The test before us

David Warren, Perrywinkle:

I'm not saying the generation of wealth should be the sole purpose of human existence. I am saying it is one of the purposes, and further, that by politicizing economic activity we actually mire ourselves much deeper in materialism than we would ever do by just going out and earning a living.

The Texas model works, and the California model fails. Quite apart from whether anyone in the States should vote for Rick Perry, they must choose between these models.

America has been playing footsie with leftism and socialism for a good century; the time to choose, once and for all, between the ever-promised leftist Utopia and our own natural tradition, is now upon us. It is not enough to vote Obama and a few Democrats out of office next year; if the nation does not decisively, once-and-for-all, reject the leftist Obamanation, then the leftist puppet-masters of the "liberals" and "progressives" will try again in just a few years.

To "compromise" with that which is wrong is simply choose to become oneself wrong ... and to set the stage for the next "compromise".

[Mind you, neither Mr Warren nor I are saying "vote for Perry"]

Where all this sophistication has got us

David Warren, Perrywinkle:

Observe, where all this sophistication has got us.

There are some issues that are too simple for intelligent people to understand. Most moral issues are like that. The problem isn't distinguishing between right and wrong. That is not always as plain as day, but usually it is. The problem is finding a way to justify doing the wrong thing. And once you think you have found it, the people still arguing for doing the right thing may be dismissed as "simplistic."

Exactly. The "problem" in moral issues is not that it is so difficult to know the right from the wrong, but rather that so many people want to do what they know is wrong while still calling themselves "good people".

A righteous Crude rant

Crude: No, I won't call you intellectually honest -- I've explained the same thing, many times, in many places, though never so well.

An attempted refutation

Has my "YOU are the proof that God is" argument been refuted, after all? I mean, really refuted, logically? I mean, hell! so far, all the "refutations" of it I've seen have been mere assertions that there *must* be a fatal flaw in it ... since the conclusion is "wrong".

I am confident that the answer will be no; after all, it's not as though I didn't myself do my best to find a flaw in it long before I posted it. I'm also relatively certain, based on past "refutations" of it, that this attempted refutation will involve assertions of scientism (whether consciously made or not), and of hidden or unrecognized assumptions, and quite possibly of question-begging.

While I haven't yet read it, and have only partially skimmed the comments made to it, I present for Gentle Reader's consideration a post by Elizabeth Liddle, which she says will demonstrate a fatal flaw in my argument.

But, I pray you, tread gently in the comments section of her thread, for much of the commentation is, well, sad.

When I've had time to read and think about Mrs Liddle's argument, I'll post an analysis of it, showing (at least some of) her error in reasoning. Or, per impossibile, acknowledging that my argument was itself in error.

Matteo on Determinism

I don't know why I didn't think to share with Gentle Reader Matteo's onservation when he first made it, as it's just the sort of thing I made the "overheard" category for.

Matteo on Determinism: "But for too many, the tastiest cake is the one you can have and eat, too. I suppose a lot of folks want just enough determinism to make God an impossibility, but not so much as to make themselves an impossibility."

Here is the context in which Matteo originally made the observation.

'The buck stops here'

Our Zero, Who art The Won, has (in)famously ascribed to himself that saying of Harry Truman: "The buck stops here."

And, every sentient being (*) knows that he never meant a word it.

Nicholas has a recent post in which he makes good points about some of the blather coming out of the HopenChangen MagickalBusTour; I wish to share with Gentle Reader a small thought I had in reading his thoughts:

The Won: "We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck."

Nicholas: "What the...?! A run of bad luck?!! Oh yeah, Obama had it all going his way, and then, whoopsie, things went a little caca. But he doesn't cite the things that you or I or any reasonable thinking person would ascribe as impactful on the American economy. Nope, it was that darn tsunami in Japan, some trouble in the Middle East and then that crazy European debt crisis. We'd just be going like gang busters if it weren't for the hand of fate. Sheesh. ..."

Ilíon: Quite so. But there is more -- Let's overlook, at the moment, that those good things he asserts never actually happened in reality, and focus on the meaning of what he said: "Don't judge my administration (or me!) by a consistent standard! Credit me the good results of my policies (even if they never happened), but never, never, never hold the bad results against me!"

Gentle Reader may recall that I sometimes refer to The Won as a "child-man" (**) -- by which I mean something like "werewolf" -- I mean: he may look like a man, but at best, he's a little boy.

A man would never have said what Our Zero has said above.


(*) I intentionally wrote 'sentient', rather than 'sapient' or 'rational'. What I wrote is intentionally over-the-top, and literally means that even slugs and cockroaches know this truth.

(**) I meant to write "child-man", rather than the more commonly used "man-child". A "man-child" is a child who is male, that is, a boy, and will, in due course, be a man. A "child-man" is a(n apparent) man who remains a child.

Emergence, Again

'Emergence' is a totemic word amongst materialists (whether they claim to be "theists" or claim to be 'atheists'); that is, (they believe that) the word has Magickal Powers to solve, by its mere utterance, the logical difficulties of, and contradictions inherent in, materialism.

Earlier today, 'The Deuce' (who really ought to get back to blogging, rather than facebooking) and 'Crude' each made a comment about 'emergence' that I'd like to share with Gentle Reader.

The Deuce: ""Emergence" is one of my big pet peeves too. It's simply a throwaway term. All "emergence" means is "X comes from Y somehow". When a materialist responds to an argument [which shows] that it is logically impossible for X to come from Y by citing "emergence", all they're really doing is reiterating their belief that X comes from Y (the very issue under contention) in spite of any logical difficulties. It's not even a counterargument."

Crude: "Re: emergence, absolutely. I also see the gimmick of 'If you stack all these legos in the shape of a circle, the circle 'emerges' from the lego shapes. See? Now, that's how mind emerges from the brain!'"

Crude's comment neatly captures the essential meaning ascribed to the word 'emergence'.

Ignorance

There are three types of 'ignorance' to be found among human beings:
1) simple ignorance -- which may be corrected; another term for this is 'honest error';
2) incorrigible ignorance -- which cannot be corrected; another, more crass, term for this is 'stupidity';
3) willful ignorance -- which will not be corrected; at its worst, another term for this is 'intellectual dishonesty'.

One may reason with the man who is simply ignorant, who is in honest error; one may be able, in patience, to reason with the man who is stupid (*); one cannot reason with a man who is on the spectrum from disinterested in the matter to actively hostile to understanding it.


(*) For, it is probably the case, not that his ignorance really is incorrigible, but rather that it takes noticeably longer for him to properly understand new concepts than it does the average person. It is my firm belief that stupidity is more a function of the so-called stupid person's frustration at his slowness coupled with the impatience of the less stupid persons in trying to deal with that slowness, than it is of an actual impossibility of that person learning/understanding.

Enough is Too Much

When my nephew was about four or five, he'd always mangle the saying, "enough is enough" to "enough is too much" (*) -- which, when you think about it, is really what one means by the phrase.


(*) If full, what he'd say was, "enough is too much ... for a boy", by which he meant that something or other was too much for him.

There are probably no elevators; now stop worrying and have a nice chat

There are probably no elevators; now stop worrying and have a nice chat

OK, so we conservativs are 'terrorists'

OK, so we conservativs are 'terrorists' because we want to effect a cure for "liberal" tax-and-spendicitis, before it destroys the nation ... but, that just means that you "liberals" are pedophiles.