"According to The Centre for Women's Justice, figures show a "growing pressure on young women to consent to violent, dangerous, and demeaning [sex] acts", which is "likely to be to to the normalization of extreme pornography".
If it's "normalized" then doesn't that mean it's not "extreme"?
"Biden showers stimulus money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty in defining move of presidency"
The Washington Post
If TWP thinks that $1,400 is going to "sharply cut poverty" then they're either stupid or irredeemably partisan.
If you are a Pro Life Evangelical for Biden, and you "feel used and betrayed", then you're just stupid. I'm sorry, but Here's Your Sign.
Apparently the black folks who own the businesses and apartments at 38th and Chicago are unhappy that the G Floyd memorial street blockage is harming their businesses. I guess that’s just more black owned business that’ll be sacrificed on the alter of “justice”. Clearly the best way to get “justice” for Floyd is to inflict more harm on black entrepreneurs and property owners
So. The lifting of the mask mandate is going to cause a massive COVID spike in TX, but allowing in thousands of unscreened, unvaccinated, unmasked immigrants is absolutely hunky dory
Sat on hold for over 20 minutes with the MPD today, thanks for all those “defund the police” folks.
We now live in a world where claiming that you aren’t racist is evidence that you actually are racist, and where a white man marrying a black woman does so because he’s racist. The notion of a wife as a “minority sex servant”, is quite the stretch in the race to label everyone a racist.
For years I've heard people say that Jesus didn't actually have any rules or commandments that anyone needed to follow, but now that renowned theologian and CNN anchor Don Lemon breaks the news that Jesus isn't about inhibiting or judging anyone. You'd think that actually reading the Bible would be a good idea.
In the past couple of weeks, we've learned that the NYT claim that a capitol policeman was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, and that Trump was misquoted in reports about his phone call with GA election officials.
1. When the misquote bears no resemblence to the actual words used, is it really misquoting the speaker?
2. Both of these news stories were uses as evidence in the second impeachment trial.
3. What does it say about both the reporters and editors that failed to fact check the stories for accuracy and let them run anyway, and about those prosecuting the impeachment? I guess neither group was particularly interested in accuracy.
145 comments:
Craig... " If TWP thinks that $1,400 is going to "sharply cut poverty" then they're either stupid or irredeemably partisan."
OR, is it possible that they're just citing what experts are saying, given the available data? And your casual dismissal of it, on the other hand, might be irredeemably partisan, or at least, knee jerk partisan (ie, if Biden is advocating a policy and the WaPo is reporting it, it must be junk...)
From Business Insider...
"According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, the Senate-passed version of President Joe Biden's coronavirus spending bill would give the poorest 20% of Americans a 20.1% income boost after taxes, while giving the richest 20% of Americans a 0.7% raise.
Most of that extra money will come from direct stimulus payments and monthly benefits stemming from the child tax credit included in the legislation. The earned income tax credit and the child and dependent care tax credit also play a role in the extra funds."
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/the-poorest-20-of-americans-will-likely-see-a-20-income-boost-thanks-to-bidens-stimulus-plan-per-new-analysis/articleshow/81404888.cms
In other words, they're not talking about a one time check, they're talking about a series of policies put into place to help the poor and working class.
From the WaPo article...
"President Biden’s stimulus package, which passed the Senate on Saturday, represents one of the most generous expansions of aid to the poor in recent history, while also showering thousands or, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars on Americans families navigating the coronavirus pandemic.
The roughly $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which only Democrats supported, spends most of the money on low-income and middle-class Americans and state and local governments, with very little funding going toward companies...
This round of aid enjoys wide support across the country, polls show, and it is likely to be felt quickly by low- and moderate-income Americans who stand to receive not just larger checks than before, but money from expanded tax credits, particularly geared toward parents; enhanced unemployment; rental assistance; food aid and health insurance subsidies...
“This legislative package likely represents the most effective set of policies for reducing child poverty ever in one bill, especially among Black and Latinx children,” said Indivar Dutta-Gupta, co-executive director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality."
Enhanced unemployment, most of the money going to low and middle income, especially for black and latino children ("very little going towards companies"), rent assistance, health insurance... and supported by majority of the US population (66% support it, 25% oppose it).
Do you think these experts and the majority of the US are mistaken? Do you think giving relief to struggling poor/working class folk over the next year is a bad thing?
If so, based on what? Expert opinion or just your hunch?
Not mistaken, just partisan.
I’ve addressed the notion of relief multiple times in the past, so to repeat myself.
1. If the government is going to give “relief” from a “crisis” created by the government, then it should be relief equal to the harm that the government inflicted. Not dribbling out 1200 here, 600 there, and 1400 there.
2. The best “relief” package is to reopen the economy. Before COVID, we were at (essentially) full employment, so let’s let people go back to work instead of more government “relief”.
3. A one time “relief” payment isn’t really “income”, is it?
Of course, the claim was “sharply cutting poverty”, not what you’ve claimed.
Based on the fact that I’m smart enough to realize that 1400 per person for a fraction of the country isn’t enough to “sharply reduce anything”. Based on the fact that big chunks of the spending don’t happen until next year. Based on my opinion.
If it was magically possible to “sharply cut poverty”, this easily, why’d it take so long?
But, then your partisan hackery is showing through.
Generally, when the press tries to cast some future possibility as if it’s a forgone conclusion, or as if it’s already happened, it’s reasonable to suspect that partisanship has something to do with it.
Sigh. Go back and reread the article. They're not just referring to a one-time payment of $1,400. They are not simply referring to a one-time payment of $1,400. The relief is not just the $1,400. Do you understand what I'm saying? There's more to the relief then just the $1,400.
If you want to complain about what they're actually saying and make your case oh, you can certainly go for it. But you have to begin by understanding what they're actually saying. Everything else is just a false claim on your part and a straw man.
I asked if you thought the experts were mistaken. You responded, "Not mistaken, just partisan."
1. Do you have proof for this claim? If so, please provide it.
2. They are partisan, you suspect and claim without support, but they are not mistaken. If they're not mistaken, then does their data reliable and their opinion reliable?
Craig... "If it was magically possible to “sharply cut poverty”, this easily, why’d it take so long?"
Well, frankly, conservative ideology and refusal to cooperate with progressives.
Had you paid attention, my issue is with the framing of the story/headline. The reality is that "sharply cutting poverty" is quite a claim, especially for one piece of legislation that hadn't even been finalized when the story was written. The reality is that the claim is likely bullshit/hyperbole and groundless.
You asked for my opinion, I gave you my opinion. For someone who uses "it's my opinion" as an excuse to prove his claims, I'd think you'd be more open to accepting other's opinions.
1. It's an opinion, not a claim. However, it's been expensively documented that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly (90+%) liberal. So, there's like a 90% chance that my opinion is correct.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/
https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/liberal-mediaevery-poll-shows-journalists-are-more-liberal-american-public-%E2%80%94-and
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/
2. If they have hard data about the actual results of a bill that hasn't been passed yet (certainly not when the story was written), then I'd happily look at it and adjust my opinions accordingly. But, that's just presuming that they have hard data about the future,
8 years of P-BO, 2 plus years of DFL total control of the government, and they didn't come up with this magical solution. But it's always the other side's fault. That's some hard hitting, data backed, factual, analysis right there.
Speaking of poverty, up until COVID (when various governments shut down the economy) poverty rates had been declining pretty steadily. In reality the reduction in global poverty has been a relatively bright spot over the last few years. In the US poverty has decreased significantly (@5%) since 2010, and had been trending lower until '06 when it went up until the end of '09 along with the financial/economic/housing issues. It seems pretty safe to conclude that poverty had been headed down until COVID hit and large segments of the service economy got shut down. This raises the questions.
Since poverty in 2019 (pre COVID) was 10.5% and dropping about 1%/year since 2014, wouldn't any "sharp cutting" of poverty have to get back to the pre COVID rates and trend lines to really qualify?
If the 2020/2021 spike in poverty is due to government action, and not "normal" market forces, then this one "relief bill" would have to cut poverty to pre COVID levels in order to live up to the hype, wouldn't it?
Were you one of the people who thought that it was a good idea to shut down large sectors of the economy in 2019 to "stop the spread" of COVID?
If so, then isn't it inconsistent to make measures that you supported into a partisan issue to make Biden look good politically?
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
https://www.worldvision.org/sponsorship-news-stories/global-poverty-facts
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-25/u-s-suffers-sharpest-rise-in-poverty-rate-in-more-than-50-years
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/
Seems to me when more people are working...particularly those who weren't working before...poverty rates are going to fall. Pre-Covid, that's what we were seeing due to Trump's fiscal/regulatory policies. Regular income does far more good toward "sharply cutting poverty" than any one time stimulus check (even several of them) or tax credits. (I don't oppose tax credits, but stimulus checks are nothing more than political games)
And as Dan likes to cites unnamed "experts" when they appear to him to support his favored leftist politicians, others warn about the effects of Biden fiscal policies and spending driving us toward inflation, which will erase any meager increase due to tax credits. Thus, Dan's experts don't given the whole story, and neither does WaPo...an enemy of the people.
Craig... "Were you one of the people who thought that it was a good idea to shut down large sectors of the economy in 2019 to "stop the spread" of COVID?"
I am among those who listen to what experts say and said about the pandemic and wish Trump had listened to them too so that we didn't have this devastating economic downturn to the degree that has happened.
Other countries did shut down to a greater degree and didn't have half a million deaths, what is equivalent thereof. Are you one of those who wave off half a million deaths as if it were nothing... as if that had no economic impact on our nation? Good Lord!
"If so, then isn't it inconsistent to make measures that you supported into a partisan issue to make Biden look good politically?"
Trump's INaction on the covid response is what makes Biden's decisive actions look good. I'm not sure what else you mean by that.
Do you acknowledge the reality that Trump critically downplayed and outright lied about the seriousness of The Cove at threat? I mean, you know the Trump himself has admitted lying about it, right?
Good Lord have mercy.
How Trump's in action, equivocation, and outright lies harmed the economy...
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2020/06/03/485806/5-ways-trump-administrations-policy-failures-compounded-coronavirus-induced-economic-crisis/
"As an unrelated aside, Craig cited... https://www.investors.com https://www.mrc.org ...two extreme rightwing groups that are decrying that the media is too biased to the left. Wow. Surprising. If one looks at the media and find a large percentage of the real media is left of center, what SHOULD raise questions is, "WHERE are all the conservatives? Why don't they have what it takes to get hired in the press? Are conservatives just not that interested in facts and reporting at a professional level? Do more liberals go into journalism than conservatives... if so, why is that? The paucity of conservatives in the media is an indictment of conservatives, not of liberals who go into journalism. You want a less liberal media? RAISE CHILDREN WHO WILL WANT TO REPORT the news with journalistic integrity in the real world, not hide behind lesser quality right wing opinion organizations. Where are the conservative journalists who are winning awards? Who are writing serious journalism and getting noticed for it? Frankly, the "war on the media" by conservatives on some of our greatest liberty defending heroes is just a boor. Be the change you want to see. Drive a stake in it. That horse is dead."
Since the above is an attack on the sources, and not on the data, I see no reason to dignify it with a detailed response, as is my usual practice.
"The data has been out there. Have you looked at it? Here's a fact check that says the claim is solid, based upon research from Columbia University... https://www.tampabay.com/news/nation-world/2021/03/01/bidens-plan-to-cut-child-poverty-by-half-what-you-need-to-know-politifact/ Here's the research they're citing... https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5743308460b5e922a25a6dc7/t/601acf15866c634924d12963/1612369686861/Poverty-Reduction-Analysis-Biden-Economic-Relief-CPSP-2021.pdf For starters."
I'll simply reiterate my point, that ANY "data" about a the theoretical effects of a bill that hasn't been passed or implemented fully, is AT BEST speculative. Given that reality, to treat speculation as fact is simply irresponsible or partisan.
"Do you have data/research that you're relying upon that makes you question these experts cited?"
No, because I live in the real world where I don't treat predictions about the theoretical effects of a bill that hasn't been passed/implemented as if it's actually happened. More often than not, the effects of legislation fall short of the predicted results.
"or is it just a hunch on your part, perhaps based upon the reality that you haven't read or are uninformed and so you're speaking from a place of ignorance and partisan presumptions?"
It's an opinion based on my habit of not treating theoretical events that haven't happened yet as if they had already happened. It's a practice that has served me well and kept me focused on actual reality rather than treating hopes as reality.
"I'm not saying I know that this will reduce child poverty... I'm just saying I have no data-based reason to doubt what these experts are saying. There are many moving parts so I expect it's difficult to gauge. The thing is: Some nations do have lower child poverty rates than the US. It is possible to reduce them, as evidenced by what other nations experience. I'm just quite dubious of conservative claims of people "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps" and "trickle down theories" of letting the wealthiest accumulate more as a method of helping the poor. I don't think the data bears those theories out.""
Blah, blah, blah, blah. But I do love how you've changed from "poverty" to "child poverty".
"What it appears you're not reading/educating yourself about... "Under the bill, Americans eligible for a $1,400 payment would get the same amount for every dependent. The child tax credit will go to $3,600 for children under 6 and $3,000 for kids between 6 and 17 for one year. Because of those policies, low-income households with kids would see an average boost of roughly $7,700, or 35% of their after-tax income, according to the analysis." https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/09/biden-covid-stimulus-bill-boosts-low-income-americans-more-than-trump-tax-cuts.html For the poorest, those making under $25,000, they may see an additional $7000. Now for the well off, that may not be that big a deal. But if you're making $20,000/year, an additional $7000 is HUGE."
Yes, an additional one time, short term, payment of this sort will be helpful to those making $20,000 a year. But to suggest that this one time, short term, payment will significantly cut long term poverty is simply wishful thinking. Further, for those in the service industries who've been put out of work by the government, these payments likely don't make up for the actual lost income suffered. Nor do the account for those who's employers have been put out of business by government mandate. This doesn't help those whose livelihood has been taken from them, nor will it be particularly helpful to those who own rental property. How does this one time payment of $7,000 offset the fact that thousands of landlords have lost the income from renters who've been told that they don't have to pay rent? How does $7,000 offset that $1,500 a month mortgage payment and the thousands of dollars in taxes and interest that landlords still owe? will this keep them from foreclosure?
"Do you suspect that the numbers are off?"
Yes, I suspect that the numbers used to make predictions about the effects of a piece of legislation that hasn't been passed or implicated are likely to be optimistic and unlikely to represent future reality. Look at how miserably wrong the P-BO care predictions were.
"Or do you think it won't make that much of a difference? What?"
It'll make a short term difference for many people, but the claim was that it will "sharply cut poverty". That's the claim that I have an issue with. So, how about focusing on that/
" If these actions lead to a sharp cutting of Trump's child poverty rates, then it is a sharp dropping of the CPR, as is being discussed. "If the 2020/2021 spike in poverty is due to government action, and not "normal" market forces, then this one "relief bill" would have to cut poverty to pre COVID levels in order to live up to the hype, wouldn't it?" If poop worked like soap, you could use it to bathe in. The spike is due, in part, to an existing High child poverty rate, too the pandemic, and to Trump's failure to take appropriate action in response to pandemic. According to the experts."
1. The fact that you've moved the goal posts to "child poverty rate" as opposed to "poverty rate" really makes engaging with this comment pointless.
2. "If these actions" Thanks you for making my point. The headline is suggesting that these actions will or have "sharply cut poverty". The fact is that it's all speculation.
3. The poverty data speaks for itself. The fact that you won't answer the question as asked (or really at all), is actually quite an effective answer. It's just not what you'd like it to be.
"Were you not aware of this?"
That you didn't answer the question, not then but I am now. That you'd move the goal posts and blame Trump, no.
"And just fyi, both parties have a less-than-stellar response to child poverty as far as getting results, but in administration after Administration, research shows that Democrat Administrations out performed Republicans when it comes to helping the middle and lower-income classes... https://scholars.org/contribution/under-democratic-presidents-minorities-make-economic-gains-and-so-do-whites Contrariwise, the wealthy tend to do better under the GOP Administrations."
As the data I provided shows, the poverty rate has been trending downward (with two exceptions) for an extended period of time. The notion that those who have more wealth to start with (I'm talking about things like owned homes, not billionaires), will do better is hardly controversial.
"The question is, which side do you want to be on?"
I want to be on the side where I can provide for my family, and increase both my income and my wealth so that I can use my resources to help my family and others. I want to be on the side that is attempting to empower as many people as possible to become as wealthy as their skills and aspirations will allow them to be. Unlike you, I don't see this as a partisan issue.
"The side of Trump and those who are self-servingly obedient/beholden to the wealthy, or those who work for the rest of us, especially the marginalized and poor folks?"
This notion that the DFL isn't just as focused on the "wealthy" as Trump is simply absurd. Hell just look at how the Clintons managed to go from hardly anything to amassing hundreds of millions of dollars. This notion that government providing for people is the best option is strange at best.
"I am among those who listen to what experts say and said about the pandemic and wish Trump had listened to them too so that we didn't have this devastating economic downturn to the degree that has happened. Other countries did shut down to a greater degree and didn't have half a million deaths, what is equivalent thereof. Are you one of those who wave off half a million deaths as if it were nothing... as if that had no economic impact on our nation? Good Lord! "If so, then isn't it inconsistent to make measures that you supported into a partisan issue to make Biden look good politically?" Trump's INaction on the covid response is what makes Biden's decisive actions look good. I'm not sure what else you mean by that. Do you acknowledge the reality that Trump critically downplayed and outright lied about the seriousness of The Cove at threat? I mean, you know the Trump himself has admitted lying about it, right? Good Lord have mercy."
I think this means that you were one of the people who supported wholesale shutdowns and the government choosing to significantly damage the economy.
As you brought up "the science", I'll ask this. What specific "science" conclusively proves that wearing masks stops the transmission of viruses?
Craig... " What specific "science" conclusively proves that wearing masks stops the transmission of viruses?"
According to the WHO, the CDC and medical experts across the states and cross the world, here is your answer.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent
Now, given that this is what a large contingent of the best experts are saying across the world, what "experts" are you listening to who say NOT to wear masks? Limbaugh? Alex Jones? Qanon?
"Not on the data?"
This is nonsensical and unanswerable.
"WHAT data?"
I can only assume that you are asking about the data that says that 90+% of people in the media self identify as liberal. But there's plenty of data out there to support this.
"That there are more progressive and moderate types in the media than conservative types? It's true."
Trying to put this in the form of a question, when you are really agreeing with me seems bizarre and stupid. The ? should be replaced with a ,.
"I'm not discounting the facts. I'm getting you to try to think BEYOND the mere facts"
This is quite a claim, and unsupported by anything you've previously said and done.
"and ask questions like "WHY are conservatives underrepresented in the media?"
Maybe because the media is hostile to conservatives? Maybe because you and others are uniformly critical and dismissive of any media that leans to the right?
"WHY do conservatives not try to get in the mainstream media?"
Who says that they don't?
"Is it because they have erroneously conflated the media with THE ENEMY, as the false claim has been made?"
Probably not, but I can't speak for everyone. I'm just looking at what the data says, not trying to speculate on what people might be thinking.
"Why are conservatives so easily cowed and not willing to try to compete with the professionals?"
1. Fox News has destroyed every other cable news outlet in ratings for years.
2. Although not "news", Rush has absolutely destroyed the entirety of left wing talk radio combined by himself for over 20 years.
3. Look at the ratings for conservative radio hosts, as opposed to liberal. Conservatives dominate.
4. Prove your assumption that conservatives are "easily cowed", and that they aren't "willing to try to compete"?
5. Look at what you've said about conservative outlets that are trying to compete? Have you ever said that OAN is "trying to compete' and that the competition should be encouraged? Have you ever said anything positive about ANY conservative media outlet trying to compete against that entrenched left wing dominated media?
The answer to your question is that conservatives are neither, they're just vilified by people like you when they have any success.
"Why are conservatives so whiny?"
If simply acknowledging that 90+% of the legacy media is liberal, and that conservatives are not given equal treatment and opportunity is "whiny", then let's look at some other groups that are "whiny". What a stupid, unsupported by fact, and condescending attack masquerading as a question.
"YES, there are more progressive types in the media. Also in education. The question is WHY?"
Yes, that's one question. The likely answer is that those two places provide excellent opportunities to advance a particular worldview, and to insulate that worldview from challenges.
"There is nothing wrong with being progressive and involved in the media, in research, in education, in higher education, in science, etc. Agreed?"
I never even suggested that it was. However, I'd argue that it IS wrong to exclude non liberal viewpoints and voices from those spheres based on ideology.
"It's not the fault of progressive types that conservatives don't try to serve the world in these fields, is it?"
Again, what an absurd and condescending assumption underlies that "question". No, but it is the "fault of progressive types" when they actively try to prevent conservatives from having a voice in the public square. I'd point out that Schaeffer deals with this phenomenon extensively, digs into the progression and the why in a way that was incredibly prescient. Yet, were I to do so, you'd simply dismiss him based on your preconceptions, not on what he actually wrote.
"Come on. Think and reason like an adult. Put behind these childish gripes and grow up. You can do it. You have the intelligence, just adopt some willingness to think larger than just your tiny circles."
You're right, it's absolutely childish to look at the data and draw conclusions from the data. It's much more adult to ask condescending "questions" based on unsupported assumptions, than to look at the data.
"Craig has been complaining about this headline... "Biden showers stimulus money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty in defining move of presidency" Perhaps Craig's problem is that he doesn't understand how headlines work. Perhaps Craig doesn't understand that the whole story is not put into the headline. That part of the story is called, "THE STORY." The headline is just a brief summation. Perhaps Craig is only reading the headline, forming a guess about what the story is about and is writing this post based NOT upon the story as written, but upon his guess. Who knows? In that reducing child poverty by half IS "sharply cutting poverty," there's nothing wrong with the headline. Regardless, the story stands as solid and Craig's claim/complain/whine has been established as false. Let's see if Craig will correct his error and apologize for making it/misrepresenting the story."
Or, perhaps Craig is simply pointing out that the headline doesn't accurately represent the actual contents of the story. Perhaps Craig is choosing to limit his point to the headline, and NOT anything else. Perhaps Craig can focus on whatever he wants to at his own blog, and the fact that others don't like that reality is not a sign that Craig is wrong.
Or perhaps Dan just doesn't like it when he's not allowed to come to others blogs and assume control of everything. Or perhaps, Dan will do anything to avoid answering questions when they're asked. Or perhaps Dan's just a condescending, whiny, narcissistic, paranoid, asshole who can't abide the possibility that he could be wrong.
"Stop. Right there."
Who the hell are you to tell me to "Stop. Right there."?
"I acknowledge that the press, education, science and other professional fields tend to have more liberals in them."
Thanks for acknowledging reality.
"I do NOT acknowledge your unsupported claim that conservatives are not given equal treatment."
Then don't simply "NOT acknowledge" it, prove it wrong. The fact that you choose to "NOT acknowledge" something doesn't demonstrate anything but your closed mind.
"That is YOUR claim, not anything I agree with."
Clearly, but this doesn't prove you right.
"Again, WHY are conservatives not trying to get into the media, into science and education at the same rate as progressives?"
Please prove that the premise of your question is objectively true before expecting an answer.
"That seems to be a failure on the part of conservatives, not any "oppression" or unequal treatment on the part of the media or education or science."
Are you simply unaware of the fact that conservative students have been failed for expressing conservative views, or citing conservative sources?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/evidence-conservative-students-really-do-self-censor/606559/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/03/some-students-do-feel-political-pressure-their-professors-few-change-their-views
https://www.foxnews.com/story/student-says-school-persecuted-him-for-being-conservative
Just a few random articles.
Non-physician, heal thyself.
RE the previous comment. If you are going to elevate "lived experience" to the level of proof, then you'd need to consistently apply that standard.
"I've been in both schools of journalism and education and know many others in both fields. I've never seen any evidence of wide spread exclusion of non liberal viewpoints. Indeed, in my school of journalism, I was welcomed as one of the more conservative types to help bring some balance (this is back when I was solidly more conservative). Did I have to confront and learn to deal with people with more liberal viewpoints than I had? Yes, but I was an adult able to do that. I didn't whine that my editors were all liberals and I was a conservative, nor did I worry about them turning down my stories. I just kept at it and tried to write better and when I wrote better, my stories got accepted, I was made an editor. I think a large part of this is that many conservatives don't feel comfortable in schools or fields where they're not even represented and many of them move away from those areas... Self-exclusion on the part of conservatives is not the fault of the media or education. That would be my hypotheses, based on what I've seen and read.'
Oh look. Dan is making sweeping, generalized, fact claims based on his personal experience from being at one school at some point in the past, and on what he's "read". That's certainly a load of indisputable "hard data' that can't be refuted. Or a huge pile of shit.
"I don't see it as a partisan issue, either, except inasmuch as the GOP consistently creates policies that help the rich get richer, but less so with the poor and marginalized. And injecting some upfront money in health, education and housing assistance for the poor (as this bill does) DOES make it possible for those kids in those families to become more self-sufficient/wealthy."
1. If you don;t see it as a partisan issue, then why engage in partisan blaming?
2. Please point out one specific thing in the bill that will allow the "kids in these families" to be self sufficient/wealthy, and demonstrate exactly how that one thing will guarantee success>
3. You do realize that school funding shows virtually no link to academic success, don't you?
4. It's interesting that, on the one hand< you're exceedingly proud that liberals control the entire education establishment (preK-12), yet you ignore how absolutely shitty these liberal controlled schools actually are. How strange that you wouldn't want to hold the liberals in control responsible for the failures in the systems they control.
So, why the complaints, Horatio?
"By all means, if you have data that shows that students have been failed for being conservative, provide that data. But don't expect me to take such a claim seriously without any data. It sounds like just so much more conservative whining because they're emotionally fragile and not able to withstand vigorous challenges to their opinions."
Oh, but you're not biased or condescending at all.
"I am unaware that that is a fact. I'm aware of the reality that conservatives make these claims. I'm unaware of any data to support them to be factual claims. If professor has rules that says students can't site Alex Jones as a legitimate source, and the student cites Alex Jones and then fails because he didn't use legitimate sources, that's not the professor's fault.'
Oh, as long as you're "unaware" then obviously it doesn't happen. Of course, you've seen evidence that conservative students cited Alex Jones, right?
Here's the problem with your premise. You are suggesting that it is always appropriate for a professor to deny allowing a student to cite Alex Jones, without regard to the specifics of the citation. That the professor should be able to prevent a student from citing Alex Jones, even if the specific citation is 100% factually correct, just because it's Alex Jones. Excellent standard, disallow the truth because you don't like the source.
Of course, it can't be that the professors don't want to be exposed to anything that challenges their beliefs, can it?
"I don't think you understand how conversation works. If you want to make a charge like the media is biased against conservatives, the burden is on you to prove it. You're hurt feelings are not proof. You're the one making the claim. You proved it. Support it with facts. My point is just because you're making the claim, doesn't mean a goddamn thing. Your claim, like Trump's endless claims that were all so stupidly false, Don't Mean a Thing. This is the problem with modern conservatives. They elevate their feelings and their hunches and their Traditions to facts and then expect us to disprove their made up facts. You made the claim. You support it. Where is knowledge that you can't."
Yes, I did prove that the media is 90+% liberal. The problem is that I don;t see the value in providing you with evidence and have you dismiss it because it's from a biased source, or because you think it's whiny. If you aren't going to deal with the data, but just bitch about the source, I have no motivation to play that bullshit game.
"This is, of course, part of the reason I left conservatism, or conservatism left me. The lack of intellectual rigor."
Look, biased and condescending.
"Oh look. Dan is holding an informed opinion based on personal experience in research. Dan is not claiming that is exhaustive or complete knowledge, just pointing out that it is an informed decision in areas where he is at least a little familiar. How about you? But you can certainly proved me wrong. You just have to cite you know, actual data and stuff. Empty claims may work with the Trump set and sadly, much of modern conservatism, but not with rational adults."
Oh look. Dan is expecting others to accept his biased, anecdotal, personal experience, while demanding that others be held to a much higher standard than he holds himself to. Intellectual rigor, my ass.
"The story has always been largely focused on cutting CHILD poverty. No goal posts being moved, I'm talking about the story and claims made as reported. From the WaPo article... “This legislative package likely represents the most effective set of policies for reducing child poverty ever in one bill, especially among Black and Latinx children,” said Indivar Dutta-Gupta, co-executive director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality. “The Biden administration is seeing this more like a wartime mobilization. They’ll deal with any downside risks later on.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/06/biden-stimulus-poverty-checks/ And how about this: In your original post, you referenced Biden's "one time payment of $1400..." The covid package relief is NOT about a one time payment. The story then, is not about a one time payment of $1400. Can you at the very least have the integrity to admit that this claim from you is patently false, not a complete, factual representation of what the story is about? If your complaint is with alleged false/biased reporting, it doesn't help you make your case if you engage in clearly false claims, building a strawman and making a logical failure."
Yet, all this somehow ignores the evidence of poverty, and focuses about a theoretical/potential outcome as if it's something that's actually happened. The problem I'm addressing is the reality that the headline promises something that the article clearly doesn't deliver.
The reality is that the poverty trend line is what it is, and that to "sharply cut poverty" this bill (and this bill alone) would have to out perform the trend. I'm sorry that you choose to try to go further that what I've actually said or the point I actually made.
"Re-read the claims, then. The point that was made in the news stories I have read is that this will impact child poverty THIS YEAR and impact it greatly. And the data seems to uphold this claim. You on the other hand, appear to want to ignore the data and projections because you don't understand it or perhaps for partisan reasons. Who knows? Nonetheless, the claims are solid, the projections are reasonable. AND, if it turns out to impact poverty that much, maybe this one year demonstration (NOT A ONE TIME PAYMENT, no matter how many times you make that stupidly ignorantly false claim) will make people more open to a longer short term attempt to drastically cut poverty because they'll recognize that we're paying more in the longterm by ignoring these short term fixes. Craig... " the claim was that it will "sharply cut poverty". That's the claim that I have an issue with. So, how about focusing on that" And the projections are IT WILL sharply cut poverty. For this year. That is ALL that' being claimed. But you know what? When you drastically cut poverty - even for one year - that gives some portion of the poor to move up to a better place. And if you do it for TWO years, even more of the poor can move up to a better place. In a while, you've cut poverty, resulting in more people working better jobs and paying taxes and thus, ultimately saving money. Read about poverty and the potential solutions out there. You appear to be uninformed about the results that can happen from smartly placed injections of money and the long term fiscal responsibility of such policies."
I'll simply point out that "claims" and "projections" are not reality. Therefore treating them as if they are, in a headline or otherwise" is misleading at best.
"So, you live in a world where you can turn a blind eye to the reality that the bill was very likely going to pass (given the make up of congress) and you don't care about what the ramifications might be, according to the experts? You live in a world where making reasoned predictions based on known data is not worthwhile? If so, then you live in a world, it sounds like, that rejects reason, data and the various sciences involved. Where you stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "LALALALA I DON'T CARE WHAT THE EXPERTS SAAY!!! I'M NOT LISTENING!!!" Well, you do you."
No, I live in the world where "projections" and "claims" are not reality. I live in a world where politicians promise all sorts of things ("If you like your Dr, you can keep your Dr.") that never seem to materialize. I live in a world where it's absurd to think that one bill, is going to "sharply cut poverty" in any long term and significant way.
But you keep living in your partisan, fantasy world.
RE your link. I'll quote one line from it, that doesn't really help your claim.
"But health experts say the evidence is clear that masks can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and that the more people wearing masks, the better."
The key word in there is "can". The fact that they chose "can" instead of "will" would seem to indicate a lack of definitive, unequivocal proof.
Of course, this is from much earlier in the pandemic and, as such, probably doesn't take into account the ongoing data from places that didn't mask compared to places that did.
Unfortunately, you've wasted too much of my time with petty bullshit for me to be able to pull more current research. I'll say this. I'm not looking to political commentators for answers on this, but if it makes you feel better to think so, you go right ahead.
" What specific "science" conclusively proves that wearing masks stops the transmission of viruses?
This was the question.
""But health experts say the evidence is clear that masks can help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and that the more people wearing masks, the better."
That was the answer. It doesn't seem like that is "conclusive" proof that wearing masks "stops" the transmission of viruses, does it?
Craig... "That was the answer. It doesn't seem like that is "conclusive" proof that wearing masks "stops" the transmission of viruses, does it?"
When you say things like this, it makes me think that you don't understand how science or data or reasoning or research or expert advice works. Somebody could smoke a thousand cigarettes every hour every day for the rest of the life and in theory not get cancer. That does not mean that the doctors don't have proof that you shouldn't smoke because it causes cancer.
Here's an unrelated question for Marshal and Craig... The Democrats are clearly coming out calling for Cuomo to resign. I fully support them in this. With six accusers, or whatever the number is now, the odds that Cuomo is innocent are unlikely. Also, the nursing homes.
He should resign. Period. If crimes were committed, he should be prosecuted.
If he doesn't resign he should be impeached. Democrats, his party, should pressure him to step down and they are. Good for them.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/12/politics/new-york-congress-cuomo-resignation/index.html
Do you fully support Democrats pressuring him to resign? If so, why didn't you support Republicans pressuring Trump to resign.? Why didn't you call for his resignation, given his much worse behavior?
Do you think that it's possible (as most people recognize now, I suspect) that the Democrats have become the party of morality and Republicans have become the party of irrational immorality, even to a vulgar and evil degree?
Dan won’t answer questions related to the conversation, but demands answers to unrelated questions.
I’ll deal with the whole comment later, but I’ll point out the he said the same sort of things about Northsm, yet silently went along with his avoiding consequences for his racism.
1. The DFL is late to the party as far as the nursing home scandal.
2. The DFL and the press has been lauding him, as well as shilling for his book, for months, literally choosing to ignore his actions and present him as a model.
3. I’ll believe that the DFL is serious when Cuomo is forced out of office and prosecuted. Until then, it all just looks like the same sort of self congratulatory posturing we saw in VA
I’ll believe that the DFL is serious when Cuomo is forced out of office and prosecuted. Until then, it all just looks like the same sort of self congratulatory posturing we saw in VA
Hypocrite. To hell with conservatives pretending to give a damn about women or the elderly when they continue to remain silent with the pervert Trump and his supporters.
We see your hypocrisy and you stain your own pants with these pretend concerns for decency. Trump, his supporters and their silent defenders are an ass-wipe on the notion of decent or moral conservatism.
It is curious, isn't it, that anyone who was so adamant regarding Trump being responsible for Covid deaths would not be equally so regarding Cuomo...particularly when a more solid line can be drawn between Cuomo's policies and the deaths of so many elderly people.
Just as curious is how all manner of personal attack was so constantly leveled against Trump over allegations of sexual assaults, yet Cuomo is not met with the same...except to distract from all those dead old people.
Hypocrite. To hell with conservatives pretending to give a damn about women or the elderly when they continue to remain silent with the pervert Trump and his supporters. We see your hypocrisy and you stain your own pants with these pretend concerns for decency. Trump, his supporters and their silent defenders are an ass-wipe on the notion of decent or moral conservatism.
What else would we expect from Dan and his ilk. Loud words, and no actions. Talking a big game, until things die down, then doing nothing. Instead of demonstrating their "moral superiority" with actions, they choose empty words. Instead of setting an example of holding their own to the standards they claim to hold others to, they simply choose ad hom attacks to excuse their inaction.
"When you say things like this, it makes me think that you don't understand how science or data or reasoning or research or expert advice works. Somebody could smoke a thousand cigarettes every hour every day for the rest of the life and in theory not get cancer. That does not mean that the doctors don't have proof that you shouldn't smoke because it causes cancer."
Gotcha, thanks for acknowledging that there is no conclusive, objective proof that mask wearing stops the transmission of viruses.
"Here's an unrelated question for Marshal and Craig..."
Because failing to answer multiple related questions, is the perfect reason to ask multiple unrelated questions.
"The Democrats are clearly coming out calling for Cuomo to resign. I fully support them in this."
I'm sorry, what do you mean by "The Democrats", I haven't (for example) heard Biden, Harris, or Pelosi actively calling for Cuomo to resign. Perhaps I've missed it, but it seems that the more factually accurate way to have phrased that was "Some Democrats..."
"With six accusers, or whatever the number is now, the odds that Cuomo is innocent are unlikely."
So, you don't actually care if he is guilty, just that you've decided what the odds are and that's enough for you.
"Also, the nursing homes. He should resign."
Yes, over 10k deaths, lying in his official capacity, and profiting from it. Yeah, "the nursing homes", it's a minor secondary issue.
"Period. If crimes were committed, he should be prosecuted. If he doesn't resign he should be impeached. Democrats, his party, should pressure him to step down and they are. Good for them. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/12/politics/new-york-congress-cuomo-resignation/index.html Do you fully support Democrats pressuring him to resign?"
Yes, I fully support Democrats finally realizing what a sleaze this guy is and getting on the bus. Of course, I supported the folks who wanted Northam to resign as well, and that went precisely no where. I'll be more impressed when actions confirm what the words say.
"If so, why didn't you support Republicans pressuring Trump to resign.?"
I did.
"Why didn't you call for his resignation, given his much worse behavior?"
I did. Although, I'm not sure that Trump did anything worse in office than being responsible for over 10k deaths then personally profiting from his official actions. But that's just me.
"Do you think that it's possible (as most people recognize now, I suspect) that the Democrats have become the party of morality and Republicans have become the party of irrational immorality, even to a vulgar and evil degree?"
Anything is possible. I'd say that the DFL has become the party of virtue signaling, without actually following through with actions. I'd also say that political parties are incapable of "morality", and that both parties have people who engage in immoral actions.
Of course, without a specific, universal, objective standard of "morality", it's impossible to make those distinctions.
Craig... "Of course, without a specific, universal, objective standard of "morality", it's impossible to make those distinctions."
Of course, it doesn't. You don't have a universal objective standard of morality. As a point of fact. But surely you don't think it's impossible to make those distinctions that what it is and is it moral, do you? At least I don't, and I don't think most rational people do. Of course we can make distinctions of morality so, what is and isn't moral well, even if we don't have an objective measure. We have a reasonable measure.
And I suspect the reality is that for most of the world, and probably for most of the rest of History, the GOP has become identified as the party of wealthy perverts and white nationalists.
We all can hear your silence, in spite of your protestations. We can see that you never took one time on your blog to call out conservatives for continuing to support Trump, for instance. You never denounced the stupidly false claim of a stolen election.
This is why top brand in the conservative brand has become deeply stained.
"Of course, it doesn't. You don't have a universal objective standard of morality. As a point of fact."
The problem with this little goal post move, is that I'm not the one who is constantly trying to claim "morality/immorality" as if it's something objective. You are constantly doing so, yet you yourself can't demonstrate a universal, objective, standard of morality. In the absence of that standard, proclaiming something or someone to be "moral or immoral" is simply you expressing agreement or disagreement. Absolutely nothing more, and as such it's a worthless claim.
"But surely you don't think it's impossible to make those distinctions that what it is and is it moral, do you?"
It's not as long as you're clear that you are applying your personal, subjective moral standard as opposed to a universal, objective moral standard. As such, it's really a meaningless distinction as subjective standards differ across individuals and societies.
"At least I don't, and I don't think most rational people do. Of course we can make distinctions of morality so, what is and isn't moral well, even if we don't have an objective measure. We have a reasonable measure."
Yes, you have a subjective, personal measure that you deem "reasonable", so what? How can you hold others to your subjective, personal standard?
"And I suspect the reality is that for most of the world, and probably for most of the rest of History, the GOP has become identified as the party of wealthy perverts and white nationalists."
That's quite the unsupported, broad brush, hunch there. Quote bold to be making that sort of prediction for all eternity.
"We all can hear your silence, in spite of your protestations. We can see that you never took one time on your blog to call out conservatives for continuing to support Trump, for instance. You never denounced the stupidly false claim of a stolen election. This is why top brand in the conservative brand has become deeply stained."
I've addressed both of these things multiple places, the fact that you choose to engage in this sort of ad hom falsehood, as an attempt to cover for you and your party's actual lack of action on Northam, and others is simply what we expect from you. The fact that I can discuss these topics without vitriol, expletives, ad hom, hatred, and the like doesn't equal silence.
Craig... " the fact that you choose to engage in this sort of ad hom falsehood, as an attempt to cover for you and your party's actual lack of action on Northam"
WTH are you blathering about? Northam's blackface incident from 1984? The one where the Democrats called for him to resign and he didn't? That isolated incident from decades ago? (or were there TWO incidents from decades ago?) I didn't really follow that story, but from what I see, there were two incidents from the 80s and the Democrats called for him to resign.
But it pales in contrast with the immoral vulgar racist misogynist juggernaut of Trump's years and you have not called out any conservatives for their backing of Trump, not on your blog as a post. You have had relatively mild "Oh, my, I wish he hadn't..." sorts of pablum, non-condemnation. We're talking about THE SINGULARLY most dishonest and overtly corrupt president in US history, one who historians and experts and regular folks from across the political spectrum will recognize as the worst president (or amongst the worst) in our history and yet you couldn't manage to post ONE SINGLE post taking on your party for this evil ass wipe of a presidency.
There's also such a thing as comparative shame. The Democrats called for Northam to resign and he didn't. I wish he had, but context matters. Are you REALLY trying to compare that awful incident with Northam with the asswipe presidency of Trump? You DO recognize that there is a serious difference between the degree of corruption and immorality in the two men, yes?
I suspect that probably you don't. You think, "Ah, here are two leaders with similar degrees of immorality in their lives and administration..." and that is why you think the Democrats are hypocrites for really condemning one, but not sufficiently the other... but you tell me.
And here is probably where it gets down to your problem... "you have a subjective, personal measure that you deem "reasonable", so what? How can you hold others to your subjective, personal standard?"
Dan and millions of people recognizing that laughing and boasting about sexual assault and abuse of women is NOT a matter of "personal measure..." and "how can you hold others accountable..."? WE believe we can hold people accountable because IT IS REASONABLE.
What about that are so utterly failing to recognize? Not all things that are subjective are irrational. Of course. You have a failure to understand the difference between subjective but still reasonable and objective.
YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD. DO you recognize that reality?
I'd like to point out that Trump was never accused by any woman of sexual harassment in a government office. It seems that all (unless I missed something) of Coumo's accusers are claiming the harassment while he was in office. Big difference.
Regarding your Whimsical objective morality fantasy, I'm not saying that we can't know about morality. I'm not saying that all opinion about morality is irrelevant. That is not my case. That might be your case, but it's not my case.
I'm saying that even though you and I can't prove our positions objectively on morality, none the less, reasonable people agree on moral issues by and large. We can make reasoned, rational cases for Morality. It's not Whimsical and subjective in that sense.
If you accept the notion that some things are self-evident, then you can make a reasoned case for Morality that most people can agree upon.
It just seems exceedingly strange that an evangelical like you would make the suggestion that it is hopeless and that we can't understand anything about morality, since it can't be proven objectively. Of course, we know that you don't think that. You think you CAN prove objectively what is and isn't moral, you're just not able to or are willing to do it. Which is a self-defeating argument.
I’ll post the entire comment and dig deeper later, but I want to clarify a couple of things that have Dan confused.
1. My bringing up the Northam incident was ONlY to point out that you, and others on the left are satisfied with words, you rarely push for actions. “Whoops, Ralph should have resigned, but he chose not to, so it’s all good and we can ignore that.”
The point is that some of y’all will say the “right” words about Cuomo, but will gladly forget this as soon as it’s convenient.
“ WE believe we can hold people accountable because IT IS REASONABLE. What about that are so utterly failing to recognize? Not all things that are subjective are irrational. Of course. You have a failure to understand the difference between subjective but still reasonable and objective. YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD. DO you recognize that reality?”
1. Do you understand the reality that I haven’t been making pronouncements about who/what is moral/immoral.
2. Do you understand that because I haven’t made those sorts of pronouncements (as you have), that it’s YOUR lack of an objective standard of morality that is rightly being questioned?
3. You do understand that “reasonable” isn’t equal to “moral” don’t you?
4. You do realize that you have no grounds to impose your subjective moral code on others, regardless of how “reasonable” you claim it is, don’t you?
Glen,
That is true. Which should make Cuomo’s actions (plus the fact that he profited from at, and the fact that the media fawned on him) worse. But, as we’ve seen nothing, no matter how long ago it happened, is off limits and must be treated as if it’s happening currently.
Craig...
"1. Do you understand the reality that I haven’t been making pronouncements about who/what is moral/immoral."
Of course you do. You're snarky and vague about it but you have to try to defend your position, but you're making moral proclamations all the time. Do you not realize that you're doing this?
"2. Do you understand that because I haven’t made those sorts of pronouncements (as you have), that it’s YOUR lack of an objective standard of morality that is rightly being questioned?"
No. I don't realize that. I've never claimed to have an objective measure for asessing morality. I have claimed that people can REASONABLY agree on moral positions. You're the one making the rather astounding suggestion that we are unable to determine morality using reason. Do you really believe that? What an amoral and Godless world that would be that you live in.
"3. You do understand that “reasonable” isn’t equal to “moral” don’t you?"
Yes. You do realize that we can assess what is and isn't moral using our reason, don't you?
"4. You do realize that you have no grounds to impose your subjective moral code on others, regardless of how “reasonable” you claim it is, don’t you?"
Bulshit. Of course we've got reasonable grounds. People can agree upon what is and isn't moral without that much of difficulty. You're the one who seems to have a problem figuring out if anything is moral or not. But I don't live in your chaotic and irrational world.
Given the flak here giving me for believing, along with the rest of the rational world, that we can reasonably agree upon morality, do you really think that we have no way of knowing what is and isn't moral? I don't believe you think that.
But your line of objections to my points makes it sound like you don't believe that we have any way of knowing what it is and isn't moral.
Craig made a moral assessment...
"That is true. Which should make Cuomo’s actions (plus the fact that he profited from at, and the fact that the media fawned on him) worse."
What Cuomo did was awful in if it's true oh, he should step down. And given the large number epic users and the fact that he's not bully discounting it, makes it sound like you should step down. But make no mistake, extremely gluttonously perversely wealthy man who is always use his wealth and power to take advantage of others sexually assaulting women, grabbing them by their crotch, and then boasting and laughing about it is much much worse. It doesn't matter if it happened 10 years ago doesn't matter if it happened while he was President. It's much worse. Sexual assault is worse than sexual harassment. Which would you rather have a loved one indoor? Come on, you're not this irrational. For God's sake, use the brain that God gave you.
Just shotgunning here, given I've fallen so far behind on this "discussion":
--The Cuomo sex scandal should've come out long ago. From all I've been hearing, it's been an ongoing, unspoken understanding that the guy was a piece of work in numerous ways, this sex thing being just one. Now, it seems that it's a convenient distraction from a far more serious concern regarding his policies leading to so many dead old people. While fawning over Cuomo in so many ways, the leftist media now...again...has egg on its face and is scrambling to make amends. Proving once more how the leftist media is no friend to the people by it's praise for the guy while people were dying as a result of his actions.
--The leftist media...and it's supporters (that means Dan here)...seems to have a problem if their headlines can say something that is false...as in that which provoked this post...and in no way supported by the story beneath it. Dan hasn't the integrity to acknowledge the problem. To do so would indict him and his support for the leftist media as being some sort of sacred champion of the people.
--Dan's constant appeals to "experts" is never more than appeals to those who validate his preconceived notions. We see it again here with his appeal to Indivar Dutta-Gupta, co-executive director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality. The mere name clearly reveals their radical leftism. But that alone doesn't indict them fully if it can be shown they've actually accomplished anything worthwhile. That's not my purpose here, though a look at their list of allies doesn't inspire confidence in that regard.
More important is what the woman says:
"This legislative package likely represents the most effective set of policies for reducing child poverty ever in one bill, especially among Black and Latinx children."
"Likely"? This is how experts affirm and reassure? "Likely" is far from compelling...far from definitive...far from that upon which to hang one's hat. I'm not at all impressed. Yet, she does...perhaps unintentionally...indict the "moral" party:
"The Biden administration is seeing this more like a wartime mobilization. They’ll deal with any downside risks later on."
This is pretty much S.O.P. for the left, except that they never truly deal with the downsides of the policies, except to double-down with more bad band-aid policy. One would think an "expert" would consider all the possible consequences, particularly "downsides" before promoting or supporting any policy. Here, it seems as though no consideration of potential downsides took place at all.
One more thing: With regard to sexual assault allegations, Dan seems far more concerned with such allegations being exploited to remove those he dislikes, far more than concern for the women making the allegations. Anyone could make an allegation against Trump, and that would be enough for Dan to presume the allegation has merit. I've looked at most, if not all, of the allegations leveled against Trump, and five were outright nonsensical, with a few being clearly debunked. I was unable to get much in the way of details for any of the others, so no judgement could be made. In addition, they were, as Glenn suggested, long before Trump entered politics, while those against Trump are recent by comparison at least. As such, easier to investigate. In the meantime, Biden's accuser is adamant that she was aggressively assaulted by him and remains willing to submit to all manner of lie detection if Biden will, too. She's been roundly ignored by the fawning leftist media, with only conservative (Megyn Kelly) and foreign news outlets giving the story the time of day.
I'm wondering: What is the STRONGEST condemnation you've made of Trump? What words did you use?
What are the harshest words you've used to criticize conservatives supporting Trump?
Were you using moral judgment to make those complaints (however milquetoast and mild they may be)?
Craig... "4. You do realize that you have no grounds to impose your subjective moral code on others, regardless of how “reasonable” you claim it is, don’t you?"
You ARE familiar with the notion of a free republic where the people create rules based on reason and finding some common ground using reason, aren't you? That is, we pass laws because we can agree it is a reasonable not to allow women to be grabbed by the crotch... because we agree it's reasonable not to pollute our water or air... Because we recognize is reasonable that we don't want to live in one place, we can move to another place.
In our free nation and others, we've imposed rules - and enjoyed liberties -based on reason for hundreds of years.
Right?
"You ARE familiar with the notion of a free republic where the people create rules based on reason and finding some common ground using reason, aren't you?"
Yes, I am.
"That is, we pass laws because we can agree it is a reasonable not to allow women to be grabbed by the crotch... because we agree it's reasonable not to pollute our water or air... Because we recognize is reasonable that we don't want to live in one place, we can move to another place. In our free nation and others, we've imposed rules - and enjoyed liberties -based on reason for hundreds of years. Right?"
Yes.
The problem is that you are equating what's legal with what's moral. Unfortunately there have been many things that you consider to be immoral that were legal. This is simply a false equivalency.
"I'm wondering: What is the STRONGEST condemnation you've made of Trump? What words did you use? What are the harshest words you've used to criticize conservatives supporting Trump? Were you using moral judgment to make those complaints (however milquetoast and mild they may be)?"
Don't know, don't care, don't want to dignify this idiocy with a response.
FYI, if you'll go back and answer every single unanswered question in the last 3 months, by copy pasting the question and answering directly below, I'll go back and search through all of the places I've commented to try to find your answer.
Marshal... "director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality. The mere name clearly reveals their radical leftism."
Wow. Does anyone else see this? Does he read this nonsense before he puts it down?
Are any conservatives here concerned that Marshal is saying the very notion of having a Center for Poverty and Inequality can not, in and of itself, be a conservative concern? That, indeed, it must be seen as "radical leftism..."?
Wow.
"Craig made a moral assessment... "That is true. Which should make Cuomo’s actions (plus the fact that he profited from at, and the fact that the media fawned on him) worse."
Not so much a "moral" assessment, as a comparison. Based on the Clinton standard propagated by the left, acts engaged in office are worse than acts engaged in as a "private citizen"), I've simply applied a "moral standard" that the left used to someone on the left.
"What Cuomo did was awful in if it's true oh, he should step down. And given the large number epic users and the fact that he's not bully discounting it, makes it sound like you should step down. But make no mistake, extremely gluttonously perversely wealthy man who is always use his wealth and power to take advantage of others sexually assaulting women, grabbing them by their crotch, and then boasting and laughing about it is much much worse."
This is an interesting moral standard that you propose. You seem to be suggesting that Cuomo using the power of his elected office (and abusing the trust of his constituents) is somehow not as bad as Trump using his wealth and "power" to engage in sex with women of varying degrees of willingness. I'll grant that the actions of both men are despicable, and vile. I'll even grant that deciding which is worse is subjective. None of that changes the fact that you can't articulate a universal, objective standard of morality that would apply equally in all times and places. So splitting hairs about which vile actions are "worse" seems like a waste of time to me.
"It doesn't matter if it happened 10 years ago doesn't matter if it happened while he was President. It's much worse. Sexual assault is worse than sexual harassment. Which would you rather have a loved one indoor?"
Now you're really splitting hairs. Given the fact that y'all (leftists) are seriously arguing that words are equal to physical violence, I'm not sure how you can make this distinction with very little difference. Of course, if one applies that Clinton standard, then things look different. Finally, I'll note that you've chosen to ignore the 10K plus deaths that Cuomo is responsible for, and the greedy grab for profits from his book. You also ignore the fact that the media was complicit in this whole thing. Uncritically peddling Cuomo's lies, and the narrative that Cuomo was handling the crisis in an exemplary manner. Personally, I think that sending people into a situation that greatly increased their chances of dying, lying about it then profiting from it is worse that either.
"Come on, you're not this irrational. For God's sake, use the brain that God gave you."
OK.
"1. Do you understand the reality that I haven’t been making pronouncements about who/what is moral/immoral." Of course you do. You're snarky and vague about it but you have to try to defend your position, but you're making moral proclamations all the time. Do you not realize that you're doing this?"
If I am doing this, then why haven't you offered one concrete example? What I have been doing is trying to point out how ridiculous it is to attempt to impose your subjective moral standards on others by using examples, but in the absence of actual proof, I'll have to defer to my assessment of my motivations, as opposed to yours.
"2. Do you understand that because I haven’t made those sorts of pronouncements (as you have), that it’s YOUR lack of an objective standard of morality that is rightly being questioned?" No. I don't realize that. I've never claimed to have an objective measure for asessing morality. I have claimed that people can REASONABLY agree on moral positions. You're the one making the rather astounding suggestion that we are unable to determine morality using reason. Do you really believe that? What an amoral and Godless world that would be that you live in."
Ok, well now that it's been pointed out to you, then you should. The problem that you have is that no matter how "reasonable" (a subjective standard in and of itself) you find something to be, you have no grounding or authority to expect others to adhere to your subjective standard. No matter how reasonable that standard is. I know you've never claimed to have an objective moral standard, you simply act as if you do.
"3. You do understand that “reasonable” isn’t equal to “moral” don’t you?" Yes. You do realize that we can assess what is and isn't moral using our reason, don't you?"
Yes, I realize that it's possible to use subjective reason to come up with a subjective moral code. That's literally the sociological definition of morality. The problem you have is exporting that moral code to others and expecting them to be bound by it, when they use reason to reach a different conclusion.
"4. You do realize that you have no grounds to impose your subjective moral code on others, regardless of how “reasonable” you claim it is, don’t you?" Bulshit. Of course we've got reasonable grounds."
Really, then what reasonable grounds can you specifically enumerate that would allow you to impose your subjective conclusions about the morality of homosexuality on a Muslim theocracy?
"People can agree upon what is and isn't moral without that much of difficulty."
You do understand that there is a difference between "impose" and "agree" don't you? You are making objective claims (X is immoral) without an objective, universal standard to support your claims. I've quoted scientists who argue that "rape" is an evolutionary benefit, and that it's simply a natural occurrence. I've quoted other scientists who argue that murder is simply part of the natural order of things. I've quoted scientists that argue that "nature" is amoral. I've quoted scientists who argue that infanticide up to age 3 is beneficial to society. Who are you to impose your subjective morality on them?
Note, I'm drawing the distinction between passing laws that will restrict or limit these actions, and declaring these actions immoral. Legal/illegal does not equal moral/immoral.
"You're the one who seems to have a problem figuring out if anything is moral or not. But I don't live in your chaotic and irrational world. Given the flak here giving me for believing, along with the rest of the rational world, that we can reasonably agree upon morality, do you really think that we have no way of knowing what is and isn't moral? I don't believe you think that. But your line of objections to my points makes it sound like you don't believe that we have any way of knowing what it is and isn't moral."
Then you've chosen to misunderstand me. I'm merely pointing out that regardless of how reasonable you (and some unknown group of people) find something to be moral or not, that you have no basis (beyond personal preference) to declare something universally or objectively immoral. It's interesting that you proudly acknowledge that your morality is not "objective" (subjective), but you insist that you can apply your subjective morality as if it is objective.
"You think you CAN prove objectively what is and isn't moral, you're just not able to or are willing to do it. Which is a self-defeating argument."
This is something you've simply made up. Please provide the quote, context, and link to demonstrate the accuracy of this claim.
The reality is that I have chosen NOT to address my views on this, because I'm choosing to focus on your inconsistency. Injecting my views onto a discussion of your subjective moral code masquerading as an objective moral code would just muddy the waters even further. Which, I suspect< is why you keep trying to do just that.
"WTH are you blathering about? Northam's blackface incident from 1984? The one where the Democrats called for him to resign and he didn't? That isolated incident from decades ago? (or were there TWO incidents from decades ago?) I didn't really follow that story, but from what I see, there were two incidents from the 80s and the Democrats called for him to resign."
Yes, thank you for making my point so forcefully. The fact is that Northam was exposed, and y'all talked quite a bit about how he should resign. The problem was and likely is that y'all seem to think that as long as you talk about one of these abominations loud enough, that we'll forget that you didn't do anything except talk. This is a phenomenon I've addressed repeatedly. This notion that talking about something (or posting a black square, or whatever) is actually accomplishing something. According to y'all Northam is a racist, and his "punishment" for being a racist was precisely nothing. He's still in office, and you are simply blase about it. In much the same way, we're seeing some on the left talking loudly about Cuomo, but so far, no action. Well, as they say, "Action speaks louder than words.". Let's see some action to back up your words.
"But it pales in contrast with the immoral vulgar racist misogynist juggernaut of Trump's years and you have not called out any conservatives for their backing of Trump, not on your blog as a post. You have had relatively mild "Oh, my, I wish he hadn't..." sorts of pablum, non-condemnation. We're talking about THE SINGULARLY most dishonest and overtly corrupt president in US history, one who historians and experts and regular folks from across the political spectrum will recognize as the worst president (or amongst the worst) in our history and yet you couldn't manage to post ONE SINGLE post taking on your party for this evil ass wipe of a presidency."
Blah, blah, blah, it's all Trump's fault. Let's do anything to move the focus away from Cuomo. I've been vocal in multiple places about my problems with Trump, the fact that your (self acknowledged) memory lapses are causing you problems aren't my problem. If you were to apply the same standards to yourself as you do to others, you'd realize that your silence/milquetoast criticism of the Clintons is a pot/kettle situation.
"There's also such a thing as comparative shame. The Democrats called for Northam to resign and he didn't. I wish he had, but context matters. Are you REALLY trying to compare that awful incident with Northam with the asswipe presidency of Trump?"
No, I'm not. I'm using it as a recent example of liberals talking a good game, but not actually engaging in action. Of liberals engaging in a double standard. Of liberals passively accepting a racist as a governor because he's got a D after his name. Of liberals trying to get credit for talking a little, while doing nothing.
"You DO recognize that there is a serious difference between the degree of corruption and immorality in the two men, yes? I suspect that probably you don't. You think, "Ah, here are two leaders with similar degrees of immorality in their lives and administration..." and that is why you think the Democrats are hypocrites for really condemning one, but not sufficiently the other... but you tell me."
No, your little fantasy above is completely inaccurate and a product of your imagination.
"And here is probably where it gets down to your problem... "you have a subjective, personal measure that you deem "reasonable", so what? How can you hold others to your subjective, personal standard?" Dan and millions of people recognizing that laughing and boasting about sexual assault and abuse of women is NOT a matter of "personal measure..." and "how can you hold others accountable..."?"
1. From a legal perspective it is completely reasonable. However, legal does not equal moral.
2. The US legal system affords those multiple avenues of recourse for sexual harassment/abuse bith criminal and civil. How many cases have been brought against Trump, criminal and civil? How many of those cases have the victims prevailed in? How do you explain those results?
3. I'll notice that all you did was to assert that you and your "millions" can hold someone accountable, but not what universal, objective moral standard gives you the right to do so.
"WE believe we can hold people accountable because IT IS REASONABLE. What about that are so utterly failing to recognize?"
Nothing. The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that what "WE believe" is actually a universal, objective moral standard or that you (WE) have the authority to impose your subjective moral standard on others. You further, haven't show the willingness to apply this subjective moral standard equally to both sides of the political aisle. I know you'll express your opinion that Trump is "worse", but again that's subjective.
"Not all things that are subjective are irrational. Of course. You have a failure to understand the difference between subjective but still reasonable and objective."
Please provide objective proof of the above claim. Immediately.
"YOU DO NOT HAVE AN OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD."
Please provide objective proof of this claim, immediately.
"DO you recognize that reality?"
I recognize that you have made an objective, fact claim about reality, but haven't actually proven that claim (or the previous claims). In the absence of proof, I see no reason to dignify your false claims with responses that give them credibility.
Finally, since I'm not the one making claims that various actions are "moral" or "immoral" as if those are objective categories, there is no rational burden for me to prove something that I haven't claimed.
If it helps, I'm willing to stipulate that I agree with the sociological definition of morality for the sake of this discussion. That morality is codified by the mores of individual societies and groups.
Another technical point to correct a lie of Trabue's
grabbing them by their crotch
There is no evidence that Trump ever did that. You, like the LEFTIST media you parrot, keep saying he bragged about doing this. What he really said was that, based on his position and wealth, he COULD do that and get away with it, NOT that he ever did so. He was making a point but you people who violate the commandment about bearing false witness continue to do so as if it is a virtue.
Glenn,
That sort of thing only matters if you value things like accuracy and truth more than scoring partisan political points. I've pointed out the reality, in this context, is that this phenomenon of women making themselves sexually available to those who are rich and powerful goes way beyond Trump, and is literally one of those things that has happened throughout history.
One could argue, that Kamala Harris has used a variation on this strategy to help her political career.
Glenn beat me to it. Dan insists on repeating this abject lie...a lie for which there is no doubt it is a lie. Worse, while Trump was merely speaking about how certain women act...giving consent to all manner of behavior when it's a wealthy celebrity to whom they're giving that consent...Joe Biden actually grabbed Tara Reade in that manner totally without her consent...a true sexual assault, in fact...of the type Dan wishes was true of Trump...because Dan's all about embracing grace.
Thus, if this non-event is evidence that Trump was unfit for office, how much more so is Biden? And that's just dealing with sexual assault allegations. We haven't even gotten to the lies and corruption examples yet!
Good point about Harris, by the way.
What a bunch of damnable rapist defenders. God have mercy on your pathetic Souls.
Oh? Trump was kidding when he laughed and boasted that women let you sexually assault them when you're rich and famous like him..., is that it? Those women were LETTING him sexually assault them, is that what you're saying?
Because you know, that's what rapists say all the time. Now is it the case that y'all are rapist Defenders, are y'all actually rapists yourselves, you sick perverts?
Craig... "One could argue, that Kamala Harris has used a variation on this strategy to help her political career."
Yes, ONE could. IF "one" were the misogynistic rape-defender oppressor of women to keep them "in their place" type that seems to typify modern "conservatives" and modern "evangelical conservatives."
But WHY would one want to be suck a deviant?
Boys, it's time to look at what you've hardened your hearts to, the deviancy and hatefulness you've sunken to, the unrepentant joy you have in evil... it's time to open your eyes, recognize your depravity and repent.
"Yes, ONE could. IF "one" were the misogynistic rape-defender oppressor of women to keep them "in their place" type that seems to typify modern "conservatives" and modern "evangelical conservatives." But WHY would one want to be suck a deviant?"
I'm not sure why Harris would suck a deviant. But based on her record, it's safe to say that it's reasonable to conclude that she's used her "feminine charms" to help her along her path to VPOTUS.
"Boys, it's time to look at what you've hardened your hearts to, the deviancy and hatefulness you've sunken to, the unrepentant joy you have in evil... it's time to open your eyes, recognize your depravity and repent."
Boy, it's time to realize that you can't just make shit up and pretend like you're some kind of messiah or something.
"What a bunch of damnable rapist defenders. God have mercy on your pathetic Souls. Oh? Trump was kidding when he laughed and boasted that women let you sexually assault them when you're rich and famous like him..., is that it? Those women were LETTING him sexually assault them, is that what you're saying? Because you know, that's what rapists say all the time. Now is it the case that y'all are rapist Defenders, are y'all actually rapists yourselves, you sick perverts?"
Again, bearing false witness is a sin, for which you should probably repent yourself. Since when is pointing out what Trump actually said, defending rapists? When exactly was Trump charged with/convicted of rape?
When the only response is ad hom attacks, then it looks like the bottom of the barrel has been reached.
"And when you’re a star, they let you do it."
I could be wrong, but "let you" sounds like consent to me. Unless Dan somehow has magical powers and can determine what someone really meant when they said something in the past.
It's interesting that Dan wants to give Northam a pass for something he did years ago, the left and the media gave Clinton a pass for rape committed before he was POTUS, but it's time to apply a different standard to Trump.
To be clear. This is NOT a defense of Trump's actions. I've been clear for years that many of the things he's done in his sexual life are wrong and that those actions were enough to prevent my support of him. However, if we're going to judge presidents/candidates by their past actions on their personal life we should judge all of them by the same standard.
Craig... "I could be wrong, but "let you" sounds like consent to me..."
God have mercy on you. You're not this dense, are you? That is what rapists have always said. They wanted it. They let me do it. They like it rough. Sexual predators always have used the through language. Do the women you love "just let" people do that? Enjoy sexual assault? Don't be a fool. Don't be the rapist tool. As it stands, your type of men are part of the reason why rapists get away with so much. Stop it. Just stop it. Don't be so dumb.
Y'know what's interesting about the Trump "grab 'em" tape, is that Billy Bush is just as vulgar and disgusting as Trump and he's gotten by with much less long term crap than Trump.
Look, I'm not convicting the man. Legal conviction of criminal acts requires a different level of proof. But be sure of this... ANY man who boasts and laughs about what is clearly sexual assault... even if he uses words like They let me... or, They wanted it... Any man who boasts about using his wealth and power to ogle teenage girls getting dressed or sexually harassing women... any man who laughs about that on public radio for all the world hear..., any man with that kind of record in his own words AND 20 + different women accusing him of either rape or sexual assault or sexual harassment, you can be sure that this is a deviant human being not to be trusted around women for little children. You'd be naive as hell to think otherwise.
Would you leave a beloved woman or teenaged girl with this man? You'd be a fool. Stop defending the indefensible.
Get on the right side of morality. In Spite of your confusion about it, it's not that hard to understand.
"Look, I'm not convicting the man. Legal conviction of criminal acts requires a different level of proof. But be sure of this... ANY man who boasts and laughs about what is clearly sexual assault... even if he uses words like They let me... or, They wanted it... Any man who boasts about using his wealth and power to ogle teenage girls getting dressed or sexually harassing women... any man who laughs about that on public radio for all the world hear..., any man with that kind of record in his own words AND 20 + different women accusing him of either rape or sexual assault or sexual harassment, you can be sure that this is a deviant human being not to be trusted around women for little children."
This may or may not be true, as Trump has clearly proven his ability to be around both women and children without any problem. The problem lies in your use of the term "rapist". Words mean things, and in this case, you can't demonstrate that your term is accurate.
"You'd be naive as hell to think otherwise. Would you leave a beloved woman or teenaged girl with this man?"
There are a lot of people I'd hesitate to leave anyone important to me with.
"You'd be a fool. Stop defending the indefensible. Get on the right side of morality. In Spite of your confusion about it, it's not that hard to understand."
I'm not defending anything, and if you can't provide a universal, objective standard of morality, how can you be 100% positive that you are "on the right side"? How can you be 100% positive that there is a "right side", if you can't articulate a universal, objective standard?
How can I be sure that I'm right...? I'm reasonably sure because of reason. Reason is sufficient.
If you had any reason, you would recognize this. But as it stands, you appear to not have reason nor have any objective proof. So that makes you sort of a fool to even attempt to deal with questions of morality. I suggest you start practicing some common sense reason, reason, use the brain that God gave you to reason things out. Sometimes, even though you can't objectively prove something, there is sufficient evidence to make a rational conclusion.
In Trump's case, there's more than sufficient evidence. That you can continue to downplay it or insist on objective proof suggests you need to work on your reason more.
And why do you continue to ask for 100% of the active criteria for determining morality? You do not have that. No one has it. Why do you continue to ask for that which no one has? Can you admit that you don't have it? Because I suspect you think you do even though you can't prove it
"God have mercy on you."
God's already had an extensive amount of mercy on me and I need every bit of it. Unfortunately, I'm a fallen sinful person redeemed only by the grace and mercy of God. I can only wish I was as good as you so I wouldn't need so much mercy.
"You're not this dense, are you?"
No.
"That is what rapists have always said."
I thought we had a breakthrough where you'd realized that calling Trump a "rapist" absent actual evidence was bearing false witness or something similar.
"They wanted it. They let me do it. They like it rough. Sexual predators always have used the through language."
Which doesn't actually speak to the truth or falsehood of what Trump said. It's simply you making a broad, generalized, judgement about situations of which you have no knowledge.
"Do the women you love "just let" people do that?"
Yes, I do know women who have allowed men to take advantage of them sexually in order to achieve their own ends. Unfortunately, many women also behave in ways that you might consider immoral. For starters, hookers and porn stars do it all the time.
"Enjoy sexual assault?"
Again, who am I to tell a woman what she can do or enjoy with her body. Again, there is plenty of evidence that some women do enjoy forcible sex. I'm not suggesting that it's something I'd approve of, but I'm not going to speak for the motivation or sexuality of people I don't know.
"Don't be a fool. Don't be the rapist tool. As it stands, your type of men are part of the reason why rapists get away with so much. Stop it. Just stop it. Don't be so dumb."
I'm not, I'm not, that's an absurd and ridiculous claim completely without evidence, stop what, stop what, I'm not.
"And why do you continue to ask for 100% of the active criteria for determining morality?"
Because you keep making objective claims about what is or is not moral, and that you are "on the right side" of morality. I'm trying to understand how these claims are not simply statements of opinion.
"You do not have that. No one has it."
That's one more whopper of a claim unsupported by any evidence.
"Why do you continue to ask for that which no one has?"
Because you keep making objective claims about what is or is not moral, and because you claim to be on the "right side" of morality. Since you are making these objective claims, it's reasonable to ask you to provide the basis you are using until you actually do so.
"Can you admit that you don't have it? Because I suspect you think you do even though you can't prove it?"
If I were the one making claims about things being objectively moral/immoral, then my standards would be up for questioning, however since I have refrained from doing so, I see no reason to provide proof of something that you admittedly just made up.
FYI, I'm fine with using the sociological definition of morality for this discussion. Why not just accept that and move on?
"How can I be sure that I'm right...? I'm reasonably sure because of reason. Reason is sufficient."
In other words you can't be sure. You can be "reasonably" sure, but that's subjective.
"If you had any reason, you would recognize this. But as it stands, you appear to not have reason nor have any objective proof. So that makes you sort of a fool to even attempt to deal with questions of morality."
Oh, excellent. More of the Ad Hom attacks that you are so fond of.
"I suggest you start practicing some common sense reason, reason, use the brain that God gave you to reason things out."
Of course you do. It's so much easier to do this than to answer questions or prove your points.
"Sometimes, even though you can't objectively prove something, there is sufficient evidence to make a rational conclusion. In Trump's case, there's more than sufficient evidence. That you can continue to downplay it or insist on objective proof suggests you need to work on your reason more."
Why yes, there is more than ample evidence for you to apply your subjective standards and definitions to Trump. If that sort of subjective faux morality and redefinition of terms to suit your subjective hunches, then virtually anything becomes reasonable justification.
Craig... "Because you keep making objective claims about what is or is not moral,"
Anyone can look at my words and see that I literally have not done that. This is a stupidly, easily disproven false claim. Can you admit that?
You really need to address this objective, subjective concerns you have about morality. You keep bringing it up as if it's a problem so we need to get to the bottom of what your actual concern is.
1. We have no way of objectively proving our position on moral questions. Agree or disagree?
2. Nonetheless, I suspect that most people agree that even if we can't object if we prove our position on moral question, it is not impossible to have a rational, reasoned understanding of what is and isn't moral. Agree or disagree?
3. Thus, while our positions on moral questions may be called subjective, that doesn't equate to saying we have no idea what it is and isn't moral. That all there is is unknowable chaos on questions of morality. Agree or disagree?
4. If you think your positions on moral questions are knowable objectively how do you objectively know this? What is your proof of for this? Is your position on all questions of morality objectively knowable as a fact? Or is your position on moral questions only knowable on some questions of morality? If only on some, which ones and how do you know? For instance, is it moral for immoral for two gay guys to marry? Is it moral or immoral steal a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child if you have no other way? Is it objectively moral or immoral to own a Slave? To forcibly wed a woman against her will? On each of these questions that you think you know objectively, what is your proof?
"Anyone can look at my words and see that I literally have not done that. This is a stupidly, easily disproven false claim. Can you admit that?"
"But it pales in contrast with the immoral vulgar racist..."
Are you seriously claiming that your use of the term "immoral" in this context is NOT a claim that something was objectively "immoral"? That there is anything in that, or any of your other declaratory statements about what's "moral" or "immoral", that indicates any subjectivity at all?
"Get on the right side of morality."
Again, the simple declarative claim to objectively know, and be on the "right side of morality". Are you now suggesting that "right side of..." is not an objective delineation?
It's never good when it's this easy to provide quotes from you. Maybe that's why you never actually quote my words, but choose to "paraphrase" (read make shit up) them. It's simply easier when you don't bother to actually prove your claims.
Dan, being morally corrupt and a liar, clings to this fantasy of Trump grabbing women. Trump was clearly speaking of women who seek his attention because of his wealth and celebrity. He knows this is true because I've linked to the actual Billy Bush interview on at least two separate occasions specifically for his benefit. It is possible he chose not to review the links so as to avoid having to concede Trump's comments were unrelated to sexual assault, thereby denying Dan the ability to demonize a man he doesn't at all know because of Dan's own twisted obsession with getting everyone to hate Trump as much as he does. Doing so helps Dan posture as morally superior, which ain't easy for a guy who defends the murder of the unborn, sexually immoral behaviors (except those in which Trump engages) and other bad behaviors. Dan wants Trump to be evil... so evil as to deflect attention from the aforementioned evils Dan defends.
And again, it can't be mentioned enough, that while Dan obsesses over this clear case of sophomoric self-promotion, he ignores a far more credible case of sexual assault and unwanted pu**y-grabbing by the current president, about whom he can't seem to express the slightest doubt regarding fitness for the presidency.
Furthermore, it is also worthy of reiterating how Dan so eagerly goes on for days insisting what a liar Trump is, but believes every word Trump says about his sexual exploits, because it's so incredibly rare, uncommon and uncharacteristic for a guy who lies as much as Dan insists Trump does to exaggerate and embellish his sexual history. Evidently in Dan's fevered imagining, this is what reason dictates must be true.
And this guy dares presume to condescend to us on the subject of morality. That's some world-class arrogance from a world-class hypocrite.
"You really need to address this objective, subjective concerns you have about morality."
No I don't. You certainly saying so isn't grounds for me to be obligated to do anything.
You keep bringing it up as if it's a problem so we need to get to the bottom of what your actual concern is."
No, I keep bringing it up because you keep insisting that you know what things are universally or objectively moral/immoral. If you'd be more precise and acknowledge that you are expressing your hunches about the morality of things, I'd have no issue. It's your insistence that you can pronounce things as universally or objectively immoral, without articulating a universal objective standard that qualifies you to make these pronouncements.
"1. We have no way of objectively proving our position on moral questions. Agree or disagree?"
I agree that you have made that claim without actually demonstrating it to be true. I'm simply asking you to articulate some thing that provides grounding for universal or objective morality.
"2. Nonetheless, I suspect that most people agree that even if we can't object if we prove our position on moral question, it is not impossible to have a rational, reasoned understanding of what is and isn't moral. Agree or disagree?"
It's possible to have a rational understanding of a non universal or subjective moral system. If you want to advocate for this sort of framework, that's fine. But this doesn't provide grounding for making the sort of absolute, universal, objective statements that you keep making.
"3. Thus, while our positions on moral questions may be called subjective, that doesn't equate to saying we have no idea what it is and isn't moral. That all there is is unknowable chaos on questions of morality. Agree or disagree?"
I've never claimed that the only alternative is "unknowable chaos", so of course I disagree with your idiotic dichotomy. I've offered you an alternative, you just choose to ignore it and keep beating this dead horse.
"4. If you think your positions on moral questions are knowable objectively how do you objectively know this?"
I've never claimed that my opinions on anything are "knowable objectively", It's why I refrain from making blanket objective claims that "X is immoral/moral".
"What is your proof of for this?"
What? Proof that my opinions are subjective? Let's start with the fact that I can't prove something that I've never done or claimed.
"Is your position on all questions of morality objectively knowable as a fact?"
This question makes no sense, but I'll give it a shot. Since I rarely or never express my opinions about the "morality or immorality" of things, and when I do I express it AS my opinion, I guess it's possible to "objectively know" what opinions I have expressed if one does enough research. But that's just to prove whether or not I objectively expressed an opinion, not that my opinion is objective.
"Or is your position on moral questions only knowable on some questions of morality?"
Again, my opinions on various questions of morality is knowable to the extent that I express or have expressed my opinions. However, I rarely do do because of exactly this type of bullshit rabbit hole you are so obsessed with.
"If only on some, which ones and how do you know?"
Where have I claimed to objectively "know" any? If you can point those out, I'll address them specifically.
"For instance, is it moral for immoral for two gay guys to marry?"
Ahhhhh, once again Dan always circles back to homosexuality. One wonders why. In my opinion gay's marrying (assuming an extremely atypical exclusive, monogamous, lifelong marriage), is that I personally find it a more moral option than a succession of random anonymous sexual encounters. Beyond that I rarely think about the morality of gay marriage.
"Is it moral or immoral steal a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child if you have no other way?"
IMO, it is immoral to steal regardless of the situation, however (also in my opinion) it is more immoral to let one's children starve, therefore one might have to choose the "lesser immorality" in a moment of desperation. IMO I'd hope that the theft would eventually be made whole.
What if the theft of this loaf of bread caused the death of the person it was stolen from?
"Is it objectively moral or immoral to own a Slave?"
IMO, "slavery" as a way to discharge a legitimate debt or as a way to discharge a legitimate obligation to another could be done in a way that is moral. However, slavery based on race, sex, etc that is indefinite and spans generations would be something that I would call immoral. Unfortunately, there are several schools of scientific thought (sociological, naturalistic, Darwinian, evolutionary, etc) that would argue that slavery is a natural condition (amoral) or that if a given society or group decides that slavery is moral, then it is moral.
"To forcibly wed a woman against her will?"
IMO it's immoral, but as I pointed out above there are some strains of scientific thought that would disagree.
"On each of these questions that you think you know objectively, what is your proof?"
Since you've drawn a false conclusion to base your question on, why would I enable your falsehood by treating this as a serious question?
The fact that I've written thousands of words, hundreds of comments, and multiple posts addressing this topic, yet you still are so incredibly ignorant of what I've said suggests to me that this is just one more diversionary tactic, nothing else.
Just because I feel like it, I wish to point out that as a Christian, it is absolutely immoral for two guys to marry each other in the same way a man and woman would. I know this to be true because of God's clearly revealed will for human sexuality, as well as His unequivocal condemnation of homosexual behavior without any hint of exception for the context or scenario in which that behavior might take place.
If two men, neither of whom are homosexual or have any sexual attraction for each other, choose to marry for purposes of taxation or other advantages believed to be codified in law for the benefit of actual marriages, it is also immoral because of the fraudulent nature of their uniting for those purposes.
There's just nothing moral about it, and that's objectively true for any Christian or Jew, given God's will so clearly revealed to us in Scripture.
Dan... "But it pales in contrast with the immoral vulgar racist..."
Craig... "Are you seriously claiming that your use of the term "immoral" in this context is NOT a claim that something was objectively "immoral"?"
YES. By the way that EVEN A COMPLETE MORON can look at my words and see that I NEVER SAID OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. Do you not see that "objectively" IS NOT in my set of words there?
And when I've been abundantly clear that we can't prove our moral opinions objectively, then CLEARLY I DON'T MEAN OBJECTIVELY in this case where I NEVER SAID OBJECTIVE.
OBJECTIVE IS NOT WHAT I SAID. I DID NOT SAY OBJECTIVE. YOU are the one who KEEPS bringing "objective in to the discussion. NOT ME.
DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND THAT, when I NEVER SAID "objective" I DID NOT MEAN "objective..."?
Do you understand that even if you keep saying that I meant objective, that will always remain a FALSE CLAIM because I DID NOT SAY objective?
DO you understand NOW that this is a false claim?
Craig... "IMO, "slavery" as a way to discharge a legitimate debt or as a way to discharge a legitimate obligation to another could be done in a way that is moral"
Holy crap. The OWNING of one human being who is forced to do the labor of another human being (ie, the definition of a slave) can be done in a way that is moral...? I would disagree with that hunch and I think most of humanity would (at least today). Certainly those who affirm the notion of universal human rights would and do.
Craig... "the fact that I've written thousands of words..."
The fact is, you almost always if not always are vague and non-committal when you respond to my specific and clear questions. You don't answer them directly and when you do get a little more specific (like your slavery example...)... holy shit!
If you want to be more clear and understood, why not answer questions directly?
Keep it simple, Craig:
DO you or do you not think that morality is objectively moral?
IF you think it is objectively provable, what do you mean by that? That ALL your opinions about moral matters are objectively correct? (I'm sure that's not it.) That you don't objectively know all the "right" moral answers but they ARE all knowable... somehow, by someone? (I doubt that's right, but you tell me.) That SOME of your opinions on moral matters are objectively provable, but not all?
I don't know what your position is because you don't answer reasonable questions like this.
Based on your continual objections to me saying "We can reasonably know that Trump's false claims about the election, for instance, are immoral/wrong..." and continuing to ask me to prove it as an objective fact, and if I can't, insisting that it's merely subjective and so has no application beyond my own opinion... based upon those sorts of objections, it makes it SOUND like you don't think that morality is objectively knowable, therefore, we are irrational/wrong to try to expect people to behave according to ANY moral standards... that it's all chaos and up to the individual... but I doubt that's what you're saying... But it SOUNDS like that's the case you're making.
I'm just asking you to clarify. It's a reasonable request.
Art,
I’m not disagreeing with you, but Dan has previously discounted this sort of plain reading of scripture as being in any way objective. Further, Dan’s question wasn’t about what scripture says.
Craig... " Dan has previously discounted this sort of plain reading of scripture as being in any way objective."
"Dan" hasn't discounted it. YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINIONS about the interpretation of any passage in a book is not, in and of itself, objective proof of the morality of marriage or the morality of slavery. By definition. YOUR OPINIONS and INTERPRETATIONS about the book of Mormon, or the Bible, or the dictionary are all YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS and not, by definition, facts or objective facts.
One can say, "The Bible literally says in Genesis 1:1, 'IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED..." and that IS objectively what it says. But what does that mean? THAT is where your opinions about the text are subjective.
If I look at the text of Genesis 1 and conclude, "clearly, this is literally mythic/symbolic language..." that is my subjective opinion. I can't prove the author's intent. If GLENN looks at the same text and concludes, "clearly, that is literally God describing the world being created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago..." THAT is Glenn's subjective opinion. If YOU look at the same text and conclude, "Well, I think God created the world, but probably not 6,000 years ago or in six days..." that is YOUR subjective opinion, not provable from the text.
Literally.
Where am I mistaken?
Dan,
Thanks for demonstrating my point so clearly.
You see, that ("Dan has previously discounted this sort of plain reading...") is what I'm objecting to. When you say that, it makes it SOUND like YOU think (in your personal human hunch) that there is an objectively factually "correct" way to understand at least SOME verses. Other verses, you appear willing to assume that people can disagree in good faith. AND YET, you have no objective measure/criteria to say which verses MUST be understood as objectively factual in your particular "plain reading" of the text and which CAN be disagreed with in good faith.
All of which makes your hunches subjective. IF you can't say "HERE are the morals/passages we KNOW objectively and here's why..." then how do we know you know ANY human interpretations are objectively factual/knowable when it comes to moral decisions?
I say we can know, to better and lesser degrees, moral decisions based upon reasoning. Perfectly? No. As objectively provable fact? No. But then, neither do/can you. But REASONABLY, we can reach conclusions on moral matters and in so doing, it's NOT whimsical or irrational to demand that others agree, it's NOT moral chaos. It's a reasoned evaluation given notions of human rights and other considerations.
I laughed so hard when I read this steaming pile of shit, I almost couldn't breathe.
"YES. By the way that EVEN A COMPLETE MORON can look at my words and see that I NEVER SAID OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. Do you not see that "objectively" IS NOT in my set of words there? And when I've been abundantly clear that we can't prove our moral opinions objectively, then CLEARLY I DON'T MEAN OBJECTIVELY in this case where I NEVER SAID OBJECTIVE. OBJECTIVE IS NOT WHAT I SAID. I DID NOT SAY OBJECTIVE. YOU are the one who KEEPS bringing "objective in to the discussion. NOT ME. DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND THAT, when I NEVER SAID "objective" I DID NOT MEAN "objective..."? Do you understand that even if you keep saying that I meant objective, that will always remain a FALSE CLAIM because I DID NOT SAY objective? DO you understand NOW that this is a false claim?"
If this is a "false claim", the by all means do more than simply stamp your feet and assert that you didn't mean "objectively" immoral. Here are some questions that might help you.
If you didn't mean "objectively" immoral, then what did you mean by "immoral"?
Is there some way to use the unmodified term "immoral" that doesn't reflect an objectively measurable binary distinction?
Is there really a subjective aspect to the definition of the word "immoral"?
Why do you struggle so with simply admitting that you have a subjective, non universal moral standard?
"Demonstrating my point..."
And WHAT is your point? Stop speaking in vague nothings. MY point was that YOUR opinions are YOUR opinions and you can't objectively prove them. My point was clear. Your point was that it's only Dan (and those like him) who object to those who'd claim to "know objectively" their moral hunches. But MY point was that it's not just me, it's reality. It's by definition. YOUR INTERPRETATIONS are literally YOUR interpretations.
Am I mistaken?
Speak clearly.
"The OWNING of one human being who is forced to do the labor of another human being (ie, the definition of a slave) can be done in a way that is moral...?"
Yet, that's not what I said. I indicated this by using these little markey things "" around the word slavery. Maybe that little subtlety confused you.
"I would disagree with that hunch and I think most of humanity would (at least today)."
Interesting, you seem to be acknowledging that there IS NO universal moral prohibition against slavery. Are you suggesting that morality is determined by majority rule? You do realize that there are currently more people in slavery than at any point in history don't you? That slavery has been practiced by literally society throughout human history don't you?
"Certainly those who affirm the notion of universal human rights would and do."
Interesting, what exactly is the foundational underpinning for these "universal" human rights? Are these human rights "objective" and "universal"?
"The fact is, you almost always if not always are vague and non-committal when you respond to my specific and clear questions. You don't answer them directly and when you do get a little more specific (like your slavery example...)... holy shit! If you want to be more clear and understood, why not answer questions directly?"
When I answer questions directly you bitch and falsely claim that I haven't answered directly. When I answer in detail, you bitch and falsely claim that my answers are vague. Yet somehow, you can never seem to actually provide any in context quotes to prove your false claims. It must be nice to inhabit a world where it's always someone else's fault and the failure is always on the other person. Very Christlike, grace filled attitude.
Craig... "If you didn't mean "objectively" immoral, then what did you mean by "immoral"?"
One thing at a time:
Are you serious? Have you NOT read that I've been abundantly clear that I'm speaking about REASONABLY IMMORAL? And that I've defined that by saying that we can find common ground in recognizing what the founders have called those Self Evident rights - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness? And that when people take someone's life or liberty away from them, that THIS HARM is what we mean by immoral?
This is REASONED MORALITY. That which is self evident to at least some/most of us.
Have you missed where I've repeatedly made this clear to you?
Are you still not understanding?
"Keep it simple, Craig: DO you or do you not think that morality is objectively moral?"
What the hell does that even mean. It's like asking if water is objectively water. Of course morality is moral, it's literally the same word.
"IF you think it is objectively provable, what do you mean by that?"
Since I've already been clear that I am not claiming that morality is objectively provable, and I haven't said anything to the contrary. I mean nothing "by that" because that's your imaginary characterization of something.
"That ALL your opinions about moral matters are objectively correct?"
No. Again, I've answered this clearly at least once already.
"(I'm sure that's not it.)"
If you're "sure" then why ask the question, idiot? If your knowledge of what I think is superior to mine, then why waste everyone's time?
"That you don't objectively know all the "right" moral answers but they ARE all knowable... somehow, by someone?"
I believe that, like many things, that some level of objective morality exists without regard to our ability to prove it's existence.
"(I doubt that's right, but you tell me.)"
Again, why ask the question if you already think you know the answer, idiot?
"That SOME of your opinions on moral matters are objectively provable, but not all?"
Nope.
"I don't know what your position is because you don't answer reasonable questions like this."
Except I have. Unfortunately, you'll just continue to ignore the questions you're asked, pretend that I don't answer your questions, and lie about both.
"Based on your continual objections to me saying "We can reasonably know that Trump's false claims about the election, for instance, are immoral/wrong..." and continuing to ask me to prove it as an objective fact, and if I can't, insisting that it's merely subjective and so has no application beyond my own opinion... based upon those sorts of objections, it makes it SOUND like you don't think that morality is objectively knowable, therefore, we are irrational/wrong to try to expect people to behave according to ANY moral standards... that it's all chaos and up to the individual... but I doubt that's what you're saying... But it SOUNDS like that's the case you're making. I'm just asking you to clarify."
As I've pointed out repeatedly, I'm asking for YOU to provide the grounding for the claims YOU make. If you are going to say things like "Trump is immoral..." then it's reasonable to explore the basis for your claim. I'm trying NOT to make any claims at this point because I can't get you do give a direct answer as to what grounds your claims.
Is your claim grounded in your reason?
Is your claim grounded in some majority rule?
Is your claim universal?
"It's a reasonable request."
I'd be much more willing to go down this rabbit hole again, if you'd clarify your position first.
For example is morality binary? Is every action either moral or immoral?
If not what are the other options and how does one define those?
If a behavior is determined by science to be necessary, can that behavior be classified as "immoral"?
Is morality defined by utility?
Is morality defined by society or group?
Is morality universal?
"One thing at a time: Are you serious?"
Why yes, I am. I'll simply note that this is not an answer.
"Have you NOT read that I've been abundantly clear that I'm speaking about REASONABLY IMMORAL?"
No, you've used the term "immoral" and "reasonable" multiple times, and I suspect you've used "reasonably immoral" interchangeably with "immoral". Further, absent a coherent definition, "reasonably immoral" is simply meaningless pablum.
If you meant "reasonably immoral", why did you not consistently use the term "reasonably immoral"?
Are you suggesting that "reasonably immoral" and "immoral" are synonymous?
Inserting that subjective term "reasonably" really only adds another layer of obfuscation, not clarity, by what standard does one determine what is "reasonably immoral"?
Reasonable to who?
Are you suggesting that there really is no "moral" or "immoral" that it's all just shades of what some people consider "reasonable"?
"And that I've defined that by saying that we can find common ground in recognizing what the founders have called those Self Evident rights - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?"
Please link to where you've used that specific "definition" in this thread?
"And that when people take someone's life or liberty away from them, that THIS HARM is what we mean by immoral?"
So you are now limiting morality to only "life" and "liberty". What grounds you to impose those limits? Is this a universal standard?
"This is REASONED MORALITY."
So, how about you pick a term, precisely define the term, then stick with that term for continuity. The fact that you've now introduced another term, is most unhelpful.
"That which is self evident to at least some/most of us. Have you missed where I've repeatedly made this clear to you? Are you still not understanding?"
Except you've chosen to introduce all sorts n=of new things into this comment, and haven't answered the questions I've been asking in an attempt to understand.
S"top speaking in vague nothings. MY point was that YOUR opinions are YOUR opinions and you can't objectively prove them. My point was clear. Your point was that it's only Dan (and those like him) who object to those who'd claim to "know objectively" their moral hunches. But MY point was that it's not just me, it's reality. It's by definition. YOUR INTERPRETATIONS are literally YOUR interpretations. Am I mistaken? Speak clearly."
Yes, and my point was that you predictably went to your default position. Unfortunately, you still haven't done anything more than to assert that the above in unassailablly true, you just haven't proven it.
"You see, that ("Dan has previously discounted this sort of plain reading...") is what I'm objecting to. When you say that, it makes it SOUND like YOU think (in your personal human hunch) that there is an objectively factually "correct" way to understand at least SOME verses."
Which is a much more rational, coherent approach than to assume the opposite. For example, I suspect that "Jesus wept", literally means that a literal guy named Jesus, literally cried and had literal tears running down his literal face. Please provide another interpretation that fits better.
"Other verses, you appear willing to assume that people can disagree in good faith."
Of course people can disagree in good faith, but that doesn't preclude one or both of them being wrong. It certainly precludes both being right.
"AND YET, you have no objective measure/criteria to say which verses MUST be understood as objectively factual in your particular "plain reading" of the text and which CAN be disagreed with in good faith."
Please provide the quote, context, and link where I've said this?
"All of which makes your hunches subjective. IF you can't say "HERE are the morals/passages we KNOW objectively and here's why..." then how do we know you know ANY human interpretations are objectively factual/knowable when it comes to moral decisions?"
This is such a convoluted, bizarre, bunch of made up crap, that I can't begin to untangle it. But, it does have the advantage of further muddying the waters, giving you something to bitch about, and an excuse to avoid more questions.
"I say we can know, to better and lesser degrees, moral decisions based upon reasoning. Perfectly? No. As objectively provable fact? No. But then, neither do/can you. But REASONABLY, we can reach conclusions on moral matters and in so doing, it's NOT whimsical or irrational to demand that others agree, it's NOT moral chaos. It's a reasoned evaluation given notions of human rights and other considerations."
Great, why not just say that morality is subjective, not universal,imperfect, determined by subjective reason, and enforced by majority rule?
Craig... "Further, absent a coherent definition, "reasonably immoral" is simply meaningless pablum."
You're saying so much that is just so wrong that it's hard to find where to start. But I'll start with this.
As I made clear over the years when I'm saying reasonably moral or using reason to determine what is moral that is what I'm speaking about. Using our reason to determine what is moral. Do you think that this is rational or pablum?
We rational thinkers believe that is self-evident that some things are natural rights. The right to life and liberty for instance. And no, God no, it's not limited to that.
We reasonable people recognize that most people can agree with this. You ought not have the right to take away my life for no reason. You will not have the right to take my stuff for no reason. You ought not have the right to harm me for no reason. This is just rational in something that Humanity, by and large, can agree upon. Do you disagree? Take a stand.
Once we recognize that it is wrong to cause harm to someone else, then we can use our reason to say, well, if someone is drunk and driving in the car and driving too fast, they're increasing the odds that they're going to cause harm to someone. We can reason that driving 55 miles an hour down a neighborhood street is unsafe. We can reasonably conclude, therefore, that these actions are wrong. Even immoral. Because of the likelihood to cause harm.
That is using our reason understand and agree upon what is moral. This is simply rational morality. Something that I believe most people can agree with.
Are you disagreeing? Do you think this does not make sense or is whimsical? Have I not been clear over the years that this is what I'm talking about? Have I not been clear that I'm not saying that I can objectively prove my opinions about morality, any more than you can?
What are you failing to understand?
This is how most of us think, I suspect, and yet it seems to be something you cannot comprehend.
"This is such a convoluted, bizarre, bunch of made up crap..."
It's supposed to be. The more ambiguity Dan can inject into any discussion of morality (particularly Scripture), the easier it is for him to defend immorality. Failing that, Dan simply says, "that's your opinion/hunch" without so much as a hint as to how he arrives at his opposing opinion/hunch. He just disagrees because the reality is inconvenient to his preferred position. He can't argue from Scripture that Lev 18:22 does more than prohibit a specific behavior. No. He tries to pretend he uses "reason" to suppose it means "some form" of that behavior, without any Scriptural verse or passage that could possibly support that absurd notion. "No. It means 'some form' of murder. It means 'some form' of worshiping other gods. It means 'some form' of blaspheming the Spirit." It means Dan's dishonest and immoral...objectively so.
I say Scripture, as God's revealed Word, is the source of objective morality. I don't much care what other faith traditions say, because I've never seen any evidence that suggests we should regard them as true or as equally valid in terms of being real as there is for the Judeo-Christian faith. As a Christian, I'm confident God exists and Scripture is an accurate revelation of His will for us. While I may have some civic obligation to allow others to live according to their false religions, I'm in no way obligated to regard their beliefs as having any real value to anyone.
So with Scripture as my basis for determining what is or isn't moral (that is, God-pleasing), morality is thus objective. In debating these things with someone who claims to be a Christian, Scripture is the only source for morality that has any authority. As such, only Scripture can provide the evidence to support one's contentions with regard to what is or isn't moral. Scripture provides no evidence that gives so much as a hint that "gay marriage" could ever possibly be moral. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of honesty, because interpretation is secondary to honesty. There's no interpretation without it.
Craig... "why not just say that morality is subjective,"
I have. Why don't you? Or at least, I've clarified that while there may be objective right and wrong, we can't objectively prove it. In that sense, it is not objectively provable, it is subjective. That's why I'm reluctant to use subjective.
Secondly, I'm reluctant to use it because people like you like to pretend that y'all have objective morality and we're just Whimsical and subjective and there's no reason to believe in any moral system. Which is not what I'm saying
"I say we can know, to better and lesser degrees, moral decisions based upon reasoning.Perfectly? No. As objectively provable fact?"
Obviously you do say this, and I have no problem with you saying this. Where you lose me is the why.
Why should anyone else accept what you "say we can know" as anything other than your subjective opinion?
By what authority do you apply your "moral decisions" on others?
Why should anyone accept your imperfect, subjective, "moral decisions" as binding?
If you have no authority, or no reason for others to accept your "moral decisions" as binding, then why do you attempt to impose your moral standards on others?
"No. But then, neither do/can you. But REASONABLY, we can reach conclusions on moral matters and in so doing, it's NOT whimsical or irrational to demand that others agree, it's NOT moral chaos."
Whys is it "NOT whimsical or irrational to demand that others agree"?
Why should others, who feel differently accede to your demands that they agree to and abide by your "moral decisions"?
"It's a reasoned evaluation given notions of human rights and other considerations."
But that doesn't explain why your subjective version of "moral decisions" is better or worthy of being imposed on others. but feel free to do so.
Craig... "that doesn't explain why your subjective version of "moral decisions" is better or worthy of being imposed on others. but feel free to do so."
Precisely because it is NOT just my subjective opinion about morality. It's that which is commonly held by most of humanity.
YOUR hunches about YOUR personal interpretations of this or that biblical text, on the other hand, IS unique to you and some minority of people who might agree with you, that IS subjective and whimsical, inconsistent and irrational.
"You're saying so much that is just so wrong that it's hard to find where to start."
How about starting with answering questions so that I will have more clarity regarding what you mean. How about using consistent defined terms instead of using 3 terms interchangeably.
"As I made clear over the years when I'm saying reasonably moral or using reason to determine what is moral that is what I'm speaking about. Using our reason to determine what is moral. Do you think that this is rational or pablum?"
It's pablum, because it's a vague term that piles subjective reason on top of subjective morality, and can't provide any rational reason why your reason is superior enough for others to adhere to or have your "moral code" imposed on them.
"We rational thinkers believe that is self-evident that some things are natural rights. The right to life and liberty for instance. And no, God no, it's not limited to that. We reasonable people recognize that most people can agree with this."
You seem to be suggesting that "natural" equals "moral", are you?
"You ought not have the right to take away my life for no reason. You will not have the right to take my stuff for no reason. You ought not have the right to harm me for no reason."
Yet, the various scientific schools of thought I've mentioned would disagree with you on these contentions.
Further, your again blurring the distinction between legal and moral. Are you suggesting that legality defines morality?
"This is just rational in something that Humanity, by and large, can agree upon. Do you disagree?"
Disagree with what? That you and some people believe those things? That those things are the basis for our legal system? That there are schools of scientific study that disagree with you? That those things are all subjective both in enumeration and application? For example. You say, "You ought not have the right to take away my life for no reason." Great, but that raises some questions.
1. Who decides what reasons are good enough?
2. What if ending your life prolongs my life?
3. What if ending your life saves the lives of innocents?
4. Who's reasons prevail, the ender or the endee?
5. Once a set of conditions are established, what is to stop the majority from changing the parameters of what is an acceptable reason to end your life?
6. How is this not simply "morality" decided by the majority?
"Take a stand."
I've done so over multiple posts, comment threads, comments, etc.
"Once we recognize that it is wrong to cause harm to someone else, then we can use our reason to say, well, if someone is drunk and driving in the car and driving too fast, they're increasing the odds that they're going to cause harm to someone. We can reason that driving 55 miles an hour down a neighborhood street is unsafe. We can reasonably conclude, therefore, that these actions are wrong."
Don't the answers to those questions depend upon the goal of a given society?
Isn't it likely that different societies will make those decisions differently?
Isn't it reality that not all societies value life to the same degree?
Isn't it reality that multiple scientific schools of thought would argue that those sorts of harms are a natural part of the animal kingdom, and that humans are simply mammals?
Isn't it possible that a society can agree that those things are illegal, but not necessarily immoral?
Is driving 55 MPH down a "neighborhood street" inherently unsafe at all times and in all conditions?
Is driving 55 MPH down a neighborhood street that with a speed limit of 45 MPH immoral at all times and under all circumstances? Is it equally immoral as driving down a street with a 20 MPH speed limit?
"Even immoral."
Please explain the relationship between illegal and immoral in your construct of morality.
"Because of the likelihood to cause harm."
If the standard is the "likelihood to cause harm", then aren't you acknowledging that the act of driving 55 MPH on a "neighborhood street" isn't inherently "likely to cause harm", and that other factors are more important?
If someone the police are responding to a crime scene where puppies have been raped, are they immoral if they drive 55 MPH down a "neighborhood street"? What about someone racing to the hospital to give birth?
"That is using our reason understand and agree upon what is moral. This is simply rational morality. Something that I believe most people can agree with. Are you disagreeing?"
Not at all. I agree that people can get together, make subjective decisions about what they believe to be rational, and if they get a majority of their society to agree, they can impose their subjective moral code on the minority. This is (essentially) the sociological definition I've asked you about at least twice in this thread. The problems with this construct are twofold.
1. There is no grounding for one society to impose it's subjective moral code on another, short of conquest. As long as the majority in a given society agree on the moral standard for their society, then whatever the agree on and impose is de facto moral for their society.
2. There is no guarantee that what is moral now, will be moral in 5 years. Because morality is based on the "reasoning" of a majority of the society and as such is malleable as the majority changes.
Now, as long as one chooses not to see the above as problematic, than the above don't cause any difficulties. But, the minute one tries to apply the morals of one society to another society, you run into problems.
"Do you think this does not make sense or is whimsical?"
Both to some degree. I think it makes sense as long as you have a worldview that is comfortable with changes in morality over time, and with refraining from making moral comparisons across societies. I think it's whimsical in the fact that it eschews any sort of universal, objective moral code. Obviously these moral changes are unlikely to occur quickly or capriciously, but they are certainly flexible and locally variable.
"Have I not been clear over the years that this is what I'm talking about?"
No, you haven't. This should be evidenced by the number of questions still unanswered and demonstrated by your the shifting terminology and shifting definitions of your shifting terms.
"Have I not been clear that I'm not saying that I can objectively prove my opinions about morality, any more than you can?"
No you've been quite clear that you value your prerogative not to provide proof of your hunches very highly. Unfortunately, you tend to express what you call hunches in ways that obfuscate the fact that they are actually hunches. It's like you want the perceived benefits of a universal, objective moral standard, without actually wanting a universal, objective moral standard.
"What are you failing to understand?"
Please see the multiple unanswered questions in this thread. I see no reason to combine them here as a way to answer this question.
The short, direct, answer to this questing is that I fail to understand why your "moral code" should be considered authoritative.
"This is how most of us think, I suspect, and yet it seems to be something you cannot comprehend."
And using that argument from numbers logical fallacy to close the comment. Excellent.
Marshal... "say Scripture, as God's revealed Word, is the source of objective morality."
Who's interpretation?
And here, we're back to subjective opinion.
Who says that Marshal's interpretation of Genesis 1 is better than Glenns is better than mine? Based upon what objective criteria?
More questions to go unanswered.
"Precisely because it is NOT just my subjective opinion about morality. It's that which is commonly held by most of humanity. YOUR hunches about YOUR personal interpretations of this or that biblical text, on the other hand, IS unique to you and some minority of people who might agree with you, that IS subjective and whimsical, inconsistent and irrational."
This is simply an excuse, not a reason. You don't define "majority of the world" merely assume that this sort of logical fallacy will go unnoticed.
But, I guess you're at least being honest that you believe that morality is to be imposed on the minority by the majority.
T'S 12:50 PM CDT, AND I AM GETTING READY TO BE OUT OF TOWN FOR THE WEEKEND. WHILE I MIGHT POST A FEW COMMENTS, OR RESPOND TO SIMPLE THINGS, I WILL NOT BE INVESTING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF TIME HERE UNTIL MONDAY.
ART, IF YOU NEED ANYTHING FROM ME, YOU KNOW HOW TO CONTACT ME.
DAN, THERE ARE A BUNCH OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO DEAL WITH AND I'D SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE PROFITABLE IF YOU WERE TO SPEND YOUR TIME ANSWERING THOSE. IT WILL HOPEFULLY GO A LONG WAY TOWARD MY BETTER UNDERSTANDING YOUR POSITION.
"But, I guess you're at least being honest that you believe that morality is to be imposed on the minority by the majority."
It's worse than this. Dan only assumes what he believes is believed by a majority he can’t possibly confirm. He's simply so enamored with his own ability to reason being sound, he assumes most people agree. And how does he attempt to validate what he "reasons" is true? By asking ambiguous and innocuous questions on which to garner agreement. He believes murder is immoral. He states most would agree. It's a safe assumption most would. Don't you? Therefore, it only stands to (his) reason there can be no disagreement on, say, the subject of "gay marriage".
Here's what Dan is saying:
1. We don't have a perfectly reliable, perfectly provable way of establishing morality/moral precepts with perfect certainty.
2. Nonetheless, we humans can generally agree that all people should have some basic human rights/values... we can agree generally on some moral precepts that are mostly centered around those generally agreed upon human rights. We can agree that people have a right to life and a freedom of expression and a freedom of self-determination. Those actions that violate those rights or cause harm to people because of those rights are what we can generally agree upon as being immoral.
3. This is NOT 100% objectively provable, but it's reasonable and understandable and we can generally find a great deal of common ground and do so fairly easily - it's just not that difficult. We can understand that we don't have a right to cause harm to others and thus, that those actions that cause harm are to be considered immoral or wrong or bad. We can agree, therefore, that rape, theft, oppression, slavery, murder, abuse, molestation are wrong and can easily do so.
3a. understand this: NO other system is 100% objectively provable, either. Not one.
4. The advantage to this natural and rational understanding of morality is that it is widespread and NOT dependent upon commonly held religious indoctrination or cultural/sub-cultural commonality. We ALL - regardless of creed or doctrine - recognize that we don't want to be harmed, nor to see our loved ones harmed. The Golden Rule and shit.
cont'd...
Here's what Marshal and Craig APPEAR to be saying (it's hard to tell with Craig because he doesn't answer questions directly):
1. We conservative evangelicals DO have a perfect source for morality that is 100% objectively provable.
1a. um... we can prove SOME moral questions objectively... others are more of a gray area where it's not 100% objectively provable.
1b. um... we can't tell you which moral questions we can say that we know that we are authoritatively are objectively correct about, but there are SOME that we know for sure. The gay stuff, for instance. And transgender, too!
1c. No, we can't point to anywhere in the Bible that specifically condemns gay marriage or being transgender, but we can INTERPRET some of the passages and extrapolate out our opinion that these are wrong and our opinions on this are objectively provable!
1d. um... we'll, they're objectively provable IF you accept our premise that the Bible is "the word of God" and IF you accept our premise that our interpretation on these matters (some of these matters) are objectively and authoritatively correct.
2. And ALL people should agree with us on our human opinions about our human interpretations on these moral issues (at least the ones we "know objectively" about and can "objectively prove..."), but it is a given that not all people DO agree with our presuppositions and opinions and interpretations. In fact, a good portion of the world doesn't agree with us.
3. We'll (the Marshals of the world) will say, our opinions about our interpretations on these passages are 100% objectively provable... but the reality is, it just isn't provable. It's not. How could it be? It's provable IF you accept some presuppositions and share some preconceived ideas of how to interpret one book...? That literally isn't objectively provable, then, is it? If it's only "provable" to your colleagues who are willing to not dig at your reasoning (and make no mistake, you all ARE using your reason - for better and worse - when you interpret passages a certain way).
3a. As with Dan's thinking: NO system is objectively provable, even if Marshal may say it is and Craig may hint that his is. They can't provide the consistent rubric for making decisions about moral questions and it really comes down to "cause I and the people who agree with me say so! And we think we're understanding God when we say so..."
4. The disadvantage to this model is that it only works for some half (give or take, just guessing - probably WAY less) of the world who might agree with their hunches and opinions that they can't prove. There are ~600 million evangelical Christians in the world, 2.3 billion that identify as Christian - but not all of which would agree with conservative evangelical hunches. That is, less than 1/3 of the world (probably WAY less) would even begin to agree with their hunches. Therefore, the disadvantage to this model is that it leaves out the majority of the world.
Where am I mistaken?
Just for fun, I'll answer these mostly irrelevant questions from Craig...
Don't the answers to those questions depend upon the goal of a given society?
No.
Isn't it likely that different societies will make those decisions differently?
Not if they're a society that values human rights and believes in the Golden Rule (or the equivalent of it in other religions and philosophies).
Will people from culture to culture and individual to individual have SLIGHTLY different takes on what it means to not cause harm to others? Yes. AND THAT IS TRUE whether or not you subscribe to Christianity or conservative evangelical views on morality, as well.
That is, we can all generally agree we ought not take that which doesn't belong to us that belongs to someone else. BUT, what about taking some grains of wheat from a farmer's field that doesn't belong to you? Is that causing harm/is that stealing? People disagree, don't they? And that's true whether or not one is a Christian or not.
The point being that no system has a 100% effective provable positions on morality or is 100% agreed upon by anyone. None.
"Isn't it reality that not all societies value life to the same degree?"
Yes. So?
"Isn't it reality that multiple scientific schools of thought would argue that those sorts of harms are a natural part of the animal kingdom, and that humans are simply mammals?"
Yes (to the last part). We objectively ARE animals. So? Yes, some subset of scientists may say harm is not immoral amongst humans. AND some subset of Christians will say that slavery (which is clearly harm) is not immoral amongst humans. So?
"Isn't it possible that a society can agree that those things are illegal, but not necessarily immoral?"
Yes, it's possible. In some cases, maybe even likely.
"Is driving 55 MPH down a "neighborhood street" inherently unsafe at all times and in all conditions?"
I'd argue that scientific evaluation of that set of conditions would say that it's inherently at all or nearly all times. Understand: That doesn't mean that EACH time someone drives 55mph down a street, that someone WILL be harmed. But it would be unsafe. Most neighborhood streets are not built for that sort of speed.
Now, one could argue, if one wanted to be a douche, that if you had a ghost town with NO residents and an old 25mph on one of its streets, and that it was wide enough and long enough and solid enough to handle 55mph relatively safely for the driver, but the point is solid. COULD there be exception to that rule? Sure, in theory.
"Is driving 55 MPH down a neighborhood street that with a speed limit of 45 MPH immoral at all times and under all circumstances?"
I'm not sure that a street with a 45 mph speed limit would qualify as a "neighborhood" in the sense of classic city planners. Regardless, I'm glad to say that conditions for morality are dependent upon circumstances, oftentimes.
What of it? Are you willing to say the same?
"Is it equally immoral as driving down a street with a 20 MPH speed limit?"
It really depends upon the circumstances, doesn't it?
Marshal... "is believed by a majority he can’t possibly confirm"
1. Do you REALLY think the majority of the world doesn't agree with the Golden Rule (in one form or the other)?
2. Do you REALLY think that the majority of at least today's world (I suspect always) can't affirm the notion of a certain set of human rights ought to be enjoyed by all?
3. I'll allow that it's difficult to prove, but I have some data that I can point to that at least suggests it.
4. Nonetheless, do you REALLY think that there are more who would affirm evangelical Christianity's take on morality as espoused by people like you?
I'm being quite clear that neither of us can prove our moral opinions objectively, but that the advantage to my system is that it's something that a greater portion of the world can find some common ground upon and thus, given the inability to objectively prove moral positions, it's a rational starting point.
Had a minute to kill at the office and glanced through Dan's comments. I saw that he actually condescended to answer a few of the unanswered questions, which is quite surprising. It also looks like he's decided to speak for Art and I (read twist our positions to suit his narrative). I'll hold them until I have time to adequately address them on Monday.
https://theconversation.com/slavery-is-not-a-crime-in-almost-half-the-countries-of-the-world-new-research-115596
https://www.oxygen.com/very-real/6-countries-where-slavery-still-exists
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/slavery-not-a-crime-in-half-the-countries-of-world-new-research/
I saw some claim that the majority of the world agrees with Dan regarding his "golden rule" moral code. I don"t have tome to do the math, but a quick look at countries where slavery is legal would seem to dispute that claim.
https://prostitution.procon.org/countries-and-their-prostitution-policies/
If legalized prostitution is any guide, this may not be helpful either.
Craig: Re: Slavery and prostitution still exist...
? What do you think that proves? That those slaves don't yearn to be free, just because they're in a nation that thinks that - at least at times - slavery can be justified (you know, like you've recently said you could imagine)?
That there are nations with bad rules in place doesn't mean that the majority of the world doesn't affirm human rights. I'd be willing to bet that there's a large number of slaves and prostitutes and gay folk oppressed by local religious zealots who'd ALL love to see more human rights and could affirm it.
re: Slavery...
You're citing the existence of slavery in some nations as evidence that the world doesn't believe in human rights... AND YET, you think a case can be made for enslaving humans being moral/acceptable...
Do you understand my confusion?
Marshal, do you - like Craig - allow that there are circumstances/times when slavery - the owning of another human being to do the labor for that owner - is not immoral?
If so, what is your (both of you) collective reasoning that lets you think that there are times when slavery is not immoral?
"You're citing the existence of slavery in some nations as evidence that the world doesn't believe in human rights..."
No, this statement is factually inaccurate. I am citing slavery in virtually half the nations on the planet, as evidence that there are billions of people who don't buy in to your hunches about morality and universal human rights. It's clear that you are significantly overstating your false claims about how much support your hunch has.
"AND YET, you think a case can be made for enslaving humans being moral/acceptable..."
Again, not quite accurate. Not that accuracy really matters to you. I have said that I can see that certain arrangements that might be referred to as slavery (incarceration or servitude to repay debts) could be managed in a way that is not automatically immoral.
"Do you understand my confusion?"
Yes, I do.
"What do you think that proves?"
That the buy in to your hunch about morality isn't nearly as universal as you'd like to think it is, and that your notion that humans are intrinsically good might not be particularly well supported either.
"That those slaves don't yearn to be free, just because they're in a nation that thinks that - at least at times - slavery can be justified (you know, like you've recently said you could imagine)?"
Obviously this is irrelevant to my point. The reality is that the very fact that slavery is legal is such a large number of nations, and practiced in a significant number of others undercuts your hunches about the universality of your hunches about morality. It also bolsters the common view that morality is defined by societies and is not universal.
"That there are nations with bad rules in place doesn't mean that the majority of the world doesn't affirm human rights. I'd be willing to bet that there's a large number of slaves and prostitutes and gay folk oppressed by local religious zealots who'd ALL love to see more human rights and could affirm it."
Excellent job. Simple dismiss the data with your wishes abut what you think might be the case.
"Not if they're a society that values human rights and believes in the Golden Rule (or the equivalent of it in other religions and philosophies)."
This is awesome, just define the question out of existence by making assumptions about what societies might believe if they were to adopt your hunches about morality.
"Will people from culture to culture and individual to individual have SLIGHTLY different takes on what it means to not cause harm to others?"
If by "slightly different" you mean that some cultures will decide that slavery, prostitution, killing gay folk, placing religious minorities in concentration camps, denying certain groups equality, and that killing certain groups/tribes/clans etc are acceptable then you are correct.
"Yes. AND THAT IS TRUE whether or not you subscribe to Christianity or conservative evangelical views on morality, as well."
I'm confused. Are you saying that your entire claim is objectively and universally True. or that it's objectively and universally True that the differences are "slight"?
"That is, we can all generally agree we ought not take that which doesn't belong to us that belongs to someone else."
Given the 300% increase in carjackings, it's clear that your hunches are not even widely held in the US, let alone worldwide.
"BUT, what about taking some grains of wheat from a farmer's field that doesn't belong to you?"
What about it? I guess it would depend on how the owner of the field defines harm? Let's say that you took enough wheat from the field that it caused the farmer to default on his mortgage and other loans and to lose his farm in foreclosure, would that be harm?
"Is that causing harm/is that stealing?"
It's definitely stealing, it might be causing harm. Are you suggesting that stealing is not "immoral" if there is no "harm"?
"People disagree, don't they?"
Which is exactly my point. It's clear that the level of agreement you pretend exists,isn't really there and that your hunch is predicated on you defining harm or "morality" in ways that allow some behaviors that most would consider "immoral"
How about those who would deprive someone of their home (rental or owned) or of their access to a local outlet for food and medicine? What about those who would deprive a business owner of their ability to conduct their legal business? What about those who would deprive a neighborhood of the ability to be protected by police? It seems like all of those would be causing "harm" wouldn't they/
"Regardless, I'm glad to say that conditions for morality are dependent upon circumstances, oftentimes. What of it?"
To start with, it simply reinforces my contention that you are advocating for morality that is subjective, although you won't simply acknowledge this fact. I guess then you'd be sympathetic to a society that argued that their "circumstances" make it inevitable that they must own slaves, or oppress certain groups, because morality depends on circumstances doesn't it? Who's more qualified to make those determinations, you or those who live in the "circumstances"?
Are you willing to say the same? "Is it equally immoral as driving down a street with a 20 MPH speed limit?" It really depends upon the circumstances, doesn't it?
Dismiss the data? That sounds so familiar!!
Craig incorrectly stated (apparently not understanding his mistake):
" I am citing slavery in virtually half the nations on the planet, as evidence that there are billions of people who don't buy in to your hunches about morality and universal human rights. It's clear that you are significantly overstating your false claims about how much support your hunch has. "
That THE LEADERSHIP in "virtually half the nations" think slavery is okay DOES NOT MEAN that all the people in those nations agree.
Read that again. Do you understand your mistake? If not, keep reading it. It'll come to you. I'd be willing to wager that most enslaved people do not agree with slavery, because of course they don't (allowing that some brainwashing may happen with some portion of that population).
Craig... "The reality is that the very fact that slavery is legal is such a large number of nations, and practiced in a significant number of others undercuts your hunches about the universality of your hunches about morality. "
No. it doesn't. It MIGHT if the population of those nations voted in favor of slavery. Did they? Or are these from more authoritarian type nations? Did the citizens of China vote for slavery (actually, it's against the law in China to have slaves, even though it happens illegally).
Do you see your problem? That slavery happens in the US, for instance (and it does), DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE SUPPORT SLAVERY.
Your claim "slavery exists in these nations, therefore, all the people in those nations are okay with slavery" does not hold up to rational evaluation.
Do you understand your error?
Craig... "it simply reinforces my contention that you are advocating for morality that is subjective, although you won't simply acknowledge this fact."
?? How many times would I need to say "morality is not objectively provable... it is subjective in that sense... and that's true for your ideas of morality and for mine" for you to understand it?
And of course, morality depends upon the context. Do you disagree?
This is what I'm speaking about when I'm talking about a rational approach to morality that is pretty self-evident. It's wrong to drive when you're drunk - it just is... you might kill someone... BUT, if you're only slightly drunk and you have a dying person you come across that the only way to help them is to drive them to a hospital, THEN it's not really THAT wrong. It's subjective and dependent upon the context in that sense because OF COURSE it is. Do you disagree?
Craig... "Given the 300% increase in carjackings, it's clear that your hunches are not even widely held in the US, let alone worldwide."
You're still not understanding. It MAY BE the case that crime happens (it IS the case, of course), BUT that doesn't mean that even those criminals don't support the notion of living by the Golden Rule. They almost certainly don't want someone taking their car from them, for instance. The point is: They/we almost all (I suspect and think the evidence shows) support Golden Rule living, even if we are gifted at finding reasons to make exceptions for ourselves.
Living the Golden Rule imperfectly does not mean (does not insist) that we disregard the Golden Rule as a rule.
Correct?
In one rather famous study, the total population of muslims was divided into those who participate in terrorism, those who support terrorism and those who oppose. The first two groups represent a large number of people. What remains has to include an unknown percentage who agree with the second group but won't respond in that manner in any poll. And that's just the subject of terrorist acts.
In a similar vein, there's a massive difference between those who claim belief in the Golden Rule versus those who actually live accordingly. "Progressive" "Christian" Trump-haters represent a clear example of this notion. "Living the Golden Rule imperfectly" is spin and a very subjective, equivocating response.
Two simple questions Marshal.
1. Do you love the golden rule perfectly?
The answer is, of course, no.
2. If not, does that mean you do not really believe the golden rule?
"I BELIEVE that morality is likely OBJECTIVE in nature. There are some things that are objectively wrong. As I've stated in the past."
I'll simply point out that this is a subjective statement, and that what you believe has no bearing on the real world, and that you have no grounds or authority to even suggest that your beliefs are or should be binding or applicable to others.
"The problem is, we have no way to OBJECTIVELY PROVE our opinions about morality. I may think it is abundantly obvious that it is wrong to kill or enslave someone, but how do I objectively prove it?"
That's an interesting question, yet it really has no bearing on whether or not objective orality exists. You can't even bring yourself to simply state with no qualifiers that objective morality exists. You've been arguing for years with all sorts of crap that obscures your statement above. Your further problem is that you haven't can't explain why your version of morality is more likely the sociological/dictionary definition of morality.
" Shall we appeal to some authority?"
If you expect to apply your hunches about morality outside of yourself, then you'd have to have some authority or grounding to do so, you've proposed nothing so far.
"Okay. Who? GOD?"
That's certainly one option.
"Okay, but God is not speaking out loud to us."
That's quite a claim, can you prove it? Is God constrained by "speaking out loud"?
"Reading the Bible that some of us consider to be God's Word?"
Sure, I guess you'd have to explain why the Bible is insufficient and that God must be "speaking out loud" in order to be relevant.
"Okay, but we must interpret the Bible to understand it correctly."
yes, because "Thou shall not murder", or "thou shall not bear false witness" are pretty confusing and are quite beyond the grasp of the average person.
"To whom do we go to objectively and authoritatively prove our opinions about the Bible and its meaning (or lack thereof)? No one. Do you disagree? WHO can we go to in order to get an authoritative answer? Craig? Hard pass. The pope? Pass. Billy Graham? Franklin Graham? WHO has the authoritative answer to which interpretations are objectively factually provably correct?"
Well Jesus seems to suggest that the Holy Spirit might be the answer, but I guess we'd have to be able to correctly interpret His words to be sure. Clearly the answer is that it's impossible, that we should just give up, and that we should abandon the Bible and construct our moral framework on something else.
"WHERE in all of that (which I've covered frequently before) am I factually mistaken? Nowhere."
Well, you've answered you've answered your own question, you are not factually mistaken about anything. That's quite a claim, but if you're that confident, who am I to argue?
"Now, whatever else you may think, do you at least understand why it's not a simple yes or no question?"
No, because you've added a second question to the first. But since you're "factually mistaken" "Nowhere", it's useless to argue.
It's "useless to argue" because you're embracing irrational avoidance of reality, little buddy. It's "useles (for you) to argue" because I've clearly pointed out the rationality and factual nature of my position and you're unable to dispute my rational position and so, you'll choose to make snide commentary, rather than deal with reality.
Craig... "I guess you'd have to explain why the Bible is insufficient and that God must be "speaking out loud" in order to be relevant. "
I've done that. Did you miss it? It's NOT that the Bible is "insufficient" so much as that INTERPRETAIONS of the Bible depend upon HUMAN INTERPRETATION and unless you have some authoritative source to objectively prove those various human interpretations, you have subjective opinions, not objective proof.
Craig... "You can't even bring yourself to simply state with no qualifiers that objective morality exists."
I've said that I BELIEVE it exists (and I do) and neither I, NOR YOU, can prove it exists (and we can't). I think that YOU think you can "prove" it, but you can't. If you could, you would. You don't even try because you can't. Again, IF YOU CAN, do it. You would honestly be doing me a favor. I'd love to know that we can prove our subjective opinions about morality authoritatively (if for no other reason, because I'm confident that you'd see that you're mistaken on many of your hunches on morality... but even if not, I'd still want to know), but you can't objectively prove it.
Can you?
Answer the question. CAN YOU?
We see the answer. If you could, you would.
"It's "useless to argue" because you're embracing irrational avoidance of reality, little buddy. It's "useles (for you) to argue" because I've clearly pointed out the rationality and factual nature of my position and you're unable to dispute my rational position and so, you'll choose to make snide commentary, rather than deal with reality."
This is one of my all time favorites of your stock bullshit. This notion that you alone represent "reality" and what's "rational" and that everyone else falls short of your position.
You literally claims that there was "Nowhere" that you were "factually" wrong. Against that sort of prideful hubris, there is literally no point in continuing.
Of course, pointing out your lack of answers, your failure to prove your claims, and all the rest will again fall on deaf ears.
I can't imagine going through life so proud of myself and completely devoid of a sense of humor.
"He's not simply asking questions. He's snidely and patronizingly asking questions that he pretends to know the answers to and pretends that the answers demonstrate the irrational nature of evolutionary science (irrational to him). THE POINT of his questions is to mock science that he appears to not understand."
That's quite a claim, let's see some proof of the accuracy of your analysis of his internal thought and motives.
"They are not genuine questions, are they?"
This really isn't a question, is it? It's an assumption with no proof, disguised as a question. But as near as I can tell, they are genuine questions.
"The PRESUMPTION is that there is a problem with evolutionary biology."
1. Usually the title or headline is written after the post.
2. The inability to answer those questions, seems to indicate that there is a problem.
3. Hell, even the most hard core devotees of evolution acknowledge that there are problems with evolutionary biology.
4. To anyone who's done any study of the issue in the last 5 years of so, this notion isn't particularly controversial.
"Are you not aware of that?"
Aware of the fact that you've concocted a wholly imaginary back story out of whole cloth, and in doing so managed to completely avoid the fact that the questions were reasonable, and the answers were nonexistent. Now, from someone like you who rarely answers questions, and frequently invents strange, imaginary motivations behind the questions, I can understand why you'd find this normal and rational.
"Add in to the mix that it's a father (male) who is trying to demonize and mock a FEMALE teacher and this strikes of patriarchal ignorance. Dad-splaining to the little woman "teacher..." Open your eyes. They evolved for a reason."
This is quite the flight of fancy, even for your active imagination.
Are you really suggesting that the gender of the participants was in any a motivating factor? If so, then provide proof.
Obviously the notion that a parent would dare question a teacher about anything, instead of simply accepting the truth of what's being taught is distressing to you. No wonder our education system is in such bad shape.
Of course, still no answers to the questions.
Dan,
Asking me to prove things that I've never said is going to be disappointing for you, because I'm not going to prove claims I haven't made just because you make demands.
Dan,
Perhaps you are aware that the title Dr is awarded to all kinds of people. It's even awarded to people who haven't completed their undergraduate, masters, or doctoral course work.
This notion that you can avoid dealing with the data and evidence provided by someone by ridiculing and belittling their academic credentials for failing to come up to your standards, is quite strange. The fact that you think that ad hom attacks are a substitute for actually addressing substance would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.
"Perhaps you didn't notice that the author of the piece quoted is ASKING QUESTIONS to try to get specific answers."
What an obviously insane idea. Asking specific questions to get specific answers, that's absolutely CRAZY. No wonder you don't answer questions, you find the whole notion ludicrous.
FYI, the above is tinged with sarcasm and hyperbole.
FYI, FYI, Asking people questions to find out if they even have an answer to the questions, is still a perfectly valid reason to ask questions.
""What is the scientific answer to these questions?", and not getting anything but regression.""
Which is exactly the point. He's seeking answers and she's regressing back to an "evolution of the gaps" argument. Essentially, "We don't have a cue, but Evolution did it.". Yes, kicking the can further back should never be an acceptable answer, should it?
" Perhaps you didn't notice that this NON-scientist who posted your cute little story IS SETTING IT UP where he is the hero and the silly little woman teacher is the idiot."
Proof of this claim, now!
"This does not represent an actual conversation. It's an anti-science attempt to make himself feel like a big man by making up a conversation."
Proof of this claim, now!
"Perhaps your allegiance to an anti-science worldview has blinded you to these things you're not noticing."
Perhaps your ignorance and blind trust in Science has blinded you to the actual state of the conversation around these issues in recent years. Perhaps your prejudices and biases have blinded you the the reality that every single piece of data you've ignored is from "scientists". Perhaps you're blind allegiance has caused you to ignore the fact that there are a growing number of scientists who are raising these kinds of questions and are as unsatisfied with the lack of answers and infinite regression as this author.
"Use those eyes you evolved and that brain God gifted you with to actually see and understand."
I am, that's why I'm unimpressed with vague probabilities, endless regression, and defaulting to "evolution of the gaps".
If you can't answer the questions, prove your claims, or stop the ad hom attacks, I'll have to stop responding to you. I'll post your comments just to allow your ignorance and hubris to be exposed to sunlight. But, I'm not wasting time with fantasy, ad hom attacks, refusal to answer questions, and claims you can't be bothered to prove.
Give me the one single piece of absolutely unquestioned, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, piece of evidence that you believe definitively proves Evolution to be conclusively True.
Craig... "Give me the one single piece of absolutely unquestioned, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, piece of evidence that you believe definitively proves Evolution to be conclusively True."
I haven't made that argument, have I?
I suppose you'll be glad to acknowledge that you are unable to give me one single piece of absolutely unquestioned, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, piece of evidence that you believe definitively proves God created the world?
And please, explain SPECIFICALLY what you believe. Are you saying that YOU THINK that one day, there were no humans and the next day (Day six??), God created one literal man and one literal woman - Adam and Eve - and from that day on, there were humans? That we didn't evolve from other primates, but Poof! created on Day Six?
Are you saying that when God created animals, Poof! God gave them eyes and prior to that, nothing existed with eyes? That eyes are a literal creation directly from God?
Again, not mocking you. Just trying to nail down what it is you believe.
If you are saying you literally don't know and you just have some guesses, then tell me that.
From Dan's two simpleton questions:
"1. Do you love the golden rule perfectly?"
I'm going to assume that's a typo and you mean to ask if I live the GR perfectly. My answer is "as perfectly as humanly possible". That is to say, I don't just pretend to revere the concept, I do my best to put it into practice.
My example speaks to fakes. Just think of Ray Comfort asking random people on the street if they believe themselves to be good. Most people respond affirmatively. He shows them why they aren't. But some are worse and make no effort, while continuing to profess adherence to the rule.
I also was referring to the inane "Living the Golden Rule imperfectly" crap. Again, it leaves tons of room to not live it at all. Perfect for the progressive Christian.
Dan: "I haven't made that argument, have I?"
Just to clarify (and so that I'm not being vague, as Craig tends to do)...
Looking at the research and evidence of evolution (like here...)
https://www.nature.com/subjects/evolution
VERY quickly goes over my head. I'm not a scientist. I can read that and it just doesn't mean much to me. My daughter and other friends and colleagues I have ARE scientists and they do understand it and it makes sense to them... but not to me.
However, I have no reason not to think that these experts (who seem to be fairly universally in agreement on the general theory of evolution) are correct. Why would I? Thus, that I don't understand it doesn't necessarily mean I don't trust them or have any reason to be dubious of their collective research and conclusions. I don't understand precisely how electricity works, but that doesn't mean I don't flip a switch and trust that the lights will come on.
I have read a fairly good bit over the years of what creationists have to say (including recently, due to conversations like this one) and, while I gladly and eagerly appreciated and accepted their conclusions when I was a young conservative, the more I read, the less it sounded like science and the more it sounded like grasping at straws - sometimes using pseudoscience to try to sound more legitimate - and irrational. When I go to Ken Hamm's Creationist website or other places, they just come across as not trustworthy and not rigorous in their reasoning. Oftentimes, what I read from that side is not even from scientists.
And when I read the Bible, I see absolutely nothing that makes me think that it is a scientific treatise that would cause me to think, "I've got to find a way to make science agree with a literal treatment of Genesis..." for instance.
So, not having any reason to doubt the experts and having rational reasons not to trust the creationist/faith-driven types, I'm fine with generally accepting what the experts seem united on. Am I bound to it? No. Can I explain it or say that it is objectively true? Not in the sense that I can prove it, no. It's just what the experts seem to agree on and I have no reason to doubt it.
Should I have reason to doubt it?
And when people post questions as you do in this post, I find no reason to think their questions are weighty.
Dan,
It's quite typical of your low character and deceitfulness to suggest that those scientists who are open to Intelligent Design or creationism or a "Young Earth" seek "to find a way to make science agree with a literal treatment of Genesis" while presuming those you prefer are dedicated in objective truth and study of our origins without bias and not seeking to find a way to make science agree with their naturalism/ humanist/atheism.
Feigning humility doesn't impress, either, as you defer to "experts" with whom you agree while at the same time insisting you're sophisticated enough to assert those like Ken Hamm are untrustworthy and lacking in rigorous reasoning. Perhaps your preferred "experts'" work flies so high over your head because of how convoluted their story must be to tie together all the pieces and fill all the holes. Rubes are always baffled by such bullshit.
Post a Comment