A couple of early impressions after Clinton's speech.
1. Virtually everything she said needed to be fixed is stuff that P-BO ran on fixing. If all of things things haven't been fixed after 8 years of P-BO, then doens't that suggest that the current president hasn't been particularly successful?
2. Every analysis of the RNC talks about how much Trumps campaign is based on fear, Clinton's answer to combat the fear, be afraid of what might, possibly, could, maybe happen if Trump gets elected.
Friday, July 29, 2016
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Bubba refugee camp.
Elsewhere, it has proposed that Bubba be banned from commenting on a certain blog thread. This ban could be a result of mistrust of Bubba, or fear of what he might say. I just don't know for sure.
Therefore I am establishing this thread as a safe space where Bubba will be allowed to comment as he sees fit.
Think of this as a virtual refugee camp or a sanctuary city.
Therefore I am establishing this thread as a safe space where Bubba will be allowed to comment as he sees fit.
Think of this as a virtual refugee camp or a sanctuary city.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Remember when...
Remember when there were some investigative journalist types who managed to document multiple Planned Parenthood staffers admitting to all sorts of unpleasant things?
Then do you remember how certain folks on the left jumped all over the fact that these investigative journalist types were indicted?
Then do you remember how this we trumpeted as proof that these folks were guilty of some horrible crime and how Planned Parenthood was a pure as the wind driven snow?
Oops...
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/26/texas-da-withdraws-all-remaining-charges-against-cmps-daleiden-over-planned-parenthood-videos/?utm_con
I guess there were some folks who jumped on the bandwagon a bit too early.
Remember when those folks apologized for being wrong?
Me neither.
Then do you remember how certain folks on the left jumped all over the fact that these investigative journalist types were indicted?
Then do you remember how this we trumpeted as proof that these folks were guilty of some horrible crime and how Planned Parenthood was a pure as the wind driven snow?
Oops...
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/26/texas-da-withdraws-all-remaining-charges-against-cmps-daleiden-over-planned-parenthood-videos/?utm_con
I guess there were some folks who jumped on the bandwagon a bit too early.
Remember when those folks apologized for being wrong?
Me neither.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
The Choice we have for president.
The other day I saw a post on Facebook that got me thinking about what poor choices we have for president this time around, and people are responding to the state of affairs. Just a few quotes from the post.
"The lesser of two evils is LESS EVIL" (Of course, this means that you are choosing to vote for "EVIL", but whatever)
"I don't give a damn about anything Donald Trump has done. I'm concerned with what Hilary Clinton WILL do."
I don't know what I will do about the presidential race. Fortunately (or not) the peoples republic up here will gleefully ensure that Hilary gets our electoral votes, which allows me to either not vote for president or vote Libertarian/write in. in good conscience.
Personally, I just can't understand this willingness to vote for evil or to ignore what someone has done in the past for purely political reasons.
"The lesser of two evils is LESS EVIL" (Of course, this means that you are choosing to vote for "EVIL", but whatever)
"I don't give a damn about anything Donald Trump has done. I'm concerned with what Hilary Clinton WILL do."
I don't know what I will do about the presidential race. Fortunately (or not) the peoples republic up here will gleefully ensure that Hilary gets our electoral votes, which allows me to either not vote for president or vote Libertarian/write in. in good conscience.
Personally, I just can't understand this willingness to vote for evil or to ignore what someone has done in the past for purely political reasons.
Friday, July 22, 2016
FYI
Life has been incredibly hectic lately; work, home renovations, houseguests, 2 family members involving me in their car buying process, and the fact that it's the one week of the summer when it get genuinely hot up here, so that mean that blogging and commenting has taken a back seat. I hope to at least get Dan a long promised "rational bases" for believing that God is real, that He communicates with us, and that we can actually correctly understand Him done this weekend.
Friday, July 8, 2016
Bubba
Since I have no idea which of my comments responding to you have been deleted, and since I didn't copy them they remain lost. But I wanted to say a couple of things.
First thanks, your contributions have been welcome and well done. You have done an excellent job pointing out many issues and problems with Dan's attitude and position.
Second, regarding your ACLS, I've been spending some time back with Scheaffer recently and he talks about our ability to know things about God that are True, but not exhaustive. Seems like you are both in the same ballpark.
First thanks, your contributions have been welcome and well done. You have done an excellent job pointing out many issues and problems with Dan's attitude and position.
Second, regarding your ACLS, I've been spending some time back with Scheaffer recently and he talks about our ability to know things about God that are True, but not exhaustive. Seems like you are both in the same ballpark.
In order to stop the insane and hellish complaining, I'm doing this.
1. Yes, I get that you put your reason to the "litmus test" of
Scripture, prayer, etc... BUT how do you assess what those things mean?
DO YOU NOT USE YOUR REASON?
2. What do you have or how are you using your reason in ways that are different than what I am doing?
3. What is different from my way and your way?
4. CRAIG: "your underlying premise, (Reason is all we have) remains unproven."
As is the claim that we have some other Thing in addition to Reason, right?
5. What else, in addition to reason, do you use?
1. I use every resource available to me including my reason, scripture, the counsel of others, the accumulated wisdom of my family, my community, as well as the breadth of accumulated wisdom and knowledge from the past. So, as I have said, I use my reason as one part of the process but subordinate it when it disagrees with things I value more highly than my selfish desires. I assess what things mean by using my ability to read and understand the English language. If my reason tells me I should be graceless and derisive and my reading of scrfipture tells me otherwise, then I (should) subordinate my reason to scripture. It's really not that difficult.
2. I am subordinating my personal reasoning to other things or people, not elevating my personal, subjective, fallible, inconsistent, limited, human reason to superiority over other factors.
3. Since this is the exact same question you just asked, worded slightly differently I'm going to point out that you have this incredibly stupid habit of asking the same questions over and over in the same comment. It's pointless, stupid and annoying. I suspect it's a way to allow you to say that I didn't answer all of your questions.
4. No, I have listed things other than reason that are all tools that I use. You, still haven't proven that the claim of fact you use as your underlying premise is actually true.
5. Again, you ask the same question twice in the same comment. It's ridiculous, stupid and petty. But since I've already answered it...
There. Answers to Dan's questions. They are statements. They are not intended as a basis for further conversation, merely as a means to stop the constant harping and to allow Dan to misrepresent other things. I don't really care if these answers are satisfactory to Dan, I don't care if his subjective worldview won't allow for this kind of diversity of thought. I don't even make the claim that these are objectively true for others in the same way they are for me.
But, they are answers, and they are the last answers I will give to these question.
It's interesting, the amount of pressure Dan is applying in trying to force me to conform to using his term of choice, "Reason". He's complaining, that my answers aren't enough, of course ignoring the fact that of his 5 questions, two are simply repeating earlier question and one is simply an attempt to draw attention away from his unproven, unsupported, premise which he demands should be accepted without question. Or at least declines to provide any evidence of.
It seems clear that his commitment to rationalism is incredibly strong, so strong that he is willing to go to significant lengths to insist that it is our only option. In his commitment, he is willing to abandon the grace, and benefit of the doubt he claims to give others and is unwilling to even tolerate the possibility that someone would have the temerity not to agree with his unproven, unsupported premise.
With that said, I'm sure that the pressure, lies, and demands will continue unless I simply capitulate and agree to use his terms and his definitions.
It's strange that I (the closed minded , intolerant conservative) am willing to live and let live on this point. Even though I find his worldview, limited, limiting, depressing, nihilistic, and self centered. I find it hard to believe that one could base ones worldview solely and completely on the basis if ones personal, subjective, fallible, limited, human Reason, yet Dan claims to have done just that. Have I been derisive? Demeaning? Ridiculed him? Tried to bully him into conforming with my worldview or into using the terminology I prefer?
It's becoming more clear that this rationalism that Dan is so committed to is something that he holds very deeply and given great value to. It is something so dear to him that in a world where he holds virtually everything else to be subjective, this rationalism is the one objective thing he has to cling to. I can see how it could be a bit scary when people don't blindly accept something that you cling so tightly to, but when you can't even explain why,( out of all the other things you find subjective) this one premise is so far beyond sacred that you can't even entertain the need to provide evidence for is a bit disconcerting.
In conclusion Dan, I am well aware that you can read and comprehend English, so any further attempts at coercion or bullying will simply indicate that you have chosen to not read this entire post or that you have chosen to ignore it.
With the revisions above, I've given you all the answer I intend to, additional attempts at shame, coercion, bullying, ridicule and derision will simply be met with me pointing out your unwillingness to read the entire post. I know that you don't like my answer, perhaps your don't understand it (earlier I compared this to my writing in Urdu or Tagalog). But my answer is my answer, the only choice you have it this point is to continue in pressure, coercion, bullying, derision, and ridicule or to embrace the tolerance, grace, and benefit of the doubt you talk so much about.
Your call, will you embrace grace?
"
I will note that some people - many people - are so heavily invested in their human ideas and opinions that attacks on those opinions, to them, feel like attacks on them, or perhaps to their faith."
I will note that this has the appearance of an acute pot/kettle crisis.
2. What do you have or how are you using your reason in ways that are different than what I am doing?
3. What is different from my way and your way?
4. CRAIG: "your underlying premise, (Reason is all we have) remains unproven."
As is the claim that we have some other Thing in addition to Reason, right?
5. What else, in addition to reason, do you use?
1. I use every resource available to me including my reason, scripture, the counsel of others, the accumulated wisdom of my family, my community, as well as the breadth of accumulated wisdom and knowledge from the past. So, as I have said, I use my reason as one part of the process but subordinate it when it disagrees with things I value more highly than my selfish desires. I assess what things mean by using my ability to read and understand the English language. If my reason tells me I should be graceless and derisive and my reading of scrfipture tells me otherwise, then I (should) subordinate my reason to scripture. It's really not that difficult.
2. I am subordinating my personal reasoning to other things or people, not elevating my personal, subjective, fallible, inconsistent, limited, human reason to superiority over other factors.
3. Since this is the exact same question you just asked, worded slightly differently I'm going to point out that you have this incredibly stupid habit of asking the same questions over and over in the same comment. It's pointless, stupid and annoying. I suspect it's a way to allow you to say that I didn't answer all of your questions.
4. No, I have listed things other than reason that are all tools that I use. You, still haven't proven that the claim of fact you use as your underlying premise is actually true.
5. Again, you ask the same question twice in the same comment. It's ridiculous, stupid and petty. But since I've already answered it...
There. Answers to Dan's questions. They are statements. They are not intended as a basis for further conversation, merely as a means to stop the constant harping and to allow Dan to misrepresent other things. I don't really care if these answers are satisfactory to Dan, I don't care if his subjective worldview won't allow for this kind of diversity of thought. I don't even make the claim that these are objectively true for others in the same way they are for me.
But, they are answers, and they are the last answers I will give to these question.
It's interesting, the amount of pressure Dan is applying in trying to force me to conform to using his term of choice, "Reason". He's complaining, that my answers aren't enough, of course ignoring the fact that of his 5 questions, two are simply repeating earlier question and one is simply an attempt to draw attention away from his unproven, unsupported, premise which he demands should be accepted without question. Or at least declines to provide any evidence of.
It seems clear that his commitment to rationalism is incredibly strong, so strong that he is willing to go to significant lengths to insist that it is our only option. In his commitment, he is willing to abandon the grace, and benefit of the doubt he claims to give others and is unwilling to even tolerate the possibility that someone would have the temerity not to agree with his unproven, unsupported premise.
With that said, I'm sure that the pressure, lies, and demands will continue unless I simply capitulate and agree to use his terms and his definitions.
It's strange that I (the closed minded , intolerant conservative) am willing to live and let live on this point. Even though I find his worldview, limited, limiting, depressing, nihilistic, and self centered. I find it hard to believe that one could base ones worldview solely and completely on the basis if ones personal, subjective, fallible, limited, human Reason, yet Dan claims to have done just that. Have I been derisive? Demeaning? Ridiculed him? Tried to bully him into conforming with my worldview or into using the terminology I prefer?
It's becoming more clear that this rationalism that Dan is so committed to is something that he holds very deeply and given great value to. It is something so dear to him that in a world where he holds virtually everything else to be subjective, this rationalism is the one objective thing he has to cling to. I can see how it could be a bit scary when people don't blindly accept something that you cling so tightly to, but when you can't even explain why,( out of all the other things you find subjective) this one premise is so far beyond sacred that you can't even entertain the need to provide evidence for is a bit disconcerting.
In conclusion Dan, I am well aware that you can read and comprehend English, so any further attempts at coercion or bullying will simply indicate that you have chosen to not read this entire post or that you have chosen to ignore it.
With the revisions above, I've given you all the answer I intend to, additional attempts at shame, coercion, bullying, ridicule and derision will simply be met with me pointing out your unwillingness to read the entire post. I know that you don't like my answer, perhaps your don't understand it (earlier I compared this to my writing in Urdu or Tagalog). But my answer is my answer, the only choice you have it this point is to continue in pressure, coercion, bullying, derision, and ridicule or to embrace the tolerance, grace, and benefit of the doubt you talk so much about.
Your call, will you embrace grace?
"
I will note that some people - many people - are so heavily invested in their human ideas and opinions that attacks on those opinions, to them, feel like attacks on them, or perhaps to their faith."
I will note that this has the appearance of an acute pot/kettle crisis.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)