is, the Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 1785). The Categorical Imperative is a test for maxims which, in turn, determine whether certain acts have moral worth or not. A maxim is an individual’s subjective principle or rule of the will (in German, das subjektive Prinzip des Wollen), which tells the individual what to do in a given particular situation. If the maxim can be universalized, then it is valid and one must act upon it. A maxim cannot be universalized when it faces two severe instances: (i.) the case of logical inconsistency (the example of suicide, which is against the “perfect duty”); and, (ii.) the case of impossibility to will the maxim to be universalized (failing to cultivate one’s talents, which is against the “imperfect duty”). Perfect duties are those duties that are blameworthy if they are not met by human beings (for example the suicide example); imperfect duties allow for human desires and hence they are not as strong as perfect duties but they are still morally binding and people do not attract blame if they do not complete them (for example failing to cultivate one’s talents). Kant’s ethics is universal in the sense that the system of moral duties and obligations point at all rational beings (not only human beings). Morality is not based in interests (such as social contract theories), emotions and intuitions, or conscience, but in reason alone. This is the reason why Kant’s ethics is not heteronomous – by being a divine ethical theory in which God commands what human beings should do (for example the Bible, the Ten Commandments) or natural law conception in which nature itself commands what human beings should do by providing human beings with the faculty of reason who, in turn, detect what should be done in moral matters – but truly autonomous with regard to rational beings, who make their moral decisions in the light of pure practical reason. However, pure practical reason, in determining the moral law or Categorical Imperative, determines what ought to be done without reference to empirical contingent factors (that is, anthropology in the broad sense of the term including the empirical sciences; see preface to Groundwork) such as one’s own desires or any personal inclinations (in German Neigungen). The pure practical reason is not limited to the particular nature of human reasoning but is the source and the field of universal norms, which stem from a general notion of a rational being as such (see, Eisler 2008: 577; Paton 1967; Timmermann 2010; Altman 2011).

ii. Utilitarianism

Historically speaking, Jeremy Bentham in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) and John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism (1863) are the founders of utilitarianism, while Francis Hutcheson (1755) and William Paley (1785) could be seen as their legitimate predecessors by pointing out that utility should be seen as an important standard of evaluation in ethical reasoning and decision-making. Bentham claims that the duration and intensity of pleasure and pain are of utmost importance and that it is even possible – according to Bentham – to measure the right action by applying a hedonistic calculus which determines the exact utility of the actions. The action with the best hedonistic outcome should be put into practice. His position is called radical quantitative hedonism. Mill instead questions the very idea of a hedonistic calculus and argues that one must distinguish between mental and bodily pleasure by giving more weight to mental pleasures. His position is called qualitative hedonism. Mill’s basic formula of utilitarianism is as follows:

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. (Mill’s Utilitarianism, chapter 2)

There is widespread agreement that there exist numerous different utilitarian theories in modern ethics; hence it would be impossible to provide an adequate depiction of all important major strands in this brief subsection. However, the following four main aspects are typical for each utilitarian theory. (1.) The consequence principle: Utilitarianism is not about actions but about the consequences of actions. This kind of theory is a form of consequentialism, which means that the moral worth of the particular action is determined by its outcome. (2.) Happiness: Utilitarianism is a teleological theory insofar as happiness (but, not in the ancient sense of the term) is the main goal that should be achieved. This particular goal can be identified with (i.) the promotion of pleasure, (ii.) the avoidance of pain or harm, (iii.) the fulfilment of desires or considered preferences, or (iv.) with meeting some objective criteria of well-being. (3.) Greatest Happiness Principle: Utilitarianism is not about mere happiness but about “the greatest happiness” attainable. Utilitarianism is a theory with one principle that judges the consequences of a given action regarding its utility, which is the general aim of actions. The moral rightness or wrongness of actions depends on the goal of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of sentient beings, in short, “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. (4.) Maximising: The collective amount of utility regarding sentient beings affected by the action should be maximized. This line of reasoning contains strong altruistic claims because, roughly speaking, one should only choose those actions which improve other sentient beings’ happiness.
Furthermore, one major methodological distinction should be mentioned briefly since it really divides all utilitarian theories in two different groups by either applying the principle of utility to actions or rules. In act utilitarianism (or direct utilitarianism) the principle of utility is applied to the particular action; in this case, one asks whether the action in question is morally right or wrong in this particular situation. In rule utilitarianism (or indirect utilitarianism), instead, the principle of utility is applied to rules only which, in turn, are applied to the particular actions and serve as guidelines for human behaviour in order to guarantee the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Here, the vital question is whether a specific rule maximises the general utility or not. From time to time, it happens that the general utility will be maximised by rule utilitarianism to a lesser degree than it would have been the case regarding act utilitarianism. For example, one should act according to the general rule which says that one should keep one’s promises which – in the long run – maximises the general utility (rule utilitarianism). However, in some cases it would be better to adhere to act utilitarianism since it maximises the general utility to a higher degree depending on the particular situation and circumstances of the case in question (act utilitarianism)."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/anci-mod/

The Muppet Show

I’m not going to address everything that gets addressed tonight, but I want to be clear that Joe Biden just promised that the only reason he would deport anyone is if they committed a felony “in the United States”.

Felonies in other countries, are welcome to come right on in.    I guess he’s looking for the MS-13 demographic to support him.

“All the bad things are coming in through the ports now.”

False.

It might be true that “most” “bad things” come through ports.  But all is a flat out lie.

Biden also lied about gun manufacturers liability against lawsuits.

Sanders love affair with China is bizarre.

1.  The thing that has brought wealth to China is capitalism.

2.  Like most regimes like China, the chances of the wealth brought into China flowing significantly down to eliminate poverty is extremely slim.

Sanders response to the virus,   “Just wait for Medicare for All, it’ll be awesome.”

Biden response to the virus.  “Free stuff!!!!”

This is quite interesting

I borrowed this from Stan, and it's very good.


https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/intersectionality-and-the-church-2020-02/

Watch what you say, they’ll be calling you.,,

"The Church's mission is not to solve all the social problems of the world. She must repeat tirelessly "Repent & believe in the Gospel" -- Robert Cardinal Sarah

a radical.

Thankfully he’s black which should protect him from liberal complaints.

What about this? (Purely hypothetical)

I heard something yesterday about why some evangelicals decided to vote for Trump.  Their rationale is that Trump is a recent convert to Christianity.   That he’s a new believer.   They argue that he’s repented from all of the actions that people are disturbed by and that he’s a new creation.

Personally I’m not sure I’d buy this, but I’ll admit that it’s within the realm of possibility.   I’m a big believer in repentance and in giving people second chances.  

But, the interesting thing for me, is this.   “What if this is true?  What if Trump has truly represented and is committed to living a new life?”

If this is actually true, then what does it say about those who claim Christianity, yet are committed to liberal politics?    What does it say about people who would engage in attacks on the character of someone who has just recently turned their life over to Christ?   Let’s compare what we see from progressive Christians to the way Jesus, Peter, or Paul treated new believers.  

Honestly, if this is true, there are a bunch of conservatives who probably owe Trump an apology.

Clearly this is all hypothetical and I’m not presenting it as anything but hypothetical.   I’m not saying I give the notion any credence,   I definitely don’t want “evidence” that “disproves” the hypothetical. I’d suggest that virtually no one who becomes a believer instantly transforms their behavior.   I’d also suggest that how willing believers are to accept and embrace new believers might be something that we all need to work on.

Alrighty then

The media may not all be anti American or whatever, but clearly they’re not particularly intelligent either.



“MSNBC’s Brian Williams reads a tweet: "Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. U.S. Population, 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million"

NYT Editorial Board Member Mara Gay: “It’s an incredible way of putting it. It’s true. It’s disturbing”

It's $1.53 per person”

If this is the level of intelligence from a major network anchor and a member of the NYT editorial board, the news media is in deep trouble.   Maybe it’s not intentional fake news, maybe it’s stupid.

Now that Warren is out

Now that Warren is out and we're left with two rich, old, white, men fighting for the DFL nomination, I'm seeing rending of garments, weeping, and gnashing of teeth, over the fact that there aren't any more women or minorities left in the DFL field.    (Ignoring the fact that apparently Tulsi still is)

The tone of these laments seems inconsistent with the reality that the reason why all the women and minorities got out of the race is that the DFL voters didn't support them.   The tolerant, inclusive, rainbow coalition, big tent,  DFL just showed that they won't support women, blacks, native Americans, or a gay guy, when given the choice to vote old, rich, and white.

Unfortunately, this is just one more example of the DFL failing to live up the the ideals that might have once motivated the political left.

Now the question is, will they support the guy who thinks he's married to his sister and thinks he's running for the South Carolina senate seat?  Or will they support the self proclaimed Socialist who has two volumes, silence and yelling, and who keeps saying nice things about Castro.

In 2016 we had possibly the two worst candidates ever running against each other in a presidential campaign.   At this point in 2020 it's safe to say that we have three horrible candidates at this point.

To be fair, Trump has proven better as president than as a candidate.   It's likely that Bernie will be a lame duck the day he takes the oath of office, and that Biden might not last through his first term.

I don't know what I'll do when I'm actually confronted with this choice for POTUS,  I can't imagine voting for any one of these three. 

I'm sure that the same folx wearing sack cloth and ashes as they realize that their party is just as racist and sexist as they accuse everyone else of being, will come out strongly behind the eventual nominee and that well be hearing about what great, well qualified candidates they are for POTUS. 

In any case, I might have to forgo live TV between now and election day.


" Women, stop pretending we’re persecuted in politics. The best candidate our gender could produce with was a habitual liar who profited off a minority group of which she claimed to belong? It’s not because we’re women. It’s the women who have run thus far are just terrible."

Jessica Fletcher

Can you imagine of a conservative republican said these things in 2020?

"

"There is a lesson for us in the passage from the Bible ... The Book of Ezra describes the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem after the long captivity in Babylon ...

The writer describes the people shouting with a great shout when the foundation of the new temple was laid ... Some of those in the crowd, particularly the old men, did not shout. They wept ...

These were the men who remembered all the sacrifices -- all the suffering of all the people -- what their people had undergone during the captivity.

They knew that these sacrifices had not been made in vain.

They realized that, in spite of all their troubles, and in the face of overwhelming odds, their faith had prevailed. And so they were too deeply moved to shout; they wept for joy.

They gave thanks to God 'because He is good, for his mercy endureth forever.'"

"I surely wish God Almighty would give the Children of Israel an Isaiah, the Christians a St. Paul, and the Sons of Ishmael a peep at the Golden Rule."       "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!"     " Without a firm moral foundation, freedom degenerates quickly into selfishness"   "We believe that all men are created equal, because they are created in the image of God."       "Society is made up of men, who are often weak, and selfish, and quarrelsome. And yet, men are the children of God. Men have within them the Divine spark that can lead them to the truth, and unselfishness, and courage to do the right. Men can build a good society, if they follow the will of the Lord. Our great nation was founded on this faith. Our Constitution, and all our finest traditions, rest on a moral basis ... ... The greatest obstacle to peace is a modern tyranny led by a small group who have abandoned their faith in God."   "The essential mission of the church is to teach the moral law. We look to our churches, above all other agencies, to teach us the highest moral standards of right and wrong. We rely on the churches particularly to instill into our young people those moral ideals which are the basis of our free institutions. This great Republic is founded on a firm foundation based on those very principles ... Religion is ... a positive force ... We are under divine orders--not only to refrain from doing evil, but also to do good and to make this world a better place in which to live ..."   " Selfishness and greed can tear this Nation apart ... Our only defense against them is to follow those moral principles which have been handed down to us by our forefathers and which are enshrined today in churches such as this one ... When organized crime and vice run loose and are accepted and patronized by the people, they threaten our free institutions and debase our national life. These evils are clearly moral issues and our religious beliefs command us to fight against them ... We are defending the right to worship God -- each as he sees fit according to his own conscience. We are defending the right to follow the precepts and the example which God has set for us ..."   " The international Communist movement is based on a fierce and terrible fanaticism. It denies the existence of God and, wherever it can, it stamps out the worship of God. Our religious faith gives us the answer to the false beliefs of communism. Our faith shows us the way to create a society where man can find his greatest happiness under God ... I have the feeling that God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose. And up to now we have been shirking it."