The problem remains that you appear to want to define "justice" as something other than what we mean by justice and attach to this new "not justice" the significance and authority of God.
Maybe part of your understanding problem is your reading material...? You just need to read better, more holy and righteous and rational material and sound yourself with the same.
This just sounds like one more unproven hunch to me. Although I'll grant that social justice modeled on Biblical justice would be a great thing to see.
"The problem remains that you appear to want to define "justice" as something other than what we mean by justice and attach to this new "not justice" the significance and authority of God."
1. By "We" do you really mean that you can speak for all social justicians?
2. One problem that remains is that you are quick to jump to judgements, conclusions based on your assumptions and prejudices than on reality.
3. Another problem that remains is that you choose to set up straw men based on those judgements and conclusions and respond to those instead of reality.
"Maybe part of your understanding problem is your reading material...?"
Yes, you may be right. Heaven forbid I read a book you've judged with virtually zero evidence, to learn and explore for myself. Clearly, you feel compelled to try to demand control of what I read for some strange reason.
"You just need to read better, more holy and righteous and rational material and sound yourself with the same."
Really? You've read the book? You can speak from some position of authority on the lack of holiness and righteousness on the part of either the author or the book itself? Perhaps you need to examine this ungenerous, graceless, judgemental, and close mindedness. I could be wrong, but it seems as if some of those might be sins, and I don't think you can pass this off as just a "mistake".
Given your lack of anything specific quoted from the review, or anything beyond the broad, general, unfounded attacks, I'm guessing that it's 70/30 whether or not you read any of the review, 85/15 that you read the whole thing, and 99/1 that you read it with anything resembling an open mind?
"Communitive justice: living in right relationship with God and others; giving people their due as image-bearers of God. Distributive justice: impartially rendering judgment, righting wrongs, and meting out punishment for lawbreaking. Reserved for God and God-ordained authorities including parents in the home, elders in the church, teachers in the school, and civil authorities in the state."
I can see how this heresy would get your panties in a wad.
"“Deconstructing traditional systems and structures deemed to be oppressive, and redistributing power and resources from oppressors to their victims in the pursuit of equality of outcome.” It is obsessed with power, privilege, oppression, and victimization; it uses pragmatic tactics to cow dissenters into submission; it fixates on identity markers such as class, race, gender, and sexual orientation; it is openly hostile to Judeo-Christian religion; it is militant against the natural family and traditional sexuality; and it focuses on the redistribution of wealth and power by means of a powerful state apparatus."
This just sounds like some of the "christian pastors" I know.
"The problem is found in the introduction to that paragraph... HE defines. HE is making up this definition. HE is misrepresenting at times what we mean by Justice, which is just, Justice. He defines it in the negative manner."
So your problem is that "he defines" it rather than you? The bigger question seems to be less about who defines something than about whether a given definition is true or not.
"He appears to be denying Justice to certain groups based upon their part in that group rather than affirming God's worth in them."
!. Any time you start with something "appears", I know that you're just trying to impose your prejudices, assumptions, and preconceptions on the straw man, rather than to interact with the real person and what they really said. Further, your suggestion that disagreement with you is somehow "unholy" or "unrighteous", is just one more sign of your hubris. Especially since he specifically mentions giving value to people based on their bearing the image of God. Further, I see nothing to indicate that he is advocating denying justice to anyone. I guess that's the upside of a straw man, you can dress him in whatever suits you.
"As is so often true in conversations with you and Marshal and Stan, the problem is that he to defined something that doesn't exist. He is building a straw man. It's about his false claims, not what we actually stand for."
Instead of proving your claims, you simply choose to attack a straw man of your own making. Excellent tool of pursuasion.
"For instance, hostile to the judeo-christian tradition? We ARE the Judeo Christian tradition."
Really, are you claiming that a group founded and run by Marxists is "the Judeo Cristian tradition"? Or are you claiming ownership of the entire "Jedeo Christian tradition" all by yourself? For someone who's been known to love the argument from numbers, this is a new level for you. But you've never been shy to enlist others in your cause by speaking for them.
"You all can't just Define us out of existence. That part, itself, is an attack on Justice . Can you at least acknowledge that very little bit?"
Really, someone defining something the way you don't like threatens your existence? No, I can't acknowledge that your overreaction to something about which you have literally zero data, is anything but your paranoia.
"That that part is just simply factually wrong most of the time. As is often the case with so many conservatives today, they confuse disagreeing with your positions to be an attack on your positions."
!. Prove your claim. 2. You mean just like your are doing? 3. Of course you're worried about your very existence, aren't you?
"We ARE the Judeo Christian tradition."
I eagerly await hard data and objective proof of this fact claim. I won't get it, but even watching you trying to twist your words will be amusing.
Craig... "someone defining something the way you don't like threatens your existence?"
I know that, as a straight white man , you're used to being part of the majority with all the control and all the privilege that comes with that, but try to understand.
When a dominant majority defines a certain group of people as not being fully human or not worthy or demonic or dangerous, it does pose a certain amount of threat. When the dominant evangelical white group says with an assumed authority (that doesn't belong to them) that these people are not Christian, it does a certain amount of damage. Does damage to the church and it does damage to the people that they are choosing to exclude. Yeah fortunately, the white Conservative Christian majority longer has the power to harm that it once did, but think back to the centuries before the 1980s. Do you know the harm that was done to gay people because of Conservative Christian teaching? Because I do.
Saying with an authority that is not yours, these people do not belong, are not part of us, has a certain amount of potential of threat of harm..
Knee replacement first week of December. Been putting it off for years and the timing works from an insurance and business standpoint. It shouldn’t be a huge deal, just lots of time to read.
I've had three surgeries on my left knew after tearing my ACL in a karate tourney years ago. I've never had 100% confidence in it since, though I've been able to do most anything I want. These days, I get more soreness and while I think it's sometimes psychosomatic given it happens mostly when I'm at work and almost never when I'm not, I wonder if I'll need extra professional attention for it sometime soon. Hope not. Good luck with it and let me know how it works for you. I maintain an interest in hearing from those who undergo such options.
I’ve had it scoped a couple of times, and other stuff, but it’s been bone on bone for way too long and it’s finally time to get it done. I’ve known it’s coming for over 10 years and I just want to get it done.
"I know that, as a straight white man , you're used to being part of the majority with all the control and all the privilege that comes with that, but try to understand."
In your haste to try to explain, your first point is to categorize me by my race and to make assumptions about me. Not a good beginning.
"When a dominant majority defines a certain group of people as not being fully human or not worthy or demonic or dangerous, it does pose a certain amount of threat."
Which isn't happening here, but you feel compelled to pile on bullshit.
"When the dominant evangelical white group says with an assumed authority (that doesn't belong to them) that these people are not Christian, it does a certain amount of damage. Does damage to the church and it does damage to the people that they are choosing to exclude."
I'm starting to sense that this is just you spewing the party line, without any real proof or evidence. Who says this is about excluding anyone? Pointing out that Marxists aren't Christians or are anti-Christian is simply pointing out the obvious. Not excluding anyone.
"Yeah fortunately, the white Conservative Christian majority longer has the power to harm that it once did, but think back to the centuries before the 1980s. Do you know the harm that was done to gay people because of Conservative Christian teaching?"
No, but I do know that it's an off topic unproven hunch of yours that we're not going into in this thread. What's interesting in this screed is that data shows that the weight and global leadership of Christianity is trending away from "white" countries and toward black/brown parts of the world. It also shows that those Christians are more conservative, more willing to accept the reality of the supernatural, than white, Euro-centric progressive christians are, I applaud the shift and believe that it'll provide some much needed renewal for the Church.
"Because I do. Saying with an authority that is not yours, these people do not belong, are not part of us, has a certain amount of potential of threat of harm.."
Yet, you do it regularly. I see three problems with this screed.
1. Because it's based on an incredibly small amount of information, it's essentially a straw man constructed more on your prejudices and opinions, than on actual data.
2. If the author can demonstrate with data, that his definition is rational, then you'd have a problem.
3. Your entire "case" is based on your intentional ignorance of any details of the author. You've spun a small fragment into some grand conspiracy with virtually no information.
#3 is the difference between us. I can see something like this an think, "I should probably did deeper to see what is actually being said, and what the data is.". You see something like this is simply jump to the same old conclusions, driven by the same old hunches and narratives.
"No. That's the point. I'm saying that we are Christians and we aren't hostile towards judeo Christian values. Period."
Not surprised that you've contradicted or significantly modified the sentiment in your initial claim when called out on it. But, you simply double down with a new claim that you can't prove. Or, if you prefer, an appeal to some vague and undefined numerical proof. Either way, not impressed.
"And, unlike many of y'all, when I say we are Christians, I'm not attacking your Christianity. I'm saying we are Christians."
This is quite a sweeping claim. Please provide proof.
"Period. If somebody said, "Dan, you and your church are actively hostile towards the Muppets," and I responded "that's just off. We ARE Muppet fans!" ... by saying that, I am not saying we are the only Muppet fans. I'm not saying we are Muppet fans and you all are not. All that is saying is literally, we are Muppet fans. Understand?"
Do I understand that you are trying to avoid your earlier claims that you can't prove, with new claims that you can't prove, coupled with idiotic hypotheticals, yes I understand.
You're being irrational and not making much sense. What Marxists? Of course I and folks like me or Christians and thus, we are not hostile towards judeo-christian values, as we are Christians. What proof do you need? Do you think we are secretly hostile towards judeo-christian values even though we're Christians? Do you recognize how irrational that sounds?
"When a dominant majority defines a certain group of people as not being fully human or not worthy or demonic or dangerous, it does pose a certain amount of threat."
Is this from the guy who defends abortion? That's rich.
"You see something like this is simply jump to the same old conclusions, driven by the same old hunches and narratives."
That's how he rolls. You should see him accept without any actual research the conclusions of Trump-hating historians.
"I think that part of your problem is that no one is sure what your definition of Christian actually is."
Wow, Craig. I don't think I've ever seen you post an example of such blatant understatement before!
"Here's have your reviewer introduced his definition, and again, it's his definition, not one is coming from social justice Advocates, but a made-up one but he made up out of thin air."
How do you know with any degree of certainty that the "definition" isn't based on and supported by date? If it was would that make a difference?
"Allen turns next to the modern-day redefinition of “justice” which he describes as follows:" Again, the problem is he is defining something in a way but the people he's talking about don't Define it."
Which doesn't automatically make his "definition" wrong. Are you not concerned that you are speaking for people who might no t agree with you? You keep saying "people", without demonstrating that these specific people exist or that you speak for them. Just another appeal to numbers.
"He's pulling it out of his ass. It's a false definition."
Please provide proof of this claim before you go any further.
"Feather, given its deliberately false nature oh, it is itself an attack on Justice."
Please prove this claim before you go any further. Would you agree that justice shoudl be defined in terms of process, not outcomes? Would you agree that justice forced by duress or threat, is not really justice/
"And there are many things that both reviewer and the author speak of it is definition they're just false, but to keep it manageable, I was just dealing with one stupidly false claim."
If you're going to make these claims, prove them.
"That we are openly hostile towards judeo-christian values."
Do you realize that this is tantamount to claiming that absolutely zero people in this "justice" movement are hostile to judeo-christian" values? Do you realize that proof of this claim is in order? Do you realize that when you claim that something is false, that your claim could be wrong?
"Now that you understand that, hopefully, perhaps it would be wise for you to retract your last comment and agree with me that it is false, and stupidly false."
Why, would I agree with something that you've only asserted, not proven? Why would I not seek my own sources of data and draw my own conclusions?
"Craig... "I eagerly await hard data and objective proof of this fact claim. I won't get it, but even watching you trying to twist your words will be amusing." Perhaps you misunderstood something I said. You want to back yourself up a little? Perhaps apologize for this vague attack?"
What attack? I'm simply pointing out the reality that you haven't provided hard data and proof, and that your recent history suggests that you won't do so. I'd love to see you back up your claims with hard data and proof.
"Well he's talking about the decision that I believe, along with other people concerned about social justice (often for me Christian point of view), then yes."
In addition to contradicting your other clams, this makes no sense.
"If he's trying to say here is what you all believe and we're saying no, this is not what we believe, yes then that he is trying to Define for us what we believe is a problem."
What if he's actually done the research, compiled that data, and come to a conclusion based on that data? Of course, you don't seem to be interested in anyone even finding out any details, it's easier to jump to conclusions and make claims without bothering to do any research.
"But as you go on to know, it's a problem because it's patently false and based on either half-truths are complete lies."
Please provide proof, before you continue.
"Let's explore this just a little bit just on the one false claim about being openly hostile towards judeo Christian values. The thing is, people that you all like to mock as social justice Warriors, we're often connected with a Quaker tradition, the anabaptist, Amish, Mennonite traditions, with the Catholic Worker movement, with Progressive Christian traditions."
So, that donesn't mean that 100% of the SJW's are, or that they are anything more than in name only, or that there aren't a significant number who aren't what you think. That's why it's so hard to take you seriously when you make these broad generalizations about things and just everyone to blindly accept that they are accurate.
"We ARE Christians, oftentimes coming from a long history of Christians concerned about social justice."
The argument from numbers, with no proof that you're objectively right or that he's wrong.
"To suggest that we are hostile towards judeo Christian values is insulting because it assumes that our judeo-christian values don't count, only the way you all interpret judeo-christian values."
Really, you are really saying that expressing an opinion (regardless of the research and data behind it) is automatically wrong? Are you suggesting that you are guaranteed some sort of freedom from insult? Strangely enough, you don't seem to mind when you broad brush those who you disagree with in false and insulting ways.
"That false claim is an insidious and devious one."
"Of course for Christians. Of course we're not hostile towards judeo-christian values. Can we begin by just agreeing that that is a stupidly false claim, especially in regards to the large number of social justice people from a wide range of Christian backgrounds?"
Since I haven't seen the entirety of the evidence that is driving the claim, it would be stupid of me to blindly agree to your hunch, wouldn't it? Isn't it virtually always a bad idea to jump to a conclusion without investigation/
'Craig... ""We ARE the Judeo Christian tradition." I eagerly await hard data and objective proof of this fact claim." What are you wanting to prove?"
Your claim was the "We ARE...". So prove that the entirety of those who claim to seek social justice "ARE" "Judeo Christian". Honestly, if you could just prove any of your claims, it'd be a welcom change.
"That the Quakers, anabaptist, Catholic Worker movement, Progressive Christians, Progressive Jews, Etc... that we're not openly hostile to judeo-christian values?"
I can't point to some of those folx who are openly hostile to at least some "judeo-christian" values. I'd start with John Shuck, throw in Every member of the Jesus Seminar (and their followers) from there, which is enough to prove that my point is reasonable.
Of course we're not! We ARE Christians, (or Jews, in the case of progressive Jews). I don't know what it is you're asking me to prove. Again, it sounds like you're conflating, "I disagree with so-called traditional, Conservative Christian values..." with, "They are openly hostile towards judeo-christian values." "
Then, once again, you'd be wrong to draw conclusions based on prejudices.
"Craig... "are you claiming that a group founded and run by Marxists is "the Judeo Cristian tradition"?" I don't know what you're talking about."
Really, if you are truly that uninformed regarding those you blindly defend, then you've just undermined virtually your entire ranting.
?What group? Those concerned with social justice??"
You do your research, and if you really can't find the answer on your own, I'll spoon feed you. Hint, I directed you to a podcast weeks ago that would have helped. I guess you just don't like black folk who disagree with you and bring something more than hunches.
"You're being irrational and not making much sense. What Marxists?"
This is what happens when you get impatient, and are too lazy to do your own research.
"Of course I and folks like me or Christians and thus, we are not hostile towards judeo-christian values, as we are Christians. What proof do you need?"
Well, you claimed that "WE ARE" which clearly implies that you are speaking for a much larger piece of the pie that you're relatively tiny enclave in KY. Maybe, you should either be more precise, or be prepared to prove the claims you make. FYI, I'd argue that of you support or ally with groups that espouse Marxism or deny "judeo-christian' values that you effectively endorse their point of view. Maybe this points to a flaw in your oft repeated canard where you broad brush everyone with your hunches about a few.
"Do you think we are secretly hostile towards judeo-christian values even though we're Christians? Do you recognize how irrational that sounds? You're just not making much sense."
I think that you endorse and partner with those who are, and further I think it's irresponsible to jump to conclusions about what others might think before actually doing research. Of course, It's also irrational for you to try to paint me with your hunches about the author and reviewer believes. Especially as you haven't done any research.
"I'm not sure why that would be. I've never been unclear on the point. Christians are those who follow the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Boom. Just like that. We may disagree with what other Christians say they have concluded from the teachings of Christ, but I were disagreeing with those Christians and their opinions doesn't make us not Christians. Do you have a problem with my operating definition for Christian? Do you somehow suspect that I am mistaken?"
Which teachings of Christ? The ones limited to the red letters, or all of them? What about the ones who deny the existence of Christ, or deny the deity of Christ? What about the ones who randomly pick and choose which teachings are accurate of not?
You're like the folx who respond to the question, "What is a woman?" with "A woman is anyone who says they're a woman.".
"If a person say, "This group of liberals defines Justice to be 1. 2. 3...." and A. If this "group of liberals" is diverse and don't all define justice that way, then the claim itself is false. If one makes a sweeping claim and it doesn't apply to all or even generally all people in the group, it is a false claim. Am I mistaken somehow?"
In the absence of an accurate statement of stating what was said, and of any actually of any hard data or objective truth, your just blowing smoke.
"B. Further, if the group literally does not define justice in that way, then it is a false claim to say that they do. Correct?"
If it was demonstrable that your claim was 100% objectively and proven to be so, then probably.
"If he were to say, in Liberal groups concerned about social justice some portion of them Define Justice this way... And here are the quotes to support it... then he might be correct."
But you have absolutely no freaking idea if this is true or not, but are acting is if it is without even bothering to determine the truth of anything. Then you build on your assumptions, presumptions, and lack of research and start accusing straw men of all sorts of crap you can't prove.
But what he's doing is just false."
This is an objective claim, it needs objective proof.
"Out of all the attributes with the many mistakes and false claims amongst them, I chose just one to illustrate why it's false. He makes a sweeping claim that people concerned about social justice today are openly hostile towards judeo-christian values. The group itself is not openly hostile towards judeo-christian values. As evidence of that, I point to the Quakers, the Mennonites, the churches such as mine, the progressive Jewish people, Etc all who are concerned about social justice and yet are not openly hostile to judeo-christian values. The claim is false and the reality of people like me are the proof that it is false. What am I saying that you were failing to understand? Where, in anything that I said, am I mistaken?"
I'm done with this bullshit. You're mistaken because your drawing all sorts of conclusions and presenting those conclusion as fact, without having done any research or providing any proof of your claims.
In short, it's a pretty standard example of you holding others to a standard you don't hold yourself through.
Unlike you, I'm not afraid to expose myself to the entirety of someone's opinions. I'm not afraid to look at the entirety of their data, with an open mind, BEFORE I jump to any conclusions. Once I've done that, I'm not afraid to discuss what I might agree with and what I might not agree with. What I won't do is engage in attacks on someone for simply saying that something controversial sounds interesting and worthy of investigation.
if it's all lies and falsehoods, maybe we should just burn the book right now.
"You should see him accept without any actual research the conclusions of Trump-hating historians."
I either recently posted about this or commented on it. This notion that some people who demand an unrealistic level of proof of virtually everything that goes against their prejudices, can somehow accept all sorts of things that they don't have proof of, or of which there is proof to the contrary.
Good question. It sounds like you've made it clear that you're eliminating some already.
"The ones that Jesus taught as found in the Gospels. And any teachings consistent with the teachings of Jesus."
So, you're excluding any of the other teachings of Jesus from consideration?
"Do you have some reason to suspect that those who follow the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels are not followers of Jesus?"
That's abroad question. But, I'd say that I'm curious about people who are selective about which teachings of Jesus they follow, it seems like Jesus was one of those folk who expected His followers to go all in.
"Craig... " or all of them?" The teachings we have of Jesus are the ones found in the Gospels. Literally. Where am I mistaken?"
1. Are you suggesting that the gospels contain the only red letters in scripture? 2. If you aren't, then why are you suggesting that some red letters can be ignored? 3. If The red letters are to be believed, then Jesus and God The Father are "one", therefore any words of The Father would logically be words of Jesus.
"Clearly, I am not making that claim."
Really? "We ARE the Judeo Christian Tradition", certainly sounds like it. Perhaps in your anger you misspoke and could have been less sweepingly general.
"I am saying that there are people from judeo-christian Traditions who are part of what this guy it's talking about, those concerned about social justice. That not all people concerned about social justice are part of a faith tradition does not mean that they are hostile people of faith or towards judeo-christian values."
Blahblahblahblah...
"He has done nothing to support that claim - which is patently false about the whole group since they include people of faith"
Once again, you are making an objective claim of fact, without actually having done anything but read one tiny snippet. Are you really suggesting that you are qualified to make these sorts of judgements without doing adequate research?
"- and yet you're not worried about that false claim but you want me to provide some proof of, what?, that we are Christians?"
Yet you don't seem to mind making false claims about me.... Proof of your claims.
"That we aren't hostile towards judeo-christian values? Clearly, I am not. Then, why don't we just start there: do you think I am hostile towards judeo-christian values?"
I don't have enough information, nor am I comfortable making broad sweeping claims about others without adequate information. I suspect that you feel that you are, with the caveat that they be filtered through your personal opinions and experiences.
"Do you recognize how nonsensical such a claim would be, since I am a Christian and love judeo-Christian values. I disagree with some conservative opinions about certain judeo Christian values, but disagreeing with conservative opinions is not the same with being hostile towards judeo Christian values. Do you recognize the validity of that statement?"
If you mean do I recognize it as an absolute statement of objective truth, then no.
"If you and this fella are making the accusations set people concerned about social justice are hostile towards judeo-christian values, why do you not need to provide support for that claim?"
If I was making that sort of an objective fact claim then I would be prepared to provide support, however I'm not so I don't.
Do you understand that the author has written an entire book which presumably provides support for his thesis?
Do you realize that when you claim that he hasn't provide support, that you are ignoring the reality that he's written an entire book to do so?
Do you realize how stupid you look complaining that he hasn't done what he's (at least) attempted to do?
Do you realize how foolish you look jumping to conclusions, making claims of objective fact, and complaining that he hasn't offered support for his thesis, when the problem is that you have chosen to ignore the existence of the very thing you claim doesn't exist?
Do you realize that jumping to conclusion based on insufficient data is virtually always guaranteed to make you look like an idiot?
How about if you read the book, deal with his actual arguments and data, then prove him wrong?
"Clearly, it is false as it relates to the group as a whole. And we have no data to support the claim is true of even a large minority the group. Just an empty claim."
Clearly your snippet above is false, because you have jumped to a conclusion you present as objective fact without actually examining the totality of the evidence.
Just as a general rule, trying to accuse someone of making a false claim, by making false claims, is usually not a great way to be taken seriously.
"I'm wondering if you recognize that you cannot point to one single place where I've made a false claim?"
"He has done nothing to support that claim"
Of course had you read my comments, you'd have been able to figure it out on your own.
"This is because I have made no false claims in this thread, not that I can see."
One and a half, because you left the weasel room.
"Probably what's happening is you're failing to understand what I'm saying, but that's not the same as me making a false claim. Likewise, when I point to the author's sweeping claim and say that it is a false claim, I am factually correct, objectively speaking. What his words are literally saying IS a false claim. Do you recognize either of those realities? I don't think you do. More's the pity."
Ahhhhhhhhh, the "you don't understand me" trope.
If you are "factually correct objectively speaking" then where is the factually correct objective proof?
Look, I understand, there's a lot to sift through, and ,multiple claims of fact that you should probably prove, and that's just a lot harder than playing that "you don't understand" card and pretending like you're on some kind of level where mere mortals can't understand you.
I'll give you a hint though, it's probably not wise to make massive, sweeping, claims of fact without looking at the context.
Thanks for the laugh, it's been a good cap to a better than hoped for afternoon.
Your problem seems to be that you're pissed that I might read something that might contain data that might be inconvenient for your narrative and it's easier to preemptively attack the author and me, than to do your own research, look at the data, and make an informed decision not based on preconceptions and a tiny bit of information.
It's genuinely saddening that you are so vehemently against people exploring different perspectives on their own and actually examining the actual data, instead of jumping to an uninformed conclusion.
I'd suggest that you try it sometime, but every other time I've made that suggestion you've gone silent and presumably not investigated for yourself.
Since I know you're checking in here, I'll just throw this out. I just skimmed the last few comments at Dan's and was struck by how idiotic it is to expect that "historians" can accurately an impartially evaluate the Trump presidency while it is still going on. The very notion that it's possible to accurately evaluate the historical impact of anything in real time is just silly.
For example, let's say that some of the contents of Hillary's emails and the results of the Russia investigation do end up leading to consequences for those in the P-BO administration, I'd suggest that it might lead to a re-evaluation of the historical perspective.
I'm sorry to depart from the topic, but I hope you'll indulge me, as I believe it goes to the point regarding Dan's dishonesty about proving one's point.
His historians, ranking Trump with barely a year of a presidency under his belt against those with one or two full terms, doesn't do much to indicate integrity on the part of his sources. From what I've seen thus far...and I intend to further scrutinize the survey of historians from his first link...had not provided much at all in the way of policies enacted and their effect versus the policies of other presidents enacted and the effects of those. Clearly, and without any room for debate, Trump's tax and regulatory policies have far and away been more successful than eight years of Obama in turning around the economy. That one area alone should put Trump's ranking higher than Obama's, particularly when Obama insisted his crap was to be accepted as the new normal and that a magic wand would be necessary to do better. But we see no reference to anything like that, be it economics or any other issue.
Then, of course, we have William Henry Harrison. How could any honest, objective historian not rank Trump at least higher than a guy who lasted only 32 days in office before dying? Some of his surveyed historians rank Trump 44th out of 44 total presidents. How does this indicate integrity on the part of the historians?
What this and other problems with Dan's "evidence" against Trump PROVE is that Dan isn't interested in truth. He isn't interested in truly reviewing anything he offers as "proof" when there is clearly so many problems with his sources and their info. All he cares about is the conclusion to which they come...regardless of how they come to it...which he can then use as "evidence" to support his prejudices and hateful attitude toward whatever the point being discussed may be.
And when I offered examples of historians that find Trump to be among the better...if not best...presidents, and they actually use the very examples of his policies and their effects that people like Dan and those he favors purposely and deceitfully ignore, he counters with hit pieces that have absolutely nothing to do with their arguments in support of Trump as president. His offering of that extremist conservative periodical, "The Atlantic", does just that. It was an article wherein the author makes all manner of negative connotations regarding things Newt Gingrich has said and done, while never offering any response of clarification by Newt himself. The reader is left to wade through such biased editorializing of Newt's words and actions or just believe without reason that the author is still somehow objective in his reporting. No where in all the article does the author suggest he is giving his own impressions of what Newt's words and actions mean. He's asserting meaning and pasting it over Newt's words and actions.
But it wouldn't matter to Dan, anyway. The point is that the article speaks negatively about Gingrich, and thus it is true that Gingrich is evil and therefore his ranking of Trump, based on Trump's actual policies and their effects, is not to be considered. All the while, Dan does nothing to prove the integrity or character of his historians merits believing their assessment of Trump. This is Dan's modus operandi. This is Dan revering Judeo-Christian values. This is Dan's constant duplicity. And he dares speak of Trump being a liar.
"While there MAY be some validity to the notion of not assessing a presidency until after it's complete, but that assumes a normal presidency that isn't an active and ongoing series of train wrecks. Trump's presidency is a disaster and this obvious to all rational people, experts, scholars and otherwise."
While this notion provides you with a fig leaf to hide behind, the reality is that it is virtually impossible to assess something with a potential long term impact in either real time or in the short term. While not a fan of Trump, it's absurd to ignore the fact that the economy was in good shape pre Covid and that it's bouncing back faster than most thought. He's had some success in moving the ball down the field towards more peace in the middle ease, and has been disengaging us from overseas military commitments. He's also does some positive things in terms of criminal justice reform and in other areas. I'm not suggesting perfection, but any reasonably objective observer can't rationally conclude total failure either. One of the benefits to assessing these things in the future is the ability to assess more objectively. I'd suggest that looking at history through a subjective, biased lens is probably not the best practice.
"One can't make false claims and be so utterly dishonest and corrupt as Trump has factually been and still be a good president. One can't be as thoroughly inept and just stupid as Trump is and still be counted as a good president."
Yet, there's quite a chasm between "good president" and abject failure. I know that you frequently skip to extremes, but most of us live in the middle ground.
"In the middle of Hitler's reign, historians could tell that Hitler was a world-level disaster. Trump is no Hitler (for two things, he's just so much more stupid and inept than Hitler), but it is similarly clear to all rational people that Trump is just amongst the worst."
Interesting double standard there. Judging Trump in real time and the rest of "the worst" in hindsight.
"What's interesting is why some 30-40% of the population are blind to this? Are some part of that 40% acknowledging his ineptitude, but are just so partisan that they welcome historic corruption and ineptitude over the Democratic party?"
In much the same way as people like you have said that they'd vote for ANY democrat over Trump, many in the other side see Biden as a worse option. I'd argue that blindness isn't the problem, but seeing and judging the positives and negatives of both candidates is. You may not agree with those who don't share your visceral hatred of Trump, I'd further argue that if Trump wins, that the problem lies with the DFL's inability to put forth a candidate that's more appealing to a broader swath of the electorate than Biden. You frequently (rightly) criticize Trump for his lying. Yet, Biden is a decades long history of lying and plagiarism that is undeniable. You'll likely respond that Biden's trail of lies isn't as bad as Trump's, but that's subjective. It's also the exact same rationale a Trump voter has for voting against Biden. Make no mistake, the majority of Trump voters are voting against Biden, not for Trump. Unfortunately, the fact that the DFL is in a race to the extreme left, and couldn't find a good candidate twice says more about y'all that about Trump.
"Historians are rightly united on Trump's deserved place near the bottom of the list. What will take some time for historians is studying Trump's supporters and defenders to figure them out."
These are both simply hunches, and worth about as much because of your hatred for Trump.
And, that's it on this off topic diversion. If you want to continue, ask nicely and I'll open up a tread for this new topic. I'm giving you each one comment, and one response from me. It's all fair and equal.
I agree that labeling Trump as one of the worst presidents, especially early in his term would indicate bias and raise questions that would seem to disqualify those observers. I also know that you believe that Trump has done quite well. In any case, I still would suggest that it's absurd to rank presidents historical impact in real time. I'd argue that his peace efforts in the middle east could end up starting a movement that eventually encompasses the whole area, and that it could be the most significant move toward peace since Sadat and Begin met with Carter. That one thing has the potential to swing the assessment of his presidency significantly, yet we won't know for years. It could also blow up.
While I deplore Trumps casual relationship with the truth, I find it interesting that those who do are silent when this "packing the court" lie is thrown about cavalierly, and when Harris blatantly lies about Lincoln in a debate and gets a free pass from the Biden folx. I want my POTUS and their administration to be honest, but giving one side a pass (because Trump is worse) is just ridiculous.
It is truly unfortunate that our politics have descended to this level, where so many are simply partisan above all. I addressed the problem with the DFL not offering better options, but I also think that the DFL and the media played a significant role in the rise of Trump. Because the DFL vilified ALL of the GOP candidates as all being essentially equally evil, Trump (being the only one willing to fight back) rose to the top. The fact that people like someone who's willing to fight back shouldn't surprise anyone. While the other candidates missed an opportunity, I think it's hard to ignore the reality that the media and the DFL gave someone like Trump the best chance to win.
And, that's it on this off topic diversion. If you want to continue, ask nicely and I'll open up a thread for this new topic. I'm giving you each one comment, and one response from me. It's all fair and equal.
Consider yourself asked. I try to do so at my own blog, but Dan lacks the honor and courage to engage there or at his own blog, where he deletes my comments because he can't debunk them. I hope this request is considered "nice" enough, though I won't suppose that was necessarily directed at me...just a hunch.
37 comments:
"Why social justice is not biblical justice."
As if that were possible.
The problem remains that you appear to want to define "justice" as something other than what we mean by justice and attach to this new "not justice" the significance and authority of God.
Maybe part of your understanding problem is your reading material...? You just need to read better, more holy and righteous and rational material and sound yourself with the same.
"As if that were possible."
This just sounds like one more unproven hunch to me. Although I'll grant that social justice modeled on Biblical justice would be a great thing to see.
"The problem remains that you appear to want to define "justice" as something other than what we mean by justice and attach to this new "not justice" the significance and authority of God."
1. By "We" do you really mean that you can speak for all social justicians?
2. One problem that remains is that you are quick to jump to judgements, conclusions based on your assumptions and prejudices than on reality.
3. Another problem that remains is that you choose to set up straw men based on those judgements and conclusions and respond to those instead of reality.
"Maybe part of your understanding problem is your reading material...?"
Yes, you may be right. Heaven forbid I read a book you've judged with virtually zero evidence, to learn and explore for myself. Clearly, you feel compelled to try to demand control of what I read for some strange reason.
"You just need to read better, more holy and righteous and rational material and sound yourself with the same."
Really? You've read the book? You can speak from some position of authority on the lack of holiness and righteousness on the part of either the author or the book itself? Perhaps you need to examine this ungenerous, graceless, judgemental, and close mindedness. I could be wrong, but it seems as if some of those might be sins, and I don't think you can pass this off as just a "mistake".
Given your lack of anything specific quoted from the review, or anything beyond the broad, general, unfounded attacks, I'm guessing that it's 70/30 whether or not you read any of the review, 85/15 that you read the whole thing, and 99/1 that you read it with anything resembling an open mind?
"Communitive justice: living in right relationship with God and others; giving people their due as image-bearers of God.
Distributive justice: impartially rendering judgment, righting wrongs, and meting out punishment for lawbreaking. Reserved for God and God-ordained authorities including parents in the home, elders in the church, teachers in the school, and civil authorities in the state."
I can see how this heresy would get your panties in a wad.
"“Deconstructing traditional systems and structures deemed to be oppressive, and redistributing power and resources from oppressors to their victims in the pursuit of equality of outcome.” It is obsessed with power, privilege, oppression, and victimization; it uses pragmatic tactics to cow dissenters into submission; it fixates on identity markers such as class, race, gender, and sexual orientation; it is openly hostile to Judeo-Christian religion; it is militant against the natural family and traditional sexuality; and it focuses on the redistribution of wealth and power by means of a powerful state apparatus."
This just sounds like some of the "christian pastors" I know.
"The problem is found in the introduction to that paragraph... HE defines. HE is making up this definition. HE is misrepresenting at times what we mean by Justice, which is just, Justice. He defines it in the negative manner."
So your problem is that "he defines" it rather than you? The bigger question seems to be less about who defines something than about whether a given definition is true or not.
"He appears to be denying Justice to certain groups based upon their part in that group rather than affirming God's worth in them."
!. Any time you start with something "appears", I know that you're just trying to impose your prejudices, assumptions, and preconceptions on the straw man, rather than to interact with the real person and what they really said. Further, your suggestion that disagreement with you is somehow "unholy" or "unrighteous", is just one more sign of your hubris. Especially since he specifically mentions giving value to people based on their bearing the image of God. Further, I see nothing to indicate that he is advocating denying justice to anyone. I guess that's the upside of a straw man, you can dress him in whatever suits you.
"As is so often true in conversations with you and Marshal and Stan, the problem is that he to defined something that doesn't exist. He is building a straw man. It's about his false claims, not what we actually stand for."
Instead of proving your claims, you simply choose to attack a straw man of your own making. Excellent tool of pursuasion.
"For instance, hostile to the judeo-christian tradition? We ARE the Judeo Christian tradition."
Really, are you claiming that a group founded and run by Marxists is "the Judeo Cristian tradition"? Or are you claiming ownership of the entire "Jedeo Christian tradition" all by yourself? For someone who's been known to love the argument from numbers, this is a new level for you. But you've never been shy to enlist others in your cause by speaking for them.
"You all can't just Define us out of existence. That part, itself, is an attack on Justice . Can you at least acknowledge that very little bit?"
Really, someone defining something the way you don't like threatens your existence? No, I can't acknowledge that your overreaction to something about which you have literally zero data, is anything but your paranoia.
"That that part is just simply factually wrong most of the time. As is often the case with so many conservatives today, they confuse disagreeing with your positions to be an attack on your positions."
!. Prove your claim.
2. You mean just like your are doing?
3. Of course you're worried about your very existence, aren't you?
"We ARE the Judeo Christian tradition."
I eagerly await hard data and objective proof of this fact claim. I won't get it, but even watching you trying to twist your words will be amusing.
Re: post surgery...
You have my prayers, holding you in the Light
"Post surgery"???
Craig... "someone defining something the way you don't like threatens your existence?"
I know that, as a straight white man , you're used to being part of the majority with all the control and all the privilege that comes with that, but try to understand.
When a dominant majority defines a certain group of people as not being fully human or not worthy or demonic or dangerous, it does pose a certain amount of threat. When the dominant evangelical white group says with an assumed authority (that doesn't belong to them) that these people are not Christian, it does a certain amount of damage. Does damage to the church and it does damage to the people that they are choosing to exclude. Yeah fortunately, the white Conservative Christian majority longer has the power to harm that it once did, but think back to the centuries before the 1980s. Do you know the harm that was done to gay people because of Conservative Christian teaching? Because I do.
Saying with an authority that is not yours, these people do not belong, are not part of us, has a certain amount of potential of threat of harm..
Knee replacement first week of December. Been putting it off for years and the timing works from an insurance and business standpoint. It shouldn’t be a huge deal, just lots of time to read.
*whew!* Had me worried.
Should be pretty straightforward.. Walking normally will be nice.
I've had three surgeries on my left knew after tearing my ACL in a karate tourney years ago. I've never had 100% confidence in it since, though I've been able to do most anything I want. These days, I get more soreness and while I think it's sometimes psychosomatic given it happens mostly when I'm at work and almost never when I'm not, I wonder if I'll need extra professional attention for it sometime soon. Hope not. Good luck with it and let me know how it works for you. I maintain an interest in hearing from those who undergo such options.
I’ve had it scoped a couple of times, and other stuff, but it’s been bone on bone for way too long and it’s finally time to get it done. I’ve known it’s coming for over 10 years and I just want to get it done.
"I know that, as a straight white man , you're used to being part of the majority with all the control and all the privilege that comes with that, but try to understand."
In your haste to try to explain, your first point is to categorize me by my race and to make assumptions about me. Not a good beginning.
"When a dominant majority defines a certain group of people as not being fully human or not worthy or demonic or dangerous, it does pose a certain amount of threat."
Which isn't happening here, but you feel compelled to pile on bullshit.
"When the dominant evangelical white group says with an assumed authority (that doesn't belong to them) that these people are not Christian, it does a certain amount of damage. Does damage to the church and it does damage to the people that they are choosing to exclude."
I'm starting to sense that this is just you spewing the party line, without any real proof or evidence. Who says this is about excluding anyone? Pointing out that Marxists aren't Christians or are anti-Christian is simply pointing out the obvious. Not excluding anyone.
"Yeah fortunately, the white Conservative Christian majority longer has the power to harm that it once did, but think back to the centuries before the 1980s. Do you know the harm that was done to gay people because of Conservative Christian teaching?"
No, but I do know that it's an off topic unproven hunch of yours that we're not going into in this thread. What's interesting in this screed is that data shows that the weight and global leadership of Christianity is trending away from "white" countries and toward black/brown parts of the world. It also shows that those Christians are more conservative, more willing to accept the reality of the supernatural, than white, Euro-centric progressive christians are, I applaud the shift and believe that it'll provide some much needed renewal for the Church.
"Because I do. Saying with an authority that is not yours, these people do not belong, are not part of us, has a certain amount of potential of threat of harm.."
Yet, you do it regularly. I see three problems with this screed.
1. Because it's based on an incredibly small amount of information, it's essentially a straw man constructed more on your prejudices and opinions, than on actual data.
2. If the author can demonstrate with data, that his definition is rational, then you'd have a problem.
3. Your entire "case" is based on your intentional ignorance of any details of the author. You've spun a small fragment into some grand conspiracy with virtually no information.
#3 is the difference between us. I can see something like this an think, "I should probably did deeper to see what is actually being said, and what the data is.". You see something like this is simply jump to the same old conclusions, driven by the same old hunches and narratives.
"No. That's the point. I'm saying that we are Christians and we aren't hostile towards judeo Christian values. Period."
Not surprised that you've contradicted or significantly modified the sentiment in your initial claim when called out on it. But, you simply double down with a new claim that you can't prove. Or, if you prefer, an appeal to some vague and undefined numerical proof. Either way, not impressed.
"And, unlike many of y'all, when I say we are Christians, I'm not attacking your Christianity. I'm saying we are Christians."
This is quite a sweeping claim. Please provide proof.
"Period. If somebody said, "Dan, you and your church are actively hostile towards the Muppets," and I responded "that's just off. We ARE Muppet fans!" ... by saying that, I am not saying we are the only Muppet fans. I'm not saying we are Muppet fans and you all are not. All that is saying is literally, we are Muppet fans. Understand?"
Do I understand that you are trying to avoid your earlier claims that you can't prove, with new claims that you can't prove, coupled with idiotic hypotheticals, yes I understand.
I think that part of your problem is that no one is sure what your definition of Christian actually is.
You're being irrational and not making much sense. What Marxists? Of course I and folks like me or Christians and thus, we are not hostile towards judeo-christian values, as we are Christians. What proof do you need? Do you think we are secretly hostile towards judeo-christian values even though we're Christians? Do you recognize how irrational that sounds?
You're just not making much sense.
"When a dominant majority defines a certain group of people as not being fully human or not worthy or demonic or dangerous, it does pose a certain amount of threat."
Is this from the guy who defends abortion? That's rich.
"You see something like this is simply jump to the same old conclusions, driven by the same old hunches and narratives."
That's how he rolls. You should see him accept without any actual research the conclusions of Trump-hating historians.
"I think that part of your problem is that no one is sure what your definition of Christian actually is."
Wow, Craig. I don't think I've ever seen you post an example of such blatant understatement before!
"Here's have your reviewer introduced his definition, and again, it's his definition, not one is coming from social justice Advocates, but a made-up one but he made up out of thin air."
How do you know with any degree of certainty that the "definition" isn't based on and supported by date? If it was would that make a difference?
"Allen turns next to the modern-day redefinition of “justice” which he describes as follows:" Again, the problem is he is defining something in a way but the people he's talking about don't Define it."
Which doesn't automatically make his "definition" wrong. Are you not concerned that you are speaking for people who might no t agree with you? You keep saying "people", without demonstrating that these specific people exist or that you speak for them. Just another appeal to numbers.
"He's pulling it out of his ass. It's a false definition."
Please provide proof of this claim before you go any further.
"Feather, given its deliberately false nature oh, it is itself an attack on Justice."
Please prove this claim before you go any further. Would you agree that justice shoudl be defined in terms of process, not outcomes? Would you agree that justice forced by duress or threat, is not really justice/
"And there are many things that both reviewer and the author speak of it is definition they're just false, but to keep it manageable, I was just dealing with one stupidly false claim."
If you're going to make these claims, prove them.
"That we are openly hostile towards judeo-christian values."
Do you realize that this is tantamount to claiming that absolutely zero people in this "justice" movement are hostile to judeo-christian" values? Do you realize that proof of this claim is in order? Do you realize that when you claim that something is false, that your claim could be wrong?
"Now that you understand that, hopefully, perhaps it would be wise for you to retract your last comment and agree with me that it is false, and stupidly false."
Why, would I agree with something that you've only asserted, not proven? Why would I not seek my own sources of data and draw my own conclusions?
"Craig... "I eagerly await hard data and objective proof of this fact claim. I won't get it, but even watching you trying to twist your words will be amusing." Perhaps you misunderstood something I said. You want to back yourself up a little? Perhaps apologize for this vague attack?"
What attack? I'm simply pointing out the reality that you haven't provided hard data and proof, and that your recent history suggests that you won't do so. I'd love to see you back up your claims with hard data and proof.
"Well he's talking about the decision that I believe, along with other people concerned about social justice (often for me Christian point of view), then yes."
In addition to contradicting your other clams, this makes no sense.
"If he's trying to say here is what you all believe and we're saying no, this is not what we believe, yes then that he is trying to Define for us what we believe is a problem."
What if he's actually done the research, compiled that data, and come to a conclusion based on that data? Of course, you don't seem to be interested in anyone even finding out any details, it's easier to jump to conclusions and make claims without bothering to do any research.
"But as you go on to know, it's a problem because it's patently false and based on either half-truths are complete lies."
Please provide proof, before you continue.
"Let's explore this just a little bit just on the one false claim about being openly hostile towards judeo Christian values. The thing is, people that you all like to mock as social justice Warriors, we're often connected with a Quaker tradition, the anabaptist, Amish, Mennonite traditions, with the Catholic Worker movement, with Progressive Christian traditions."
So, that donesn't mean that 100% of the SJW's are, or that they are anything more than in name only, or that there aren't a significant number who aren't what you think. That's why it's so hard to take you seriously when you make these broad generalizations about things and just everyone to blindly accept that they are accurate.
"We ARE Christians, oftentimes coming from a long history of Christians concerned about social justice."
The argument from numbers, with no proof that you're objectively right or that he's wrong.
"To suggest that we are hostile towards judeo Christian values is insulting because it assumes that our judeo-christian values don't count, only the way you all interpret judeo-christian values."
Really, you are really saying that expressing an opinion (regardless of the research and data behind it) is automatically wrong? Are you suggesting that you are guaranteed some sort of freedom from insult? Strangely enough, you don't seem to mind when you broad brush those who you disagree with in false and insulting ways.
"That false claim is an insidious and devious one."
The claims that you haven't proven false?
"Of course for Christians. Of course we're not hostile towards judeo-christian values. Can we begin by just agreeing that that is a stupidly false claim, especially in regards to the large number of social justice people from a wide range of Christian backgrounds?"
Since I haven't seen the entirety of the evidence that is driving the claim, it would be stupid of me to blindly agree to your hunch, wouldn't it? Isn't it virtually always a bad idea to jump to a conclusion without investigation/
'Craig... ""We ARE the Judeo Christian tradition." I eagerly await hard data and objective proof of this fact claim." What are you wanting to prove?"
Your claim was the "We ARE...". So prove that the entirety of those who claim to seek social justice "ARE" "Judeo Christian". Honestly, if you could just prove any of your claims, it'd be a welcom change.
"That the Quakers, anabaptist, Catholic Worker movement, Progressive Christians, Progressive Jews, Etc... that we're not openly hostile to judeo-christian values?"
I can't point to some of those folx who are openly hostile to at least some "judeo-christian" values. I'd start with John Shuck, throw in Every member of the Jesus Seminar (and their followers) from there, which is enough to prove that my point is reasonable.
Of course we're not! We ARE Christians, (or Jews, in the case of progressive Jews). I don't know what it is you're asking me to prove. Again, it sounds like you're conflating, "I disagree with so-called traditional, Conservative Christian values..." with, "They are openly hostile towards judeo-christian values." "
Then, once again, you'd be wrong to draw conclusions based on prejudices.
"Craig... "are you claiming that a group founded and run by Marxists is "the Judeo Cristian tradition"?" I don't know what you're talking about."
Really, if you are truly that uninformed regarding those you blindly defend, then you've just undermined virtually your entire ranting.
?What group? Those concerned with social justice??"
You do your research, and if you really can't find the answer on your own, I'll spoon feed you. Hint, I directed you to a podcast weeks ago that would have helped. I guess you just don't like black folk who disagree with you and bring something more than hunches.
"You're being irrational and not making much sense. What Marxists?"
This is what happens when you get impatient, and are too lazy to do your own research.
"Of course I and folks like me or Christians and thus, we are not hostile towards judeo-christian values, as we are Christians. What proof do you need?"
Well, you claimed that "WE ARE" which clearly implies that you are speaking for a much larger piece of the pie that you're relatively tiny enclave in KY. Maybe, you should either be more precise, or be prepared to prove the claims you make. FYI, I'd argue that of you support or ally with groups that espouse Marxism or deny "judeo-christian' values that you effectively endorse their point of view. Maybe this points to a flaw in your oft repeated canard where you broad brush everyone with your hunches about a few.
"Do you think we are secretly hostile towards judeo-christian values even though we're Christians? Do you recognize how irrational that sounds? You're just not making much sense."
I think that you endorse and partner with those who are, and further I think it's irresponsible to jump to conclusions about what others might think before actually doing research. Of course, It's also irrational for you to try to paint me with your hunches about the author and reviewer believes. Especially as you haven't done any research.
"I'm not sure why that would be. I've never been unclear on the point. Christians are those who follow the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Boom. Just like that. We may disagree with what other Christians say they have concluded from the teachings of Christ, but I were disagreeing with those Christians and their opinions doesn't make us not Christians. Do you have a problem with my operating definition for Christian? Do you somehow suspect that I am mistaken?"
Which teachings of Christ? The ones limited to the red letters, or all of them? What about the ones who deny the existence of Christ, or deny the deity of Christ? What about the ones who randomly pick and choose which teachings are accurate of not?
You're like the folx who respond to the question, "What is a woman?" with "A woman is anyone who says they're a woman.".
"If a person say, "This group of liberals defines Justice to be 1. 2. 3...." and A. If this "group of liberals" is diverse and don't all define justice that way, then the claim itself is false. If one makes a sweeping claim and it doesn't apply to all or even generally all people in the group, it is a false claim. Am I mistaken somehow?"
In the absence of an accurate statement of stating what was said, and of any actually of any hard data or objective truth, your just blowing smoke.
"B. Further, if the group literally does not define justice in that way, then it is a false claim to say that they do. Correct?"
If it was demonstrable that your claim was 100% objectively and proven to be so, then probably.
"If he were to say, in Liberal groups concerned about social justice some portion of them Define Justice this way... And here are the quotes to support it... then he might be correct."
But you have absolutely no freaking idea if this is true or not, but are acting is if it is without even bothering to determine the truth of anything. Then you build on your assumptions, presumptions, and lack of research and start accusing straw men of all sorts of crap you can't prove.
But what he's doing is just false."
This is an objective claim, it needs objective proof.
"Out of all the attributes with the many mistakes and false claims amongst them, I chose just one to illustrate why it's false. He makes a sweeping claim that people concerned about social justice today are openly hostile towards judeo-christian values. The group itself is not openly hostile towards judeo-christian values. As evidence of that, I point to the Quakers, the Mennonites, the churches such as mine, the progressive Jewish people, Etc all who are concerned about social justice and yet are not openly hostile to judeo-christian values. The claim is false and the reality of people like me are the proof that it is false. What am I saying that you were failing to understand? Where, in anything that I said, am I mistaken?"
I'm done with this bullshit. You're mistaken because your drawing all sorts of conclusions and presenting those conclusion as fact, without having done any research or providing any proof of your claims.
In short, it's a pretty standard example of you holding others to a standard you don't hold yourself through.
Unlike you, I'm not afraid to expose myself to the entirety of someone's opinions. I'm not afraid to look at the entirety of their data, with an open mind, BEFORE I jump to any conclusions. Once I've done that, I'm not afraid to discuss what I might agree with and what I might not agree with. What I won't do is engage in attacks on someone for simply saying that something controversial sounds interesting and worthy of investigation.
if it's all lies and falsehoods, maybe we should just burn the book right now.
"You should see him accept without any actual research the conclusions of Trump-hating historians."
I either recently posted about this or commented on it. This notion that some people who demand an unrealistic level of proof of virtually everything that goes against their prejudices, can somehow accept all sorts of things that they don't have proof of, or of which there is proof to the contrary.
"Hands up don't shoot." is but one example.
"Which teachings?"
Good question. It sounds like you've made it clear that you're eliminating some already.
"The ones that Jesus taught as found in the Gospels. And any teachings consistent with the teachings of Jesus."
So, you're excluding any of the other teachings of Jesus from consideration?
"Do you have some reason to suspect that those who follow the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels are not followers of Jesus?"
That's abroad question. But, I'd say that I'm curious about people who are selective about which teachings of Jesus they follow, it seems like Jesus was one of those folk who expected His followers to go all in.
"Craig... " or all of them?" The teachings we have of Jesus are the ones found in the Gospels. Literally. Where am I mistaken?"
1. Are you suggesting that the gospels contain the only red letters in scripture?
2. If you aren't, then why are you suggesting that some red letters can be ignored?
3. If The red letters are to be believed, then Jesus and God The Father are "one", therefore any words of The Father would logically be words of Jesus.
"Clearly, I am not making that claim."
Really? "We ARE the Judeo Christian Tradition", certainly sounds like it. Perhaps in your anger you misspoke and could have been less sweepingly general.
"I am saying that there are people from judeo-christian Traditions who are part of what this guy it's talking about, those concerned about social justice. That not all people concerned about social justice are part of a faith tradition does not mean that they are hostile people of faith or towards judeo-christian values."
Blahblahblahblah...
"He has done nothing to support that claim - which is patently false about the whole group since they include people of faith"
Once again, you are making an objective claim of fact, without actually having done anything but read one tiny snippet. Are you really suggesting that you are qualified to make these sorts of judgements without doing adequate research?
"- and yet you're not worried about that false claim but you want me to provide some proof of, what?, that we are Christians?"
Yet you don't seem to mind making false claims about me.... Proof of your claims.
"That we aren't hostile towards judeo-christian values? Clearly, I am not. Then, why don't we just start there: do you think I am hostile towards judeo-christian values?"
I don't have enough information, nor am I comfortable making broad sweeping claims about others without adequate information. I suspect that you feel that you are, with the caveat that they be filtered through your personal opinions and experiences.
"Do you recognize how nonsensical such a claim would be, since I am a Christian and love judeo-Christian values. I disagree with some conservative opinions about certain judeo Christian values, but disagreeing with conservative opinions is not the same with being hostile towards judeo Christian values. Do you recognize the validity of that statement?"
If you mean do I recognize it as an absolute statement of objective truth, then no.
"If you and this fella are making the accusations set people concerned about social justice are hostile towards judeo-christian values, why do you not need to provide support for that claim?"
If I was making that sort of an objective fact claim then I would be prepared to provide support, however I'm not so I don't.
Do you understand that the author has written an entire book which presumably provides support for his thesis?
Do you realize that when you claim that he hasn't provide support, that you are ignoring the reality that he's written an entire book to do so?
Do you realize how stupid you look complaining that he hasn't done what he's (at least) attempted to do?
Do you realize how foolish you look jumping to conclusions, making claims of objective fact, and complaining that he hasn't offered support for his thesis, when the problem is that you have chosen to ignore the existence of the very thing you claim doesn't exist?
Do you realize that jumping to conclusion based on insufficient data is virtually always guaranteed to make you look like an idiot?
How about if you read the book, deal with his actual arguments and data, then prove him wrong?
"Clearly, it is false as it relates to the group as a whole. And we have no data to support the claim is true of even a large minority the group. Just an empty claim."
Clearly your snippet above is false, because you have jumped to a conclusion you present as objective fact without actually examining the totality of the evidence.
Just as a general rule, trying to accuse someone of making a false claim, by making false claims, is usually not a great way to be taken seriously.
"I'm wondering if you recognize that you cannot point to one single place where I've made a false claim?"
"He has done nothing to support that claim"
Of course had you read my comments, you'd have been able to figure it out on your own.
"This is because I have made no false claims in this thread, not that I can see."
One and a half, because you left the weasel room.
"Probably what's happening is you're failing to understand what I'm saying, but that's not the same as me making a false claim. Likewise, when I point to the author's sweeping claim and say that it is a false claim, I am factually correct, objectively speaking. What his words are literally saying IS a false claim. Do you recognize either of those realities? I don't think you do. More's the pity."
Ahhhhhhhhh, the "you don't understand me" trope.
If you are "factually correct objectively speaking" then where is the factually correct objective proof?
Look, I understand, there's a lot to sift through, and ,multiple claims of fact that you should probably prove, and that's just a lot harder than playing that "you don't understand" card and pretending like you're on some kind of level where mere mortals can't understand you.
I'll give you a hint though, it's probably not wise to make massive, sweeping, claims of fact without looking at the context.
Thanks for the laugh, it's been a good cap to a better than hoped for afternoon.
Your problem seems to be that you're pissed that I might read something that might contain data that might be inconvenient for your narrative and it's easier to preemptively attack the author and me, than to do your own research, look at the data, and make an informed decision not based on preconceptions and a tiny bit of information.
It's genuinely saddening that you are so vehemently against people exploring different perspectives on their own and actually examining the actual data, instead of jumping to an uninformed conclusion.
I'd suggest that you try it sometime, but every other time I've made that suggestion you've gone silent and presumably not investigated for yourself.
Art,
Since I know you're checking in here, I'll just throw this out. I just skimmed the last few comments at Dan's and was struck by how idiotic it is to expect that "historians" can accurately an impartially evaluate the Trump presidency while it is still going on. The very notion that it's possible to accurately evaluate the historical impact of anything in real time is just silly.
For example, let's say that some of the contents of Hillary's emails and the results of the Russia investigation do end up leading to consequences for those in the P-BO administration, I'd suggest that it might lead to a re-evaluation of the historical perspective.
But this instant gratification, is just silly.
I'm sorry to depart from the topic, but I hope you'll indulge me, as I believe it goes to the point regarding Dan's dishonesty about proving one's point.
His historians, ranking Trump with barely a year of a presidency under his belt against those with one or two full terms, doesn't do much to indicate integrity on the part of his sources. From what I've seen thus far...and I intend to further scrutinize the survey of historians from his first link...had not provided much at all in the way of policies enacted and their effect versus the policies of other presidents enacted and the effects of those. Clearly, and without any room for debate, Trump's tax and regulatory policies have far and away been more successful than eight years of Obama in turning around the economy. That one area alone should put Trump's ranking higher than Obama's, particularly when Obama insisted his crap was to be accepted as the new normal and that a magic wand would be necessary to do better. But we see no reference to anything like that, be it economics or any other issue.
Then, of course, we have William Henry Harrison. How could any honest, objective historian not rank Trump at least higher than a guy who lasted only 32 days in office before dying? Some of his surveyed historians rank Trump 44th out of 44 total presidents. How does this indicate integrity on the part of the historians?
What this and other problems with Dan's "evidence" against Trump PROVE is that Dan isn't interested in truth. He isn't interested in truly reviewing anything he offers as "proof" when there is clearly so many problems with his sources and their info. All he cares about is the conclusion to which they come...regardless of how they come to it...which he can then use as "evidence" to support his prejudices and hateful attitude toward whatever the point being discussed may be.
And when I offered examples of historians that find Trump to be among the better...if not best...presidents, and they actually use the very examples of his policies and their effects that people like Dan and those he favors purposely and deceitfully ignore, he counters with hit pieces that have absolutely nothing to do with their arguments in support of Trump as president. His offering of that extremist conservative periodical, "The Atlantic", does just that. It was an article wherein the author makes all manner of negative connotations regarding things Newt Gingrich has said and done, while never offering any response of clarification by Newt himself. The reader is left to wade through such biased editorializing of Newt's words and actions or just believe without reason that the author is still somehow objective in his reporting. No where in all the article does the author suggest he is giving his own impressions of what Newt's words and actions mean. He's asserting meaning and pasting it over Newt's words and actions.
But it wouldn't matter to Dan, anyway. The point is that the article speaks negatively about Gingrich, and thus it is true that Gingrich is evil and therefore his ranking of Trump, based on Trump's actual policies and their effects, is not to be considered. All the while, Dan does nothing to prove the integrity or character of his historians merits believing their assessment of Trump. This is Dan's modus operandi. This is Dan revering Judeo-Christian values. This is Dan's constant duplicity. And he dares speak of Trump being a liar.
"While there MAY be some validity to the notion of not assessing a presidency until after it's complete, but that assumes a normal presidency that isn't an active and ongoing series of train wrecks. Trump's presidency is a disaster and this obvious to all rational people, experts, scholars and otherwise."
While this notion provides you with a fig leaf to hide behind, the reality is that it is virtually impossible to assess something with a potential long term impact in either real time or in the short term. While not a fan of Trump, it's absurd to ignore the fact that the economy was in good shape pre Covid and that it's bouncing back faster than most thought. He's had some success in moving the ball down the field towards more peace in the middle ease, and has been disengaging us from overseas military commitments. He's also does some positive things in terms of criminal justice reform and in other areas. I'm not suggesting perfection, but any reasonably objective observer can't rationally conclude total failure either. One of the benefits to assessing these things in the future is the ability to assess more objectively. I'd suggest that looking at history through a subjective, biased lens is probably not the best practice.
"One can't make false claims and be so utterly dishonest and corrupt as Trump has factually been and still be a good president. One can't be as thoroughly inept and just stupid as Trump is and still be counted as a good president."
Yet, there's quite a chasm between "good president" and abject failure. I know that you frequently skip to extremes, but most of us live in the middle ground.
"In the middle of Hitler's reign, historians could tell that Hitler was a world-level disaster. Trump is no Hitler (for two things, he's just so much more stupid and inept than Hitler), but it is similarly clear to all rational people that Trump is just amongst the worst."
Interesting double standard there. Judging Trump in real time and the rest of "the worst" in hindsight.
"What's interesting is why some 30-40% of the population are blind to this? Are some part of that 40% acknowledging his ineptitude, but are just so partisan that they welcome historic corruption and ineptitude over the Democratic party?"
In much the same way as people like you have said that they'd vote for ANY democrat over Trump, many in the other side see Biden as a worse option. I'd argue that blindness isn't the problem, but seeing and judging the positives and negatives of both candidates is. You may not agree with those who don't share your visceral hatred of Trump, I'd further argue that if Trump wins, that the problem lies with the DFL's inability to put forth a candidate that's more appealing to a broader swath of the electorate than Biden. You frequently (rightly) criticize Trump for his lying. Yet, Biden is a decades long history of lying and plagiarism that is undeniable. You'll likely respond that Biden's trail of lies isn't as bad as Trump's, but that's subjective. It's also the exact same rationale a Trump voter has for voting against Biden. Make no mistake, the majority of Trump voters are voting against Biden, not for Trump. Unfortunately, the fact that the DFL is in a race to the extreme left, and couldn't find a good candidate twice says more about y'all that about Trump.
"Historians are rightly united on Trump's deserved place near the bottom of the list. What will take some time for historians is studying Trump's supporters and defenders to figure them out."
These are both simply hunches, and worth about as much because of your hatred for Trump.
And, that's it on this off topic diversion. If you want to continue, ask nicely and I'll open up a tread for this new topic. I'm giving you each one comment, and one response from me. It's all fair and equal.
Art,
I agree that labeling Trump as one of the worst presidents, especially early in his term would indicate bias and raise questions that would seem to disqualify those observers. I also know that you believe that Trump has done quite well. In any case, I still would suggest that it's absurd to rank presidents historical impact in real time. I'd argue that his peace efforts in the middle east could end up starting a movement that eventually encompasses the whole area, and that it could be the most significant move toward peace since Sadat and Begin met with Carter. That one thing has the potential to swing the assessment of his presidency significantly, yet we won't know for years. It could also blow up.
While I deplore Trumps casual relationship with the truth, I find it interesting that those who do are silent when this "packing the court" lie is thrown about cavalierly, and when Harris blatantly lies about Lincoln in a debate and gets a free pass from the Biden folx. I want my POTUS and their administration to be honest, but giving one side a pass (because Trump is worse) is just ridiculous.
It is truly unfortunate that our politics have descended to this level, where so many are simply partisan above all. I addressed the problem with the DFL not offering better options, but I also think that the DFL and the media played a significant role in the rise of Trump. Because the DFL vilified ALL of the GOP candidates as all being essentially equally evil, Trump (being the only one willing to fight back) rose to the top. The fact that people like someone who's willing to fight back shouldn't surprise anyone. While the other candidates missed an opportunity, I think it's hard to ignore the reality that the media and the DFL gave someone like Trump the best chance to win.
Art,
And, that's it on this off topic diversion. If you want to continue, ask nicely and I'll open up a thread for this new topic. I'm giving you each one comment, and one response from me. It's all fair and equal.
Fixed the typo also.
Consider yourself asked. I try to do so at my own blog, but Dan lacks the honor and courage to engage there or at his own blog, where he deletes my comments because he can't debunk them. I hope this request is considered "nice" enough, though I won't suppose that was necessarily directed at me...just a hunch.
I’ll put something together in the morning.
Bingo.
Post a Comment